November 29, 2005
Lieberman just returned from his fourth trip to Iraq and reports on the success story of the Iraqi people in their quest to reclaim their country. Successes that are so often ignored by the MSM and lied about by his fellow Democrats. In an Op-Ed today in the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, he lays out the case for staying the course, something that will no doubt earn him further scorn by Democrats.
In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.How sad that a man who was once his party's nominee for Vice-President has become a pariah among the shameful "cut and run" Moonbats that are today's Democrats.
None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.
The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
November 22, 2005
John F. Kennedy
1917 - 1963
Not long after this tragedy, the Democrat Party began a long slide into Left-wing kookery. In the forty-two years that followed, only two men from that party were elected President. And in both cases, they were Southerners pretending to be moderates. Well, you know what they say. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I think it highly unlikely that the third time is the charm. In 2008, especially within the context of the Global War On Terror, the American voter is probably going to express their feelings in the booth: Won't Get Fooled Again.
I was raised in a Democrat household and taught to believe that Republicans were the enemy. It took me a long time to get past that. These days when I see Democrat Senators taking the floor and denouncing the mission that our brave men and women overseas are sacrificing everything for, just to try and gain some political traction, I can see who the enemy really is.
Just read (and listen to) the words of JFK:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."Words like Freedom and Liberty and the idea of America being a beacon to the oppressed peoples of the world were not politically incorrect back then.
What the F**K happened to the Democratic party that I once proudly belonged to? What the hell has become of the party of Kennedy, Truman and FDR? They have been taken over by people who belong to the a generation that followed Kennedy. By a bunch of self-centered, narcissistic, spoiled assholes who were given everything and have given back nothing. By a bunch of pricks who lived their lives focused on getting high and getting off with no sense of personal responsibility.
I don't mean to paint this whole generation with a broad stroke. There are plenty among them who served their country, who hold dearly the principles on which this country was founded and who raised their children to appreciate the value of the freedoms we all take so much for granted.
But while the men and women whose life experiences were formed by the era of WWII can be easily regarded as "the Greatest Generation", I dare say that many of their children have tainted their own age-cohorts as "the Worst Generation". These are the people that are trying to run our country into the ground because while they love the idea of their country, they hate it the way it is. They blame America for all the misfortunes in the world and believe that any attack we receive is one that we brought upon ourselves. Fortunately, there are enough of them who understand all too clearly the enemy we now face.
If John F. Kennedy were alive today, he would be even more ashamed of his pathetic little brother than he was before his assassination.
I know there are people out there who are still registered as Democrats, but who more and more find themselves disagreeing with their party. They hold on to the hope that they might one day reclaim control of a party that has gotten out of control. I truly believe they are fooling themselves.
Jack's words of so many years ago still ring true for many of us - Democrat, Republican and Independent:
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.But for the leadership of the Democrat party, those words are nothing more than a hollow ideal of an age long past. They live in their own alternative reality where the next election is more important than the safety and security of the American people. They disgust me.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.
Forty-two years ago, more than a President died. A political party contracted a terminal illness, and they are currently in the last stages of the disease. For the sake of the nation, the sooner that it takes the final exit the better.
November 19, 2005
Hugh Hewitt nails it this morning:
Many Democrats were emotionally undon by the exercise of having to confront their own rhetoric, and the anti-war left must be stunned this morning: Only three votes? All that work? All those marches? All those posts at the fever swamp bulletin board? For three votes?Heh, those moonbats over at DU are pissed beyond belief. This was exactly the kind of proposal they were hoping their elected officials would vote for to "send a message". Well, the message was sent alright - to them. Only three members of the House are willing to be identified with the French wing of Democrat party.
Wanting to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq doesn't make you a coward. What does make you a coward is when you truly believe we should get our troops out of Iraq immediately, you have a chance to vote for doing exactly that, and you choose not to because you fear the political consequences of being on record revealing your position to the public. This was not a vote on some obscure provision of the budget, it was the most supremely important subject on which members of Congress have the privilege and duty to vote.Truth be told, I was really hoping for more "yes" votes from Democrats. So I encourage their base to roll up their sleeves and ratchet up the pressure on their elected officials. More please...with feeling!
So hats off to Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York for having the courage to vote what they really believe. And shame on those who didn't.
November 18, 2005
As Glenn Reynolds and News Busters point out, this is hardly a new position for Murtha.This recurring tactic of showcasing someone with military experience to criticize the war is a desperate attempt by Democrats to try and gain some credibility on this issue. And it really is pointless since no reasonable intelligent person takes any Democrat seriously when they talk about military matters.
He declared Iraq "unwinnable" on May 6, 2004 -- barely six weeks before the government was handed over to Iraqis. Eight months before the Great Purple Finger Election.
Clearly Democrats do not want this war to be won. In calling for a retreat from the battlefield, Murtha dishonors every single soldier who ever went to Iraq. He undermines U.S. foreign policy. No ally will ever trust us again.
It is a sick party that seeks to surrender America to rogue bands of terrorists in Iraq. The Democratic Party is selling out not just the American military, not just the American pride, but American security. Having won Iraq, those "insurgents" -- those Baathists and Islamo-nutcases will head for our shores.
John McCain: "Because the stakes there are so high higher even than those in Vietnam our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war."
Dissent? Fine. But it is time for these dissenters to use their right to remain silent.
Captain Ed reacts:
I listened to Murtha extensively on CNN this afternoon as Wolf Blitzer interviewed him, and the AP left out some of Murtha's more idiotic commentary. He kept bringing up Abu Ghraib as if it were the most critical juncture in the Iraq War and kept insisting that it doubled the casualty rate. He repeatedly told Blitzer that the military could not beat the terrorists, a lovely message to send to the 150,000 men and women currently deployed to Iraq, as well as the Zarqawi network and their recruiters. In fact, for most of the interview Murtha could hardly complete a sentence, he became so hysterical.Democrats didn't learn from their experiences with John Kerry that just because you served your country in the military doesn't mean you have the right to engage in activity that undermines its security. Benedict Arnold served his country with distinction - before he tried to screw it over.
November 16, 2005
He left a comment on a post at The Washington Monthly that posed four simple questions to his fellow Democrats. What he got from them was insults and hostility. He is confronting a sad fact that I learned a long time ago - the pointlessness of engaging these cretins.
Sure Joe casts a lot of votes in the Senate that annoy the crap out of me, but I'll give him a pass because he understands what the stakes are. Yesterday he made an important speech on the floor of the Senate and here is the quote that sums it up the best:
It is no surprise to my colleagues that I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the Senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I look back on it and as I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face.There's at least one Democrat out there who prioritizes national security over partisan politics and I'm proud to say that he's from Connecticut.
I am grateful to the American military for the extraordinary bravery and brilliance of their campaign to remove Saddam Hussein. I know we are safer as a nation, and to say the obvious that the Iraqi people are freer as a people, and the Middle East has a chance for a new day and stability with Saddam Hussein gone.
November 15, 2005
Compiled by the RNC and brought to you here, courtesy of The American Spectator. Just in time for Thanksgiving, it's a nice heaping helping of the words they said and when they said them. Hope they're hungry.
thanks to Mike's America for the heads-up!
I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.This little slip went unnoticed by many, but Bill Bennett asks the question: Is he nuts? This Senator goes to visit two shaky U.S. allies and one ally of Saddam Hussein's Iraq and basically tells them - before the President has even made a speech on the subject - that they can expect us to go to war with Iraq soon? What a freaking idiot!
As Bennett observes:
If Syria or elements in Saudi Arabia began acting on this information before we even went to war in Iraq (more than a year later), then Senator Rockefeller may have seriously harmed, impeded, and hindered our war efforts, our troops, and the entire operation in the Middle East. This should be investigated immediately; and perhaps Senator Rockefeller should step down from the Intelligence Committee until an investigation is complete.I think Rockefeller should be taken to task for this little rogue "diplomatic" activity. And I definitely agree with Bennett that an investigation is in order. Again, what was he thinking?
November 14, 2005
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.Nice try Senator. I mean, really, did these guys actually think they were going to get away with this garbage? I guess the answer is irrelevant. After all, it's all they have.
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.
WALLACE: You're not?
November 13, 2005
"I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing."
So while he takes terrorism "seriously", he considers it less a priority for the U.S. than some unproven theory? What color is the sky in Al's world, I wonder? This country really dodged a bullet five years ago.
The DRUDGE REPORT has learned from exclusive sources that Democrat Party Chair Howard Dean turned down Republican Party Chair Ken Mehlmans last minute offer to appear together on NBCs MEET THE PRESS this morning.Geez, even Terry McAuliffe had the balls to actually debate his RNC counterparts.
Moments before taping was to begin with host Tim Russert, Mehlman asked Dean outside the NBC studios green room: Theres still time for us to go on together Governor. Dean declined with a shrug of his shoulders and an uncomfortable cackle and then proceeded to walk away into the green room.
DRUDGE has learned MEET THE PRESS producers have been working to get a head to head Dean/Mehlman appearance on the program since Dean was named chair back in February. Dean and his handlers have repeatedly turned down the request. The former Vermont governor only agreed to do this weeks program if they appeared in back-to-back interviews.
But then what would Dean do if all his bullshit accusations against the President were confronted with the facts. He'd probably have a similar reaction to that of the real Sir Robin when he was asked at the Bridge of Death, "What...is the capital of Assyria?"
He'd bluster, turn red and pop a vein in his head shouting "I don't know THAT!! AAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!".
As Dean left the studio, one of his handlers was overhead singing after him:
Bravely ran away away....
When Danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly chickened out...
November 12, 2005
RNC: $85 Million raised, $34 Million in the bank
DNC: $ 42 Million raised, $6.8 Million in the bank
As critics see it, Dean has disappointed on two fronts. The DNC has not replicated the success of Dean's presidential campaign two years ago in tapping vast numbers of new and smaller contributors over the Internet. And skeptics say he has not yet established rapport with and won the confidence of high-dollar donors.These guys at the Post aren't all that bright are they? Hasn't it occured to them that the big time money that Dean was able to raise as a candidate is going to groups like MoveOn.org? Duh.
November 07, 2005
The morning guy on Saturdays is Mark Simone. Simone is one of those old-school radio guys. Though he's a conservative-leaning Republican, he's extremely gracious to hostile callers (probably too much, in my opinion). He does, however, have a firm grasp of the facts and very politely rebutts the standard talking points that many of the callers throw out at him. I was amused to hear two consecutive callers making the same point with regard to the latest incarnation of the "Bush Lied" meme that Democrats are harping on heading into the 2006 mid-terms. more...
November 04, 2005
"I think perhaps the Democrats in the Senate are trying to distract their activist base from the reality of their own impotence."Not only do I think he's right, but based on the recent response of Lefty kooks it seems to be working.
November 03, 2005
- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (October 10, 2002)
This and other such quotes by Democrats before the U.S. went into Iraq, assembled here.
The Democrats have offered no alternatives to what they would do differently in Iraq. Rather, they are obsessed on their belief that the President lied about WMD's. While their kook base may believe that , out here in the real world most people don't. Was the intelligence wrong? Yes. But no one with sense thinks anyone deliberately lied about it to get us into war.But wait...there's more.
Further hampering their efforts are the fact that 28 Democrats voted in favor of the war, including many of those who now want to be President. That is not an enviable position to be in. What are they to say "Look, you should elect me because I was stupid enough to be manipulated?"
While Democrats are banking on a 1994-like coup of Congress in 2006, the situations between these two election years is like comparing apples to oranges:
Could the GOP done as well as it did if they just hammered on Clinton? I think not. Rather, they had a list of new ideas that the voter could look at and say "Yeah, I agree with this".The grassroots and fundraising efforts of the Left have been driven by this same "Bush Hatred" mentality - not by any proposals, initiatives or ideas. Seeing how well its worked for Democrats in the last three election cycles, Republicans can only hope that they continue.
Further, the 1994 takeover strategy did not start in 1993. It was many years in the making and done through with grassroots and fundraising efforts, as well as having to overcome a mindset of a permanent minority, which meant that nice, but ineffective men like Bob Michel had to go. It just so happened that the events of 1994 were a perfect storm that allowed the strategy to work flawlessly.
More please...with feeling!
November 02, 2005
While it may be a positive short-term maneuver, I question the wisdom of this move over the longer term. The Alito nomination has laid the groundwork for a real nasty couple of months in the U.S. Senate and this stunt by the Democrats is only going to serve to unify the entire GOP caucus, at exactly the time when the Democrats only hope to beat the Alito nomination is their ability to fracture GOP loyalty and pull 6 Senators over to their side (either to vote outright against Alito or a refusal to vote for the nuclear option). Today's invocation of Rule 21 is not going to help Senate Democrats in this cause, and in fact, it makes whatever small chance the Dems had of defeating Alito, even smaller.Let's face it, the Democrats had a lousy weekend: Miers' withdrawal and Alito's nomination has them in a panic and the air biscuit that Fitzgerald let out on Friday was a huge disappointment. As their relevance was waning, they needed some way to make news. This little stunt, however, was overreach.
As they embrace the mantras of the Lefty grassroots groups, they make themselves look silly by association. McIntyre explains:
One can honorably debate the wisdom of whether or not it made sense to go to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. One can also debate whether the war has been prosecuted intelligently of competently. Serious people, however, can not debate whether or not the majority of the intelligence agencies of the world believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.But then we're not talking about serious people here.
November 01, 2005
If Ken Mehlman and the GOP are smart (and there is no guaranty, from what I've seen lately) they will slam the airwaves with all the quotes from Clinton administration officials, John Kerry and other leaders of the Democrat party warning about WMDs and Saddam Hussein - something they should have done four years ago.
In the meantime, let Reid and company continue this stunt. It's obvious that they've fully succumb to the MoonBat.org/Soros/Moore wing of the party. It's almost embarrassing to watch...almost.
130 queries taking 0.1096 seconds, 287 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.