Barrack and Hillary are Born Losers

We have a guest post from Wildbeggar today

After listening to the politicos venting their spleens on Bush’s war on terrorism and how he stole the election in 2000, it irks me that we have so many of the people who want to be president but yet surrender to the terrorists.

This is not a nation of losers. We have fought for our independence and our survival for over 200 years and I have never read nor heard of any war we fought where the idea was go go in and give up. In all the wars we have fought, there have been set backs, we have suffered defeats, we have lost lives, ships, territory – but even through the darkest days, we have still managed to pull together whether by luck, good planning or God’s help we have defeated every foe we have faced.

Now, we have two people who are running for the highest office of this nation who have the idea that we cannot win. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have a defeatist mentality. They are born losers to think they can win the Presidency then surrender to the war on radical Islam and make this country a great nation as it always has been. We do not play football, baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey or any other sport with the express intention of going out on the field to lose regardless of how good the other team is.

The very idea that pulling out of Iraq and using the money we are spending on the war would be better used to help the “little guy” is completely insane. A lot of the “little guys” that Sen Ted Kennedy describes are sitting in an alley somewhere with a bottle of wine in his mouth or a needle in his arm and won’t vote anyway. Giving a check to everyone because of the subprime mortgage screwup is another mistake by Congress, next they’ll send you a check to
help you make your car payments. If they think the “little guy” is in trouble now, wait until the radical Islamists take over the Middle East and control most of the world’s oil production.

Every nation in the world will suffer, not only the U.S., Japan, or Europe. The prices of growing, transporting and storing food will rise so high that no one can afford it. It will take a wheelbarrow full of money to buy gasoline for your vehicle if you can find any gasoline to begin with.

Hillary Clinton or Obama will start sending out government checks that will be worthless and only good to light a fire to keep warm. The war against the radical Islamists is not only in Iraq, it is worldwide, from Britain to Austrailia, from South Africa to China, Russian, Moracco, Spain, Indonesia, The Philippines and nearly every country on earth. They can and must be defeated by leaders who are not afraid to face them. Hillary and Obama are not the leaders who will take charge to go for a victory over this threat.

— Wildbeggar

9 thoughts on “Barrack and Hillary are Born Losers”

  1. Hillary and Obama are not the leaders who will take charge to go for a victory over this threat.

    I’ve never really subscribed to notions of “victory” and “defeat” in all this. There will always be a threat of terrorism. The goal, as I see it, is to deminish the threat and make efforts to safeguard our vulnerabilities.

  2. Good morn Chen. The problem is that you can’t diminish it if you refuse to confront it, both Barrack and Hillary refuse to do so. The only exception to that which I’ve seen is Barrack’s attempt to go strong on the war on terror by “bombing Pakistan”. It might seem tough but the reality is that it would start a third war, before we are done fighting the other two.

  3. Obama’s brainstorm about bombng Pakistan borders on the verge of insanity. Pakistan has nukes and it might not be the
    smartest thing to tick them off. Of course if Pakistan wanted
    to test their nukes on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border it might
    convince the Taliban to move elsewhere. I know if the Taliban
    had nukes they wouldn’t hesitate to use them…

  4. Umm…we’ve already “bombed” Pakistan. I swear the way that Obama’s suggestion gets spun gives me a headache, but this is pretty much what he said: If we have actionable intelligence on AQ within Pakistan’s borders and their government is unable or unwilling to act, we will. Bush’s already done it. People are making is sound like Obama was suggesting some sort of invasion or something, and that’s just silly and dishonest.

  5. It’s not about the bombing, it’s about the statement. P’s don’t make statements like that. We’ve hit them four times this month, President Bush isn’t saying a word about it, and no presidential candidate should be flapping their gums about it either. He was carried in all the Pakistan papers when he did, and no, it did not help the cause. Indeed there were demonstrations in the streets where they burned him in effigy with Tancredo.

  6. If you do do not subscribe to the notion of victory and defeat, perhaps you subscribe to an “armistice”. This was tried in WWl, Korea and Vietnam and it hasn’t worked except to allow
    the North Koreans to try to develop nukes while their people
    starve. Al Queda and the Taliban must be defeated or they
    will continue to spill blood all over the world. We are not the only ones fighting this war. Obama and Hillary do not have
    the guts to lead this country in this fight.

  7. Interesting point. I guess the question I have would be if the demonstrations were prompted by the statement or the spin. If it’s the statement, I’m not sure if those doing the demonstrating would be friends anyway, since the intended targets are supposedly the same ones that Musharraf pledged to go after. i.e. al Qaeda.

    I guess that I can see the point that the course of action was wise while announcing it isn’t, however.

    But… you said it yourself, the perception is that Obama (for whatever reason) is weak on this issue, and actually saying it may be the only way to convince people otherwise. Remember that he’s running for president (as opposed to actually being president). Kind of a fine line to walk.

    And I might be assuming too much here, but I doubt that you’re going to make the argument that Obama really does know what he’s doing, and that what disqualifies him to lead the charge is that he advertises it? If “bombing” Pakistan is ultimately productive, and Obama suggested it, is it unreasonable to think that he may be open to other hawkish notions that he doesn’t state? I don’t think it is.

    But, lets not kid ourselves here though because, overwhelmingly, I’d say the criticism to Obama’s comment has been over the course of action, no?


    I’ve always thought that there’s a smart way and a dumb way to address this threat. Most people forget that we’ve been dealing with it for decades, but before 9/11 it was much less in the spotlight. It was a war involving spooks and intelligence and other clandestine activities. From a certain perspective, 9/11 was simply a battle that we lost. Bush has taken it and made it bigger and more in-your-face than what was wise IMO, especially with the invasion of Iraq. The tactics certainly shouldn’t include inspiring more extremism, which is an effect that something as bold as invading a Middle Eastern country that had little to do with it would do.

    I just don’t see any reason to believe that Hillary or Obama would be unqualified or unwilling to address the threat, or that either of them would hesitate to bring the best minds to the table (so to speak). We need to get beyond these platitudes of “victory” and “surrender” and have a serious look at what course of action is responsible and effective in keeping the threat and risk to a minimum, within the paradigm that the threat will always exist in some capacity.

  8. Let me put it this way Chen, it wasn’t Mullahs who burnt Obama in effigy, it was supposedly moderate lawyers. The article that was written that let them know about the statement was written by a Pakistani in Geo’s Washington bureau, so if there’s spin, it’s Pakistani spin.

    I agree with WB, I disagree with you.

  9. Both Clinton and Obama have stated that they will pull the troops out of Iraq if elected. Neither of them have any military experience nor the fortitude to stick to the fight that is being waged. They and some members of Congress ie..Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy et al.. are using their hatred for Bush to use it as a tool to get out of the war in Iraq and pretend they are the
    heroes in this matter. They are trying to stifle the gathering of intelligence in the name of privacy and to allow the combatants at Gitmo be tried in civilian courts. You cannot turn your back on the events going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and just hope it will go away. The terrorists will recruit and train more suicide bombers and keep sending them out to cities all over the world. They must be contained in the middle east otherwise they will spread like cancer. I admit, all of us are getting tired of this war, but we’re in it, and should be in it to win, not just walk off and say we quit and think that they won’t hit us again. The idea that if Obama or Clinton get elected will make things better and pull out troops out of Iraq will only make things worse. This nation will be walking on egg shells waiting for the other shoe to drop. It’s very cute that both of them claim to support the troops while voting no to funding the fight in Iraq. What kind of signal does that send?

Comments are closed.