« Slaughterhouse | Main | LA Times Writes (Stupid) Smear Piece on Fred Thompson »

Iraqi Foreign Minister: "Don't abandon us"

The Washington Post ran a column today (link via Lucianne) by Iraq's foreign minister in which he lays out his case why the world should not abandon Iraq. Will the Democrats who can't surrender fast enough take the time read what this man is saying? Because he's saying it directly to them:

Last weekend a traffic jam several miles long snaked out of the Mansour district in western Baghdad. The delay stemmed not from a car bomb closing the road but from a queue to enter the city's central amusement park. The line became so long some families left their cars and walked to enjoy picnics, fairground rides and soccer, the Iraqi national obsession.


Across the city, restaurants are slowly filling and shops are reopening. The streets are busy. Iraqis are not cowering indoors. The appalling death tolls from suicide attacks are often high because of crowding at markets. These days you are as likely to hear complaints about traffic congestion as about the security situation. Across Baghdad there is a cacophony of sirens from ambulances, firefighters and police providing public services. You cannot even escape the curse of traffic wardens ticketing illegally parked cars.

These small but significant snippets of normality are overshadowed by acts of gross violence, which fuel the opinion of some that Iraq is in a downward spiral. The Iraqi people are indeed suffering tremendous hardships and making grave sacrifices -- but daily life goes on for 7 million Baghdadis struggling to take back their capital and country.

[...]

Contrary to popular belief, most government ministries are located outside the Green Zone, and employees drive to work every day despite death threats and attacks on colleagues and families. We government ministers are always at risk of assassination. When a suicide bomber attacked parliament last month, the legislators sat in defiance in an extraordinary session the following day. I am particularly inspired by the commitment of the young diplomats in the Foreign Ministry, a diverse mix of Sunni, Shiite, Christian, Arab and Kurdish men and women who serve their country without subscribing to religious or sectarian divisions.

Iraqis are standing up every day, and we persevere because there is no other option. We will not surrender our country to terrorists. They have failed to cripple the elected government, and they have failed to intimidate us into submission. Iraqis reject their vision of a future whose hallmarks are bloodshed and hatred.

Those calling for withdrawal may think it is the least painful option, but its benefits would be short-lived. The fate of the region and the world is linked with ours. Leaving a broken Iraq in the Middle East would offer international terrorism a haven and ensure a legacy of chaos for future generations. Furthermore, the sacrifices of all the young men and women who stood up here would have been in vain.

Iraqis, for all our determination and courage, cannot succeed alone. We need a healthy and supportive regional environment. We will not allow our country to be a battleground for settling scores in regional and international conflicts that adversely affect stability inside our borders. Only with continued international commitment and deeper engagement from our neighbors can we establish a stable democratic, federal and united Iraq. The world should not abandon us.

The Democrats, it seems, can't abandon the Iraqis fast enough. Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd are even co-sponsoring a bill that would end the authority for the Iraq war. Since the Dems couldn't muster the votes to override President Bush's veto of the Iraq surrender bill, they're going to try to surrender in an entirely different way. This time it's not through the spending but through revoking the President's authority all together. Minister Zebari is asking the Democrats to not abandon them. What is the Democrats response to Mr. Zebari? "Screw you."


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iraqi Foreign Minister: "Don't abandon us":

» Webloggin linked with The Iraq That Democrats Never Considered

» Not Exactly Rocket Science linked with The MOST important column you will read this year

» A Second Hand Conjecture linked with The Iraqi Foreign Minister makes his plea

» The Patriot of The Seven Hills linked with A Plea from Iraq To the World, “Don’t Abandon Us”

Comments (42)

The Democrats, it seems,... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The Democrats, it seems, can't abandon the Iraqis fast enough.

Typo in your post. "Democrats" should be "majority of Americans".

"The Democrats, it seems, c... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"The Democrats, it seems, can't abandon the Iraqis fast enough.

Typo in your post. "Democrats" should be "majority of Americans"."

If that were true, the cowering asshats on the left side of the isle would simply withdraw the funds needed to fight the war instead of playing pathetic, transparent political games with it.

Someone get all these chees... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Someone get all these cheese eating surrender monkeyes outta here.

Brian:Typical arrogance fro... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Brian:Typical arrogance from the left.Funny how that logic doesn't apply to any other issue where the left wants something and the "majority of Americans" do not. The majority of Americans also voted for Bush who does not want to abandon Iraq.Furthermore, If your assessment of the will of the American people was accurate how did Joe Lieberman win? He represents left-leaning Connecticut not Utah, and the war was famously the main issue in that race.

What is it you folks say ab... (Below threshold)
Semanticleo:

What is it you folks say about the nanny-state wherein our poorest, least employable get hooked on the public dole? Liberals are the enablers who
disallow the upward mobility of the lower half.

Welfare for the Iraqis is a different animal?

Let them lift themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Time for welfare reform.

Let's see here. Kim Priest... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Let's see here. Kim Priestap would have us continue to fund Bush's Pet Project of providing Iraq, at U.S. taxpayer expense, with a surrogate police force. Never mind that Bush and the Republicans took that surplus Clinton left them with and turned it into a quarter-of-a-trillion dollar federal deficit that we're still paying interest on. Never mind that government reports show that U.S. military presence helps recruit terrorists seeking jihad and martyrdom ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/intelligence_09-25.html ). Never mind too that while Iraq has one of the highest oil reserves in the world, the U.S. pays for the surrogate police force it provides both in money and lives. For what? To help out not a desperately poor nation with its battles with malaria and malnutrition, but a country where the worries are, as Kim's post mentions, "traffic jams on the way to the amusement park." Favoring these people over the desperately poor elsewhere is the Jesus thing to do, you see, right conservatives? Nope, the conservatives absolutely positively cannot think of anything better to do with the billions upon billions upon billions of dollars and thousands of lives that we spend on Iraq.

********************************

Xennady, though this might come as a shock to you, things do change over the course of the last 2.5 years including people's opinions about Bush's pet project. Why don't you examine a recent opinion poll and then get back to us.

Here are some facts for you... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Here are some facts for you B and S. I like that BS. Democrats let the cries for help from the South Viet Namese fall on deaf ears. For political purposes. Millions died because the democrats did not want a Republican idea to succeed. Scum of the earth. They are trying the same thing here. The traitors Pelosi and Reid think the American people will reward them with a larger majority if we leave Iraq, or show the weakness of this President. If he is successful, and he will be, they will look like the cowardly fools they are. America may want out of Iraq, but America does not want another democratic lead loss.

Brian:Typical arrogance ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian:Typical arrogance from the left.Funny how that logic doesn't apply to any other issue where the left wants something and the "majority of Americans" do not.

Huh? Are you talking to me? 'Cause you're not referring to anything that I said. If the majority of Americans support any issue, then I'm fully in favor of reporting that fact accurately. Are you?

The majority of Americans also voted for Bush who does not want to abandon Iraq.

Yep. And two years later they got fed up and effectively voted against him, and voted in people who campaigned on the promise of reeling him in.

Furthermore, If your assessment of the will of the American people was accurate how did Joe Lieberman win? He represents left-leaning Connecticut not Utah, and the war was famously the main issue in that race.

Obviously, the "majority of Connecticut" is not equivalent to the "majority of Americans". Were you expecting it was?

If that were true, the c... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If that were true, the cowering asshats on the left side of the isle would simply withdraw the funds needed to fight the war instead of playing pathetic, transparent political games with it.

They did. Bush vetoed it. It's called "how our system works". Are you paying attention?

Alright, I really want to g... (Below threshold)
scorchednuts:

Alright, I really want to get to the heart of what a lockstep neocon thinks. First of all, enlighten me on your 3rd grade black and white concept of "winning" or "losing" this war. We won the war back in 2003 when we defeated Iraq's army, it's president/dictator and dethroned the government. That is a military victory. What we have been doing since is what intelligent people call "nation building" getting our hands dirty with a couple groups of people that would rather give their own lives than to see the the other group enjoy an equal shot at life. Kinda like if we had to make a democratic country out of you guys and gays or blacks. I'm really interested in some serious, intelligent feedback here. Do you guys REALLY think that we can quell 1,000 year sectarian hatred in Iraq with Bush's 20,000 troop surge, or are you ready to occupy Iraq for the next 20 years? I'm not expecting much out of you guys, because anytime someone who thinks differently posts a rational, intelligent question on this site, it gets ignored.

Where were "the majority of... (Below threshold)
Actual:

Where were "the majority of Americans" in Connecticut when presented with a clear choice between a pro-war and an anti-war candidate ? Shall we ask Senator Lamont (D-Conn.) ?

I believe the Democratic ag... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

I believe the Democratic agenda has from early on been anti-Iraq. I think public opinion is merely the rheostat that regulates how loudly they feel comfortable trumpeting that stance. I welcome those who favor the current position of the Democratic Party that in the future they will care just as much about majority public opinion on other issues - foreign and domestic - as they do on the Iraq war.

because anytime someone wh... (Below threshold)
hic:

because anytime someone who thinks differently posts a rational, intelligent question on this site, it gets ignored.
Posted by: scorchednuts at May 4, 2007 07:40 PM

Said the bunning balls wacko, BWAHAHAHA Good God Almighty you are transparent

Brian:If the majority of Am... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Brian:If the majority of Americans support any issue you're in favor of reporting that fact? What in the world does that mean? I note you did not say you wanted to ENACT policies favored by most Americans, just REPORT them.So my original statement stands undamaged.I remember the last campaign and I have to admit I agree with you a bit-the Democrats did not generally campaign on the Iraq policy they now advance.I note you do not claim they did.In the one race they did so campaign-the Lieberman race-they lost.So I do not accept your belief that the policy of surrender that the Democrats advocate is the will of the people.I suspect one reason why they are so anxious to end the US presence in Iraq before 2008 is so they won't have to defend their surrender policy in that election.Furthermore, your statement that the Democrats just voted to withdraw funds from the war but Bush vetoed it is preposterous.The voted to fund the war but with conditions unacceptable to Bush-hence the veto.They could have just refused to appropriate any money for Iraq at all.If your position was as popular you think I don't see why they didn't do that.That's how you folks destroyed South Vietnam, remember? You cut off the money, and millions died-as Zelsdorf points out.

Where were "the majorit... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Where were "the majority of Americans" in Connecticut when presented with a clear choice between a pro-war and an anti-war candidate ? Shall we ask Senator Lamont (D-Conn.) ?

Bwahahahahahahahhahahha.....hilarious.

Scorchednuts,I don't... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Scorchednuts,
I don't think I can engage you in a discussion that will suit you, but I certainly feel that we spent time playing nation builder in Europe after WWII. I guess one could argue that we were dealing with a part of the world so culturally familiar to us and an integral part of our history that it was a relatively easy chore compared to what we face in the Middle East. I admit that there are times I have wondered whether we should just leave and let the place annihilate itself. There are many people in our own country who have little interest in government, have no interest in the issues of the day, and could care less to vote. That is sad. However, I think there are a large number of people in Iraq specifically and in the Middle East in general who would appreciate any level of freedom beyond what they were born under. Twenty years may be about right. It's a generation and it may take the experience of a new generation to make this work. It's the same strategy the left uses on or college campuses to try to affect the political outlook of the next voting generation. So, yes, I believe it can be done even in the face of all the bumbling I've seen to this point.

By the way, you can criticize the reception left-leaning opinions get here but try looking at a site like Kos and you will notice quite readily it's worse the other way around.

Herman: I suggest YOU look ... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Herman: I suggest YOU look at an opinion poll.The ones I see suggest the public doesn't want to leave Iraq and believes we can win there and also that it is important that we do so.Instapundit printed one of those a few days ago-go dig through the archives of that site to find it if you care enough.I don't because I don't base my opinion of what should be done on the latest poll.

Don't abandon us? Everyday ... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Don't abandon us? Everyday brave U.S. troops face death and injury for a govt that cannot sustain a loyal Army...a loyal police force...even meet as a Parliament to save their nation...they have abandoned our troops!!!...

oh yeah..for all you gun guys? You support the NRA on this?..from today's AP...

"The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

Please.. Do you folks support the NRA in saying if you are only "suspected" of being a terrorist..our govt should leave you alone.?? ..

If Ted Kennedy had proposed this..instead of your NRA...what would be your response?

Remember...if you are under 41 you can sign up...
(don't sweat your criminal record or drug use)

That alleged Iraqi minster could care less about this
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

Good one nogo,Your f... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Good one nogo,
Your first paragraph says something related to the thread and then you go on about the NRA, terrorists..... Don't see how it relates here. But you might be one of those savants that sees into the future and is responding now to a thread that will begin later this evening. Awesome gift that!

..of course this story is o... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

..of course this story is only carried by the MSM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270142,00.html

c'mon folks..c'mon scrap..
step on up...defend this..
c'mon up and defend an Iraqi "minister"

oh yeah...

George W. Bush, 6/5/99, Scripps Howard/Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

I addressed the thread..I o... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I addressed the thread..I only brought the despicable NRA position in because so many here cling to the belief that the troops and their families (not we)continue to suffer staying in Iraq to keep control from the terrorists...

The NRA...like Bush..gone too far this time..

I also brought it up..cause..you know..none of the moderators here would/will...

Where were "the majority... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Where were "the majority of Americans" in Connecticut when presented with a clear choice between a pro-war and an anti-war candidate ?
...
Bwahahahahahahahhahahha.....hilarious.

Boy, don't you people even read before posting? That question was asked and answered about 3 posts before yours. I expect that kind of foolishness from Sucker Fish Jo, but not so much from others.

scorchednuts:If you expect ... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

scorchednuts:If you expect your questions to be taken seriously I suggest you get a different screen name.But I'll take a shot you question anyway.Spare me the nonsense about the 1000 years of sectarian hatred in Iraq.This is yet another leftist lie intended to convince the ignorant that we can't win.Iran has similar sectarian divisions and yet no one talks about the inevitability of its disintegration.Using similar tactics to those used in Iraq the US was able to defeat the Philippine insurrection in the early 1900's and defeat the Vietcong in Vietnam also.Our task is to build up the Iraqi government so it can stop the present terrorism.We don't have to make everyone love each other.If you think democracy will never work there, I remind you that within living memory in the US blacks were lynched and discrimination legally enforced.Slavery was never abolished-until it was.So change happens.And there is already a country made up of "you guys" and blacks and gays-without mass murder and car bombs. In any case I think victory in Iraq is so important that if it takes 20 years of a US troop presence I'm for it.I don't think this is something to celebrate, just necessary.

nogo What the hell does the... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

nogo What the hell does the NRA have to do with anything anyone here was posting about? No, the moderators won't bring it up- because it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.Shocking that the moderators prefer to stay on topic isn't it?

Brian:If the majority of... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian:If the majority of Americans support any issue you're in favor of reporting that fact? What in the world does that mean? I note you did not say you wanted to ENACT policies favored by most Americans, just REPORT them.

I don't advocate enacting policies for the sole reason that most people support them. However, when enacting policies that most people support, I do advocate reporting that fact accurately.

So my original statement stands undamaged.

*shrug* I guess. Though since it was unrelated to my original statement, I'm not sure what the point was.

In the one race they did so campaign-the Lieberman race-they lost.So I do not accept your belief that the policy of surrender that the Democrats advocate is the will of the people.

And I do not accept your belief that the policy of one state is the will of the country.

I suspect one reason why they are so anxious to end the US presence in Iraq before 2008 is so they won't have to defend their surrender policy in that election.

That doesn't make sense. If the Dems are responsible for withdrawing before the election, and that withdrawal proves to be a disaster, then the Dems are screwed. On the other hand, if the Dems sit by and let this thing drag out until after the election, they can campaign on ending it.

The voted to fund the war but with conditions unacceptable to Bush-hence the veto.

The conditions included ending funding if certain conditions are met. Hence, cut off funding.

They could have just refused to appropriate any money for Iraq at all.If your position was as popular you think I don't see why they didn't do that.

Because it's a right-wing canard that that position was ever seriously on the table. The Dem's proposals have always been phased withdrawal, not cut off the money tomorrow. Sure, you can find a few fiery speeches around, but none of them have represented actual policy.

That's how you folks destroyed South Vietnam, remember?

Yeah, and we were thiiiis close to winning!

"Obviously, the "maj... (Below threshold)
Actual:

"Obviously, the "majority of Connecticut" is not equivalent to the "majority of Americans". Were you expecting it was?"

Why is this obvious? You mean because the outcome is different than what you would expect and therefore it must be different ?

I think the leftist Democrats are confused by the average voter's desire for the war to be over
and the average voter's unwillingness to unconditionally surrender to the enemy.

Majority of Americans dont... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Majority of Americans dont want the vast separation of church and state. Does that mean its OK now for Boy Scouts to camp on state game lands?

Do we go by laws, or polls?

Iraqi Foreign Minister: ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Iraqi Foreign Minister: "Don't abandon us"

Democrats respond...., screw you our polls say you want us out.

They are bogus and you know it.


Democrats respond....we don't give a shit , WE'RE GAINING SEATS! HA HA HA HA.!

Posted by: scorchednuts at ... (Below threshold)
Actual:

Posted by: scorchednuts at May 4, 2007 07:40 PM:
"a lockstep neocon"
"your 3rd grade black and white concept"
"Kinda like if we had to make a democratic country out of you guys and gays or blacks."
"I'm not expecting much out of you guys"

This is your idea of "a rational, intelligent question" ?

Why is this obvious? You... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Why is this obvious? You mean because the outcome is different than what you would expect and therefore it must be different ?

No, because Connecticut is one state, and there are 49 others, each with potentially different social, economic, and philosophical priorities. Sorry, I just assumed that was obvious.

Though I'm sure Walter Mondale would endorse your idea of taking the leanings of one state and extrapolating them out to represent the country as a whole.

<a href="http://ww... (Below threshold)
Brian:
Iraq's prime minister has created an entity within his government that U.S. and Iraqi military officials say is being used as a smokescreen to hide an extreme Shiite agenda that is worsening the country's sectarian divide.

...
Those sources say the 24-member office is abusing its power, increasingly overriding decisions made by the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior and potentially undermining the entire U.S. effort in Iraq.

Hey, let's send more troops!

Iraqis are standing up e... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Iraqis are standing up every day, and we persevere because there is no other option. We will not surrender our country to terrorists. They have failed to cripple the elected government, and they have failed to intimidate us into submission. Iraqis reject their vision of a future whose hallmarks are bloodshed and hatred.

Now THAT is an ally I want on my side.

Brian - Would you explain y... (Below threshold)
Actual:

Brian - Would you explain your theory of how a soldily blue state (Connecticut) would elect a pro-war candidate over an anti-war candidate?
Assuming, of course, that your theory that a majority of Americans are against the war is correct ?

This is the guy who wrote t... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

This is the guy who wrote the Washington Post article(Zebari)...may I assume, if you make him credible you agree with him on this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/world/middleeast/26cnd-iraq.html?ex=1306296000&en=4d7b90ea4a8f6754&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The Iraqi minister said thi... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

The Iraqi minister said this on the eve of the Iraqi Parliments 2 month summer recess.

Why not take a 2 month recess, things are going great and the Americans aren't going anywhere.

Brian - Would you explai... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian - Would you explain your theory of how a soldily blue state (Connecticut) would elect a pro-war candidate over an anti-war candidate?

Well, Because Lieberman got 70% of the Republican vote. Plus he would retain his seniority, which is important to a district. Plus many Dems felt they sent a message in the primaries, but were too scared to follow through in the general. Lots more reasons, too, I'm sure. In the end, he's still a Democrat, and Connecticut is still "solidly blue".

Assuming, of course, that your theory that a majority of Americans are against the war is correct ?

Oh, it is. And it's unrelated to your CT obsession.

Regarding nogo postal's off... (Below threshold)
wave man:

Regarding nogo postal's off topic repetition of the AP's hatchet job on the NRA story... here's their explaination if you're interested. Apologies for off topic, but I couldn't let it go. If the mods delete, so be it.

Brian - "which is import... (Below threshold)
Actual:

Brian - "which is important to a district"

He doesn't represent a district, he represents the state. But you knew that. I hope.

Any evidence to support your hypothesis that Democrats chickened out? Or is this a "gut feeling".

I see an electorate who wants the war to end but doesn't want to unconditionally surrender to the enemy.

I still think you've misjudged the results through faulty logic, but we'll see how Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi do over the next 18 months. It's for sure going to be an issue in the next election. I remember how fractured the Democrats were in 1968 over Vietnam and how badly the 1972 election turned out for them.

Brian:Your first comment ma... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Brian:Your first comment made an assertion that a majority of Americans not just Democrats as Kim wrote can't abandon the Iraqis fast enough.Silly me-I thought that what you meant was that since in your opinion most Americans back leaving Iraq this should matter because this is a democracy and the will of the people should rule.Apparently, you were just accusing the author of lying-since she did not state your opinion of what the American people believe as a fact-and meant to voice no other opinion what so ever.This is good since if you actually WERE trying to make the point that it matters that most Americans support withdrawal from Iraq, you greatly undercut yourself when you write that you "don't advocate enacting policies for the sole reason that people support them".You'd look pretty silly if you had done that now wouldn't you? So it appears that my rather larger point-that the left respects democracy only when they win-is not something you dispute.*shrug* I bring up the Lieberman race because it was explicitly fought over the Iraq war in a way that other races weren't.The antiwar candidate lost.Now Connecticut is a heavily Democratic state.If the antiwar candidate can't win there-with this being the only significant policy difference between the contenders-I don't see how anyone can claim that the country as a whole is anti-Iraq war.Not that THAT really matters to you.The Democrats say Iraq is a disaster NOW.I said earlier that if the Iraq war was as unpopular as claimed the Democrats would simply refuse to appropriate any money for it.Since you don't appear to understand what this means I'll explain further:CUT OFF THE MONEY! That does NOT mean come up with all the money Bush wants but with a timetable for pullout, or even all the money Bush wants but with a set of "slow bleed" restrictions on troop deployment.No money means no money.If they did this the withdrawal WOULD result in a disaster that screws THEM.Want they want is a disaster that screws the GOP.So they come up with money but attempt to ensure our defeat via other means- e.g. the slow bleed plan. You contradict yourself-you give them credit for cutting off funding for the war and then say that that option was never really on the table! Doesn't that hurt your back? And about Vietnam-yes, we were really thiiiis close to winning.Google "easter offensive" for example.Or read a book titled "A better war" by Lewis Sorley.Not that leftists ever read books-but I'm working on it!

How does Lieberman getting ... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

How does Lieberman getting 70% of the GOP vote change anything? Do you believe Republicans aren't citizens of the United States? The fact remains that the majority of Connecticut voters favored the pro-war candidate.And the Democrats were "scared" to vote for the anti-war candidate? Were the dreaded neo-cons going to come and take them away? Preposterous.The whole point in bringing up this race is that if a "solidly blue" state like Connecticut votes pro-war, your theory has big gaping holes in it.

Insecure little Brian ju... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Insecure little Brian just want to delude himself with the beleif that the majority of Americans are democrats. Dream on.

I make a motion to refer to... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

I make a motion to refer to the democrats from here on as the "surrender monkeys"




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy