BEST OF THE NEW MEDIA
by Techniguy | Feb. 17, 2007

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

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 days.

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 their way.

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 otherwise.

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 might succeed?

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 chances any.

"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." - Bobby Eberle

This is only the first step in the Pelosi/Reid plan for the War in Iraq. John Murtha is preparing to carry out the next step in the Pelosi policy. Murtha said he would seek to tie future deployments in Iraq to troops meeting high standards of training and getting enough rest between combat tours. Murtha said he believes the Army may have no units that can meet those standards, meaning that Bush's attempt to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq would be effectively thwarted. He intends to slip this legislation into an upcoming defense appropriations bill. House majority leaders will likely block any attempt by Republicans to alter or remove it, just as they did with this current resolution.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the Democratic resolution was the first step in a longer campaign to end U.S. participation in the nearly four-year-old conflict in Iraq. Winning is not important, failure is.

It's difficult to fathom publicly elected officials in the Congress of the United States of America actively promoting and working for the failure of America and American troops in the middle of a war. Non of their arguments makes any real sense which leads me to the conclusion that there is another motive for their un-American behavior. Obviously it can only be political, but is it simply for the purpose of appealing to the antiwar liberal crowd and their socialist, financial supporters, or is it something more serious than that? It's a fact that many leading Democrats such as Hillary Clinton have studied Marxism extensively and believe in it's principles. You can't support Marxism without supporting Communism. And you can't usher in Communism without first destroying democracy and capitalism.

Is this their real goal? I don't know, but it's something that concerns me very much and something that we all should consider. They have been heading in this direction for decades now while trying to hide it. Now that they have the power of Congress and think the majority of the American people support them, they are becoming more bold in promoting their agenda. By dumbing down Americans in the schools, universities, and the media, is this the real goal they hope to achieve? They'll have to do it over my dead body.

Site Meter

PLEASE do not use Techniguy's Newsletter email addresses in group mailing lists.
You may post Techniguy's Newsletters to groups ,blogs, and forward them to others on your mailing list. To Subscribe or Unsubscribe go to: http://www.techniguy.com/Newsletters

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.