When Barack Obama saw a woman cry at a New Hampshire rally, Obama declared that he’d surrender to Iran and AQI if he were elected president. Yes, that was a tongue in cheek comment but the point is that Democrats, including Obama, are swayed by emotional outbursts about the war rather than by military opinions.

“I can’t breathe,” she said, her voice breaking with sobs. “I want to know, when am I going to be able to breathe? Are you going to get us the hell out of there? Promise us you will get us out of there. That’s the most important thing.”

The crowd’s applause as she finished gave Obama time to compose an answer.

“I can only imagine how you feel, as a father and as a parent,” he said. “I don’t go to a single town-hall meeting where I don’t meet a mother or father who either is seeing a loved one go over there or has already lost someone, or has a loved one who has come back injured.

“So I make a solemn pledge to you, as president we will be out of Iraq,” Obama said to loud applause.

I can understand this woman being distraught. I’ll even acknowledge that Obama has been anti-war since the beginning. That said, his policymaking is obviously too influenced by political support than by pertinent facts.

Democrats criticize President Bush for not listening to variety of opinions, something I agree with. Why shouldn’t Democrats be criticized for not listening to anyone that wants to defeat AQI and the other jihadists in Iraq? If Democrats hear someone say that Iraq is winnable, they accuse that person of repeating the Bush administration talking points.

Another way in which they’re hypocritical is that they used to criticize President Bush of “not listening to his generals.” Isn’t it hypocritical that they’ve dissed Gen. Petraeus by passing legislation that cuts off funding for the troops that Gen. Petraeus needs to defeat the jihadists and to stabilize Iraq. Isn’t it hypocritical that they’ve essentially said that they know more about Iraq than Gen. Petraeus?

If that isn’t enough, Harry Reid says that the only way to win this war is politically, diplomatically and economically. How can the Iraqi economy flourish if the jihadists aren’t defeated? I’ve come to realize that he’s just that steadfast in his intent to declare defeat in Iraq.

One last thing: Obama says that he isn’t against all wars, just poorly run wars. That’s nonsense. There’s nothing that suggests that he’s for well run wars. Does Obama think that the Iraq war isn’t worth winning? It certainly appears that way. If he cared about winning, he’d follow in Joe Lieberman’s footsteps. That takes real courage. If he cared about winning, he would’ve suggested an alternative path to victory. He hasn’t done anything like that. For that matter, Hillary hasn’t laid out a plan for defeating the jihadists, whether they’re in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran or anywhere else in the world.

The ugly truth about this is that Democrats couldn’t care less about winning. That isn’t just my opinion. Here’s how Neal Boortz put it:

How’s this for supporting our troops? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat (of course) has now declared that the United States has lost the war in Iraq. He told President Bush that the war could not be won through military force … in effect saying that the U.S. military is incapable of defeating the Islamic fascist enemy.

Know this … there is no way in hell that you can say you support our troops when you say that our troops cannot win the battle. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell put it well: “I can’t begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost,”

I might put it a bit differently. What do you call a political leader in this country who declares a war to be lost while our men and women in uniform are putting their lives on the line to win that war. What do you call a highly placed political leader who puts a smile on the faces of the Islamic terrorist bastards who are out there trying to kill our soldiers. There’s a word for it .. and it’s a word that those of you who listen to my show will know that I don’t use. That word is traitor. Dictionary.com has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:

1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

So … what is treason? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war. Did Reid’s comments give aid to the Islamic fascists trying to kill our soldiers? How can anyone not say that Harry Reid’s words did just that? The only question then is whether, in the definition of treason, we can be said to be at war.

This may be Reid’s escape. For my part, he has not only given aid and comfort to the enemy, he has emboldened them. I feel certain that American men and women in Iraq will die as a result of Reid’s words encouraging the people who want to kill them.

Bastard.

Know this…Democrats are absolutely invested in our defeat at the hands of the Islamic insurgents in Iraq. Good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democrat Party MoveOn.org crowd. They watch the news every day looking eager for more stories of violence in Iraq aimed at innocents and our soldiers. The absence of those stories makes them sad. The presence of those stories lift their spirits.

Never in the history of this country has a political party been so dedicated to our defeat in armed conflict.

There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Reid and Obama on Iraq. They should be ashamed of themselves. They haven’t added anything positive to this debate. They’ve been no-shows.

Their not presenting a plan for victory says everything you should need to know about how unserious the Democrats are about national security. They’re nothing more than disinterested bystanders in the battle of our generation.

When history is written, they’ll be known as more dovish than Neville Chamberlain.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, New Hampshire Primary, Harry Reid, Hillary, Iraq War, Defeatocrats, President Bush, Neal Boortz, David Petraeus, Joe Lieberman, National Security, Election+2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. [...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: Military, Iraq, Terrorism, President Bush, Economy, Foreign Policy, Hillary, Harry Reid, Middle East, Subversives, Anti-War Activists, Radical Islam, Special Interests, Appeasement, Election 2008, Defeatocrats, Obama | [...]

   Pingback by Let Freedom Ring » Blog Archive » Obama Promises to Surrender — April 22, 2007 @ 12:42 am

1. And yet Obama wants us to invade the Sudan.

   Comment by Hat Pines — April 22, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

2. Hillary wants to invade our pockets.

   Comment by ugga — April 22, 2007 @ 3:36 pm

3. Oh yes, lets all cry. Its quite chic nowadays you know.

   We cry at weddings, funerals, graduations, bar mitzvahs, confirmations, Oprah Winfrey shows, the Oscars, barbecues, tennis matches, little league games, Christmas (happy holidays for the super sensitive), were always all broken up about something.

   Is it any wonder Al Qaeda thinks we are a nation of wimps?

   Comment by T. A. Gray — April 22, 2007 @ 4:30 pm