You’re either with us…

Earlier this week, when President Bush vetoed funding for the troops I pointed out that it was the Democrats in Congress who were supporting the troops, not the President.

Matt Cunningham over at Red County/OC Blog responded:

“Give me a break. The Democratic Congress is an unwitting morale officer for the Iraqi terrorists.”

Now we have this report from Reuters, (H/T to DarkSyde on Daily Kos) that demonstrates with undeniable clarity, that it is President Bush who is emboldening the enemy with is unwillingness to set a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq.

From DarkSyde’s post:

Those who support Bush’s catastrophic war in Iraq and oppose the recently vetoed war funding bill received a glowing endorsement from an unexpected source this weekend: Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s second in command:

         This bill reflects American failure and frustration,” Zawahri said. “But this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap.”

“We ask Allah that they only get out after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, so that we give the blood spillers in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson to motivate them to review their entire doctrinal and moral system,” Zawahri said on the video, posted on Web sites used by Islamists.  

The neocons want us to stay in Iraq, Al Qaeda wants us to stay, most conservatives want us to stay. But the majority of the American people agree with the Democrats, progressives, independents, and want out. It’s pretty simple:

You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.

  29 comments for “You’re either with us…

  1. Aunt Millie
    May 6, 2007 at 4:30 am

    The invasion of Iraq was a triumph first for Iranian intelligence, which pantsed the Bush administration and the neocons. With a small investment, they managed to convince the gullible chumps to take out Saddam Hussein, the number one opponent to radical fundamentalism and the ayatollahs.

    Because Bush and Cheney refused to llisten to the generals and plan for the occupation, sending political hacks and crony contractors instead of experts to run the CPA, they created a fertile breeding ground for the next generation of fundamentalist terrorists. Who could have imagined that bombing, killing and bringing back torture and rape rooms would make the inhabitants angry? It’s not as if they had read the history of colonialism, watched Battle of Algiers, or imagined that folks in the middle east would learn to yell “Wolverines” and fight against an occupying army.

    Now the same bumbling idiots who compounded their first horrible mistake are lurching around trying to find someone besides Bush to blame for the blowback. They have tremendous allies in the corporate media, who cheered them onto war, and the mighty Wurlitzer of the right wing media, which pushes today’s talking points out through Drudge, Hewitt, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, the Fox channel, the Moonie Times, and their other paid shills.

    Six and a half years after Clinton left office, four years after “Mission Accomplished, after they have had total control of the legislative and judicial branches for six years, and continue to obstruct any change, it’s not their fault. They’re trying to rewrite history to blame the Democrats and the librul media.
    The American people have been fooled, and fooled again, and now give President Bush an approval rating a point lower than OJ Simpson.

    This gang of crooks and liars needs to be thoroughly discredited and swept from the national stage. Or at least they can start to search the golf courses of America for the real killers.

  2. Jim Bieber
    May 6, 2007 at 9:54 am

    What’s the big fuss over who “supports the troops?”

    It has been a steadfast view clearly stated by liberals that US troops engage in (NOT as an exception, but as a rule) war crimes and atrocities, approved of from by the highest in command.

    U.S. solders justly deserved to be spit on and called baby killers, if you believe sworn testimony from upstanding decorated combat veterans.

    Who exactly made it unfashionable to support our troops (war criminals)?

  3. May 6, 2007 at 10:01 am

    What troubles the small minority of war supporters the most is the notion that they may be wrong.

    I once believed everything claimed, none of which transpired: WMDs, the flowering of an Arab republic, and the hope of liberty in the middle east. Instead we desperately hope for mere “stability” and listen to people hysterically call others “traitors,” desperately grasping at enemy propaganda to make their case.

    As Talleyrand supposedly once said, it is worse than a crime, it is a mistake. It is very hard to admit mistakes.

    DU

  4. Dan Chmielewski
    May 6, 2007 at 10:05 am

    Jim —
    Another unattributed hack job by you. Abu Ghrahib is well documented as a problem and so is Hadithia. but no liberal has made a broad sweeping claim that our soliders are war criminals. You know better than that. And you also know your Republican leadership screwed this entire thing up.

  5. Jim Bieber
    May 6, 2007 at 10:34 am

    Dan:

    “NOT isolated incidents but crimes committed on a DAY-TO-DAY basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command….

    they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside… in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

    There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.”

    That’s from the guy who got your last vote, you remember him, unlike Sen. Fred Thompson, he has a thing for older (and richer) women.

  6. Dan Chmielewski
    May 6, 2007 at 11:35 am

    Your answer is a non-sequiter Jim. John Kerry (who at least went to VietNam unlike the guy who got your last two votes) didn’t fight in Iraq. We are talking about Iraq here, and you go with your classic Republican change the subject dodge. The first uy I ever worked for was a VietNam vet; high ranking intelligence officer too. Kerry’s testimony matches his stories. I thought Republicans didn’t want to compare Iraq to VietNam? Unless it suits you of course….

  7. Aunt Millie
    May 6, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    Jimbo, the attacks on the liberals ain’t playing anymore when the cons have proven so incompetent and so corrupt.

    I’ve got loved ones going back for their second and third tours of duty in Iraq this month, where twelve American soldiers were killed today, and you are attacking what John Kerry said thirty-five years ago?

    Have you been driven mad by the cognitive dissonance of watching Bush betray every single principle of conservatism?

  8. May 6, 2007 at 12:37 pm

    Jim,

    Just so we’re on the same page…

    This post is about the clear fact that, despite claims made by King George and his court (including Matt Cunningham), the terrorists are rooting for Bush on the matter of troop withdrawl.

    Matt responded to my post about the Bush veto referring to the Democrats in Congress; “they’re putting smiles on the faces of the Iraqi terrorists. Which side do you think the Iraqi terrorists are rooting for?”

    I think we have the answer to that question.

    You’re either with the Democrats and the majority of the American people, or you’re with the terrorists.

  9. RHackett
    May 6, 2007 at 5:18 pm

    he has a thing for older (and richer) women.

    Can someone explain to me why this is a negative?

  10. Jim Bieber
    May 6, 2007 at 5:57 pm

    “Have you been driven mad by the cognitive dissonance of watching Bush betray every single principle of conservatism?”

    Aunt Millie –

    You nailed it. Dang all that time wasted in therapy! The Bush betrayal only accounts for 70% of my madness, the other 30% can be attributed to not being breastfed. Bush sold himself as a conservative – yep no question we got gypped.

    “I’ve got loved ones going back for their second and third tours of duty in Iraq this month,..”

    I have neighbors with full families who have been deployed on their second duty, I don’t want to hear about them getting a call from the CO at Pendleton. I want this war to be over as much as anyone.

    The “with us or against us” argument. Who’s been with the troops?

    The current cry from Liberals is that they claim to “support the troops.” The words are nothing more than shallow P.R.. The debate over who really supports the troops should be put into context.

    There is a solid history of the American Left HATING the military from the generals down to the solder in the field. U.S. solders are either moral equals to the SS or they are victims manipulated by “the Pentagon.”

    “Your answer is a non-sequiter Jim. John Kerry (who at least went to VietNam unlike the guy who got your last two votes)”

    Dan,

    I voted for the guy who served in the National Guard OVER the candidate who went to Vietnam (with his home movie camera) came home and boasted about being a War Criminal. He gave testimony about US atrocities from his kangaroo citizen committee hearing “Winter Solder” that were latter discredited as false. His lies fueled an entire generation of liberals to view our Nation’s servicemen as bloodthirsty killers who deserved scorn.

    The question of who’s rooting for who –

    The left loudly rooted for the North in Vietnam to win because they supported the Viet Congs’ goals as well as a general hatred of American might. Today the left roots for the insurgents to win not because they support their goals but because their victory will diminish America’s power and a failed military campaign helps them unseat Republicans from office.

    Many in the left do not even believe we were attacked by anyone other than our own government on 9/11.

  11. May 6, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    “The question of who’s rooting for who –

    The left loudly rooted for the North in Vietnam to win because they supported the Viet Congs’ goals as well as a general hatred of American might. Today the left roots for the insurgents to win not because they support their goals but because their victory will diminish America’s power and a failed military campaign helps them unseat Republicans from office. “

    Um Jim… adjust your foil hat, it’s falling off. Can you point us to one shread of evidence to support blanket your assertions?

    I have not met anyone on the left or right who supports or roots for the insurgents in Iraq. Those of us on what you term the the left are simply tired of our troops being targets in a failed peace keeping effort stationed in the middle of a civil war. We simply believe that we should take the President at his word, declare victory, and leave.

    I guess you could say, we’re following the thinking of Ronald Reagan in 1984 when he pulled our Marines out of Lebanon. “We’re Done.”

  12. RHackett
    May 6, 2007 at 7:16 pm

    Jim,

    We invaded Iraq to find WMD’s (remember them?) and depose Saddam Hussein. Can you tell me why we should stay now that those goals have been achieved?

    At what point in time do we walk away and say it is your country and you are responsible for it.

    These Iraqis that you give your fealty to are planning a two month summer vacation while American military personnel continue to get killed or maimed. I’ll pass on being an ally of someone sees no urgency in dealing with establishing the security of their nation.

  13. Jim Bieber
    May 7, 2007 at 7:57 am

    ”The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.”

    Which tinman hero of the left said this? Whooooray for the enemy!

  14. RHackett
    May 7, 2007 at 9:54 am

    Hey Jim. So now Michael Moore is your idea of the liberal flag bearer. That’s like me saying David Duke is the conservative poster boy. You want to trade extremes, let’s throw down.

    It still doesn’t change the fact that you’ve equated charitable contributions to enlisting in the military to go fight a war you claim to support, but only in words.

  15. Jim Bieber
    May 7, 2007 at 10:15 am

    That is the entire POINT!!! ARRGGG!

    Republicans scorn attack denounce and repudiate David Duke. Democrats embrace extol love millionaire Moore (you sat him next to the former President of the United States at your last national convention).

    He’s not someone on the fray he is mainstream liberalism. How many books has he sold? Tickets to movies? He’s your VERY large poster boy. Your poster woman, the VERY large Rosie doesn’t even think we were attacked by terrorists on 9/11. It was own government.

    We have one nut job on the right who has a following – Michael Savage. Name the last conference or Republican function he spoke at? Let’s see every self professed Liberal on the Blog denounce Moore. If that happens it can be renamed The Moderate OC.

  16. RHackett
    May 7, 2007 at 10:18 am

    Jim. Yet another diversion. It must be very frustrating to watch conservatism imploding and your only comeback is “well your side is worse.”

    So sad to watch your feeble defenses.

  17. Jim Bieber
    May 7, 2007 at 10:36 am

    17 Responses to “You’re either with us…”

    Hack –

    I’m on topic, no deversion here. Is Moore with us or against us?

  18. RHackett
    May 7, 2007 at 10:39 am

    Moore has always honored the warrior. But doesn’t honor the war. Somthing you conservative types don’t understand.

  19. Dan Chmielewski
    May 7, 2007 at 10:59 am

    I’d argue that Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin and Bill O’Reilly are all part of the moonbat right too. Throw in David Horowitz, G. Gordon Liddy and Michael Reagan while you’re at it. Take Hugh Hewitt, please……

    Just curious Jim; did you watch Farenheit 9/11 or read the book of letters from soliders sent to Moore? Just curious…

    Did Republicans place scorn upon Oliver North for essentially committing treason by willfully defying an act of Congress? His charges were dimissed on a technicality and he’s a darling of the right.

  20. RHackett
    May 7, 2007 at 11:17 am

    North sold weapons to a terrorist state. And he has his own show on Faux News. But he’s a good American patriot, right Jim?

  21. Jim Bieber
    May 7, 2007 at 11:27 am

    No reply –

    I’m not beaten or quitin’

    I must do some work today.. if i post again the wife will kill me.

    Note that if Mrs. Bieber happens to die, I cannot remarry with one exception – Ann Coulter… sigh.. she’ ssooooo dreamy.

  22. Dan Chmielewski
    May 7, 2007 at 11:55 am

    Forgive me for going off topic, but Jim opened the door with this statement:
    “I voted for the guy who served in the National Guard OVER the candidate who went to Vietnam (with his home movie camera) came home and boasted about being a War Criminal.”

    From the Air Force Times: ”

    From most accounts, Bush appears to have received preferential treatment to get into the Air National Guard and avoid the draft after he graduated from Yale University in 1968. He was initially regarded as a good pilot, but his performance faded over his final two years in the Guard and he was suspended from flight status. He did not fly for the remaining 18 months he served in the Guard, though he was obligated to do so.

    And for significant chunks of time, Bush did not report for duty at all. His superiors took no action, and he was honorably discharged in 1973, six months before he should have been.”

    On John Kerry’s record, this link from FactCheck.org, a non-partisan site: http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

  23. Aunt Millie
    May 7, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    Jim’s comments reflect the fundamental moral and intellectual bankruptcy of Bush’s Republican party. With control of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch, they have spent profligately, borrowed recklessly, lied shamelessly, politicized every department of government while replacing experts and professionals with hacks and cronies, trashed our military, and destroyed our position in the world. Four years after major combat operations were completed, we are escalating our presence in a civil war, still with no goals, no long-term plans, just an endless bleeding of our kids lives, and a presence that fuels fundamentalist hatred against us.
    His response to the failure of modern conservatism in action. “Yep, no question we got gypped”, followed by relentless attacks on liberals and Democrats for not supporting the troops.
    Well Jimbo, you keep peddling this crap, but the number of people who believe it is diminishing day by day. Republican, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, libertarians pretty much everybody I ever talk to, supports our troops and respects their service. They’re our kids and our families, and we know how much they do, and how badly they are being treated by Bush and the Republicans in office.
    Maybe in your neighborhood, there are gangs of lesbians mugging the Vets selling buddy poppies outside the markets, but from my standpoint, your pathetic clichés don’t have any basis in reality.
    And I wouldn’t call myself a liberal. I’ve been registered as a Libertarian, with the Reform party, and as a Republican. Last week I changed my registration to Democrat because I am sick to death of the crooks and liars who have failed to honor their oath to defend the Constitution.
    Wake up and smell the reality.

  24. Dan Chmielewski
    May 7, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    Jim — Google a band called “The Right Brothers” for their song “I’m in Love with Ann Coulter” but be warned, she’s a MAN baby!!!!

  25. Jim Bieber
    May 7, 2007 at 6:12 pm

    “I’ve been registered as a Libertarian, with the Reform party, and as a Republican. Last week I changed my registration to Democrat..”

    Cybil? Heeelloooo Cybil? Who am I speaking with now? Hum hum that’s nice… Can I speak with Cybil?

    “Moore has always honored the warrior.”

    TRUE! He’s got nothing but Praise for Hezbollah, the PLO and the Minutemen of Iraq – the ones who blow up school playgrounds.

  26. RHackett
    May 7, 2007 at 6:21 pm

    Hey Jim. Perhaps you can point me to a place where Moore has dishonored US troops.

    Otherwise your comment is pretty much nothing but conservative hot air.

  27. Dan Chmielewski
    May 7, 2007 at 6:37 pm

    Jim — Moore got praise from Hezbollah, not for it, for making Farhenheit 9/11. I googled “Michael Moore Supports Hezbollah” and all that came back were guilt by association screeds from the Right. If you have a specific quote from Moore, please post it. If you watch Moore’s films, as I have, he is very rooted in American traditions, morals and the Constitution. He does what good documentarians do; he make you think and reconisder previously held positions. The film was extraordinary. So was Control Room. I also watched Farenhype 9/11 and couldn’t believe how thin the content and documentation was.

  28. Aunt Millie
    May 8, 2007 at 6:08 am

    Jim, you’re so witty, but I really can’t laugh at your humor when our nation is in peril from enemies within.

    Bush and the cons have chosen politics over principle to the great detriment of our country.

    We all need to accept responsibility and actively work to throw these crooks and liars into the wastebin of American history. Impeach them all and let god sort it out.

  29. RHackett
    May 8, 2007 at 8:08 am

    Hey Jim,

    This is what your defending. Great concept they have there on how to discipline unruly teenagers. Just think of how much better we’d be if we took their lead on to deal problem children.

    Teenage Girl Stoned to Death for Dating the Wrong Boy

Comments are closed.