In other words: we support the troops that are there today and
those who have been there, but we do not support the troops who will
go there tomorrow. Well, the Senate did not concur and came out 6
votes short of passing their version of the House Resolution which
passed the House with a vote of 246 to 182. I've been
wondering, had the Senate pass the resolution, would they then send
it on to the President to sign it into law?
I suppose not. Their purpose is to make a comment on Bush's
handling of the Iraq War. As Rudy Guliani put it: It is the job of
talk show hosts to comment on the war. It is the job of Congress to
legislate laws. We do not pay Congress to make comments when they
disagree with the President, we pay them to pass legislation that
will enforce their views. Pelosi's antiwar protests have moved from
the steps of the Capitol to the floor of the House. Yesterday's
antiwar protester is now today's congressman.
In the Senate, the seven Republicans who voted to advance the
measure were Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine,
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of
Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Warner of Virginia.
All but Snowe and Specter could face the voters in 2008. Sen. Joe
Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucuses with the
Democrats, sided with Republicans on the vote.
In the House, 17 Republicans sided with the Democrats. The House voting
record for this resolution is here.
Shame on the Democrat controlled Congress and
the 24 Republicans who voted for this resolution. The Dems
one after another have been getting up and showing the American
people, not to mention the enemy, just how easily they were defeated
by Radical Islam. Yes, I said they have already been defeated. That
is exactly what they are all showing us with their words on the
floor of the House. This was the most shameful act of a US Congress
I have ever seen.
Is this what America stands for now - defeat and
retreat? All this cut and run dialogue began with John Kerry’s
election campaign in 2004 and has continued ever since. Where is the
American will to win in a war? Certainly not with the Democrats who
are willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at any cost to
the country for their own selfish political gain and funding from
antiwar socialists like George Soros. What we saw in the Halls
of Congress this week was not support for the troops, it was nothing
less than support for the enemy.
In what way do congressional democrat politicians support
the troops? They keep saying that they do but these are just empty
words. What are they actually doing to show their support? All I see
is their rigorous attempts to undermine the troops, the war, and the
Commander in Chief. They are required for political reasons to fund
the troops, but what do they actually do to show support for them
and encourage them toward victory? Nothing, absolutely nothing. I
don't see any support for the troops coming from Democrats these
And now they're trying to push their defeatism on the rest of us
and one by one are insisting that we too must admit defeat and pull
out of Iraq. Osama bin Ladden must be very encouraged and proud of
them. Fortunately, almost every other speaker is from the other side
of the isle with some refreshing truth and support for our troops
and a victory in Iraq.
The attitude of these Dems is nothing less than obscene in their
insistence that we accept defeat. They are determined to achieve
defeat in Iraq and this is only the first step. The word "victory"
is sadly not in the Dems dialogue during this debate and I'm
disappointed that not more Republicans have called them out on it.
Some have. The more success our troops see, the more determined the
Dems will become to see defeat.
The deceitful and dishonest tactic the Democrats have been using
is to put forth a false premise and then show their disagreement
with the premise. In this case, they have been consistently
insisting that we are involved in a "civil war" in Iraq. In spite of
the civil violence between Sunni and Shi’a, that is not why we are
there. You have to ask yourself "if this is a civil war between
Sunni and Shi’a, then why are they attacking our troops?".
It is, in fact, Islamic jihadists and terrorists that we are
fighting in Iraq and our presence there has nothing to do with the
ethnic fighting between Sunni and Shi’a and it never has. Our
purpose for being there is to assure that a secure and democratic
government prevails rather than a radical Islamic state hostile to
America and American interests abroad.
Yet, this has been the major talking point on the left throughout
these House debates. Never mind that these car bombs killing Iraqi
citizens do not meet the description of a civil war anymore than 2
gay guys or lesbians meets the description of a marriage. Even
the coverage of the war on CNN and other left leaning news channels
is nothing like what the Dems protrayed it as on the House
floor. Their version of this war is nothing more than
somebody else's civil war that we have no business being in.
Dems oppose staying the course and they oppose new strategy to
win with a new commander, a new plan, and additional troops. Again,
their false premise of just staying the course with this new
strategy is a lie. The only choice left, and the only strategy they
consider not 'staying the course' is defeat and withdrawal.
Just as the Democrats have been showing for the past 6 years,
they are still the "party of no". Their debate offers nothing new,
just the same old distorted antiwar rhetoric and talking points over
and over again dragging out the death count and tragic injuries
sustained by our troops and the cost in dollars to the American
taxpayer. As always, they offer no alternate plan or strategy for
winning. In the entire course of these House debates, the words
"victory" and "winning" have not been in their vocabulary.
Dems have now started down their own path to self destruction, if
they don't complete the destruction of America first. They're making
a big mistake and their whole agenda is based on it because their
entire strategy is based on a lie. The lie that we are involved in
fighting a "civil war" in Iraq.
Dems clearly don't recognize or believe that radical Islamic
terrorists are a threat to Americans, not only in Iraq, but in the
world. How often do we hear them, and the media, say "we are at war
with Iraq"? I have even seen media polls based on that statement. We
are not at war with Iraq. We are at war with the same radical
terrorists that the Iraqi government and 95% of it's people are at
war with. We are facing them IN Iraq, we are not at war WITH Iraq -
not anymore since Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is now the central
front in the War on Terror, a war we must win and not run away from.
One of the Democrat's primary talking points in the debate is
that the Iraqi government should take over the fighting now so that
our troops can come home. But they surely must know that although
the Iraqi military has made great progress, they are not yet ready
to assume fill responsibility for defending their country. They are
new. The government is new. They are just toddlers at this point in
history and need our more experienced guidance and training in
actual combat. They will be taking the lead in "the surge" but are
not quite yet ready to do it without our help and support.
The Dems suggest the only solution is political and diplomatic.
When has that ever worked with radical Islam? They say Bush wants to
now pursue a "surge" strategy that has failed many times before. But
after 12 years of diplomacy and political solutions that failed with
Saddam Hussein, and 28 years of failed diplomacy with Iran, aren't
they now suggesting exactly what they are condemning? Diplomacy does
not work with Radical Islam. And if, as I suspect, the Dems are
thinking only of the in-fighting between Shi’a and Sunni, then a
diplomatic solution could stand a chance of succeeding but again
they ignore the larger war going on in Iraq between East and West.
They say the American people voted for a new direction in Iraq
when they elected a Dem majority. That's another lie. The people
never voted on Iraq last November and I don't recall any of the
Democrat candidates running on a platform of defeat and retreat from
Iraq during their campaign. Republicans failed to turn out in
sufficient numbers at the polls because they were sick and tired of
elected Republicans acting like Democrats in Congress. It had
nothing to do with Iraq.
Another false premise the House Dems have been pounding is: "This
surge is Bush's plan" (and therefore doomed to failure). It is not
"Bush's plan", it is General Petreaus' plan along with the joint
chiefs of staff. I keep hearing Democrats quoting General Abizaid
and General Pace saying "we oppose sending in more troops". Perhaps
that is exactly why they are no longer in charge of the war. If
Democrats want a change in course then they should applaud Gen.
Petreaus and his new strategy, as they did during his Senate
confirmation hearings, instead of quoting the generals who continued
to "stay the course" of the past that Dems are objecting to. The
hypocrisy here is astounding.
Victory means nothing to our Congressional Democrats. They are
more concerned with seeing defeat under the Bush Administration than
victory for America. They have no pride in our country and no
consideration for how Americans would feel if we walked away in
defeat. They would have no regrets for causing our troops to come
home in shame. They seem to think that would be good for American
moral and make us better liked in the world. It probably would by
those socialist, antiwar, liberals and communists who want to see
America defeated, but what would it do to our relationship with the
countries who support us and depend on us for defense? We let the
Iraqi Kurds down after the Gulf War and thousands of them died as a
result. Will we do it to them again now that we have won back their
trust and plunge Iraq into a real civil war? We will if the Dems get
They continually pound their drumbeat that there were no WMD
found in Iraq. Wrong! There were more than 500 canisters of chemical
weapons found by our troops along with current WMD programs in
development. What's worse, Dems have never asked "where did the
stockpiles of WMD that we know were there go?" They could very well
be in the hands of terrorists right now which is what we were trying
to prevent with the invasion, but Democrats could care less about
that. How small minded of them. How short sighted of them. How
completely ignorant in their bliss and contention that "no WMD or
WMD programs were found in Iraq".
Congressional Democrats in both the House and the Senate are
using a new and unprecedented tactic to get their way. No Republican
additions or amendments are being allowed by the Dem majority. The
Dems write the resolution and bring it to a vote through process but
without allowing consideration of alternate language by the
Republicans. Three alternative resolutions were presented in the
Senate by Republicans but were denied consideration by the Democrat
Majority Leader, Harry Reid. The same was done in the House as loyal
Democrats carried out the Pelosi plan.
Some of the Dem leaders oppose victory to gain support from the
far left, while many others are just foolishly following in the
antiwar rhetoric and believe every word of what they've heard or
read in liberal blogs. One startling example of this was Sheila
Jackson-Lee who took the floor and went into nothing more than a
antiwar, anti-Bush, talking points diatribe that required the
Speaker to warn her about defaming the President on the House floor.
It was the same old black liberal rhetoric that we've been hearing
for years and had nothing to do with the current issue, but she got
her 5 minutes in front of the camera to make a complete fool of
herself. She wasn't the only one who made complete fools of
themselves but I'm not going to list them all here.
I am convinced that many I have seen speak on the floor of the
House actually believe what they are professing even though most of
it has already been proven false. They use misquotes and false
statements from liberal politicians, bloggers, and the media which
have already been disproved or retracted yet there is no reference
to the corrections in their diatribe. The world is flat and liberals
always tell the truth and no one is going to convince them
Dan Lipinski (D-IL) rose to the floor to exclaim: "Mr. Speaker, I
rise to support this resolution, and a new policy in Iraq." That's
an oxymoron considering that the resolution he supports opposes a
change in policy in Iraq. The new policy opposed by Lipinski and the
Dems calls for more effective action on the part of the Iraqi
government and US troops, exactly what many Democrats have been
calling for for over a year now.
It calls for additional troops to hold areas that have been swept
of insurgents. It unties the hands of our troops with new rules of
engagement allowing them to fight to win. It calls for our troops to
now be able to go into areas to fight that were previously
forbidden, giving sanctuary to the enemy. It puts the Iraqi army out
front in the operation with US troops as backup. It applies new
tougher policy on the part of Prime Minister Maliki who in the past
has been protecting al Sadr's Mahdi Army. Gen. Petreaus has not only
a new policy, but a new plan for fighting in Iraq but Democrats
don't even want to wait to give him a chance to complete the
operation already started. Is it because they are so afraid that he
President Bush had always said "The commanding Generals in Iraq
will be given everything they ask for to win this war". Well guess
what - General Petreaus asked for this troop surge with 21,500 more
troops but House Democrats think they know better than Petreaus in
matters of war and say the surge will fail because smaller versions
of it have failed in the past. Actually, they didn't fail until the
insurgents came back after our troops left the area because we
didn't have enough troops to keep the area secured. This time we
will and half of those troops will be Iraqis.
Dems have been repeatedly stating the obvious as though it were
news: "Americans are dying. Iraqi's are dying". Yes, of course
people are dying, that's what happens in war. That is the objective
- kill the enemy. And the enemy has that same objective. We're
supposed to retreat because people are dying in a war? What kind of
logic is that? Dems tell us they want to protect our troops by
bringing them home - that is how they support them. I'm no expert,
but isn't it the job of the military to protect the civilians, not
the other way around? We support our troops by not letting them do
their job? I kid you not, this is their contention and logic in this
crazy mixed up liberal fantasy world they are living in.
What's missing here? The same thing that is always missing from
Democrat and media rhetoric. The enemy is dying and they are
dying by the hundreds! That is the great unspoken truth that we
never hear about. Only people who support America's defeat would
emphasize the death of American troops without ever mentioning the
thousands of enemy deaths.
If we retreat and stop killing the enemy, the enemy will continue
to kill Iraqis and Americans with even more ferocity and a new
confidence inspired by our withdrawal. Sure, we can stop the killing
of American soldiers by withdrawal and retreat, but how do we then
stop the enemy from continuing their killing? Will they agree to the
Democrat's plan for retreat too? Of course not. They will simply
take over Iraq, then come after innocent American civilians with
state support and the financing from oil revenue. Isn't that exactly
why we got rid of Saddam in the first place?
What Democrats keep saying is: It's a good thing that we got rid
of Saddam, but we shouldn't have done it. "Bush lied, no WMD,
unjustified war, and I wouldn't have voted for it had I known then
what we know now". What's changed? Saddam got the WMD out of the
country before we got there. That's it. Saddam was still guilty of
everything else he was charged with in justifications for the war.
And we didn't even know about the Oil for Food fraud at the time
which is just one more reason to get rid of him.
Why won't Bush address the WMD issue with all the evidence of the
weapons and materials being moved out of Iraq during the run-up to
the war? Here's one answer provided by a high level government
official who did not want to be identified: The movement of WMD from
Iraq to Syria was conducted by a Russian Intelligence Agency.
Russia's involvement would be publicly exposed were this to be
publicized. Bush doesn't want to embarrass Russia right now because
he needs, and is counting on Russian support in the UN on the issue
of Iran. He may not get it and bringing this up wouldn't help his
"These resolutions send the WRONG message to our allies and our
service men and women. To defeat the insurgency, we need more troops
and those troops need to be allowed to fight until the enemy is
defeated. No more politics, no more games. Supporting a resolution
against the troop increase sends the message, "Just keep doing what
you’re doing. We are going to still expect results, but we won’t
give you the resources you need to achieve them." -