April 26, 2007

Breaking: Senate Passes Supplemental, 51-46

CNN reports that the Senate just passed the bill that the House approved last night, 51-46, setting up the second veto of President Bush's two terms in office. More as it develops ...

UPDATE: AP has it up now:

The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president's threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.

"The president has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq," said Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.V., chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He later added: "It's time to bring our troops home from Iraq." ...

Republicans said the vote amounted to little more than political theater because the bill would be dead on arrival after reaching the White House. Bush said he will veto the bill so long as it contains a timetable on Iraq, as well as $20 billion in spending added by Democrats.

"The solution is simple: Take out the surrender date, take out the pork, and get the funds to our troops," said Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), I-Conn., sided with Republicans in opposing the bill.

Looks like the Democrats got two Republicans to cross the aisle. I'm betting on Gordon Smith and Chuck Hagel. I'm still waiting for the roll-call report.

UPDATE II: I hate being right. Hagel and Smith crossed for the Democrats. Only Lieberman crossed for the Republicans.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Breaking: Senate Passes Supplemental, 51-46:

» Senate Passes Iraq Withdrawal Plan from The Sandbox
Looks like it's veto time:In an unprecedented slap at President George W. Bush's war policy, the U.S. Congress on Thursday approved legislation that links withdrawal of combat troops to paying for the war, ensuring a certain veto. Nonetheless, by a [Read More]

» Senate Votes To Surrender In Iraq from Webloggin
The democrats said all along they had a plan. Now we know what that plan is. April 25th and 26th of 2007 has shown the American people that Democrats in Congress are the party of America’s enemies. ... [Read More]

» Senate Passes Surrender Bill from Iowa Voice
Makes it official, and it is going to the President…where he will immediately veto it. And the Dems don’t have the votes to overturn it. I’ve already spoken at length why I think this is a te… ... [Read More]

Comments (24)

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 1:00 PM

What is this? The consolation prize?

What the donks are doing, is redefining Bush's better moment. Turning what's been going on after Tommy Franks went home; to a boondoggle.

Yes. Americans were thrilled Bush finally took action.

Less than thrilled, though, when Chalabi showed up; and his CIA trained goons looted antiquities.

And, yes, time usually turns debates, somehow.

For Lincoln, way back then? Starts out he's ONLY fighting because he did not want the south to pull OUT of the Union. PERIOD.

He was not an abolitionist. And, punished both Grant and Fremont for DARING to free slaves, early. After military victories in 1861.

Lincoln saw the bigger picture. When some slave states pulled out of the Union, in a hissy fit. The border states, also slave states, did not.

But by 1864, there was such a drain; Lincoln couldn't find another 200,000 white soldiers to throw against the Rebel armies. Here? Well, Emancipation shows up. Why? 200,000 Black men were given rifles. And, training. And, they went in and fought the rebels, FEROCIOUSLY.


It's in reverse.

We go in. And, then the Saud's, happy to see Saddam fall; FUND THE TERROR.

I know. You're told it's Abner DInnerjacket. But he's late to the game. And, he's a piker in comparison.

For the arabs in Iraq, their enemies are the Baaad, Bad, Baathists. SUNNI's, to you. And, the deck got stacked.

If you're not careful?

Well? Let's see? Back in 1991, Saddam went in and attacked Kuwait. Kuwaiti's had nothing where they could defend themselves. It was just one large turkey shoot. Until Bush the Elder ordered Gulf War #1.

Did you know that Bush the Elder thought Americans would e so impressed with these "war efforts" he'd be a shoo-in for re-election?

How many times do GOP'sters have to guess wrong? And, still manage to collect dues, from those who remain unsuspecting that there are problems, ahead?

Yes. The donks are re-defining victory.

If you listened to Tom DeLay's book; you'd understand something about politics, better.

Here's an example. (From Tom DeLay, himself.)

Following the Newt Gingrich HOUSE revolution of 1994. To move Bill Clinton closer to the middle; he came out with a very right sided agenda. Knowing full well that in politics, COMPROMISES are the rule.

Bill Clinton pulled towards the center. (The close-down of the House, by Ginrich, really only produced laughter.) Bill Clinton held his lead. And, was liked by the American People.

Again, remember the other rule. You run the show if you can capture ONE PERCENT above 50%. And, the donks have done this repeatedly, for at least the last 50 years.

The GOP? Not good enough for them. They want to convert people to their religion. And, they keep going for broke.

Doesn't help that they picked this white house "petunia." You're just stuck.

As to the debate about iraq. The first thing you'd see is that you're talking about arabs. No great respect for arabs grows there.

You'd also see the 3 years of mishaps. Where Bush, using unlce sugar's money, poured billions into buying arab loyalty. They took our money. ANd, then they returned what was supposed to happen on their side, unopened.

Since there's already a lesson out there that Gulf War #1 did not help George Herbert Walker Bush at all in 1992. What could you pick out as a lesson?

How about this? Between 1988 and 1992, The elder Bush lost 9-million GOP voters. Where did they go? And, why, when you lose voters, does it help the other side? Where the other side understands low margin profits, where you gain everything when you can get 1% above 50%

Sure. Tight margins aren't for everyone.

But what has the right developed? I know. I know. The high art of name-calling. Like that's gonna do ya a lot of good. It's like belonging to the First Wives Club, if you want to know.

But it seems a lot of people would rather have their religious experiences.

What's the left doing?

Redefining the boundaries for dialog. Most people know that COMPROMISE will happen. The ONE PERCENTERS are good at doing "compromise" well enough, that no one is afraid they'll be running anywhere, soon.

But they've stuck Bush in a peculiar place. IF his strong suit goes to the activities in Iraq; how come the left is able to peel away voters, galore?

What if it's more than 9-million voters this time?

Outside of Congress, what do you think a majority of people discuss? Topics on the agenda. Where I don't think name-calling is included.

And, I don't think AMericans, by and large, are feeling fears.

That the Saud's can do another 9/11?

Who says they haven't tried?

And, who says IF they tried, they're not aware that this time more than a hog's head would run down Mosque "avenue?"

Do you know what I'm saying?

After 9/11, passengers on airlines, themselves, are giving the muzzies k'nipshin fits. They've taken to suing passengers for turning them in! For having them tossed off flights. Even the arabs, themselves, from fart-sal, to ad-dullah, to Mohammet's beard; seem to realize they're stared at more often than not. Heck, I'd even bet the falafel business in America is "off." (So much for affirmative action, and the public's taste.)

You think Bush is a champ? REALLY?

You think he's got the world on a string? REALLY?

You think the donks won't gain an extra one percent?

Don't forget, they're already in the majority. And, so far, they haven't lost a thing.

While the GOP goes bopping around, from one disaster to another.

Most Americans stopped carrying about arabs.

Well? Once upon a time hollywood knew where the hearts and minds were. They knew how to make movies. Come to think of it, wasn't "300" a windfall?

Let the congress critters play. Most people could care less.

Over at Glenn Reynolds, today, there's one link that says the GOP has what to lose in 2008.

Why act as if such a thing could be a fact? Like why bother?

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 1:32 PM

Bin Laden is plenty evil, but he's not stupid. He knows exactly who (of America's Left) has the power to stop George Bush, or at least put up roadblocks in front of him, and Bin Laden knows exactly how to pull their levers. They're really not a hard group to outwit. This is the proof of that.

Posted by Angry Dumbo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 1:55 PM

Just as Republicans were cementing themselves as the gang that couldn't shoot straight and John McCain was looking like Dole 2.0, comes a compromise measure so monumentally unsatisfying and politically tone deaf that a President with a 31% approval rating looks good in comparison to the sad cynical politicians who issued a vote of no-confidence to our troops overseas and placed budget constraints on the generals responsible for the troops well being.

Harry Reid had countless good options. He could have said this is "Bush's War" (tm) and we will continue to fund the troops at the level he wishes until we elect a Democrat in 08 or he could have said we voted to authorize war in 2003, now Congress is voting to de-fund the war in 07 because this isn't the war we were sold. Both were polticially and logically satisfying options.

Instead he chose a third option.

As Rush notes, the great former PM of Enland, Maggie Thather was quoted as saying that compromise is the absence of leadership.

Reid is no leader, thats for sure.

Posted by onlineanalyst [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 2:10 PM

Pathetic. No statesmen or patriots are the Dems. For them it is party, party, party.

There is a new template out there: a surge built on clear, hold, and build. (That is a political solution guaranteed by a military support.) Though the Dems gave the go ahead to Gen. Petraeus, they have been undercutting him and his strategy since before he even arrived in Iraq. And the full deployment of troops hasn't even arrived.

Pelosi and Murtha were "too busy" to attend his address to Congress. It didn't matter, though, because as always, their response remains, "La, la, la, we can't hear you. And please don't confuse us with facts."

Gen. Petraeus and his counter-insurgency plan offered a promising new day for our troops, our mission, the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi people until...

Not one commenter happy to see what they perceive as a comeuppance of our president has focused on what is happening now. And what is happening now is a picture of fragmenting alliances among the AlQaeda factions and the Sunni Baathists, the disappearance of AlSadr and his band of mischief-makers, and the growing cooperation of tribal chieftans with the Coalition and Iraqi forces in clearing, holding, and building their neighborhoods.

The BDS babies, nevertheless, are content to nurse their various pet grievances, some dating from four years ago. Indulging in those arguments, most of which have been repeatedly and factually refuted, has allowed their BDS to fester in septic ways at the expense of a unified front against deadly jihadist aims.

Were the current objections offered on the basis of what is happening now, they might be worth examining. As it is, I am learning to disregard the points made by certain commenters. They are too stubborn to evaluate the current situation and its implications.

A pox on members of Congress who voted for this travesty of an emergency war-funding blll. I hope they think that spinach and increased minimum wages were worth the circus of their spin.

Maybe Nancy and Harry can go dancing tonight... and Murtha can be part of their menage a trois.

Posted by james23 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 2:30 PM

Johnson from SD, McCain and Graham did not vote. the first guy is in the hospital. Whats with the last two?

Posted by TomB [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 2:35 PM

Sad day. This is how America lost another war...

Posted by lexhamfox [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 2:48 PM

TomB, The war was lost at the planning stages... not because of a vote.

It's sad that you think we were winning until today.

Posted by Lightwave [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 2:52 PM

Rep. Duncan Hunter summed it up best:

"Even if you sincerely believe it to be true, your pronouncement of failure will undoubtedly be used by terrorist leaders to rally their followers — inevitably leading to increased attacks on U.S. and coalition forces. Given your position of leadership within the United States Government, I find your pronouncement of failure irresponsible and disserving to America's armed forces. In light of the fact that this statement has both been used by our adversaries and has exhibited a marked lack of leadership to U.S. troops, I call on you to resign your leadership position."

The GOP has to keep the pressure on until Reid is gone. This should be front page news across the country, but of course the MSM likes Reid....

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 2:53 PM

Now, why would grandma and grandpa politicians decide it's okay to look innept?

Perhaps, not to frighten the kiddies?

Again, politics sits at the center of a fast moving stream. Both sides, left and right, compose the banks.

And, let's see? You're making fun of the swimming techniques used by the politicians "on the other side?"

Instead, perhaps, it pays to spend a moment on Bush's diving techniques? Since he's the one landing in hot water.

Yes. I agree. This bill gets veto'ed.

Reminds me of Newt Gingrich's threat to Bill Clinton "to close down the HOUSE." Did that. Done that. Lost. And, Bill Clinton won that round.

How do I know Bill Clinton "won it?" Well, when impeachment followed down those tracks, Bill Clinton had the People to his back. SO he swam just fine and dandy.

Yes. It's shark infested out there.

Yes, Bush can garner some points with his veto pen.

But you're accusing the donks of incompetence?

You think their stock's gonna fall down?

What do they need to fail?

Ah. They need to fall below 50%.

What do the GOP have, that they can count on? 37%.

So, it's Bush's argument to lose.

While the SPOT LIGHT shows up on Iraq. And, people, when they gaze over there, see lots of American money going to arabs.

We were told the arabs are rich.

But they're not wasting any money on anything except terror. Which can come out of just about any place. Not limited to Iraq.

It's a long show, folks.

And, what's odd about it, is that there are writers on the left. And, writers on the right. Making these scripts up as they go.

It's not exactly SEAMLESS, ya know?

And, you could draw some information, even from the way the Captain reports this.

Joe Lieberman, who is an independent; and can't get elected outside of Connecticut; is running against his former teammates.

While two republicans, Hagel and another; who are supported by arab voters; jumped ship. And, joined the donks.

Not exactly conclusive proof. But it seems the president has a hard time containing congress-critters.

It's almost as small-potato people, in comparison with the Big Kahuna chair of the presidency; are running amok.

Well, fer shur. Bush is no Eisenhower.

Eisenhower, seeing that the donks were strong in congress; would invite LBJ over to the White House, every Friday. For lunch. Political realities were discussed. Ike never touched one thing that would have gotten him into trouble. (So civil rights sat there, during the 1950's, un-done. ) And, that's just one example of how politicians, even if they're former generals, work it out. To keep the people happy. Causing no turbulance in flight.

Well? Isn't that what pilots are supposed to do?

Among the 37% that's guaranteed to the GOP, there's no drop off of passengers in mid-air.

But on the left side? Where you'd want to see a drop-off, none appears.

And, that's the world of politics. Like a soap opera. With a new installment every day. Looking just like the installment ya got, yesterday.

Bush is gonna make a big deal out of Iraq.

And, I'd bet the Saud's are calling him, too. Asking when the rational people will hand the keys of the iraqi kingdom to the Saudi's. My, do they ever grow with impatience.

Doesn't cost them a penny.

Just us.

And, Bush is now as mad as he can get.

Doesn't pay to fly with a pilot mad with rage. Do you know why? He misjudges stuff.

While the GOP "regulars" don't even see the sand slipping down the hole, and out of the bucket.

Ain't gonna help.

But the veto pen in Bush's hands isn't gonna bring him all that much. Except? Well, he could put congress out there. Willing to have a contest with him.

Sort'a like kids. Who stop breathing and turn blue. To prove to parents that it's a tantrum.

And, the donks? Haven't lost their 1% advantage, either.

No matter how fast you dance, Iraq's not lost. But it's not won. And, a lot of people are starting to smell rats. Not just tent dwellers on the horizon. Waiting for the keys.

While I've noticed NOBODY ELSE HAS STARTED ANY WARS. Or even hostile actions. I look at Lebanon. No. Not quiet. Still got the french.

I look at Gazoo. And, Olmert's holding back from attacking them. JUST DEFENSIVE ACTIONS.

So, if iraq were on the way to be won, don't you think you'd see fireworks elsewhere, too?

What do you read into the fact that you don't?

Perhaps, Bush is not on a roll, huh?

Don't ask me. All I know is that time is expanding itself down the road. And, the choices made in the white house, perhaps? The decisions resemble pickles.

Which is why the donks aren't worried about losing 1%. Nor do they care what the 37% solid GOP voters do. Because? What are the independents thinking?

While I think they don't have all that much respect for Bush.

And, go figa. Grandma and grandpa donks, haven't toppled over in their cart, either.

On the other hand? The shift that can happen, ahead, just separates out the GOP from the leadership. It's happened before, too. The GOP seems to thrive in the minority.

While the grandma and grandpa team seem to have focus. On the ball. In the middle of the road.

Posted by Del Dolemonte [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 2:58 PM

james23 asked:

"Johnson from SD, McCain and Graham did not vote. the first guy is in the hospital. Whats with the last two?"

McCain is up here in New England, running for President.

Posted by SoldiersMom [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 6:02 PM

This will get vetoed. It will be interesting to see what happens afterwards.

Are the Dems capable of critical thinking? What if they successfully lose this war and pull our troops out. What happens afterwards when all the ME is engulfed in war? Do they think, if they're in charge, that the military would be willing to fight this bloody battle again? They've been stabbed in the back twice by Democrats. I wouldn't stand in front of one jihadist intent on their destruction.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 6:09 PM

Drudge is running the headline. Seems, behind the scenes, McConnell, the minority chair for the GOP, is in discussions with the white house at one end of the phone line; and harry reid at the other. Talking compromises.

While Drudge is also running the piece about the iraqi parliament, no brave souls, they; taking a two month hiatus this summer.

Of course, they're looking at this with "regret." If not with a bit of "urgency." Thinking they were sure America was snookered into this thing, until Bush vacates the office.

Seems lots of Americans can't see the differences between what Bush would call a victory in iraq. And, the reality that the Saud's are just waiting for the keys.

No one, here, has to be reminded that the TERROR comes from the Saud's. Not the cave man.

That it's imbedded globally, through the madrasses they fund. And, it's in those places that they show total contempt for Western civilization. Iraq has not made a dent in this set up.

The other thing?

Yesterday, Guiliani said that if a donk reached the white house, we'd get another 9/11.


As if the Saud's work on some sort of American time table. In order to encourage us to vote for the GOP? Nah. There's something wrong right there. Including that what the Saud's do promises them paradise, one way. Or the other.

Where's the outrage you need to win your position?

If Bush's approval ratings are down to 31%; then he's lost, as well, diehard republicans, on this issue. How so? The pie divides by giving the GOP 37%.

I suppose tearing into "Ma and Pa Kettle" of the Congress; was supposed to be a real barn burner. But Ma and Pa Kettle were beloved characters. Capable of turning the world upside it's head, by celebrating Ozark thinking. Square dancing, indeed.

The other thing worth remembering? Bill Clinton wasn't the only one who used a measuring science while in the Oval Office. To tap into the directions of the political winds.

The donks don't need the whole country in agreement. That's for fascists.

What I think I see happening is that the donks are happy with their own rather aggressive way of attacking Bush.

Iraq was supposed to be his strong suit.

AG Gonzales, and the domestic stuff, was where he was weaker.

And, what's going on now? Looks like a pincer movement. Of the two teams, it seems the donks are suffering the least damage.

They control 51%. Bush doesn't even come close. When all he can claim is 37%. And, he's down from there.

One of the better ways, I guess? Would be discussing how we've achieved success after being in iraq for 4 years. Alas, there's very little to show for the billions spent. And, the risks taken.

On the other hand?

Let's say the iraqis have been dragging their feet?

Actually, they are!

That's why they don't do much inside parliament. Except boloxi up the plans our military tries to install. Heck, Maliki approved a 3 mile wall, recently, to stop Sunni terror. And, he was forced to waive the order. And, pulled back. The hands of the Saud's?

Well, up to now, the Saud's have no new keys to Syria, or iraq.

And, let's say, harry reid is right? Let the Congress show the iraqis, in their tents, that nothing will last forever. Make them face it.

Who wins with that?

Like McCain campaigning; no one wants to be stained with the anger from either camp, when they're running for president.

And, McCain? He wants the votes of the democraps! Just like he "could'a gotten" back in 1988.

Personally? When time passes. Things change. Even the beautiful Elizabeth Taylor, grew old.

Bush never did develop a stick he could swing at the iraqis.

So, ya never know what the future holds.

The donks made an aggressive play.

Ball's in play. But it's also protected. Shielded by a team, where it seems people are working together. While the GOP in House and Senate has weakened, over time.

Maybe, it doesn't look like military precision. But it sure does look like politics! Win some. Lose others. The nature of the battles we get from DC. While people follow this stuff with their eyes.

Posted by jr565 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 7:54 PM

Nice little quote from the ISlamic State of Iraq:

It is apparent to every watchful eye that recent events over the past few days have exposed a huge crack in America’s administration. With weak declarations from their leaders about events on the ground in Iraq just two months after the so-called “Baghdad security plan” commenced and a growing dispute about funds spent on the Iraq and Afghan wars, the American command has now said “The current security plan is the last chance for the American army and the Maliki government”.

As usual, this was followed by a swift visit by the new (American) Defense Minister “Gates” who said, “The American support to the Maliki government is not unlimited”, insinuating that the American administration is impatient with the Maliki government that is incapable of handling the strikes of the Mujahideen. This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader Harry Reid who previously said, “The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.”

Then came Bush’s stupid statement where he emphasized that his strategic goal in Iraq is more than a military victory but also to prevent the Mujahideen from benefiting from the fruits of the Jihad to ultimately achieve victory.

This is how the cross worshipping occupiers and their henchmen live. Their morale continues to collapse as the result of the increasing strikes of the Mujahideen, carried out by the grace of Allah. From downing their aircraft to penetrating their fortified Green Zone and targeting the heads of apostasy and agents, all this has pushed the American army to repeat what it did in Vietnam. In a similar fashion, they are instigating the policy of isolating cites and regions by building a concrete roadblocks and walls as we see in al-Ghazaliyah, al-Ameriyah and others places in order to create a huge prison for the Sunnis. But none of this disappoints the Mujahideen; they have activated their sniper weapons against Allah’s enemies to fill their hearts with terror and death, by the grace of Allah.

The use of these policies by the occupiers shows their inability and the failure of all their past efforts to defeat the Mujahedeen. Our battle against the enemy is first and foremost the will to fight and the length of the battle does not rest with the cross worshippers. Their past efforts to isolate and besiege cities such as Fallujah, Samarra, Hadithah and al-Qaim continue to be met with resistance, by the grace of Allah.

With a statememnt like that can anyone say that the dems libs and al Qaeda are not walking in absolute lockstep? I don't question the dems patriotism, but I do question their sanity. But for the "by the grace of allah". how is the mouthpiece of Islamic fundamentalism any different than what Harry Reid in his important statement, and Murtha has been saying all along.
As Mccain asked, if we lost who won?

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 8:58 PM

Shinseki told Rumsfield that the US would need 500,000 troops to secure Iraq and its BORDERS. Paul Wolfowitz told Shinseki that he was WILDLY off the mark. So you start the invasion with 2 strikes already against you. Gen Abazaid was told by former Iraqi colonels (after the invasion) that the 300,000 man Iraqi Army would go to work for the Coalition Forces for an emergency payment of TWENTY DOLLARS PER MAN. Bremer nixed the idea. So 300,000 ex Iraqi Army members (with weapons) went underground. Strike three Dubya. open borders till this day, Shia vs Sunni civil war, Maliki being propped up by Al Sadr and his Mahdi Army. The Kurds ready to annex Kirkuk in January 2009, the Turks ready to stop Kurdistan from declaring Independence from the puppet government of Maliki. The Kurds stirring up trouble with ethnic Kurds in southern Turkey, Maliki dragging his feet on sharing oil wealth, Iran financing Shia Militias, especially in Basra, which by the way enforces Sharia Law with its populace. But the neo-clowns think we should stay to stabalize a out-of-control mess. Dear Dubya, you opened up Pandoras Box, unless you have 500,000 troops and 10 more years in office, you must resign to the fact that you are an arrogant fool.

Posted by Lightwave [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 9:00 PM

With a statememnt like that can anyone say that the dems libs and al Qaeda are not walking in absolute lockstep? I don't question the dems patriotism, but I do question their sanity. But for the "by the grace of allah". how is the mouthpiece of Islamic fundamentalism any different than what Harry Reid in his important statement, and Murtha has been saying all along.
As Mccain asked, if we lost who won?

I respect your point jr565, but I *do* question the patriotism of anyone quoted by the Islamist enemy in their propaganda as proof that they are winning. This is a war unlike anything ever fought before, where instant coverage in the echo chamber amplifies the perceptions of reality. And the Islamists figured out years ago how to manipulate those perceptions.

The instant gratification nation doesn't have the intestinal fortitude for this war. They've never lived under the threat of instant annihilation, a generation of kids who don't remember the USSR at all. Hell, they don't know there *was* a first Gulf war. It might as well be the Spanish-American war for all they know.

What they do know is the media says we're losing, even though they have access to more information than any other generation in history, they don't bother to use it unless it's fed to them. A little research would show we've only lost a small fraction -- ONE PERCENT -- of the troops we lost in Vietnam. But the media tells them "Bush's war is a national disgrace, he's the worst President ever" for losing three thousand troops.

And so the leftist agenda of defeat and pacification rolls on. The Dems and the Islamists are in lockstep because they see what each other is trying to do to their own people and like what they see: a nation of brainwashed fools without the common sense to realize they're a means to an end, and that end is power.

You're just another vote to a Dem. Ask any minority group. You are a means to an end. The Islamists have just reached the logical endpoint of the notion first. Islamism, global warming, political correctness, jihad. Means to an end. Opiate of the masses. Population control.

What really burns me is that the GOP isn't attacking the Dems on this point. They are *not* openly questioning the patriotism of a man that has the same goals as the enemy, who holds the post of Senate Majority Leader. They are not openly going after this man.

Duncan Hunter cannot be the only voice that says that Harry Reid and Dems must *never be allowed to wield political power again in our lifetimes*.

Because we're not facing history books that will ask why we didn't stop the Dems and withdraw from Iraq. We'll be facing history books where those questions cannot be asked under penalty of death.

"America has always been part of the Caliphate."

Posted by Fight4TheRight [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 10:01 PM


Excellent take - I agree with nearly everything you've said here.

I'm not giving up on our hopes in Iraq but if the downward spiral continues here in the halls of Congress, I do have two observations linked to what you've said:

1. There's been a lot of talk about the demise of the British military (especially their decline in naval power) and at this point, I think many have doubted the Brits' possible impact in any war or conflict. So, we better get used to it here - this will mark the end of any sort of military threat from the U.S. other than an air strike type campaign. This surrender in Iraq will more than likely mean the end to a "boots on the ground" armed forces in America. The Dems, the CodePinkers, the tinfoil hatters and the MSM have created a tabloid that a single combat death is unwarranted and unacceptable in ANY military operation. If we surrender in Iraq, there will be no country fearful of any reprisal from the U.S.

2. And as to the radical Islam spread of terror. It will go unheeded come Summer of '07. For any readers of the Book of Revelation to John...many theologians have struggled to be able to identify the biblical references to the U.S.A. in those final days - they have basically identified the Israelis, the Arabs, the Chinese and Russia but not the U.S. and to me that means what i mentioned earlier.....no need to mention a non-factor.

I still cling to hope although today I feel like I've been punched in the gut. Apparently it is "Full Steam Ahead" for Harry Reid's business enterprise of a nationwide chain of Burqa Drycleaning Specialists.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 26, 2007 10:55 PM

America is a BIG country! There are opinions all over the place. Including in the poorer neighborhoods, which are among those that see the military career as a viable one.

We're sending enough kids to Iraq to get a handle on the place. They're not coming back with stories that tell you the locals are friendly. Because, they're not mingling with locals.

As to "training the iraqis," we could do that with training films. And, we can use "off-island" stage sets; the way the military does. When it simulates warfare.

Nope. It's a cheap way. But we're not doing that, either.

I still say that reid and pelosi look like Ma and Pa Kettle. That they're swimming in safer waters than Bush? Well, there's about a 31% support, now, for Bush. And, his policies.

And, last night; Tim Russert misspelled Iraq; making his "4-words are the problem" ... for Bush ... come out I-R-A-K. (Yeah. He fixed it.)

But it's still there. A four letter word that's gotten in the way of success.

Bush has not closed the sale.

And, you can't blame reid and pelosi. Something else is at play. A shift in perceptions, perhaps.

Besides, it is very possible that nothing frightened the Iraqis. Maybe, they're on par with the Kuwaitis? Where the arabs think calling in the Americans; hands American soldiers the brooms. And, the American taxpayer, the bill.

While there's no infractature going up. IF THERE WAS? After five years, Bush would have local scenes of cranes. And, buildings. And, some lsort of progress to report. It just ain't there!

According to Drudge, Tenet is going to be on 60-Minutes on Sunday nite. (Which means Drudge will also run this interview through his own program.)

Tenet is saying his "slam dunk" is one hell of a stupid reason to pin the war of going into IraK, onto.

He says Bush (or someone in a meeting of only a few), divulged the jesture; where Tenet through his hands in the air. And, in DISGUST said "slam dunk."

He's also gonna say that the sentence ruined his reputation. So the Medal of Freedom was a poor exchange.

No president escapes second-guessing. For FDR? There were rumors that because we had cracked the Japanese code, we "knew" Pearl Harbor was coming.

While the best general we had, Douglas MacArthur, hearing about Pearl Harbor, was still much too slow to rouse the AMerican planes off of Philipine air fields. Where they also got mowed down.

WW2 started with us postured in the back seat. And, taking blows. Not giving them.

And, still, no matter how successful the WW2 endeavor was, it still held plenty of gore and death. And, it still had lots of people with all sorts of free opinions. It was also the last time, one of the things we do well; where a president from the pulpit galvanizes the public. This, too, stopped as soon as we finished WW2. The military has never been able to key into an across-the-board-support like that.

Bush is also being back-channelled. McConnell is working with reid, and the White House. So some sort of compromise will appear. Not just a veto pen on a pork laden bill. Up ahead? Not everyone will be happy.

But the iraqis are given a window. They can continue to misbehave; as they have done. Or, they can decide what they want to do. In the arab world, there are lots of examples of weak despots.

Assad is one, for instance. And, to scare the pants out of him, Israel just did serious maneuvers; with real tanks. Upping the ante for keeping alert. And, not giving a weak Assad a chance to pull a fast one.

Doesn't mean he won't.

After seven years, it seems syria is crumbling, too.

And, despots NEED the media to survive. That's why the media plays the stuff it does.

But as I said, Israel's on her toes. And, Bush has few cards left to play. What's he gonna do? Send Condi? Prepare signs in arabic for the west bank? supply loans to them to buy new houses in the new state of palestine?

Bush's wounds are self-inflicted.

As far as politics goes; what's funny is that Ma and Pa Kettle, showing up in the gambling house, are having "beginners' luck?" Nah. They are pro's.

And, you underestimated them. That's all.

For donks to have their hands on the levers of power; lots of voters vote them into it.

When mistakes start to happen, you don't gain much questioning other Americans' patriotism. Or values. Perhaps, some do this in frustration? Or to feel good.

But there's lots of ways that the future can hold how the iraq war plays out, ahead. Including, scaring the pants of a few of those tent dwellers might be a better scheme, over all, than appeasing them with folderol.

Posted by jr565 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 12:09 AM

What's so stupid about the democrats actions in all of this is they might just end up winnign the presidency in 08 and in so sabotaging our efforst in Iraq they will also damage our efforts in afghanistan, and our efforst in dealing with Al Qaeda and Iran and any other major issue we're facing. Not only have the destroyed our military response by basically giving our playbooks to the enemy, they've also neutered our diplomatic efforts going forward as well. Diplomacy requires both carrots and sticks, and the dems have essentially take the stick and snapped it in two. Mustn't attack Iran, every action is an attempt to attack Iran, every action Iran takes is us trying to push a case for war with Iran. No democrats are standing up for holding Iran accountable for anything. Iran meddiling in Syira and Israel and Iraq? Musn't attack Iran! Musn't even broach the idea of talking tough with Iran. Must leak all secret plans no matter how preliminary to udnercut our need to seem tough against Iran. Etc etc etc. Its pathological in its glass jawed simpering weakiness. But the dems seem to think its a great strategy.

But heres the thing. Dems might win this coming election and they are then, like it or not going to be the recipient of all the serious issues they've poopoohed and demagouges and ignored to get in power. And they have no weapons to deal with these problems. Are they suddenly going to talk tought with Iran? I imagine Iran saying "or what? You'll attack us? Please". Take action against Al Qaeda any where in the world? And what, risk engaging in a quagmire? What if Al Qaeda unleashes the dreaded car bomb? Aren't we then going to run run run? Is the strategy tog to rely on the hospitality of others as it were to get the jobs done? They'll find that our "friends' don't particularly like us so much and never did, uniless it cost them nothing to be our friends. Are they going to turn to the UN to suddenly solve the worlds problems? And what, run the risk of getting our friends mad? IS the UN suddenly going to recognize genocide in Darfur because Obama is a swell guy?
People are going to expect that they actually solve these problems. If we go from a low level civil war in Iraq which we have now to an out and out genocide and Iran and Al Qaeda predominant, it wont be Bush's fault. And even if they say it was Bush's fault, people will not be looking to Bush for solutions, they'll be looking to the dems. The dems are saboteurs. Theyve sabotaged the war against Al Qaeda, tthey've sabotaged the patriot act,t hey've sabotaged dealings with Syria and Iran, they've ignored true threats we've faced as suggested that Bush made it up all along. And they''re all in on Bush's defeat. Suppose they achieve that though and win the presidency. Those deafeats have consequences and they'll have to then deal with them,and they'll have deprived themselves of all the apparatuses to deal with them.

Once the world recognizes that the US is a paper tiger, which the dems are all but guaranteeing we will be, our diplomacy and our militarly will be completely useless.

I almost wish it upon them, except of course, I and the rest of this country are going to have to deal with the consequences.

Posted by Jim Rockford [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 12:14 AM

Far-Left Dem: even if what you say is all true, so what?

How does letting Saddam race Iran for nukes equate to a better deal than what we have now?

And how does turning over Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran and PROVING both bin Laden and Khomeni that we can be beat easily make us safer?

Stupid Dems: thinking they can just "negotiate" out of Islam's desire to destroy us. But then what can you expect from a Party that embraces feminization, weakness, and effeminate values?

Posted by The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 3:55 AM

We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude which has befallen NATO. Do not let us blind ourselves to that. It must now be accepted that all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will make the best terms they can with the triumphant MUSLIM power. The system of alliances in THE ATLANTIC upon which France has relied for her safety has been swept away, and I can see no means by which it can be reconstituted.

The road down the PERSIAN GULF to the KHYBER PASS, the resources of URANIUM and oil, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of CENTRAL ASIA, all those MUSLIM countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics - not only power military politics but power economic politics -- radiating from TEHERAN, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot....

They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of THE MIDDLE EAST has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies.

"Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."

And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning.This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."

(as revised for 2007)

Posted by TokyoTom [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 4:21 AM


The military has "been stabbed in the back twice by Democrats."

And who put the military in this position, with inadequate planning and inadequate force levels? Why do you suppose Chuck Hagel is voting with the Dems, and why Jim Webb switch parties and got elected as a Dem senator in VA?

Posted by Eg [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 4:30 AM

“In this House, we may be different parties, but we serve one country, and our pride and our prayers are united behind our men and women in uniform. They are working together to protect the American people; and in this Congress, we must work together to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

“In this hour, we need and pray for the character, courage, and civility of a former Member of this House, President Ford. He healed the country when it needed healing. This is another time, another war, and another trial of American will, imagination, and spirit. Let us honor his memory not just in eulogy, but in dialogue and trust across the aisle.” --- Nancy Pelosi, Opening Remarks 110th Congress, 1-4-07

There’s probably no need in commenting further but if this is just the beginning of ‘working together to protect the American people’ we, as with Iraq, might very well wish to consider today’s and the futures objectives a success and bring to an end all continuing and/or on-going efforts.

The only groups I can possibly imagine who might view this resolution a success are the Democrat’s along with our enemies and if that’s something on which the American people are to be proud….

Imagine the sentiment of the Iraqi’s and Afghani’s on hearing this wonderful news. What about those in Dufur? Would you trust your life to the whim and fickle of some American politician? Imagine what the people in our armed forces must think. What about our people here at home? What about our people in law enforcement, fire fighting - oh yea - and border control? To name but a few. Would you, or do you still, want to put your life on the line at the command of an agency or government who might say, ‘Well thanks for doing what we told you to do but now we don’t like what we told you to do - your on your own, bub! Oh, and too bad about what happened to your friends, families or loved ones - get over it. But do come home and/or go to work in the morning. You’ve got the same job but remember there’s a very good chance we’ll be sending you out in the same capacity, where we again might change our minds.

There’s no need to discuss or look at what our enemies are thinking and/or planning, we‘ll know soon enough. Just give’em some time. Of course, there’s absolutely no reason for them to change course, in fact, we’ve given them every reason to continue and up-the-ante to boot.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 7:39 AM

Rudy Guliani called the Democrats out on the carpet a few days ago. Rudy did what all Republicans should have been doing all along. Stand up "proud and tall" and throw the simple facts about the Democrats disgraceful demands for an American surrender right back in their faces.

Rep. Hunter did the same thing a few days ago; I give him credit for that.

Republicans are getting "body slammed" by the "politics of personal assassination" & the Clinton "war room". It's past time for these weak kneed wimps to stand up and fight back; take the facts that are piled up to the sky, and shove these facts down the throats of every Reid, Pelosi, & Murtha.

Rudy stood tall & looked very much like a leader while explaining the reality of this enemy; terrorists and Democrats.

Posted by SoldiersMom [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 4:10 PM

I wish I had the ability to draw the picture I have in my head. The picture is of OSL and Reid - arm in arm, both stabbing a soldier in the back. The soldier, by the way, is pointing his gun towards a man with a knife to someone's throat.

Our soldiers are not political pawns to be used for advantage of party. When political leaders authorize military force, by damned, they had better be prepared to support them throughout. This means political parties UNITE behind those they've placed in harms way! And when the mission gets hard, which it inevitabily will, their support grows stronger.

What did democrats do almost from day one; started shouting "quagmire", that's what. This was music to Bin Laden's ear. He knows Democrats as well as I do. They don't have the stomach for a fight, unless it's for political advantage. Country and Countrymen be damned.

How many times do you think Democrats will be allowed this despicalbe tactic? Heaven help all of us if we retreat from this battlefield and the door opens for car bombings in the streets and malls in the US. Who the f@ck will liberals call to defend them then? Will TurkeyTom be first to volunteer? Maybe it will be ToykoTom's son and I'll get a chance to stab him in the back.