April 26, 2007

House Disregards Petraeus, Votes For Withdrawal

The House rejected the message from General David Petraeus, the man the Senate sent just three months ago to command the American forces in Iraq, and voted for a supplemental spending bill that will require the start of an American withdrawal by October 1. It passed on the barest of majorities and has no hope of surviving a veto, but the Democrats insist that they will play this game of chicken all the way to its conclusion:

The House on Wednesday narrowly approved a $124 billion war spending bill that would require American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq by Oct. 1, setting the stage for the first veto fight between President Bush and majority Democrats.

Only hours after Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, told lawmakers that he needed more time to gauge the effectiveness of a troop buildup there, the House voted 218 to 208 pass a measure that sought the removal of most combat forces by next spring. Mr. Bush has said unequivocally and repeatedly that he will veto it.

“This bill is a statement that Congress will no longer fund the war as it exists today,” said Representative Louise Slaughter, the New York Democrat who is chairwoman of the Rules Committee, as she opened the debate. Republicans accused Democrats of establishing a “date certain” for America’s defeat in Iraq.

“There will be no greater event to empower radical Islam than our retreat and defeat from Iraq,” said Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, leader of a conservative wing of House Republicans.

The Democrats want to send the bill to the White House on Monday, April 30th, one day before the fourth anniversary of his appearance on an aircraft carrier flying a banner that read, "Mission Accomplished". Never mind that the banner referred to the carrier group's mission; the Democrats want to use the bill to score a few more political points, on top of declaring defeat and funding some of their pet pork projects. They have even coordinated with outside groups to use the anniversary for television advertisements.

All that's missing is the ringmaster.

The President will likely oblige them by publicly vetoing the bill. The White House has already called on the Senate to rush the bill onto his desk for the purpose of casting the second deep-six of his presidency. Dana Perino, the president's acting press secretary, said that the nation needs to see how President Bush deals with this legislation, and they likely will get a chance to do that before the Democrats' political-action groups get much airplay from the commercials they have already made.

And so we get to see the two elective branches play a game of chicken while American troops fight the enemy. Both branches have some responsibility for this sorry outcome; the White House certainly hasn't been impressive in its communications for much of the war, and proved slow to respond when problems arose in Iraq at the beginning of last year. Congress has acted like petulant children in the last week, refusing to attend briefings and claiming that the commander that they sent to Iraq less than three months ago doesn't know what he's talking about.

The difference is that the Bush administration understands the catastrophe in store for the region if the US yanks the troops from Iraq, while the Democrats have played this new strategy strictly for political gain. The same party leaders that scolded Bush during the election last year for listening to Donald Rumsfeld rather than his field commanders now won't even bother to attend a briefing with Petraeus before setting out on this course. They set the vote up in order to coordinate campaign commercials while declaring defeat from Capitol Hill. They have made themselves into a disgrace in less than four months in power, reminding the nation why they locked them out of power for the previous six years.

Congress has become the Cirque du Capitulé, and the point is that there is no ringmaster worthy of the name.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference House Disregards Petraeus, Votes For Withdrawal:

» Trackback Thursday Featuring The Surrender Monkey: Pull Out, Baby! from Pirate's Cove
Yes, it's Thursday, but Surrendie just could not wait for his normal day. He was so excited about the latest House attempt to force cut and run that he was virtually unable to fling poo! How'd it go? (Washington Times)The Democrat-led House la... [Read More]

» First Cup 04.26.07 from bRight & Early
... [Read More]

Comments (31)

Posted by Steve J. [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 1:16 AM

The difference is that the Bush administration understands the catastrophe in store for the region

Apparently, there isn't much chance of a catastrophe.


One senior administration official with extensive knowledge of the region, who didn’t want to be identified discussing sensitive policy matters, tells NEWSWEEK that the chances of a regional war in Iraq are low in the event of a U.S. withdrawal. When asked if a regional war would break out, the official said: “Possibly, not probably. It’s more likely that other powers would support their favorite militias, as they’re doing already.”

The senior official said the genocidal bloodbath that Sen. John McCain outlined recently was also unlikely, pointing to the militias’ ability to secure their own neighborhoods after the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra in early 2006.

Posted by Adjoran [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 1:31 AM

This action is encouraging our enemies and damaging the morale of our troops in harm's way, putting them at greater risk. It is a shameful perfidy, one which will leave a stain on the Democratic Party no amount of time can erase.

Steve J. ~ Newsweak? Sorry, pal, their anonymous sources aren't worth a sheet of Sheryl Crow's used toilet paper. I'd agree that an IMMEDIATE full-scale meltdown isn't likely, but violence and civil unrest will increase dramatically, the stability of the society will be destroyed, and the economy will be devastated - increasing the market price of oil along the way.

If it takes a year or more for a full-scale conflagration to break out, is that supposed to make running away like frightened children okay?

Posted by Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 2:06 AM

But isn't this what Democrats DO?

I mean if they had had their way
Lincoln would have been driven out of office
there would have been no Emancipation Proclomation and the Troops would have been brought home and the Civil War declared Lost.

Why be surprised that the are exhibiting the same venality now?

Posted by Anondson [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 3:27 AM

Nice how Steve J. twists a "possibly, not probably" into "unlikely". Makes it sound like it will actually get better for iraqis if we leave.

If it is a civil war in Iraq now, what will it be called when we leave and the militia violence worsens. You seriously cannot think it won't worsen. Man, who knew it would the "internationalist" Democrats who would be closest to instituting Fortress America-like policies.

Posted by Trinity [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 3:48 AM

The President will likely oblige them by publicly vetoing the bill...

And he should..but he should do so with a hell raising rant. I crave a leader. I need a Churchillian..rise to arms. Call the American people to rise up and demand that Congress stop playing politics with our men and women in the military. We are at war. We are in a struggle for our very democracy, our way of life. Why is it so simple to me, yet seems so complex to President Bush.
Of course Reid, Pelosi and the white flag crowd are taking full advantage of this situation; they nothing stopping them..I support the President in his fight. I support the war in Iraq. I will send my own money for the troops if I have to; but someone, somewhere wake up my President. Give him the bullhorn back..This is no longer a game of politics..this is war. Sorry for the long post, I am a newbie here on CQ; however this is actually keeping me up tonight. I am that worried about the direction in which my country is going..Stop, now.

Posted by Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 3:57 AM

The Reid/Pelosi/Murtha Iraq plan in simplified form:

  1. Predict failure
  2. Do whatever it takes to make the prediction come true
  3. Blame it on George Bush

What we are watching, people, is absolute moral bankruptcy in action. Reid and Pelosi are contributing to American deaths in Iraq just as surely as Kerry and Fonda did in Viet Nam, and they've all earned the same eternal fate.

I excerpted and linked at 2007.04.26 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 5:05 AM

Not only will there be more violence if we leave, AlQaida will be firmly entrenched and the region will be more volatile than it is now.

And Steve J. knows that. The truth is the Democrats know that too, they are just thinking that they can retroactively blame the genocide on the Bush administration. Therefore mayhem and chaos are good things not bad things. That is how they look at it.

I remember Bill Clinton on TV back in 1998 telling us how important it was that Saddam be removed from power. Telling us about Saddam's weapons and his penchant for murder and tyranny. mark my words he said Saddam will use those weapons. He said that th Iraqi people deserved to have a real government elected by the people etc.

Now a few years later his party acts as if none of that happened. They have rewritten history and their part in it in the hopes that they can gain a political advantage in the short term.


Posted by quickjustice [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 5:06 AM

Mark Twain: "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."

Mark Twain again: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

And Mark Twain's final word: "Fleas can be taught nearly anything that a Congressman can."

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 5:50 AM

Only hours after Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, told lawmakers that he needed more time to gauge the effectiveness of a troop buildup there, the House voted 218 to 208 pass a measure that sought the removal of most combat forces by next spring.

Again, I note that the dems have ranted for years that Bush "didn't listen to his generals". Now the shoe is blatantly on the other foot. The dems' excuse for knifing Petraeus in the back?

"Well, he'd just lie to us, anyway."

I also note that the dems have howled about Bush's lack of combat experience. "How DARE he make military decisions???" Yet, the dems, lead by Grand Admiral Reid and Commissar Pelosi (whose sole military experience doubtless consists of throwing dogs*** on GI's returning from Vietnam), are effectively telling our commanding general in Iraq that they know more than he does. When they aren't accusing him of lying, that is.

Rush often asks the question, "If the democrats were paid agents of al-Qaeda, what would they do differently?" The answer is obvious: absolutely nothing. Short of organizing suicide bombers here in America (no shortage of volunteers at Kos and DU, I'd guess), the dems in Congress are doing everything just right to help al-Qaeda and the other terrorists. The fact that the quislings who vote for them don't see a problem with this speaks volumes about what kind of seditious trash comprises the rank and file of the modern democrat party. Here's an example of the kind of scum that I'm talking about, from the NYT's article:

As they walked into the House briefing, the officials [Petraeus, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte and Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] were greeted by about a dozen war protesters, some of whom shouted: “War criminal! War criminal!”

We've got two last, faint hopes:

1. Bush actually rises from lethargy to address the nation about this sorry situation and manages to rally, no matter how briefly, national will to win in Iraq;

2. Joe Lieberman will finally have enough of watching his party sell out the United States and will switch.

I wouldn't bet on either outcome.

So, our troops will be putting on their gear, loading their weapons, and getting into their vehicles to go out on patrol, wondering which of them will be the last to die in yet another war the democrats lost. In other barracks, Iraqi police and soldiers will do the same, wondering how long they'll last once we're gone... and whether or not they might want to think about leaving the country or outright switching sides while they've got the chance.

Anybody remember how long South Vietnam lasted after the dems stuck the knife in their back in '73? Was it two whole years?

Posted by tommy1nut [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 6:14 AM

Oh I don't know if the Captain comprends what is going on in the sandbox. First off when my shipmates kick ass back in 91 we had a much larger military presecence then what we have now. So I am assuming that since 43 and his neo-cronies have made a bad pretty big mistake in their conduct and are going to have to deal with the ramifactions of their actions they're wrapping themselves up in the flag in a pathetic attempt to shift the blame to us Donks. Nice. Real Nice. So you know if youse Rovian cheerleaders spent half as much effort into actually shoring up our military as youse do trashing us on the left we might actually be making progress over in the sandbox. So 43 BETTER NOT veto the bill our elected reps are sending him. Unless of course this dude enjoys watching his ass publicly ridilcued for the next 21 months. The choice is his and I hope he makes the right decision for once.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 6:26 AM

RE: Steve J. (April 26, 2007 01:16 AM)

In Richard Wolffe's and Holly Bailey's Newsweek entry, here's the the fuller context of your reference:

But in private, some of Bush’s most senior aides dispute that scenario. One senior administration official with extensive knowledge of the region, who didn’t want to be identified discussing sensitive policy matters, tells NEWSWEEK that the chances of a regional war in Iraq are low in the event of a U.S. withdrawal. When asked if a regional war would break out, the official said: “Possibly, not probably. It’s more likely that other powers would support their favorite militias, as they’re doing already.”

That excluded first sentence of context is important. Note the use of the word "some" and then the immediate qualifier "one" singular, anonymous source. They did not amplify any other comment from the "several" senior aides at any point in their article regarding this issue. No names, no titles, no quotes, nothing - only the assertion that one anonymous source disagreed with the President (which is OK from an adviser/aide tasked with providing guidance) but alluding that it was the position of several. Like Adjoran, I'm not buying a single, anonymous source comment from Newsweek. I'm especially not buying it when they play word games to suggest an internal cabal contradicting the official administration position without providing any tangible evidence whatsoever other than their word (really, their word game). I might as well channel Mary Mapes on her sentiments on the matter.

Actually, the most revealing quote was the last paragraph:

Bush used to say that he didn’t want to kick problems down the road. Now it’s clear that he wants to leave the biggest challenge of his presidency—how and when to withdraw troops from Iraq—to the 44th president.

This provides an insight to the Democratic strategy as they politicize policy in Iraq and the war on terror. It is clear that the Democrats are desperately trying to end the conflict prior to the '08 elections no matter what the facts on the ground in Iraq reveal. By end the conflict, I mean remove the troops and act like the war is over whether lost or won or whether Iraq and the greater region is stabilized or not. Democrats are truly unconcerned because they know they own defeat and they are trying to disown it.

So, how are they proceeding to do this? Much of the Democrat caucus is tied to the war because they voted for it. Repeatedly. Financing of their support for the war had to continue to "support the troops" hence the multiple pro-war voting. Many didn't want to but political calculations obligated them to commit to the war when it was popular and Saddam was a known evil. The Kerryesque "I was for the war before I was against it" and the paraphrased Clintonian "I didn't understand the authorization of force in Iraq (AUMF) because I am either lying or incompetent" really damage a candidate and are patently indefensible positions. The public knows it. The candidates know it. Would-be candidates know it. Democrats are desperate to be the anti-Bush on just about everything and they are being punishingly abused by the radical Left for accepting Bush policy in Iraq. The solution? Distance from Bush ASAP so that they appear not to have been associated with war and accelerate the withdrawal of all forces such that there is no perceived war.

With no more war it is no longer the difficult and divisive hot potato for '08 Democrats since the war will have "concluded" on Bush's watch. Yes, it's an ostrich-head-in-the-sand approach, but one preferable to managing a difficult Middle East situation. National security remains one of, if not the weakest, issues of the Democrat party, so it's imperative for its '08 political calculus to remove the Iraq conflict from their candidates' campaign platforms. A return to promoting nanny-stateism is much more up their alley.

It seems to me that the Democrat machine thinks it has a good chance at winning the Presidency and, if it does, would rather not have to take any responsibility for Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else where America has had to carry a big stick. The passive/parchment peace gene is coming to fore.

That last paragraph (from the Newsweek reference) serves as suggestive evidence that the Democrats (aka MSM) fear the responsibility of the Iraq conflict and do not have a plan short of retreat and apologize. Bush is taking a long view of the ME theater and how to handle Islamic Fundamentalism with developing risks of WMD, but the Democrats don't want to be involved. They surely don't want to have to debate the policy of it during election season except to say "Bush is bad."

I appreciate the link for that last paragraph alone. It said so much even though it said so little.

Posted by Lightwave [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 6:42 AM

The Dems realize that their call for surrender is unrealistic. This entire act is, as Ed pointed out, the worst kid of political theater. They do not want to take the blame for the deaths of millions and millions of Iraqis or a regional ethnic war that would have a 100% of developing if we withdrew.

The call for withdrawal was never serious. It was always a means to an end, that end being winning in '08. At this point the GOP needs to shift gears and say "The Democrats know after this vote that the Petreus plan must work, because if violence and casualties increase, they know their support of the terrorists is the root cause of it."

What we need to be pointing out is the fact that the Democrats have the same indifference to the lives of our troops and the Iraqi people as the terrorists do. Like AQ in Iraq, these deaths are merely statistics designed to sway the American voter that there is no hope of victory, when the fact of the matter is the only way we lose in Iraq is if we surrender.

When one political party and the enemies of America same the exact goals, the deaths of American troops and Iraqi civilians in order to increase their political power, it is time for the people to rise up and assure this party will never see political power again.

Posted by TheRealSwede [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 7:11 AM


"...Unless of course this dude enjoys watching his ass publicly ridilcued for the next 21 months."

And how exactly would this be any different from the previous 75 months? I think President Bush will risk the ridicule from you and your ilk. Personally, I would consider it a badge of honor to have earned your contempt.

Posted by Angry Dumbo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 7:36 AM

The Democrat party of 2007 does not walk the talk, these are not liberals but "Neo-liberals."

Principled liberals would have voted to cut funds for a war that is in their words illegal, immoral and unwinnable.

Joe Lieberman is the only man of principle in the Democrat party and he had to run for re-election as an independent .

When you dance with the devil Soros and the Red Queen's puppet masters the price is your soul.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 7:40 AM

U.S. Congressman Mike Pence issued the following statement today opposing the Democrat Iraq War Supplemental Spending Bill:

"The Democrat emergency supplemental appropriations bill is fiscally irresponsible and constitutionally flawed and I cannot support it.

"What the Democrat Congress has produced is a bill that violates the budget resolution that passed the House and puts forth a prescription for retreat and defeat in Iraq by tying war spending to congressionally mandated benchmarks and deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq.

"While I am opposed to this bill based on its fiscal irresponsibility, the real problem with this bill is that it contains the Democrats' blatantly unconstitutional attempt to manage-and lose-the Iraq War.

"Common sense and the Constitution teach us that Congress can declare war; Congress can fund or choose not to fund war, but Congress must never attempt to conduct war.

"And despite what my friends on the other side of the aisle say, this war is not lost.

"In fact, because of the President's surge, despite the recent wave of insurgent bombings, US and Iraqi forces are making modest progress in Iraq. Now is not the time to abandon the cause of freedom in Iraq. Now is the time to give our soldiers the time, resources and freedom to succeed.”

It's blatantly obvious; Democrats are 100% invested in an American defeat in this war. Democrats are Defeatists. Democrats, the party of Defeatism; "join with us fellow Americans, as we destroy the great Satan called America." "Join with us fellow Americans, as we kiss the feet of George Soros; he is our true leader, he is the true messenger. Join with us fellow Americans, & we show you why these Muslims hate us so badly. Yes fellow Americans; it has nothing to do with our culture, our sexual freedoms, our religious freedoms, our speech freedoms; this hatred comes from our power, the size of our military, the fact that we bully the rest of the world, the fact that we have Republicans and Jews living amongst us.

How any American can root for "make demands for" an American defeat, is beyond me.


That statement you made above has got to be the "dumbest" comment you have made here to this date; and that is saying a lot.

Posted by hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 7:49 AM

posing to be a veteran and then pretending that you side ahs not slandered, defamed, lied about and wrecked everything possible in this President for the last 6 years are both laughable.
By the way, a majority of your side voted agains the 1991 war, and I bet you were personally opposed as well.
Thanks for the humorous interlude.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 7:55 AM

"First off when my shipmates kick ass back in 91 we had a much larger military presecence then what we have now."

I was in the sand for seven months during Desert Storm, but we didn't have to deal with the absolute no-loads the President is saddled with, in the form of this Congress and its traitorous leadership.

And no tommynut, you weren't my shipmate, then or now. Haven't seen the likes of you in my 18 years in the canoe club and hope I never do.

"So 43 BETTER NOT veto the bill our elected reps are sending him."

What are your precious little juvenile delinquent Democrats going to do, when this legislation goes into the bilge, where it belongs? That's right, they're going to go to work to put together a clean bill for the President to sign, now that their little political theater is over.

For how they've undermined the US military and the Commander in Chief during a time of war, each and every Congressional Democrat should be dragged out of the Capitol Building with their heads bouncing down the steps, before being mercilessly horsewhipped on the Capitol lawn.

Once that's complete, hurl the screaming Democcrats into the middle of the Potomac,. so their lifeless bodies can drift slowly out to sea.

That would be justice.

Posted by Fight4TheRight [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 8:00 AM

tommy1nut stated: " So you know if youse Rovian cheerleaders spent half as much effort ..."

STILL smarting over that Kerry loss, huh tommy? : )

And I'd also like to address Trinity's comments, once portion saying, " We are at war. We are in a struggle for our very democracy, our way of life. Why is it so simple to me, yet seems so complex to President Bush. "

First off, Trinity, welcome to Cap'n Ed's place - it's a great place to be. Welcome.

Secondly, it's my view that Pres. Bush and his advisors started putting too much stock in polls many moons ago regarding Iraq and they've also been sucked in by the MainStenchMedia. I see poll after poll with supposedly high numbers/percentages of Americans "against" the War in Iraq. But read the wordings of thos polls!

It's my feeling that if it came down to the nitty gritty - if it came to that final day of saying "Let's stand and fight the terrorists here in Iraq" or "Let's pack it up and go home" - a majority of Americans (albeit a smaller majority) will say "Stand and Fight."

The polls reflect the American people's horror at this warfare of "IEDs" and "car bombs" - I don't feel the polls reflect a sincere desire to surrender.

Two things I use to substantiate this: 1) If you want to look at polls...then look at a poll for Presidential candidates that includes both Dem and Repub and look at how high Guiliani scores...why? Because he is viewed as a leader and he is seen as a beacon against terrorists. 2) Look at the vote on the Supplemental Bill in the House - 218 - 208! If you say that the votes in the House reflect the desires of the American people, then a whopping 50.2% of the American people want to "surrender" - with a support % of 49.8, Pres. Bush should fly to Fort Bragg on Monday, sit down in the mess hall with the troops and wipe his mouth with this "Bill."

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 8:02 AM

The Wall Street Journal, lead editorial: "Harry's War: Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq." Democrats own defeat. There's no question about it. This is about Dingy Harry. You know, I have to share with you something here from Rich Galen, who has this blog that's called Mullings, and he's really right on the money about this. "If the Republican apparatus were up and running with any kind of efficiency, the RNC would be demanding of every Democrat in the nation running for (or serving in) any elected office to declare whether or not they agree with Harry Reid" that the war is lost, and there would be a number of Republicans demanding his resignation as we have done on this program. But the Republican apparatus is not up and running. About the only Republican apparatchik that is out there is Cheney! Vice President Cheney has taken all the arrows (that's what happens to pioneers) and he's the only one throwing any spears out there and firing back at these people. It is breathtaking to watch this. Harry Reid and the Democrats -- by the way, THE Democrats ARE circling the wagons around Dingy Harry.

"Oh, no, no! He doesn't mean that. He's just saying we have no way to win a civil war, and that's what this is, and we don't have any business in it. The Democrats want victory!"

The Democrats do not want victory. They know that Dingy Harry has stepped in it, and he's not backing off on this at all. He can't afford to. But I tell you, the Democrats are doing long-term damage to themselves. They don't know it. I don't know when it's going to manifest itself in terms of electoral results. It could be '08. There's something very interesting about this. You know, Obama is out there pretty much taking the same line. Mrs. Clinton is going to have to make a calculation. Obama is catching up, and as Galen points out, it's not Mrs. Clinton that's going to have to make a calculation, it's Bill. It's Bill Clinton that's the brains of this pair. It's Bill Clinton that devises the strategy, and they're going to have to figure out at what point do they start moving left to head off Obama at the pass. You know, Dingy Harry and Pelosi, these two are becoming the spokespeople for the Democrat Party -- which cannot please Clinton, Inc., and it's all about this situation with the war in Iraq and the war on terror. It will be interesting to watch how this all plays out, because they are doing incredible damage.

They own defeat. They are seeking it. They're excited about it!

They can't wait to send this bill up to the president that will no doubt be vetoed, and one of the things Pelosi and Reid are saying is, "Well, we're happy to send this bill up there because this will finally give the president total accountability on the war." Finally give the president total accountability on the war? I read that, and I said, "What the hell does this mean?" and I figured it out. There's a bunch of Democrats that are nervous about the fact that they voted for it back in 2002, 2003. In fact, you can go back to October of 2002 they demanded -- in the Senate, the Democrats demanded -- a new debate and a new resolution that they could sign, because they could read the tea leaves back then. The polling data and the American people were clearly all for this. Now they want to wash that away, and so they think they can send this bill up there, the president will veto it, and the bill basically gets us out of Iraq by next April, and when he vetoes it, then they're going to run around and say, "It is his war! It is officially now Bush's war. We have nothing to do with it! He is totally and singularly accountable for this failure and for this defeat," and they're going to start tagging him with it. That's the game plan here -- and Cheney is not backing off. This was late yesterday at a press conference on Capitol Hill. The vice president met with Republicans. He said this.

CHENEY: The timetable legislation that he is now pursuing, would guarantee defeat. Senator Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq would bring his party more seats in the next election. It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage. (RL)

It's no wonder why Liberals hate Limbaugh with such a passion; Limbaugh shouts the truth about these people, and millions listen...

Posted by smagar [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 8:05 AM

Two observations:

1) I don't see Carol Herman's stream of consciousness opinion on this topic yet. I hope she's not under the weather.

2) Now is a good time to highlight how the Dems have twisted the "Mission Accomplished" carrier banner story. If they want to bring it up---fine! Let's oblige!

Posted by Mr Lynn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 8:19 AM

I think many of us share Trinity's frustration:

"I crave a leader. I need a Churchillian. . .rise to arms. Call the American people to rise up and demand that Congress stop playing politics with our men and women in the military. We are at war. We are in a struggle for our very democracy, our way of life. Why is it so simple to me, yet seems so complex to President Bush."

On September 12, 2001, President Bush should have called for a Declaration of War against the Islamic terrorists and any nation-states that support them, and then mobilized the nation.

He didn't, and today we're paying the price as the feckless Democrats undermine the effort in Iraq and work to ensure the collapse of the Global War on Islamic Terror.

It's awfully late in the day, but I echo Trinity's call for the President to stand up before the American people and call for renewed determination and, yes, sacrifice, in the GWOIT. He should say:

1. We cannot leave Iraq until it is secure and able to put down Al Qaeda and prevent Iranian incursion. That may be a decade or more. (Remember, Saddam fought an 8-year war against Iran, to no conclusion; Iraq by itself could not stand against Iran, and the Shi'ites might not even want to.)

2. We can no longer tolerate Iranian and Syrian interference with our aims in Iraq, and will take all necessary steps to stop it, including crossing their borders with Iraq.

3. We will not permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and if necessary will use force to stop them from doing so.

4. We will not permit Israel to be destroyed by Iran or any combination of terrorist states and organizations.

4. The Iraq campaign has suffered from insufficient resources. The armed forces are too small to cope with the increased responsibilities of the Global War on Islamic Terror, and so we must quadruple their size and begin a program of Universal Military Service (with non-military service options for objectors). The very survival of the United States and the free world is at stake.

5. The liberals want us to go into Darfur. The Islamists are working to cause chaos in North Africa, Europe, Central Asia, South and Southeast Asia, and the Philipines. The UN is powerless to stop them; it's up to the United States.

6. The Democrats must put aside their petty ambitions and work with us and the American people to ensure that we have the means to fulfill our duty and destiny in the 21st century.

Since the victory of American forces in seizing Iraq and deposing Saddam, President Bush has hunkered down in the White House, apparently fearful of how the people would react to a new call to arms. It is time to stand up and make that call. Then let the Democrats show themselves for the Isolationists that they have become.

/Mr Lynn

Posted by Fight4TheRight [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 8:36 AM

Mr. Lynn, I could not agree with you MORE! thank you.

And to just pick up on one of your points: "1. We cannot leave Iraq until it is secure and able to put down Al Qaeda ...."

A number of weeks ago on one of the Sunday MSM News/DemCoddlingFests, I believe it was Dick Durbin had mentioned Bush's failure - that of taking his eye off of al Queda in Afghanistan and going into Iraq. He wanted to come across as a "true opponent of al Queda" with a better strategy. Well, al Queda is 30 bloody yards away zipping rounds over the heads of our boys in Iraq!!!! What does Durbin and his clan of collapse propose? We withdraw from Iraq, leave 5500 active al Queda to decimate thousands of Iraqi civilians while our troops go to where? To Afghanistan? where the Afghans and NATO are doing a good job?

You know, I can allow someone being a pacifist and wanting the U.S. out of Iraq and every other conflict but I have NO patience for these Dem hypocrites that claim to be "fighting terror" and vote to turn and run when the terrorists are eye ball to eye ball with us at this very moment.

Posted by tommy1nut [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 9:07 AM

Hunter I find it amusing that you called me a "poser" Because a copy of my DD-214 is only an arm's distance away at my personal self at my desk at work at this moment. No Donkey ain't much better either. Cats gotta understand that the conflict in Iraq has been and always will be mishandled as long as a member of G.O.P. is calling the the shots in the Oval Office. Off-Topic True story First time I ever voted for president of the U.S.A. was in 1992 and I had to fill out an absentee ballot . Two of my fellow hole snipes asked me who I was voting for and I told them the truth I told them I was voting for Perot and I also tols them why which was basically simple I said anybody who made a billion dollars and the commen sense to hire a guy like ADM. Jim Stockdale as a runninmg mate is a sign of good judgement. These 2 fellow veterans responded by calling me a "n-word lover" because if I didn't vote for 41 then Clinton might get the job. And while our 42nd president made a lot of mistakes he did a much better job then 41's chickenshit kid.Soooooooooooo............................ When I see Barbra and Jenna in uniform maybe I might possibly gain some respect for the guy but until that day.......................................(Flipping youse guys the middle finger)

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 9:13 AM


I want to pick up on a thought I half finished in the one of yesterday’s threads. This entire notion of “fighting the real war against Al Qaida” in Afghanistan is nothing more then a cheap rhetorical device traditionally used by the Democrats to cover up for their weakness on defense or outright sympathy for our enemies.

During the Cold War the Democrats used to engage in what became known at the Pentagon as the “technological filibuster.” The Democrats would oppose a weapons system nearing procurement with the “the next big thing.” Carter cancelled the B-1A because we had something better under development, in this case the B-2. Carter and the Democratic Congress had no real intention of going beyond R&D on the bomber but cancellation was in the distant future. Sure enough when the knowledge of the B-2 program became public the usual suspects started talking about the next big thing, the 747 cruise missile carrier that was much cheaper and effective.

Today’s equivalent of the filibuster is to play the Afghanistan card. The Democrats argue that the war in Iraq is lost and all we are doing is creating more Jihadis. It is a mere distraction to the real war against Al Qaida. So let’s cut and run from Iraq and redeploy the forces against the real enemy. But I assure you that if we followed the first part of the strategy, i.e., abandon Iraq then the Democrats would suddenly realize that you can’t defeat Al Qaida or Taliban in Afghanistan because you would have to invade the ungoverned border region of Pakistan to be successful. Then they would begin to argue “we can’t invade another nation and Pakistan won’t/can’t defeat the Jihadis in their own country so the war Afghanistan is unwinable and besides all we would be doing is creating more Jihadis anyway. They would then cut and run from Afghanistan which is their real objective anyway.

Whenever these people purpose an alternative strategy they always choose one that on second thought is unworkable. Kind of like Lexhamfox’s purposed “submarine blockade” against Kharq Island which would require us to sink third party shipping to be effective. They always discover these flaws only after they have successful killed the real option. Their objective is always surrender and accommodation.

Posted by Muse Unamused [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 9:22 AM

Our survival, that of FREEDOM, requires offensive defense vs. terrorism. Islamofascists, the radicals lured by doctrinal supremacy to require the blood of "others", must be stopped. THEY repeatedly invade the USA. While it is the responsibility of their "moderate" Islamic populace in the Western world to stop their radical Islamic elements, obviously we must protect ourselves in the mean time; that may be forever. We must be able to defend our nation from threatening elements located anywhere on the globe. If that requires our military facilities and presence in other countries, so be it. It may not be our choice, but we may have no other choice. Wherever our military personnel are, we must support them in order for them to support us.

This Pelosi/Reid outragous cancer is self destructive to the well being of FREEDOM that DOES REQUIRE DEFENSE. Beyond Constitutional heresy, Pelosi/Reid fail their lawful DOMESTIC duties of our government's Legislative Branch. Theirs is a lousy ruse that threatens our survival now in this momentous time.

War is never desired. War is never easy. War is never lost until it is so declared officially. To demoralize our military is to demoralize our nation. Our military literally die for us. How dare any American prompt thoughts of loss upon our men and women in uniform?! Damn the saboteurs.

Our military enjoys American prayers of support. We speak from the heart, and by our fruits we are known.

Posted by Cousin Dave [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 9:52 AM

So more to the point of the April 30 date is that that is the date that the existing appropriation expires. As of May 1, the troops will be unfunded. Dem leaders in Congress arranged to delay the bill until this date so that they can whine about not having enough time to pass another bill before funding runs out.

Posted by Lightwave [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 10:16 AM

Keemo's post on Harry Reid is absolutely correct. The GOP needs to be hammering home the fact that the Senate Majority Leader has surrendered to the terrorists, and that Reid's plan is exactly what AQ in Iraq wants us to do.

The GOP must put every single Democrat on the record either defending Reid's defeatism or calling for his resignation...either one is a win for the GOP. It's time to call Reid and the Democrats out on their plan to give Iraq to the enemy's tender mercies.

Finally, Harry Reid must be forced todo the right thing and step down as Majority Leader over this, if not resign from the Senate altogether. If not, the Dems in charge of the Senate committees need to go on record as to why they are refusing to investigate Democrats.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 10:30 AM


You hit the nail on the head with your post (April 26, 2007 09:13 AM) about the dems' "fillibuster" tactics. They are quite adept at moving the goal posts, too. There's always something to complain about as part of the "Bush is stupid" meme.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 12:05 PM


I’m surprised it’s within arm’s length, guys like you usually have their DD-214 tattooed to their chest.

Fall off a bar in Subic Bay during a port visit? 20% disability. Get a bottle cracked over your head by some prostitute you stiffed? 30%. That middle finger you have stuck up your nose probably got you 3%.

A few drunken sprees here and there and a vet’s looking at some real guaranteed money.

I’ve seen these guys everywhere when I’ve made the mistake of going to veteran’s group meetings. All talk about “benefits”, zero talk about responsibility.

If I wanted to hear bilge like that, I’d join the Democrat Party.

The only time I’ve seen my DD-214 is when I used it to move over to the active reserve.

As far as “competent” Democrats, how do you explain this?

Since the Iraq war started, over 40,000 Americans have been murdered in America’s inner cities.

What elected officials are in charge of enforcing the law and protecting citizens in our inner cities? Almost exclusively, Democrats.

Those not murdered in our inner cities, also find it real hard to graduate from high school, despite a huge per-student expenditure.

Democrats are responsible for what passes for “education” in our inner cities. How’s that working out?

Democrats have undermined our military and our Commander in Chief for partisan political gain.

Republicans, in contrast, have shoveled boatloads of money in an effort to help incompetent and corrupt Democrats get a handle on America's inner cities, with absolutely no thanks or effort by Democrats to change the status quo.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 12:11 PM

Heah guys lets stop with personal invective here. I am inclined to accept the testicularly impaired as having served in the navy. Lefties aren't smart enough to get the lingo straight if they haven't had the experience. I don't think he would have used the term "snipe" if he had not actually been one. For the most part I accept the claim of service of anybody who can use the language correctly. It is not perfect predictor but it is a reliable indicator of truth.


Posted by tommy1nut [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 2:04 PM

No Donkey 1205 pm "I've seen these guys everywhere when I've made the mistake of going veteran's groups meetings" Yep No Donkey's true colors are shining as bright as the sun on a hot August aftertoon. First us Dems don't support the troops. But veterans with Democratic political beliefs are a bunch of pussies looking for a government check? That's exactly what you are saying yet Walter Reed happened under youse guys's watch but it is still us Dems fault. Yep. Mission Accomplished? Yep 43 certainly had some pep in his step strolling around in a flight suit. Showing photos of fallen servicemembers?No can do. Tillman,Jessica Lynch,Abu Gharib,Hurrcaine Katrina? Shall I continue No Donkey........ the bullshit just never ends with this Admin. And you know what you can keep spinning all you want homeboy but the general American public ain't buying it anymore. Period.