« He's got high hopes... | Main | Iran Holds 15 British Sailors and Marines Hostage »

The House Democrats Get Enough Votes to Pass Surrender Bill

Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally got the remaining Democrats who had refused to play ball to fall in line in order to pass the Democrats' Slow Bleed and Surrender plan. She must have made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

WASHINGTON (AP) - A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.


Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

[...]

Republicans were almost completely unified in their fight against the bill, which they said was tantamount to admitting failure in Iraq.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success," said Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Indeed. President Bush will veto this disgraceful bill, but the Democrats don't care. They say they support our troops, but all they want is for them to retreat, humiliated and defeated. Why? Their goal is to make sure America loses every war it enters because, in losing every war, eventually, no American president will even bother to send our military into battle to begin with. At that point, our military will have been rendered impotent, and that's their ultimate goal.

Charles Johnson remarks:

Al Qaeda is celebrating in their caves and huts (and Saudi palaces) today; all they have to do is hang on for another year and a half. That's nothing, compared to 14 centuries of jihad.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The House Democrats Get Enough Votes to Pass Surrender Bill:

» JammieWearingFool linked with Bush Hammers Party of Defeat

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Dems challenge Bush with Iraq timetable

» Wizbang Blue linked with Surrendering Bush Style

Comments (88)

Bush will not need to veto ... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Bush will not need to veto it. It won't get past the Senate.

The Democrats want to cut a... (Below threshold)
jp2:

The Democrats want to cut and run. You heard it here first!

(They are also on the side of the terrorists)

Full of sound and fury sign... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Full of sound and fury signifying squawdoosh.

Looking at the roll call, t... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Looking at the roll call, the usual lines of anti- and pro- war were not so cleanly divided. Ex: Ron Paul (R-TX) who is strongly anti-war voted NO with the minority. Those chambers must have been especially smoke-filled before the vote!

"That's nothing, compared t... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"That's nothing, compared to 14 centuries of jihad."

That is the point! They will wait us out regardless. I for one do not want our forces in Iraq for one more day let alone 511,000 days.

What you were really hoping... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

What you were really hoping for was a "Lets send more money so our troops can have their limbs blown off in a senseless war" bill. Not gonna get it.

Guess what? All Congress needs to do to end the war in Iraq now is to NOT SEND ANY MORE funding bills.

Anyone know where a roll ca... (Below threshold)

Anyone know where a roll call is? I'd like to know how my Rep voted...

I'll BarneyG one thing, at ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

I'll BarneyG one thing, at least he's honest that his favorite tactic is to surrender, retreat, and lose ground over and over, rather than face the possibility of even light casualties.

Actually Publicus,... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Actually Publicus,

We were hoping more for the "Don't set a freaking timeable" bill, also known as the "Don't let our enemies know our plans" bill.

But we had to be content with having Pelosi bribe this one through so it can vetoed.

Aha, nevermind, found a rol... (Below threshold)

Aha, nevermind, found a roll call in the comments at the linked LGF article:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll186.xml

Congratulations to Nancy Pe... (Below threshold)

Congratulations to Nancy Pelosi! You all said she was incompetent and doomed to failure, but she delivered on the Democrats' most important campaign promise.

The Pelosi plan is the most realistic plan for victory out there. By setting a deadline for withdrawal we can finally bring the Sunni insurgent groups into the fold and turn them against, and defeat, Al Qaeda in Iraq. There's no victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq without the assistance of the Sunnis. They know the territory, speak the lingo and can pick the Al Qaeda out of a crowd in Fallujah. We can't and never will be able to do those things so we'll never defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq on our own.

Bush's plan, on the other hand, is a plan that's doomed to end in miserable defeat for America. Al Qaeda gets stronger every day in Iraq that we continue to pursue Bush's plan there. Bush is the best thing that has ever happened for Al Qaeda because he has committed America to an open-ended occupation of Iraq that continues to draw jihadists into Iraq like flies from across the Arab world. Bush said "bring 'em on", and they did, and then he didn't have a plan for defeating them. It's time to give the Democrats a shot at it.

Adam Lawson: house.gov >200... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Adam Lawson: house.gov >2007 session > bills

Oh, Ron Paul + SPENDING. The 2 don't mix, war or no! (I love that guy!)

But Larkinit is a hollow ge... (Below threshold)
Michael:

But Larkinit is a hollow gesture that barely passed and won't get through the Senate. If that is your idea of a successful Speaker then you are a bigger fool than you appear to be

Heralder --The eff... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Heralder --

The effect of a "no strings attached" funding bill for the war would be to send more of our troops to senseless deaths. Bush needs to depend on the Dems to get that bill...so he ought to try to be real nice to them.

I don't see that happening. Instead, he'll yell and pout. He's a bully, but he's got no balls. He's all huffy about sending our sons and daughter to get their limbs blown off. But he turned tail when he had a chance to fight; so did Cheney. Yeah, you don't like the chickenhawk argument; I'm not saying he's wrong BECAUSE he (and Cheney) didn't fight. But it's pretty pathetic to watch him "act tough" when the toughest think he ever did was quick drinking and taking cocaine.

Larkin, put down the crackp... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Larkin, put down the crackpipe and walk away slowly. I hear Promises has a good program. Just ask Ms. Spears.

er, quit drinking! (... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

er, quit drinking! (He might have been a quick drinker, too. I don't know...)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi fin... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally got the remaining Democrats who had refused to play ball to fall in line in order to pass the Democrats' Slow Bleed and Surrender plan. She must have made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

I see. So when Republicans hold votes in the middle of the night and keep 5-minute votes open for 3 hours while they desperately twist the arms of other Republicans to change their votes, that's OK. But Pelosi doing her job and successfully lobbying enough people to pass her agenda in a straight above-board vote... well, that's something you mock.

Larkin, put down t... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
Larkin, put down the crackpipe and walk away slowly. I hear Promises has a good program. Just ask Ms. Spears.

If there's some sort of argument in there, I don't see it. Why should we fund this war again?!

Their goal is to make su... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Their goal is to make sure America loses every war it enters because, in losing every war, eventually, no American president will even bother to send our military into battle to begin with. At that point, our military will have been rendered impotent, and that's their ultimate goal.

Yes, it all makes logical sense, doesn't it?! You discovered our genius plan!

1) Render US military impotent
2) ???
3) Profit!

Gee, Kim, your insane rantings almost make the Unabomber look reasonable.

Two Republicans voting for ... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Two Republicans voting for the Bill with Troops de Pelosi-

Representative Jones-NORTH CAROLINA Third District

http://jones.house.gov/

Publicus:... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Publicus:

The effect of a "no strings attached" funding bill for the war would be to send more of our troops to senseless deaths.

This is not the remedy for such a bill.

It will never be wise to tell those you're fighting the exact date you will leave the battlefield. If you can tell me differently, please do.

But it's pretty pathetic to watch him "act tough" when the toughest think he ever did was quick drinking and taking cocaine.

I prefer someone to try to act tough than try to act belligerent like the Democrats in Washington as of late.

No, Brian, what is insane i... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

No, Brian, what is insane is giving the enemy a timetable for a pullout, and thereby allowing them to win.

By the way, Publicus, you can quit with the crocodile tears for our troops. It's smelled phony from the beginning, and its wearing on the nerves of real vets around here.

So will one of you moonbat ... (Below threshold)
metprof:

So will one of you moonbat geniuses please tell us what will happen to Iraq, it's people, and ultimately western security after this bill "passes" into law????

I suggest you go back and read up on what Uncle Ho and his neighbor Pol Pot did.

The other Republican voting... (Below threshold)
Rory:

The other Republican voting with Nancy-

Rep. Wayne Gilchrest-

http://gilchrest.house.gov/ Maryland's 1st District-that's self explanatory.

Rep. Jones from North Carolina-I am unfamiliar with what his excuses would be.

metprof, in many cases that... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

metprof, in many cases that is exactly what they are hoping for, so they can sit back smugly and say "See, if Bush hadn't removed Saddam in the first place, none of this would have happened."

It is sad to see that so ma... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

It is sad to see that so many conservatives here want to send our brave men and women to the meat-grinder without training, rest, supplies or end.

Well, Heralder...you suppor... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Well, Heralder...you support the President. I support the troops----I want to bring them home alive; I don't want to leave them to be killed while standing around in the middle of someone else's civil war.

If trying to bring home the troops is "belligerent", I'd like to see a lot more belligerence from the Democrats. For me, they haven't been belligerent enough.

It's attitudes which are really PLATITUDES like calling this bill the "surrender bill" that got 58,000 American's killed senselessly in Vietnam. If people like Bush had their way, we'd still be fighting the Vietnamese, instead of buying t-shirts from them at the Gap.

Other than the time table a... (Below threshold)
Oak Leaf:

Other than the time table and non-defense related spending, the bill was extremely troop friendly.

It provided the funding to increase the size of the Army.

It provided for bringing back deployment rules, with a proviso that they could be waived for national security by Bush.

If Republicans "gut" the bill and provide a so called clean bill, the members voting for it do not support the troops.

Other than the time table a... (Below threshold)
Oak Leaf:

Other than the time table and non-defense related spending, the bill was extremely troop friendly.

It provided the funding to increase the size of the Army.

It provided for bringing back deployment rules, with a proviso that they could be waived for national security by Bush.

If Republicans "gut" the bill and provide a so called clean bill, the members voting for it do not support the troops.

I say this as a "troop" who has deployed to SW Asia twice.

Pubicus, very quaint and sn... (Below threshold)
metprof:

Pubicus, very quaint and snarky.

You seem to have forgotten a few facts about the "T shirt selling Vietnamese"....like the fact that somewhere aroung ONE MILLION of them DIED when we deserted them (oh, and let's not forget their neighbors in Cambodia, just a paltry TWO MILLION there). Of course we needn't talk of the reeducation camps and other places political prisoners were locked up by Uncle Ho's compassionate "worker's army".

Yeah, your compassion is enviable.

No, Brian, what is insan... (Below threshold)
Brian:

No, Brian, what is insane is giving the enemy a timetable for a pullout, and thereby allowing them to win.

As opposed to what's currently happening, which is allowing them to win anyway, while US soldiers get killed at the same time.

The dimmers must be so prou... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

The dimmers must be so proud. Their leader has spoken, or spent, or threatened or all of the above. So much fun playing politics with our troops lives. I forgot, the lefties do not like the military. They prove it EVERY time. ww

Lets get one thing straight... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Lets get one thing straight. Publicus' points aren't wearing thin on this (real) vet. So just speak for your goddamn self Irving.

Hey larkie how did pee-loos... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey larkie how did pee-looser get the vote (which will do about as much good as a fart in a whirl-wind)? One word--PORK-23-BILLION worth. Can you say spinach,peanuts, shrimp, PMS etc.? Ever last earmark was to buy a vote. Care to explain that? The vote only went to show how low and un-Americam the Democrats have sunk. Bastards all.

Brianless why do you keep letting Kim walk on your head like it was a pepple in the road.? Could it be that she knows you for what you are?

So that's why pubic hair stinks?

Publicus:... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Publicus:

Well, Heralder...you support the President. I support the troops----I want to bring them home alive; I don't want to leave them to be killed while standing around in the middle of someone else's civil war.

Disengenuous at best. I support victory. What do you call your plan?

If trying to bring home the troops is "belligerent",

I'm not calling that belligerent, but their behavior in general. This was in direct response to you complaining about Bush acting tough after taking two personal swipes at him.

It's attitudes which are really PLATITUDES like calling this bill the "surrender bill" that got 58,000 American's killed senselessly in Vietnam. If people like Bush had their way, we'd still be fighting the Vietnamese, instead of buying t-shirts from them at the Gap.

Actually, there are a lot less Vietnamese because we left.

NO WAR FOR SPINICH!!!!... (Below threshold)
TR19667:

NO WAR FOR SPINICH!!!!

metprof--so get an... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

metprof--

so get an M16 and start killing Vietnamese...

Those of you who still (als... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Those of you who still (also) support the Vietnam War...58,000 American deaths not enough for you?! How many more would have you liked to see? Nice way to "support" the troops.

Hey everyone "hughie" is RE... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey everyone "hughie" is REAL. Real what? lol

I support victory. What ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I support victory. What do you call your plan?

"Victory" is unachievable. Even if all AQ in Iraq suddenly surrendered tomorrow, the remaining 97% of the violence will wage on, fueled by centuries of sectarian differences. We cannot resolve that. We cannot shoot that. Neither the Sunnis nor Shiites will surrender. There is no "victory". There is only an "ending" for US involvement. So go ahead and have Bush propose an alternative ending. I'm open to it, and find much to criticize in the Democrats' plan. But all Bush offers is an open-ended indefinite presence, and that's something that neither I nor the American people can any longer accept.

Actually, there ar... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
Actually, there are a lot less Vietnamese because we left.

We had to destroy that country to "save" it. Nice job.

Pubic hair it is amazeing j... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Pubic hair it is amazeing just how stupid people like you can be. You use the same old liberal "talking points" for everything that comes up. Try something else for awhile so we can have a break from your insane BS.

Since most of you lefty cow... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Since most of you lefty cowards are here now. In the infinitely small chance that this bill passes the Senate, with the pork they will add, and the virtually nil chance that Bush will not veto it, and the impossiblity of the Democrats overriding that veto (it takes 60 votes in the Senate, which will cause Lieberman to switch parties, giving the Republican the majority), should this idiotic bill become law and they do come here. Are you willing to, because you undermined the defense of America, go to the headman's post and offer your dirty neck to his blade? Hugh, Barney, Brian, Oak Leaf, Publicus and Larkin. What say you? Or must we seek you out and drag your cowering, cringing, crying, pissing, bodies out to face the justice you deserve?

jhow66 --I'll resp... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

jhow66 --

I'll respond to your point if you ever make one.

I believe the proper descri... (Below threshold)

I believe the proper description for the Democrats would be "Cheese eating surrender monkeys," or the shorter "French."

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III --</p... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III --

What are you taking about? I can't make head or tail of your incoherent rant. English, please!

Bullshiat, Hugh, I am a vet... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Bullshiat, Hugh, I am a vet, and so are many others on this board who have also disagreed with Publicus. Not to mention the many others I know who are also sick of hearing false sympathy from the likes of Pubbie.
I have a coworker serving in Iraq now. He's expressed that opinion. So has my best friend, a Marine, a cop, and now a federal marshal. So have members of my family, which includes Vietnam and WW2 vets.
When I served, there were always a bare handful of whiners and misfits who would have appreciated the kind of faux support you and Publicus would offer, but this is by no means representative of the military at large. Annoyance at politicains and commanders in general, yes, but "support" by leaving the job unfinished, no.

As for Brian, the fact that you think the insurgency and terrorist groups are winning in Iraq speaks more to your vast ignorance on the matter than anything else.

If you want to know how you... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

If you want to know how your Rep. voted,...

clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll186.xml

The bill is dead on arrival. The bill is unlikely to pass the Senate and will be vetoed according what the President has previous stated.

So, all the Democrats actually accomplished is wasting time and money.. and, more critically, delaying much needed funding for the troops.

I believe the prop... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
I believe the proper description for the Democrats would be "Cheese eating surrender monkeys," or the shorter "French."

If you actually believed the war in Iraq was so important, you'd be fighting it instead of sitting at your keyboard spouting sh!t like that...

So, just sit there comfortable and cheer as other people get their limbs blown off, just so you can feel tough and patriotic.

Brian, We w... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Brian,

We will likely never see eye to eye here. I don't think anyone anywhere is asking for indefinite presence.

Your post deserves a better response than this but I'm running short on time unfortunately.

John Irving --Here... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

John Irving --

Here's the thing; I know my own motives; so of course, I know FIRSTHAND that you are wrong.

I know firsthand that I am sincere in caring about our troops. I'm aware that many of them are basically kids in their 20s who feel they are immortal, and that carrying a gun makes them grown-ups. I know that adults who should know better are sending these people to be killed. And that they are trying to hide that the war is hell by controlling the images.

And, you know what? I don't approve.

Publicus:... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Publicus:

We had to destroy that country to "save" it. Nice job.

No.

The word in bold is the operative word.

"Actually, there are a lot less Vietnamese because we left."

Heralder --I respe... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Heralder --

I respect you far more than the President; I think if you were in charge, we wouldn't have an infinite presence in Iraq. But I have less confidence in Bush.

You are clearly sincere and intelligent. You have made a respectable case for your position. Thank you.

Publicus:I'm awar... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Publicus:
I'm aware that many of them are basically kids in their 20s who feel they are immortal, and that carrying a gun makes them grown-ups. I know that adults who should know better are sending these people to be killed.

That's awfully condescending of you.

Talk is cheap, Publicus, an... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Talk is cheap, Publicus, and typed comments are cheaper. I think your sincerety is worth the amount of air it would take to pronounce it, which would still be worth more than the amount of thought you put into it.

Our soldiers are there, now, working with people who want to make the best of their lives, and they know these people. We have put a few in harms way, to help many, just as police do, just as firefighters do, just as doctors do.

You'd watch the house with a family in it burn, and say you did it to protect the volunteer firefighter, just as long as it is not your house. There is nothing respectable about such a position.

BTW - the U.S. had a pretty... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

BTW - the U.S. had a pretty big presence in Vietnam starting in 1965 before winding down and leaving in 1975. We dropped more than a millions tons of missiles, rockets and bombs on the Vietnamese fron 1965 to 1968 alone. We killed a whole lot of people there. Nixon, in his wisdom, started a "secret" war in Cambodia, destabilizing that country, and leading to the reign of Pol Pot who killed millions.

I think it's a stretch to say we did the Vietnamese much of a service.

John Irving --The ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

John Irving --

The Iraqis don't want us there. We're not helping them any more than we helped the Vietnamese.

Thank you for the complimen... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Thank you for the compliments Publicus. Kind of you to say.

I would make a shitty politician though.

Ha.


Enjoy the weekend.


Heralder --You hav... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Heralder --

You have a good weekend, too! I could use a drink; maybe I'll have a beer with Bush; I hear that a lot of people would like to hang out with him over a beer! (Hey, I might even get to like him!)

;-)

The Iraqis don't want us... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

The Iraqis don't want us there. We're not helping them any more than we helped the Vietnamese.

Some don't want us there, some don't want us there any longer than it takes to finish the job. Finishing the job is not something you or the Democrats are interested in.

Publicus, you are an idiot ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Publicus, you are an idiot and a liar. I know I am not suppost to write things like that here, but oh well. Have someone with the ability to read, to read what I wrote above to you. It deals with putting you money where you mouth is. To bad dueling is illegal.

Sorry to cast a negative th... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Sorry to cast a negative thought in here that might ruin so many people's party, but you've all overlooked the damage today's vote has caused regardless of whether the bill passes or fails in the Senate, or ultimately has to be vetoed by the President.

What has been done today in the House hurts all our troops, both those in-country and those at home. It hurts those facing (re)deployment and those who have returned. Way to step on someone's morale. Really good job there. You just pissed on every grave, and every wounded soldier. You've failed to honor their sacrifice. You've shown them that it has no value to you.

And that my friends affect the morale of everyone in uniform. You may as well just start spitting in the faces of the returning troops again. Just an outstanding way to show you "support the troops".

Don't bother responding to me. I won't respond to you.

Irving:All I said ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Irving:

All I said was don't talk for me. I too am a vet. Just speak for yourself, that's all. Yes there are many, many vets whosupport this war, as there are many, many that don't.

Don't make general statements and don't fucking pretend to speak for me. I respect your view, respect mine.

I don't think anyone any... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I don't think anyone anywhere is asking for indefinite presence.

"Indefinite" in the sense that it lacks goals, metrics for measuring progress towards those goals, and demonstrated progress achieved four years later according to those metrics.

You can't win if you don't have goals and ways to measure whether you've hit those goals. And even if you have those, if you're not making progress towards those goals, then you're not winning.

As for Brian, the fact t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

As for Brian, the fact that you think the insurgency and terrorist groups are winning in Iraq speaks more to your vast ignorance on the matter than anything else.

I don't think the insurgency and terrorist groups are winning. They're only about 3-5% of what's going on in Iraq, so they have little chance of taking over the country. If you think that "insurgency and terrorist groups" are responsible for the majority of what's going on in Iraq, that speaks more to your vast ignorance on the matter than anything else.

That said, with violence and fighting at a high, and Iraqi approval of the US at a low, and with the Iraqi government having no control of the country, and the Iraqi military showing little sign of operating on its own, I fail to see what about that you define as "winning". Unless you think it's "winning" as long as all of the dead Iraqis have purple fingers.

What has been done today... (Below threshold)
Brian:

What has been done today in the House hurts all our troops, both those in-country and those at home.

That's the same argument that was made when the Dems won in November. It's too bad people like you disrespect the troops by denigrating the very democracy and system they're supposedly fighting for.

Ex: Ron Paul (R-TX... (Below threshold)
Davebo:
Ex: Ron Paul (R-TX) who is strongly anti-war voted NO with the minority.

That's because, as Mr. Paul said, he wants the troops home now, not in August of last year.

An opinion shared by a sizeable majority of Americans by the way.

Did you think Nov was all about child molesters?

Well, Hugh, if you had just... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Well, Hugh, if you had just fucking said so. . . heheheh.

Ok, both of our points have been taken. I'm ready for the weekend.


Nice going letting them twi... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Nice going letting them twist until 1 month before the November Elections. Everyone knows people have made up their minds just before early October. So this way, the Democrats can shield the public from the negative consequences of their foolish policies in time for the election.

Oh yeah, troops first! - my ass.

If someone they manage to p... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

If someone they manage to pass one by the veto, Bush should pull the troops home in six months so the public can see the consequences of the Democrats decision.

There's no reason to leave troops dangling with a hard deadline for surrender set.

Yep,the "majority" of Ameri... (Below threshold)
lin:

Yep,the "majority" of Americans want us out of Iraq immediately. (heavy sarcasm)

That's why the Democrats won't vote to cut the funding for the troops. They would if the majority of Americans wanted them too. They know they don't and they fear a backlash in the elections of 08 if they do. So they try to do it in backhand and underhand ways so they can claim it as the Republican's fault.

November was not about wanting the troops home and the US out of Iraq.

Hey moonbat traitors:If thi... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Hey moonbat traitors:If this bill was so popular in the country Pelosi wouldn't need to stuff it with pork to get it through the house.Psst-to really accomplish something you have to get it through both houses and not get it vetoed.Which it will be.Even if it gets through the Senate.Which it won't. Mission-NOT accomplished! How does failure taste Larkin? Also be aware that if the Iraqi government gets as stable as South Vietnam did-able to control its own territory and govern it-you won't be able to destroy them the way you did South Vietnam because they have oil and can sell it to buy ammunition, spare parts, and whatever else they need.So you can't cut them off like you did South Vietnam and congratulate yourselves while people identified as being friendly to the US are murdered.Sorry! Brian, I'm sure the Democrats want to fight terrorists wherever the terrorists aren't-but the terrorists are in Iraq now and if you want to exterminate Al-Qaeda that's where Al-Qaeda is.Whatever is responsible for what is going on in Iraq Al-Qaeda is fighting us there now.I remember seeing estimates of 10,000 dead before we invaded Iraq and still many Democrats voted for it.Now after 3000+ dead they have decided the cost is too high.Oh,no politics there,right? You leftists sent the troops into Vietnam and after 58000 dead you cut off the South from promised support and cheered when the South was conquered by an army with more tanks than Hitler used against Poland-all after the South defeated a North Vietnamase invasion in 1972 with US support.Yep-maybe that's why you're all so touchy about being called traitors-because you are.

Republicans, you fall into ... (Below threshold)
herman:

Republicans, you fall into one of two categories:

1) You can think of absolutely nothing better to do with billions upon billions upon billions of dollars (and thousands of lives) than spend it all upon Iraqis.

or

2) You are able to think of something (or some things) for which the enormous amount of money would be better spent.

WHICH CATEGORY ARE YOU IN???

If you actually be... (Below threshold)
If you actually believed the war in Iraq was so important, you'd be fighting it instead of sitting at your keyboard spouting sh!t like that...

So, just sit there comfortable and cheer as other people get their limbs blown off, just so you can feel tough and patriotic.

Publicus,

First, your chicken-hawk argument is complete bullshit. If I accepted that premise, which I don't, I could just as easily say if you have never been Commander and Chief of the U.S. Military during time of war you have no business criticizing the president's execution of the war.

Second, you don't know me. You have no idea where I might have been and what I might have done. I have earned the right to sit comfortably behind my keyboard and cheerfully invite you to go to hell.

The comedy continues:... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The comedy continues:
They just threw $75 million worth of peanuts to the left wing monkeys, Popeye got $25 million worth of spinish. $21 Billion, with a 'B' in bribes to gain 10 or less votes. I know we will be financially well soon with the democrat party in charge. Over $2 billion per vote is about what they spend buying votes in every election. But don't forget this is the most ethical and honest congress in history, Peeeeloshi said so.

And anyone that brags about it in front of me will get a broken nose, No threats, no warning, no questions asked, just a smash in the face. The fine for simple assult isn't much and will be well worth it. At least the dying MSM would come running and I'll get a chance to tell the world what I think of the crazy democrats before they get thousands of American Soldiers and millions of Iraqis killed.

I see. So when Republica... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I see. So when Republicans hold votes in the middle of the night and keep 5-minute votes open for 3 hours while they desperately twist the arms of other Republicans to change their votes, that's OK. But Pelosi doing her job and successfully lobbying enough people to pass her agenda in a straight above-board vote... well, that's something you mock.

By the same token, people like you (and, heck, Pelosi) whined about Delay doing --- well, exactly what Pelosi did.
-=Mike

By the same token, peopl... (Below threshold)
Brian:

By the same token, people like you (and, heck, Pelosi) whined about Delay doing --- well, exactly what Pelosi did.

Nope.

Once again we can observe that you simply stating something doesn't make it true.

Irving: I'm a vet.. Fucking... (Below threshold)
Ran:

Irving: I'm a vet.. Fucking speak for me..

Veto.Dems. still l... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Veto.

Dems. still lose. They're natural losers.

And hate the troops, obviously.

Brian, ilk, wrong.... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Brian, ilk, wrong.

Pelosi is worse than Delay, because she uses similar tactics, but to hurt America's national interest, demoralizing the troops with this empty vote.

Wrong--we can win in Iraq, if left to the task. You idiots can't predict global warming, nor can you the results of war; nobody can. But you don't give up before you've fought fully to win.

And no Democrat has honestly admitted there is a new commander, new tactics in Iraq, and so far with great results. So thinks have changed, but Dems. are left fighting the old war, like they always do--can you say, "nuance." They don't get it.

And Iraqi's don't want us to leave; it is not inconsistent to say they also want us gone when the job is done, but not now. Show me any legit. survey that splits those issues, and you'll see that they want us there now.

My friend Zelsdorf told me ... (Below threshold)
Wiley T. Stoner:

My friend Zelsdorf told me I would enjoy this blog. So far I have found half the people who seem to have a problem with truth. Go figure.

Publicus: "Nixon, in his wi... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Publicus: "Nixon, in his wisdom, started a "secret" war in Cambodia, destabilizing that country, and leading to the reign of Pol Pot who killed millions."

of course, this too is a lie. Nixon started a "secret war in Cambodia"? Really.

Let's see, I guess all those NVA regulars and Viet Cong moving weapons and material through the Cambodian jungle to their compatriots in South Vietnam which precipitated our military actions against them were simply NVietnam-to-Cambodia Exchange Students.

Or, to update the normal lefty talking points, all those NVA regulars and VC in Cambodia were there simply teaching those happy-go-lucky plucky Cambodians how to fly kites.

Publicus probably knows this, but like most lefties simply has to create an alternative history to whitewash the murdurous history of marxist-Leninists.

I'll bet Publicus will next tell us that Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge killed 2 million of their own countryman because of bad-boy Nixon's "secret" war in Cambodia.

Then he'll tell us that Alger Hiss was never a Communist agent.

The storyline never changes. It's always the same. Blame America First.

pubic hair that WAS my poin... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

pubic hair that WAS my point--you nevewr have one. Just the same old liberal talking points. You are nothing but a stinking fraud.

Right, D, Pub stands reveal... (Below threshold)
kim:

Right, D, Pub stands revealed as a chicken by the use of the chickenhawk argument and a Stalinist propagandist by his disinformation about the Killing Fields. And in his own words.

What was it they said, gnothi seauton, or something like that? Know thyself. We're so happy you've found insight to yourself, Publicus.
==========================================

I bet our military leaders ... (Below threshold)
F15C:

I bet our military leaders would love it if our enemy were to pass a bill telling us when they plan to stop fighting.

Publicus: "I know firsth... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Publicus: "I know firsthand that I am sincere in caring about our troops. I'm aware that many of them are basically kids in their 20s who feel they are immortal, and that carrying a gun makes them grown-ups. I know that adults who should know better are sending these people to be killed. And that they are trying to hide that the war is hell by controlling the images."

I believe that you are sincere in your conern, as I have no reason not to. However, sincerity does not equate to being helpful. Your statement is not caring, but condescending and patronizing. Our troops are not kids and they don't need you to tell them what what they think makes them a "grownup". Our military that is in their twenties are young, strong, smart, and responsible adults with a very difficult and dangerous, but important, job. And they are up to the task mentally, emotionally, and physically.

And they are far more aware of what they are being asked to do than you are. They are carrying and operating weapons because they are adults who are well trained in their use and need them to perform their mission.

And no one is sending them to just to be killed. That is numbingly simplistic and worse, insulting to those who are killed. They are being sent to peform their sworn duty to this nation and they know full well that in doing so they may be hurt or killed.

If you truly care about our troops help them, or at least allow them to do the job they were trained and deployed to do. If you can't find it within yourself to even allow them to do their jobs, then be honest enough to say so. But no matter what, if you are sincere in your concern for our military, don't be condescending or patronizing to them, or about them.

Hear, hear, F15C. He knows... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hear, hear, F15C. He knows whereof he speaks.

Pay these rough men more.
=============================

It's rough on the women.<br... (Below threshold)
kim:

It's rough on the women.
===============




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy