September 1, 2007

Reality Check?

Here's is a perfect example of what anti-war voters, who think their issue sent Patrick Murphy to Congress in 2006, get from their representative long after the results were tabulated.

''They can be adamant, but they have to understand reality," Ceisler said of the anti-war activists. "In terms of Patrick's election, where are they going to go? He's as good as they get on the issue. There are pockets of those people in Bucks County, but nothing that makes a big difference."

- Larry Ceisler Democrat Strategist Philadelphia

Ah, reality, that's the key. But what reality could Dems be hiding from their supporters? Reality that the surge is working? Reality that no matter how much Dems talked about how the election was a "mandate" to brings our troops home, there was never any intention to do so? Reality that the Democrats know they can't tell the President what to do with his troops?

Or is it that the donkeys will dance around the realities in Iraq to appease the hard-left, anti-war lunatics that they believe helped them get elected? Only to then turn around and talk of them as outliers in the political spectrum, because they know Democrat voters "have nowhere else to go". Or perhaps it's the knowledge, the REALITY, that talking like an anti-war hippie of the sixties, in Southeastern Pennsylvania, will result in a one-term run for Democrats like Murphy?

And here I thought the "most honest,ethical, and transparent Congress in history" - Nancy Pelosi - had a mandate. Or was that just not realistic?

It seems to me that Congressman Murphy and Democrats everywhere, like all good used car salesmen, have sold their anti-war supporters a lemon.

I have an answer to Mr. Ceisler's question. The Democrat's hard-core-leftist supporters will stay home, if the donkeys fail to bring the troops home ...that's where they'll go. Sweet dreams Patrick!


Anonymous said... you think we should continue to sink our most precious resources, our young boys and girls, into a failed pursuit. I am certainly not for cutting and running but once the Iraqi politicians took their vacation, I would have stopped fighting and had my troops waiting for transport back home if they didn't get their asses back to work. You can't deny that this administration failed to prosecute this war. On the other side, complaining about the war and not presenting an alternative course is not the way to go. If I remember correctly, when the fighting in Mogadishu went bad, but the soldiers gave a good account of themselves, the Republicans were thumping Clinton on the head with the “bring the boys home” hammer, even though the troops had the upper hand and could have finished the job if given the chance.

page13 said...

No, I don't recall the GOP doing anything close to the Democrat attempts to undermine Bush and the military in Iraq.

The "good news" you refernece was related to humanitarian efforts between the US and UNOSOM II (UN Operation in Solmolia), NOT toward a significant battle with Al Q'eda in a major US war.

If I remember correctly, we were not convinced there was a good enough reason to be "nation building" in this part of the world at that time. Clinton hadn't sold the need enough.

Now, before you try to smack me with the nation building call, Iraq is not nation building. Nation building is when you start with a humanitarian or some other innocuous event, use relatively few military forces to prop up an unstable government, and commit to a short stay.

Iraq is one battleground in a much larger conflict. Iran is the head of the snake, not Sadaam, not Bin Ladin. The same Islamic Radicals who took our embasy during Carter, and bombed our barracks in Beruit during Reagan, prop up terror groups in Palestine, have organizations worldwide, and are determined to kill us, are who we are battling here.