THE LIBERAL LIE PICTURE GALLARY
"Peace through strength, " - President Ronald Reagan. While there is much speculation as to why Iran released the 15 Brits Newsmax is reporting that after much infighting the ruling Mullahs and military leaders decided that the addition of the Nimitz to the Eisenhower and the Stennis in the Persian Gulf was a prelude to an invasion of Iran by May first and that Iran better get while the getting is good. "Peace through strength!"
Hmmm, when they ran for election to get the vote the Dems said, " No tax increases." Now that they are the majority and can force their liberal ways on We The people, the liberal agenda of spending our money is more than they can resist. $400 BILLION, (yes BILLION with a "B"), in proposed tax increases already and its only April of their first year as majority. How does the old saying go, " a leopard never changes its spots." A Democrat has never seen a tax increase they didn't like and this Congress is no exception!
Appeasement, appeasement, appeasement. The Mantra of the left and the demise of peace while allowing despots or in the case of Iran, terrorists to thrive. It didn't work with Hitler and it obviously is not working with Iran and Ahmadinejad. Give a terrorist an inch and they will take a mile, or a nuclear program, or a building or the Middle East then the world!
Target Iraq. The weapon - announced redeployment of American troops. The source of the weapon - the Democrat Majority in The United States Congress. The end result - Iraq in the hands of Iran and Al Qaeda, a terrorist state dominating the Middle East and the security of the United States in grave danger. The Democrat plan for defeat!Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 12:41 PM
25 Comments:
Bravo Ken!!
Love the Cartoons.
I just hope the American people who voted these Liberal Lunatics in will see the error of thier way's and vote them all out in '08.
That is if there is an '08 by the time the Democrats get done with us.
I think the Presence of the Stennis, Eisenhower and the Nimitz on the way had ALOT to do with the release of the Hostages or POW's or whatever we are calling them today!
And Nancy Pelosi is running around over in Terrorist central giving messages from Israel that Israel NEVER said to the Syrians. Now Israel is pissed! Pelosi has to get the hell out of there before she launches WWIII
That last one is very sad, because if the Dems have their way it will be actual photos and not just a cartoon.
Only if your fevered dreams and fantasies come true, so-called md.
This comment has been removed by the author.
mudkitty,
Are you saying that Iraq innocents won't be victims of greater violence, should the U.S. make a premature exit from Iraq?
All three cartoons and your assesment are dead on. The mullahs know the looming growth of dissatisfaction of the students and citizens will sooner or later have an influence they cannot prevent. We can pray the spirit of Neville Chamberlin dies soon and a rebirth of Churchill comes back to England. Maybe Cameron will be the answer if he can toughen up.
Oh Oh! Cartoon blogging! I love it, but I wonder what Wordsmith thinks about this infringement on his franchise?
Happy Easter to ALL!
Even Kitty Litter!
Word-distorter...no...I'm not saying that, I'm saying there's already been enough innocent blood shed as it is.
I wonder what Wordsmith thinks about this infringement on his franchise?
Flattering...if there were Easter eggs hidden in 'em.
Word-distorter...
Lol...Now, now..you wouldn't want me to "distort" your name and call you "mudpussy", or "mudshitty", would you? I don't mind stooping to your level, afterall.
no...I'm not saying that, I'm saying there's already been enough innocent blood shed as it is.
But how will the shedding of innocent blood be lessened, by us making a premature withdrawal from Iraq?
"wouldn't want to?" You just did. You couldn't help yourself.
I don't accept your premise of your question, that a withdrawal, at this point, would be premature. If you want to have a serious discussion, than don't load your questions. Care to rephrase? Wordsmith - my ass.
"wouldn't want to?" You just did. You couldn't help yourself.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem. But that's been obvious for quite some time. Reread what you were responding to.
You won't accept the premise of my question, because you are either in a state of denial, or simply cannot wrap your mudbrain around it. You, yourself, are the one who invited the question, when you responded to MDConservative.
Here's a rephrase: If we leave Iraq now, will it invite more suffering and violence; or will there be less of it? You said there's already been enough bloodshed. I'm posing a challenge to you, to think.
It's a simple question, muddy. Here's another one: When do you think we ought to withdraw our forces from Iraq?
Now...what were you saying about your ass?
What you're trying to do, with a fake question, is say there will be more bloodshed if we leave? Eh? No?
I say, there's been plenty enough bloodshed to go around already.
You equate staying with winning? I suggest you look up the definition of insanity.
There are courses in logic and semantics...btw. Avail yourself.
You can't seem to answer a simple question. Instead, you want to deflect and dismiss it as "fake". I'm beginning to suspect you're afraid of confronting the question. Maybe you do have a conscience, afterall.
I say, there's been plenty enough bloodshed to go around already.
So does that mean the bloodshed will end, should we leave? When should we leave?
I am not pretending to know the answers. I'm just wondering if you've weighed the consequences of decisions that are made, one way or another.
I'll take a crack. The bloodshed is going to continue for years - whether we are there or not.
Bush has ensured the mess that is Iraq with his failure to understand the basic fissures in Iraqi society that would explode into violence without proper planning. His utter incompetence has resulted, and will continue to result in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis.
At this point, there is no military solution that the U.S. can provide. It is up to the Iraqis to resolve their differences and end the civil war that Bush opened up for them.
It makes no sense to borrow money to pay for our troop commitment and certainly it makes no sense to send American troops to serve as a de facto police force for a country that has no real functioning government. To make matters worse, the fragile government that is in place has more in common with Iran than the U.S.
That is why more than 60 percent of the U.S. population wants to see an end to the HUGE mistake that is of Bush's making.
rob and vern,
Thank you for responding in a manner worthy of debate.
rob wrote:
The bloodshed is going to continue for years - whether we are there or not.
Yes, no doubt it will. If the Iraqis are ever going to get over their sectarian differences, peaceably, it will probably not even happen in this generation's time. But if we abandon the budding government, before it is mature enough to defend itself, how much more suffering might occur, than otherwise would happen?
Bush has ensured the mess that is Iraq with his failure to understand the basic fissures in Iraqi society that would explode into violence without proper planning. His utter incompetence has resulted, and will continue to result in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis.
Even if I were to agree with you 100% on this, how does the "wrongness" of entering into Iraq and the "wrongness" of how the post-war operations have been handled, translate into abandoning Iraq? What about the Powell doctrine, if we broke it, we own it? Is it right for us to leave Iraq "in shambles", if we are responsible for that? If America's credibility has been harmed by this venture, how much more so should we prove to the world that we are indeed the paper tiger we are perceived to be? Our allies in the Middle East and around the world who threw in their lot with us....why should they ever trust America again? Not for "misleading them" into this war, but for lacking the intestinal fortitude to see things through?
Of course, I don't see Iraq as the total disaster you guys believe it to be. I'm just trying to understand your line of reasoning.
At this point, there is no military solution that the U.S. can provide. It is up to the Iraqis to resolve their differences and end the civil war that Bush opened up for them.
So, you don't believe the "surge" can work, before it's even been fully implemented? I think the surest way to ensure that the surge fails, is to not even allow it to have the chance to succeed, let alone working actively to sabotage chances for its success-potential.
vern wrote:
Here's a question for you, Wordsmith. How has Iraq become less violent in the time we've been there?
There is violence there. But will it lessen, if we weren't there?
Here's another -- when do we leave, if not right now (which would be the only RIGHT time to leave)? One qualification: "until victory is achieved" is not an allowable answer, since you don't win an occupation.
It's when the new Iraqi government can fend for itself.
And not crap in the sense that some of it might not be true (although most of it is untrue), but in the sense that it is all just hollow, meaningless rationale-du-jour for a HUGE HUGE mistake that we should NEVER HAVE MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
And that sort of reasoning is meaningless, in the sense that it is "stuck on stupid", using yesterday's arguments for the basis for solutions to today's problems.
Let's say we should not have been in Iraq in the first place. Fine. The question becomes, "so now that we are there, what do we do now?". You say leave now, which is a legitimate opinion to have; but stating as a cause of reason that we should "NEVER HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE" as a reason to leave is not a reason that weighs into consideration, where we're at NOW.
The "government" of Iraq is corrupt, aligned with Iran, and in essence allows Shiite death squads to murder Sunnis. This is not a government that is worthy of defending with American blood and dollars.
The surge will not work. That is not pessimism - that is realism. If we define "working" as stabilizing the government and ending sectarian violence. Like I said before the government is corrupt and the sectarian violence will exist for years. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that sending 30,000 troops into a city made up of millions who are violently opposed to one another will do very little over a short period (i.e., 12-18 months).
Look, there are no good options. The fact that Bush didn't know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis three weeks before the invasion virtually ensured failure.
During the '99 debates when Bush said "America shouldn't be nation builders?" my husband and I turned to each other at the same time and said "He's going into Iraq for sure..." This was way before 9/11. This was before Florida 2000.
You guys are either corrupt, or naives. You can't be both. Not at this stage of the game.
rob,
The Maliki government has also been cracking down on those Shiite death squads since January. He has fired close allies to Sadr, cleared the Interior Ministry of Sadr-supporters, and visited Sunni sheikhs in Anbar Province. These sheikhs have turned against al-Qaeda. Maliki's allowed U.S. forces to capture and kill senior leaders of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Al-Sadr himself didn't even feel safe enough to return and attend the Najaf protest.
It will never be perfect; and wars never work out the way we wish them to. But that doesn't mean you give up, because the going is tough and the challenge steep.
The surge will not work. That is not pessimism - that is realism.
The "surge" will most certainly fail, as a self-fulfilling prophesy, if it's carried out, half-assed, and with naysayer pessimists carried through the "surge", like a ball-and-chain.
If Congressional Democrats truly have no faith in the new Baghdad security plan, they should not have voted Petraeus as the new commander in Iraq.
Wordsmith, to date, the President has gotten everything he has wanted. He has been given all the troops, money, and time he has requested and all we have gotten is worsening conditions in Iraq.
The Dems fully funded Bush's latest war escalation (the "surge") and the new spending bill fully funds everything Bush wants to do for the next year. In fact they are increasing the funding over Bush's request for VA health care, body armor, military training, etc.
Basically, if Bush's continued incompetence is demonstrated and the surge does not work, the Iraqi government does not get its act together, the Iraqi forces which we have been supposedly training FOR FOUR YEARS cannot step up, and things are worse, then most certainly you would have to agree that our occupation should end.
The fact that all soldiers in theater had their tours extended by 3 months because we don't have the troops to maintain our commitment is just another example of how badly the war strategy has been.
This is Bush's war and nothing changes the fact that he has gotten everything he has wanted. If he wants to cut off funding for the troops with a veto of the latest supplemental that is up to him.
This is not "Bush's war". This is America's war. I don't care how much you disagreed with the war. I don't care how pissed off you are about it. Iraq has become a central front in the GWOT. And as Noah Feldman wrote in the NYTimes Magazine: Just because President Bush says it’s so, and just because he helped make it so, doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
He has been given all the troops, money, and time he has requested and all we have gotten is worsening conditions in Iraq.
rob, the situation in Iraq has been a mixture of good and bad. And what do you mean he has gotten all the "time" he has requested? Since when are there expiration dates placed upon fighting wars? Timelines? It's over when it's over, whether it be a week or 100 years. You cannot wage wars expecting things not to get messy. Many things go wrong, rather than right. Should we fire our generals over every single mistake that occurs? We highlight the negative beyond belief, and micromanage from our armchair keyboards, every molehill into a mountain of misteps. Wars are fought as a series of catastrophes before victory is achieved. And I think we have a serious perception problem in what it takes to win wars. Perhaps Osama was right in labeling America a paper tiger? We have no stomach to sustain losses. Successes are downplayed and losses are underlined, highlighted, underscored, and headlined.
This is America's war; and it is America that is on the line. You can blame Bush all you want. But in the end, it is America that will suffer should we allow a defeat to occur. And a defeat becomes self-fulfilling only if folks like you have your way, and we actually pack it in.
If you think America's credibility is harmed by this "misadventure"; even moreso should we abandon Iraqi innocents to worse suffering and violence, as well as our allies who have aligned themselves with America against al-Qaeda and in the WoT. Why would any of our allies in the Middle East want to toss their hat in with us, instead of our enemies when we show that we do not have the intestinal fortitude needed to win wars?
Throwing in gunk like this:
The fact that all soldiers in theater had their tours extended by 3 months because we don't have the troops to maintain our commitment is just another example of how badly the war strategy has been.
Is just more complain, whine, whine, bellyaching about everything.
Of course the extended tours is a huge, huge problem. I'd say it's pretty devastating. Rest and recuperation are essential to our soldiers. But this is an army management issue. Not another reason for "why Bush has failed at every turn and we need to pull out of Iraq now."
It has been laid clear that our presence in Iraq would probably go well out into the future. It is Army leadership that has been derelict in not implementing long-term corrective actions and having vision and direction. Meeting force requirements is the leading purpose in life for staff officers; and the Army staff has been derelict in this, unlike the Marines who have been able to sustain combat operations with 7 months rotations.
I find your last comment amusing. Basically, you are blaming Army generals for the troop extension problem. Nice.
Never mind that Bush is THE DECIDER and the CIC. If what you believe is true, then why doesn't THE DECIDER hold someone responsible?
Given that the overwhelming majority of Americans are against this war, it is HIS war. He is not doing the will of the American people. I am quite certain that the overwhelming majority in Congress (and I am including many, many Republicans who want to find an end to the war) are trying to figure out a way to end Bush's war.
It is not that I am pissed off, it is that the basis was faulty (no WMDs and no link to 9/11) and there has been no serious plan for success as demonstrated by the fact that the majority of Iraqis (including the Shia) feel that they were better off under Saddam and want us out.
Bush's incompetence is clear, that is why he wants a "War Czar" in the White House. He needs someone to clean up his horrific mess tha he has created with his War.
It really doesn't matter to me if you want to say I am whining. The facts are what they are and whether you like it or not, the majority of the American people are in agreement about ending American involvement in Bush's disaster.
I find your last comment amusing. Basically, you are blaming Army generals for the troop extension problem. Nice.
And I find half of your comments insightful, and the other half inciteful.
What I am saying is, the responsibility is shared by a number of people. It's ridiculous to hold one man accountable to everything from Katrina, to body armor, to Walter Reed, to global warming, to whether or not your toilet got flushed last night.
It is just more "pile on" let's blame Bush.
Given that the overwhelming majority of Americans are against this war, it is HIS war. He is not doing the will of the American people.
It is America's war. What an immature way of looking at this. It has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the war we are in or you don't. We are in it, and it is America's future that is at stake. This is why soldiers are discouraged from being vocal about the politics of it. They serve the U.S., be it under the authority of a Republican President, or a Democratic President.
You seem very "poll"-obsessed; as if you always need the supposed "will of the people" to give validation to your arguments. Why is that? Perhaps we should put every decision up for referendums; take a vote on every military decision?
I think the "will of the people" is a lot more nuanced than you wish it to be.
I give all polling data the skeptical grain of salt. But here's some food for thought: the war may have become unpopular to a short-attention span public, but leaving too soon might be undesirable to "the will of the majority" as well. A CNN poll last month shows that only 21% of Americans want all troops out of Iraq immediately.
Popular confusion should never shape foreign policies.
I am quite certain that the overwhelming majority in Congress (and I am including many, many Republicans who want to find an end to the war) are trying to figure out a way to end Bush's war.
I think everyone wants an end to war- any war. But a responsible and moral ending, that will not make things worse.
I suspect that our Congressional leaders actually realize this. And that even if a Democratic President is elected in 2008, any new plan will look quite similar to the current strategy.
It is not that I am pissed off, it is that the basis was faulty (no WMDs and no link to 9/11)
This is one of those arguments that I don't understand. And why do we keep going back to these same, tired-out, rehashed arguments? I already know what you will say, and you probably already know what I will say in response.
And as far as "no link to 9/11"...when did President Bush say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? I don't recall. And I supported this war from the very beginning, without being confused about it.
and there has been no serious plan for success as demonstrated by the fact that the majority of Iraqis (including the Shia) feel that they were better off under Saddam and want us out.
Based upon which polling data? I've seen conflicting ones shopped around.
A recent poll commissioned by ABC News and partners has 78% of Iraqis opposing the U.S. presence and 51% approving attacks on U.S. troops — but only 35% calling for immediate withdrawal. How do you make sense out of conflicting data like that?
It really doesn't matter to me if you want to say I am whining.
I didn't mean to come across as insulting to you. It is a general complaint, not specifically aimed at you. Where it is one complaint after another, over every little thing that goes wrong. Things aren't perfect. Life never is, especially during war. A lot of complaints I hear are also peripheral arguments, that really have nothing to do about current stratgies in Iraq.
The facts are what they are and whether you like it or not, the majority of the American people are in agreement about ending American involvement in Bush's disaster.
You sure do bring up "the majority of Americans" in many comments...
Like I said, I am a skeptic of polling data; and also, the fickleness of it all. Polls go up, polls go down. Presidents should not make the big decision based upon whether or not it is the popular thing to do, but based upon whether or not it is the right thing to do.
This is a little of topic, but a comment tweaked my interest.
The Marines do handle short term roations best. After all, the Marines have a mission and a mindset that they are expeditionary forces, and Marines are eager to step into the fight when tasked to do so. Marines are accustomed to long deployments away from home and spend six month stretches on ships such as amphibious forces that can be deployed on 30 minutes notice to anywhere in the world by land, sea, or air.
The Marines support systems are also structured to support these types of issues, because we (they) do it all the time.
Just an observation. The Army and Marines have different views and missions. An example of the mindset is that the Army calls its bases "Forts" and Marines call theirs "Camps", indicating the mobility of the organization.
qzz0601
stuart weitzman shoes
air max uk
canada goose coats
canada goose outlet
lebron james shoes
armani exchange
isabel marant shoes
fingerlings monkey
fitflops outlet
kd 9
[url=http://www.michaelkors-outletstore.com][b]michael kors[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.converse-shoes.us.com][b]converse outlet store[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.kobesneakers.com][b]kobe 11[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.adidasyeezy.co.uk][b]adidas yeezy[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.cheaprealjordans.us.com][b]real jordans for sale cheap[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.fitflops-saleclearance.us.com][b]fitflops sale[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.nikeairmax270.org][b]air max 270[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.outlettimberland.us.org][b]timberland shoes[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.golden-goose.us.com][b]golden goose[/b][/url]
[url=http://www.goldengooseoutlet.us][b]golden goose mid star[/b][/url]
Post a Comment
<< Home