House Votes To Support America
Techniguy - 06-17-2006
The House on Friday passed a non-binding resolution in a 256-153 vote that would praise U.S. troops, officially link the Iraq war to the global War on Terror, and reject an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" as not being in the national interest. The House vote follows the Senate's rejection in a 93-6 vote Thursday to a similar proposal that would allow "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to stay in Iraq in 2007. Rejecting the Democrat's resolution for a cut and run strategy was a showing of support for the President's plan for Iraq.
To listen to Democrats on the House floor Friday morning, you would think that they were not only out of touch with the American people, but completely out of touch with the news as well, if not reality itself. House Democrats are outraged that the Republicans have forced them to go on record with their opposition to American success in Iraq. But Republicans had the last laugh by showing the country and the world who in Congress supports an American victory over terrorism, and who doesn't.
With statements from Democrats like Pelosi, Murtha, Skeleton, and others saying the mission in Iraq is a complete failure, We can't win this, It was a mistake going into Iraq and bigger mistake to continue fighting there, It's not a part of the War on Terror, It's cost 2500 soldier's lives and that's too many for 3 years of war with no end in sight, and on, and on, and on. In fact, if you read
Nancy Pelosi's published statement, you might notice that she is wrong on just about everything she says. The entire page appears to be written by Abu Musab al Zarqawi before his demise. When it comes to anti-American propaganda, there doesn't seem to be much difference between Zarqawi and Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, and many others on the radical left in Congress.It would be nice if Pelosi, Murtha and other liberal Democrats would stop trying to justify their absurd statements by using the name of "the American People". These left wing radicals do not speak for the American people, they speak for a small group socialist traitors who have taken control of the Democratic Party. They either are relying more on partisan rhetoric than facts in their statements, or they are just incredibly ignorant and short sighted. The American people aren't that stupid and most can see right through this anti-American, anti-war tripe. They do not represent the thinking of the American people.
These morons who are leading the Democrats and calling the Bush plan for Iraq "a failure" now say "we don't want to stay the course, we want to change the course". But not one of them has offered an alternative plan other than to surrender, and cut and run. They say they want a "timetable for withdrawal", but all that would do is set a commitment for us to desert the Iraqis whether they are ready to stand on their own at that point or not. The other thing it would do (which should be obvious to anyone) is to notify the terrorists that on a certain date, we will be gone and all they have to do is lay low while building up their forces, then they can come out of hiding and raise havoc and take over the country.
These liberals insist on criticizing everything that Bush does regardless of consequences to our country or our fighting troops. They say they support our troops, but their idea of support is to keep them away from combat, the very thing these men and women signed up to do. Liberals' idea of supporting the troops is a lifetime career of KP and Guard Duty on domestic bases. They never fail to remind us of every 500 increment of combat zone deaths and call 2500 losses in 3 years excessive and unacceptable. It could just as well be 25 instead of 2500, it would still be unacceptable as long as Bush is president. They think nothing of the over 25,000 losses in one day during WWII. But then Bush wasn't Commander in Chief then. 2500 is an unprecedented, extremely low death count for 3 years of fighting, let's put this in proper context.
Nowhere in the Democrat's statements do they even mention the death of Zarqawi, the ensuing raids that are collapsing al Qaeda in Iraq and the insurgency, the formation of a new Iraqi government, the formation of a new Iraqi National Guard which is taking the lead in attacks on insurgents and terrorists, the infrastructure that has been rebuilt including utilities, schools, hospitals, and businesses. In spite of the setbacks and difficulties, it appears that the Bush plan has been extremely successful. They accuse Republicans of painting a positive picture on Iraq, but all they are doing is trying to paint a negative one. If this effected only domestic politics, it might be acceptable, but that is not the case. This negative slant on everything our country is doing in Iraq is a clear attempt to undermine the president, the military, and our foreign policy by twisting the minds of vulnerable Americans who Democrats hope won't know any better.
It is subversive, it is treasonous, when done during time of war. It would never have been allowed prior to the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam war. I don't care what your personal feeling on the war are, if you are an American, it is your patriotic duty to support your country during wartime. It is unforgivable to cast your country as the evil while casting the enemy as the innocent victim. If that is the way you feel, then just fake it or keep quiet, going public isn't going to get you your way, but will only harm the entire country. Speaking out against your own country's war effort in this just war, can only be motivated by a desire for defeat, and when that desire is expressed by public officials on the world stage, that is nothing less than treason. Those who engage in these treasonous activities must be held accountable, if not by law, then at the ballot box in their next bid for reelection.
John Murtha says that Iraqi's were better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now. He points, as an example, to Anbar province where he claims citizens have only one hour of electricity each day. Well, if true, then why is that? Is that supposed to be our fault? Anbar province has been under control of al Qaeda terrorists and insurgents for some time now, the very people we are fighting against. That one hour Murtha refers to is the time that lapses between when we restore the power grid, and when the insurgents blow it up again. The same thing applies to the oil pipelines. When terrorists are gone from Anbar province, then public utilities will be more reliable. They will never be gone if we don't defeat them but cut an run instead as Murtha wants. Does he think al Qaeda will provide utilities for Iraqis in Anbar?
At one time, we had oil flow and electrical power up to better than pre-war standards, but now the very people we are going after have been attacking utilities on a daily basis including oil, water, and electricity. They will continue with these cowardly attacks until we kill or capture them all, and there is no way that setting a timeline for withdrawal is going to change that. Our exit strategy is, and must be, in the words of Ronald Reagan; "We win, they loose", then we can leave.
So if this House Resolution is "non-binding" and doesn't really change anything, then what good is it? What it does, is present the House position on the war in Iraq in official terms with the following effects:
- It shows the American people that the Congress is on their side.
- It shows the American troops fighting in Iraq that the Congress is on their side and supports them.
- It tells the Iraqi government that Americans will not desert them with a "cut and run" exit plan before they are ready for us to leave.
- It tells the international community that the American Congress and people support the president and his plan for Iraq.
- But perhaps most importantly, it tell the terrorist and insurgents in Iraq that they cannot win by waiting for us to leave. It puts them on notice that we will be there until they are defeated.