Friday, February 16, 2007

Democrat House Rebukes Bush; Condemns America’s Grandchildren


February 16, 2007

Joined by 17 turncoat Republicans today, the United States House of Representatives, under the leadership of Democrat Speakerette, Nancy Pelosi (D. Ca.) passed their “non-binding” resolution expressing disagreement, opposition, if you will, against President Bush’s plan to reinforce our fighting troops in the War on Terror in Iraq, by a vote of 246 to 182. House Passes Resolution Opposing Bush’s Plan to Send More Troops to Iraq


Democrats, overjoyed at their ease of undermining the President and our troops in harms way, have let their pleasure in this cowardly act be known. “Today, in a loud voice, the Congress of the United States said to the president: 'We need a new direction in Iraq,'” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, (D. Md) who in December 2005 said, “I still believe that we can – and that we must – achieve success in Iraq.”

President Bush did outline a new direction in his last state of the Union Address, sending 21,500 more troops into the battle in Iraq to secure Baghdad enough to give the fledgling Iraqi government the chance to get on their feet. In spite of all previous calls for just that and approving unanimously the selection of General Petraeus to lead in Iraq, Democrats, just days later pass a “non-binding” resolution that basically blocking, or at least opposing, the efforts of General Petraeus.

Says Rep. Hoyer now, “We should begin the phased redeployment of our forces within the next six months.”

Rep. Henry Waxman, (D. Ca.) chimes in with, “What we now have in Iraq is a defeat of the illusions of the Bush Administration that we will be able to create a stable, unified, liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American." Does Rep. Waxman prefer a Taliban style insurgency backed by the radical Islamist regime of Iran that hates America and Western Culture? He continues, “Instead we have sectarian fighting, death squads, and a destabilized Middle East that threatens to be engulfed by the nightmare we have unleashed." If Waxman feels that “we unleashed a nightmare” there, does it please him to just abandon it to the radical terrorists again? Was he unable to see the nightmares perpetrated upon innocent people when the Taliban and Baathists ruled in Afghanistan and Iraq before?

In October 2002, Waxman voted for resolution H.J.Res. 114 which authorized the use of military force to ensure Iraq disarmed. He now claims he did so with the expectation that “a strong bipartisan stand in Congress would pressure the United Nations to carry out its responsibilities to enforce its own resolutions.” As we all know, as usual, the UN sat by and complained. So, in typical Democrat fashion, Bush was blamed.

Yet, just last month on January 31, Waxman, in a speech delivered before a Palisades Democratic Club audience, after the usual tirade of Bush bashing and opposition to everything from Iraq to cigarettes, said in regards to Darfur, “[He] advocates 'going in there [with military assistance]'not to occupy or kill people, but to save lives. We showed leadership by going into Bosnia and we've got to show leadership again.“ He told the students, “Keep writing letters and getting those petitions to President Bush, [urging him] not just to 'talk a good talk,' but to actually get us to take action. Congress is ready to do whatever he needs. The president has the power to act and I want him to act now.”

What power would the President have with Democrats opposing every little thing he does, Representative Waxman? What power does he have with the newly elected Democrat party majority ripping the rug out from under, not only the President, but our troops as well, Representative Waxman? Darfur is a result of our previous cowardly withdrawal from Somalia, Mr. Waxman, is your call for action there a call for a repeat? Why is it Darfur merits Military action, but Iraq doesn’t?

We also have Representative Jack Murtha (D. Pa.), self appointed Congressional General, I guess, who is slyly attempting a back-door Slow-Bleed Strategy which is nothing more than setting up Congress as micromanagers of the War effort, against what is written in our Constitution. It is also the first step in cutting off funding of our Troops. Said Murtha, “That stops the surge[reinforcement] (in troops) for all intents and purposes, because ... they cannot sustain the deployment."

Most Republicans seeing the dangerous days ahead should we fail in this War stood firm, other than the 17 turncoats who should be turned out next election. Only 2 Democrats are able to see through the heavy partisanship grasping our country at this time and voted against their party, also seeing this War needs to be finished in a Victory! Only Two!!!

Sam Johnson (R. TX.) and former Viet Nam POW said, “Now it's time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already, we must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them," adding a snappy salute that earned him an ovation.

John Boehner (R. Oh.) and Republican leader said, “This is all part of their plan to eliminate funding for our troops that are in harm's way. And we stand here as Republicans...committed to making sure our troops in harm's way have all the funds and equipment they need to win this war in Iraq.”

Barbara Cubin (R. Wy) said, “This resolution sends a dangerous message to the terrorists in Iraq, They have succeeded in dividing us.”

No, Ms. Cubin, it is the Democrat party that decided long ago to demonize the right and divide the country so they could conquer it and impose their Socialist agenda, even if they destroy the country in the process.

Vito Fossella (R. NY) said it well when he stated, “You cannot surrender the battlefield and win the war!”

Peter King (R. NY), in reply to Speaker Pelosi’s claims of, “… the war in Iraq is not part of the battle against terrorism, but rather a distraction from it,” said, “This war in Iraq cannot be looked at in a vacuum, [it] is indeed a theater in the war on terror.”

Unfortunately, the Democrat Party has succeeded in convincing too many Americans that the fighting of terrorists in Iraq is not part of the War on Terror.

Most disappointing of Republicans was turncoat and future failed Presidential candidate, Ron Paul (RINO TX) who ended his speech with, “We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now?”

In the 2006 campaign, Nancy Pelosi campaigned on the theme and released the booklet A New Direction For America. On page 10 of that booklet, she promises Democrats will, “Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.” And, "Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.” Also, “Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.”

How does she propose “DOUBLING THE SIZE OF OUR SPECIAL FORCES” after ripping the rug out from underneath those very troops as they are engaged in fighting terrorists now?

With Al Qaeda’s call to "destroy the American empire," and the Democrat party’s glee of passage of this “non-binding” resolution undermining the President and our Troops today, visions of Speaker Pelosi’s ‘ordination’ as Speaker of the House, surrounded by her grandchildren, came to mind.

Terrorists declared war on us long ago as well as all of Western Culture. They have vowed to destroy us. They have been growing stronger ever since they started this latest campaign against the West, until finally, a President with the courage to fight took the fight back to them. All Pelosi, Murtha and the rest of the Democrats, with the help of turncoat Republicans, have done is to condemn our grandchildren to fighting these terrorists, most likely within our own streets, years from now when the terrorists will be much stronger, even better organized and the cost in blood will be even greater.

You can rest assured, Pelosi and Murtha’s grandchildren won’t be fighting, they enjoy privilege. The fighting and dying will be by yours and my grandchildren!

Lew

UPDATE: MSNBC has posted an article, Baghdad violence drops, officials say where claims are made back and forth about early successes of the troop reinforcement. Most telling to me, is the "in other developements" at the end of the article, "Iraq’s Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, told the Arabic language daily Al-Hayat that Sunni insurgents who are “honorable and genuine” must be given the chance to join the political process now that the United States is eager to pull its troops from Iraq. He said U.S. and Iraqi representatives must negotiate “with the participation of the resistance” after “America has failed to run the country.”"

4 comments:

JohnnyBeGood said...

Hey blogger, I don't have all week to read this thing, how abour 100 words or less?

JohnnyBeGood said...

No mature person with a life of their own to lead would be the slightest bit interested in reading a blog as long and as mediocre as this one.

Lew Waters said...

Well, Johnny, apparently you fall somewhere, because you stopped in and read it. So, does that make you 'immature,' or 'no life?'

Thanks for stopping by.

Canuckguy said...

Ah ha!!. Another ADD victim, that Johnny. Nice that I am not alone.