Lies Remain the Currency of the Democrats
House Holds First Extended Debate on Iraq WarWhy is it always a crisis for Democrats when they are forced to vote their convictions? We continually hear the Democrats attack the War in Iraq as a mistake, the President as an incompetent liar, the War on Terror as being lost, and that the War in Iraq as completely unrelated to the War on Terror. Either they are liars or they are stupid or, as I suspect, both. I listened to as much of the debate as I could stomach and I lies and deliberate mistatements of the facts repeatedly spewing forth in a volcano of hatred from the Democrats. Democrats may actually care about the troops and about the welfare of Americans, I don' know, but they certainly don't show it in their efforts to undermine our government's policies.
By William Branigin and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 15, 2006; 5:44 PM
The House of Representatives today held its first extended debate on the war in Iraq, as Republicans pushed a resolution that ties the conflict to the "global war on terrorism" and rejects setting a date for U.S. withdrawal, while Democrats denounced what they described as the majority's political gamesmanship.
The debate came as the U.S. military death toll in Iraq reached 2,500, a grim milestone that served as a reminder of the steadily mounting American losses in a war that President Bush said was effectively over more than three years ago after U.S. forces swiftly toppled Saddam Hussein. Most of the deaths have come since Bush declared May 1, 2003, on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
With nearly 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq battling a persistent insurgency and many Americans disillusioned with the war, House Republicans introduced a resolution "declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror," and they practically dared Democrats to vote against it.
Rejecting characterizations of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq as a "war of choice" launched by Bush, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said in a floor speech today: "It is not enough for this House to say, 'We support our troops.' To the men and women in the field, in harm's way, that statement rings hollow if we don't also say we support their mission."
The House minority leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), accused Republicans of "trying to politicize the war in Iraq" and called the conflict "a grotesque mistake." She said it was "shameful" that GOP leaders were trying to make political capital out of the war.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said the Republican resolution seeks to "blend together the Iraqi war and the war against terrorism," adding, "They are two separate and distinct wars."
House Resolution 861 says that Hussein and his "criminal Baathist regime" supported terrorists and "constituted a threat against global peace and security." Since his removal, it says, "the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology."
The nonbinding resolution "honors the sacrifices" of U.S. and allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and "declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq.
If their arguments are so profound why then do they have to lie to lend them credence? If their cause is so just, why then must they attempt to deceive the American public to sway them to their causes? Why can't the allow their arguments to stand or fall strictly on their merits?
The answer is simple, because they aren't. Their arguments are neither profound nor of merit. Their cause is not just. Lies are the only means they have to seduce the public and regain power, their only goal.
Just like the first vote on the Murtha option last year, this debate will end with the resolution passing; probably with a good portion of Democrats voting for it. Why? Because Democrats know that their policies, when exposed to the cold light of day, are losers.
Full Story: Deceptive Democrats Ducking and Diving
What do you think?
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
posted by Will Malven at 7:23 PM
2 Comments:
Once again, you Repugs are playing politics with the war instead of doing anything about it. How typical. It's like it's not a real thing to you, just an "issue" that you can use as the basis for future campaign ads. If an opponent voted against this phony resolution, they'll accuse him or her of "wanting to cut and run." If they vote for it, the Repug can say the opponent is in favour of the war "so there's no difference between us, and you might as well vote for the real Republican." They play a campaign game whilst real men and women are being blown into bloody bits. It's the modern day equivalent of Nero fiddling whilst Rome burned.
Meanwhile, the war grinds on, and eventually the U.S. is going to get kicked out of Iraq. There will come a point where it bleeds the U.S. dry of money and troops. That's the good alternative. Bad alternative is that the Shiites decide to rise up and shake American forces off like a dog shakes fleas. If the mass of the Iraqi population starts shooting at every supply convoy that rolls in from Kuwait, as it goes through every village, and killing every porter, garbage truck driver, etc. that serves U.S. forces, Americans are going to find themselves in General Custer's shoes. If you know your history, look at what happened to the Brits in Khartoum and Afghanistan in the 1850s and 1880s. The U.S. might not get wiped out to almost the last man the way the Poms were, but you could see American forces having to fight their way out of the hole they dug themselves into.
BTW, I think the main reason President Cheney (you know he's the real power; Bushie is just a Charlie McCarthy wooden puppet) invaded was to avenge the Bush I assassination plot. A greater reason was to protect Saudi Arabia. With Saddam in power, there was a threat to the horrid Saudi royal family and the West's oil teat. But when Iraq finally descends into total anarchy, Iran will have control of the Shiite south. They don't like the Sauds, but they'll have them boxed in. Remember the Mecca insurrection during an early 1980s haj, brought to you by Iranian agents? America's invasion is going to lead to the very thing it was intended to prevent, overthrow of the House of Saud. And that's when the Western oil economy is going to come crashing down. It's the end of civilisation as you know it, mate, all brought about by America. Wait for it...
Your a half-wit digger, and your opinion is irrelevent. You have an obvious hatred of our troops and the President. You are truly sick, you are hoping that our troops get killed en masse just so your side can gain politically.
You have a bizarre understanding of the situation on the ground in Iraq, and you are buying the lies of the pro-terrorist propaganda machine.
You are so "tin-hat" that your entire scenario is hysterical. You have simply parroted the democraticunderground/al Jazeerah line. You are a sorry excuse for a human being. Maybe you're a member of al Qaeda. People like you are a waste of oxygen.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home