Detestable Congressional Democrats
Subsequent to the November elections, Democrats and their friends in the liberal media told everyone that would listen (and even those of us with ear plugs) that Democrats had a “mandate to end the war”. Everyone parroted Sen. Kerry’s “famous” line about dying for a mistake. And on and on it went.
If Congressional Democrats really believe any of that, then they truly are the most detestable people that have ever lived. After using the blood of our servicemen to get elected, so says they and the liberal media, Thursday the Congressional Democrats voted in overwhelming numbers to continue, as they previously have pounded it into us, to send American soldiers to their deaths. So much for the courage of your convictions.
For Congressional Democrats to NOW say the battle with the White House “has just begun” when it is SEVEN! months after they received their "mandate" really has to make you wonder how sincere these jokers are about ANYTHING if this is how they defend American soldiers. Two days before Memorial Day weekend, no less! DETESTABLE!
Or, regular readers of this space know the November elections were not a manifestation of “anti-war sentiment” and a “mandate to end the war”. Let’s examine what factually happened: thirty-seven (out of 47 Senate Democrats who voted) voted to fund U.S. troops in Iraq without a timeline for surrender; basically, they voted for President Bush. Eighty-six House Democrats voted for President Bush. The Uniter-in-Chief. On THE vote of his Presidency, President Bush, he of the 35% approval rating, united 37 of 47 Senate Democrats and 86 House Democrats . . . that’s an amazing demonstration of unification. The Uniter-in-Chief. Mr. Tony Snow, I hope you’re reading this.
Sen. Jim Webb, famous Presidential Insulter and elected on the “wave of anti-war sentiment (I laugh every time I type that)” voted with the President. No word if the “anti-war zealots” in Virginia are preparing to recall Sen. Webb for not getting their message. Oh, Sen. Webb, yeah, he was elected by 7,000 votes. Recall, the liberal media sensationalized the unscripted joke Sen. George Allen, Webb’s senatorial opponent, made while the liberal media gave Sen. John F. Kerry a free ride on his “unscripted” joke.
No word from the liberal extremists on how “dumb” President Bush got so many brilliant Senate and House Democrats to vote with him.
Finally, this was the letter I sent the night of the vote in the House in hopes it would appear in yesterday’s Boston Globe:
Editor,
Because I'm positive it will not be reported in the "news" story that announces President Bush's complete and total victory over the "cut, run and surrender" Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Jack Murtha (D, PA), a decorated Vietnam veteran who 9 months ago called for immediate surrender in Iraq and was the poster boy for surrender, voted for the U.S. troops in Iraq and President Bush and against a timeline for surrender. He was joined by 85 other Democrats.
Maybe now the liberal media can stop being compliant, non-inquisitive mouthpieces of the Democratic Party and try to discern exactly what the November elections were about. As I've been writing to the Boston Globe since November, they were not a referendum on the war; yesterday's vote proves me "Zacklyright". (End of letter.)
This was the only mention of Rep. Murtha in yesterday's Boston Globe:
Representative John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who voted to authorize the Iraq invasion but has since become one of his party's most vocal war opponents, challenged his fellow House members to see the deteriorating situation in Iraq and move US troops out of harm's way.
"We're trying to change direction. We're trying to win this war," shouted Murtha, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, during the floor debate. "You can't win if you don't look at it objectively." (End of Boston Globe excerpt.)
This is the letter the Boston Globe received from me yesterday:
Editor,
After your readers were informed, "Representative John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who voted to authorize the Iraq invasion but has since become one of his party's most vocal war opponents, challenged his fellow House members to see the deteriorating situation in Iraq and move US troops out of harm's way", they might benefit from knowing that Rep. Murtha voted with President Bush and for funding the U.S. troops fighting the war against terrorists in Iraq with no date for surrender (House OKs funding for Iraq; Bush predicts bloody summer, May 25, A1).
Or, why would the Boston Globe leave out such an important fact from such an important story? I think we know. (End of letter.)
Please take a moment to acknowledge what this holiday weekend represents.
Subsequent to the November elections, Democrats and their friends in the liberal media told everyone that would listen (and even those of us with ear plugs) that Democrats had a “mandate to end the war”. Everyone parroted Sen. Kerry’s “famous” line about dying for a mistake. And on and on it went.
If Congressional Democrats really believe any of that, then they truly are the most detestable people that have ever lived. After using the blood of our servicemen to get elected, so says they and the liberal media, Thursday the Congressional Democrats voted in overwhelming numbers to continue, as they previously have pounded it into us, to send American soldiers to their deaths. So much for the courage of your convictions.
For Congressional Democrats to NOW say the battle with the White House “has just begun” when it is SEVEN! months after they received their "mandate" really has to make you wonder how sincere these jokers are about ANYTHING if this is how they defend American soldiers. Two days before Memorial Day weekend, no less! DETESTABLE!
Or, regular readers of this space know the November elections were not a manifestation of “anti-war sentiment” and a “mandate to end the war”. Let’s examine what factually happened: thirty-seven (out of 47 Senate Democrats who voted) voted to fund U.S. troops in Iraq without a timeline for surrender; basically, they voted for President Bush. Eighty-six House Democrats voted for President Bush. The Uniter-in-Chief. On THE vote of his Presidency, President Bush, he of the 35% approval rating, united 37 of 47 Senate Democrats and 86 House Democrats . . . that’s an amazing demonstration of unification. The Uniter-in-Chief. Mr. Tony Snow, I hope you’re reading this.
Sen. Jim Webb, famous Presidential Insulter and elected on the “wave of anti-war sentiment (I laugh every time I type that)” voted with the President. No word if the “anti-war zealots” in Virginia are preparing to recall Sen. Webb for not getting their message. Oh, Sen. Webb, yeah, he was elected by 7,000 votes. Recall, the liberal media sensationalized the unscripted joke Sen. George Allen, Webb’s senatorial opponent, made while the liberal media gave Sen. John F. Kerry a free ride on his “unscripted” joke.
No word from the liberal extremists on how “dumb” President Bush got so many brilliant Senate and House Democrats to vote with him.
Finally, this was the letter I sent the night of the vote in the House in hopes it would appear in yesterday’s Boston Globe:
Editor,
Because I'm positive it will not be reported in the "news" story that announces President Bush's complete and total victory over the "cut, run and surrender" Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Jack Murtha (D, PA), a decorated Vietnam veteran who 9 months ago called for immediate surrender in Iraq and was the poster boy for surrender, voted for the U.S. troops in Iraq and President Bush and against a timeline for surrender. He was joined by 85 other Democrats.
Maybe now the liberal media can stop being compliant, non-inquisitive mouthpieces of the Democratic Party and try to discern exactly what the November elections were about. As I've been writing to the Boston Globe since November, they were not a referendum on the war; yesterday's vote proves me "Zacklyright". (End of letter.)
This was the only mention of Rep. Murtha in yesterday's Boston Globe:
Representative John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who voted to authorize the Iraq invasion but has since become one of his party's most vocal war opponents, challenged his fellow House members to see the deteriorating situation in Iraq and move US troops out of harm's way.
"We're trying to change direction. We're trying to win this war," shouted Murtha, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, during the floor debate. "You can't win if you don't look at it objectively." (End of Boston Globe excerpt.)
This is the letter the Boston Globe received from me yesterday:
Editor,
After your readers were informed, "Representative John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who voted to authorize the Iraq invasion but has since become one of his party's most vocal war opponents, challenged his fellow House members to see the deteriorating situation in Iraq and move US troops out of harm's way", they might benefit from knowing that Rep. Murtha voted with President Bush and for funding the U.S. troops fighting the war against terrorists in Iraq with no date for surrender (House OKs funding for Iraq; Bush predicts bloody summer, May 25, A1).
Or, why would the Boston Globe leave out such an important fact from such an important story? I think we know. (End of letter.)
Please take a moment to acknowledge what this holiday weekend represents.
posted by Zack at 12:17 PM
8 Comments:
outstanding
Folks,
Upon re-reading this post I need to retract a charge I made about Congressional Democrats - they most definitely are detestable but they are no the "most detestable people that have ever lived". I cannot even modify the decription to "the most detestable Americans to ever live" as upon reflection I can think of a few groups more detestable. I'll admit my "fervor" definitely got the better of me yesterday.
Nice to see that my work is starting to take root, and that you're at least trying to pull back the fervor and bring some "focus to your fervor."
That said, "Uniter-in-Chief"? Don't you think that's a bit much? The truth is that, as you say, I don't think the majority of Americans want Congress to hang our troops out to dry, so that when push came to shove, the mouthiest of the Dems couldn't stand up to their own rhetoric. But, to suggest that Bush somehow did something to bring them together to unite with his fellow Republicans is going too far.
I'd be interested in your response to the following question -- if you're a congressperson who thinks that the war is a mistake and we ought to do what we can to get out, how should you go about that? I, for one, think that even if you have that view, it is a mistake to either impose a timeline for withdrawal or cutoff funds altogether at this point. I believe that a President should have wide latitude in fighting a war, and disagree with the liberal loudmouths who want to strip that power. That said, where is the line for what a congressperson opposed to the war should do to influence the conduct of the war?
While I agree with your general sentiment, I find it hard to be as definite and certain in my views as you are. As someone who is reading the recent book about Nixon and Kissinger, there are some eery parallels between the talk of the time and decisions they faced in trying to pursue / bring an end to the Vietnam war -- discussions of "Vietnamization" of the war by training the SVN to defend itself, of launching an overwhelming offensive to bring the NVN to the table, etc. -- and the current talk. While obviously not a perfect analogy, it gives me pause, and I'm not certain of the best path that I think Bush ought to pursue in this case.
Conscience,
I'm not ducking your question; unlike the Democratic candidates for President, I'm bursting at the seems to answer the question. But, then again, I'm just a regular joe from Massachusetts.
I think it is telling that not one of the presidential candidates has answered the question you ask nor HAVE THEY BEEN ASKED!
Before I answer, please clarify: the war IS a mistake or the war WAS a mistake? Keep in mind that brilliant Sens. Clinton, Edwards and Kerry all voted for the war so I'm assuming the evidence for the war was compelling, as United States Senators can be assumed to be "in the know", but you nor I will EVER know for sure.
Based on what a civilian in Massachusetts has access to, I'm prepared to answer your question provided you clarify "WAS" or "IS". I have an answer for either clarification.
Conscience,
Just kept typing after the prior reply.
If you mean WAS the war a mistake, I ask you, if a known serial rapist and murder was approaching your daughter and you shot him dead and we later found out the serial rapist had been castrated and his murder weapon of choice, an 18-inch dagger, was not on the body, was shooting him a mistake? Seriously, what can possibly be gained from arguing if the war WAS a mistake? So I move on.
If you mean IS the war a mistake, I ask you, who can possibly believe that? You mean, there is a possibility that a National Intelligence Estimate suggests that if we left Iraq now that fewer Americans will be killed in the future than are being killed now? This is the only relevant question. I believe there is NO possibility that ANY intelligence will support that. In other words, if Rep. Dennis Kucinich or Sen. Russ Feingold were elected President, either's national security team would tell him he could not quit Iraq. (Funny how these two aren't fighting for the Democratic nomination, huh? Think about that, Kucinich is in 12th place out of 8 candidates and Feingold didn't enter the race.)
Humoring your question, if I were a delusional, in-denial, Congressperson that believed the war IS a mistake, because I wasn’t reading National Intelligence Estimates, I’d do everything and anything to get our troops out of Iraq. I’d submit amendment after amendment to every single bill that came up to vote but, in time, I’d alienate myself in my own Party. I’d make a spectacle of myself at the gates of the White House . . . further alienating myself within my own Party. I’d make speeches from the steps of the Capitol but eventually the press would stop attending . . . would they even show up for the first speech? Wouldn't they cover Sens. Clinton and Obama instead? I’d write fiery op-ed pieces to any major newspaper that would publish them. One would get published and the rest would die in the email in-box, no? If I were a Senator, I’d put a “hold” on ANYTHING I could that came out of the White House; my own Party would reconsider the deferrence given to Senatorial Holds. My goodness, innocent members of the U.S. Armed Forces are being slaughtered for no reason, WHAT WOULDN’T I DO? Yet, nobody in Congress is doing anything close to “what wouldn’t I do”. Isn't that telling?
I meant "is" -- want to avoid questions of whether it made sense to go to war at the time the decision was made, and focus on the issue of what to do going forward.
On that front, you say the only question is whether "a National Intelligence Estimate suggests that if we left Iraq now that fewer Americans will be killed in the future than are being killed now." I disagree with that premise. Certainly, American lives aren't the only ones relevant here. To take an extreme example, suppose we'd lose one more American life, and 1,000 innocent Iraqi lives if we continue to fight, but would lose two American lives and no innocent Iraqi lives if we pull out immediately, you can't tell me that we ought to continue to fight in order to save one American life, at the expense of 1,000 innocent Iraqi lives. I also don't think lives are (a) so easily quantifiable, and (b) are the only issue. Even if you do only look to US lives, I also don't see how you can be so certain in your view of where the math comes out. While I was for the war when we started it, doubt has started to creep in as to what the best strategy is going forward. The insurgency seems completely illogical to me, and I'm not sure how achievable our goals are. I'm not coming down on one side versus the other at this point. I agree that the positions of the Democratic candidates are despicable, particularly Hillary's, but am not certain where I think we should go from here. Unfortunately, the world is little more gray for me.
Conscience,
I cannot believe I'm writing this, but I like the "partition the country into thirds and come up with a revenue sharing plan for the oil proceeds" plan. This is championed by one of the Democratic candidates but I'm not going to share the person's name because I don't like the idea that this logical, sensible, reasonable, common-sensical, plan could be labeled "so-and-so's" plan. I'm sure this person was not the first person to think of it; I think a group of second-graders could have come up with it. I don't know the arguments against this plan but I'm sure Dr. Rice could make a compelling argument against.
I thought you and your readers might be interested in the following article which apparently is going to appear in the Times Magazine this weekend. Although from a bastion of the liberal media, it lays out a damning set of facts regarding Hillary's war voting record:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazine/03Hillary-t.html?pagewanted=print
Post a Comment
<< Home