The Gutless Democrats
If you really believe the war is wrong, cut off the funding and end it. This would be the quickest and less bloody way to end it. You know the American people don’t want to lose, so you are playing to your moonbat left while trying to seem tough on defense. We see through you though, we are not as dumb as you think. Well, enough of us were dumb enough to vote you in, but when they see how weak you are you will be voted right back out. You are cowards.
From naionalreview.com:
Strange Democratic Ways
They’ll complicate and shirk responsiblity.
By Charles Krauthammer
|
The United States has fought many wars since 1941, but never again declared one. Abroad, no one declares war anymore either, perhaps because it has the anachronistic feel of an aristocratic challenge. Whatever the reason, today Congress doesn’t declare war; it “authorizes” the “use of force.” In October 2002, both houses of Congress did exactly that with open eyes and large majorities. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who had access to all the relevant information at the time, said, “I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks — and we should not minimize the risks — we must authorize the president to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat.” Now, more than four years later, the Democrats want out of the resulting war. Most, such as Rep. John Murtha, want to do so for a simple reason: They think the war is lost. If you believe that, then getting out is the most reasonable and honorable and patriotic policy. Congress has the power to do that by cutting off the funds. But Democrats will not, because it is politically dangerous. Instead, they are seeking other ways, clever ways. The House is pursuing a method, developed by Murtha and deemed “ingenious” by antiwar activist Tom Andrews of Win Without War, to impose a conditional cutoff of funds, ostensibly in the name of protecting the troops. Unless the troops are given the precise equipment, training and amount of rest Murtha stipulates — no funds. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Murtha is not disingenuous enough to have concealed the real motives for these ostensibly pro-readiness, pro-troops conditions. He has chosen conditions he knows are impossible to meet — “We have analyzed this and we have come to the conclusion that it can’t be done” — in order to make the continued prosecution of the war very difficult, if not impossible, for the commanders in the field. But think of what that entails. It leaves the existing 130,000 troops out there without the reinforcements and tactical flexibility that the commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, says he needs to win. Of course, the Democrats believe that the war cannot be won. But if that’s the case, they should order a withdrawal by cutting off the funds. They shouldn’t micromanage the war in a way that will make winning impossible. That not only endangers the troops remaining in the field, it makes the Democrats’ the-war-is-lost mantra a self-fulfilling prophecy. Murtha’s ruse is so transparent that even Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, who opposes the war, will not countenance it: “I think that sends the wrong message to our troops.” Levin has a different idea — change the original October 2002 authorization. “We’ll be looking at modification of that authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of a combat mission,” says Levin. “That is very different from cutting off funds.” While this idea is not as perverse as Murtha’s, it is totally illogical. There is something exceedingly strange about authorizing the use of force — except for combat. That is an oxymoron. Changing the language of authorization means — if it means anything — that Petraeus will have to surround himself with lawyers who will tell him, every time he wants to deploy a unit, whether he is ordering a legal “support” mission or an illegal “combat” mission. If Levin wants to withdraw our forces from the civil war in the cities to more secure bases from which we can continue training and launching operations against al Qaeda, he should present that to the country as an alternative to (or fallback after) the administration’s troop surge. But to force it on our commanders through legalisms is simply to undermine their ability to fight the war occurring on the ground today. Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win (the House approach) or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched (the Senate approach) is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable — and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so. (c) 2007, The Washington Post Writers Group |
New Hampshire, Welcome To The Nanny State And Taxes
UPDATE: Since I first posted this Gov. Lynch has dropped the moose hunting auction from his budget. Hopefully he heard the voice of the people and will reconsider some of these other taxes.
I want to take the time here to write about some local issues. For those of you out there not familiar with New Hampshire politics, I will take a few moments to fill you in. New Hampshire voters pride themselves in being independant. We have had our share of Republican and Democrat Governors. We have had one constant though, Rebublicans in the state house and senate. Last November the Democrats took control of all branches of government. They won the state house, senate, executive council, and governor. The last time this happened in this state is debatable, but it was probably at least 100 years ago if ever.
So now the nanny state is going to take over slowly, along with all the new taxes.
Yesterday the state senate approved a smoking ban in restaurants and bars by a 17-7 vote. It will surely pass the house and the governor will sign it. This is just the beginning, these people are smarter than the rest of us so they will dictate to us what we can and can’t do. There is no personal choice here. I am not a smoker. but I fear us going down the same road as our southerly neighbors in Massachusettes. First it’s the smokers, than it’s trans fats, and it keeps going.
Since the Democrats gained full control of the state there has been talk of many more taxes. Rumors of state and income tax. There has been talk of tax on your well water and soda. Also an increase of tolls on toll roads, and adding tolls to non-toll roads.
The new budget calls for a .28 tax increase on cigarettes, a 6 dollar increase on vehicle registration, a lottery for moose hunting permits for 5,000 dollars, and 30 dollar scratch tickets. For a party that says they are for the working class and poor, don’t these taxes affect them more? This is just the beginning, there will be more taxes and restrictions on our lifestyle until we vote these people out of here. Hopefully it won’t be too late.
Our biggest problem is that we have all these people fleeing Mass. and Vermont because of all the taxes, and then they vote the same tax increasers into office as those other states have. They don’t put 2 and 2 together and figure out that they are the ones voting the politicians into office that they were running from in the first place.
I can only hope it’s not to late to save this state.
“Slow Bleed” Phase Two In Motion
Well, it looks like phase 2 of Murtha’s plan to slow bleed the war in Iraq to a stop may be in motion. Maybe he calls it slow bleed because of how much American bloodshed there will be under this plan. How can this be good for the troops? Making it harder for them to do their job? Thank God they support the troops, or who knows what they would be willing to do to get the white house back.
From breitbart.com:
Senate Dems Move To Limit Iraq Mission
| By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent |
WASHINGTON (AP) — Determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002, officials said Thursday.
While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces. Read more…
Hillary And Barack Fight For Black Vote, Who Wins?
From nydailynews.com:
Black vote key & Hillary may let it slip away
By Errol Louis
Behind the brawl between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is a fight over the black vote, a valuable piece of political turf both are counting on to carry them to the White House. The competition has been brewing for months. You could hear it in the coded observation from black pols around the country that Obama might not be “black enough.”In translation, that means the young Harvard-trained lawyer has failed to conduct a cross-country humility tour to kiss the rings of a patchwork of black ministers, lawmakers, college presidents, business titans, county commissioners and mayors that most of us have never heard of.Obama did secure the endorsement of fellow Chicagoan Jesse Jackson, but he has ignored many of the lesser-known local headmen around the country who register, rile up and turn out black voters every election season.Obama stopped in Hollywood, not Harlem, this week.
Hillary, meanwhile, made a splash in South Carolina, an early-primary state where blacks could comprise up to half the vote, deploying the Clinton knack for wooing black leaders that’s been honed to perfection by hubby Bill.
She’s landed the support of black billionaire Bob Johnson, a former Obama supporter who founded Black Entertainment Television – and, more importantly, nailed the lower-profile endorsement of a state senator named Darrell Jackson, who doubles as pastor of a 7,000-member megachurch in Columbia, S.C.
And to seal the deal, the Clinton camp began negotiating a campaign contract with a publicity firm called Sunrise Enterprises whose principal owner is – you guessed it – that same Rev. Sen. Darrell Jackson, the same headman in charge.
Earlier this week, Bill Clinton was dispatched to Albany, where he gave the keynote address at the annual conference of the Black and Puerto Rican Legislative Caucus. The ex-President walked out with the star-struck lawmakers and party bosses – basically, New York’s black vote – snugly in his pocket, safely out of Obama’s reach.
Obama has nowhere near the depth, reach and ruthlessness of Clinton’s team, which was aptly described by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd as “a do-whatever-it-takes family firm with contract killers and debt collectors.”
But the kid from Illinois has a secret weapon of his own: a rising public disgust with roughhouse politics. David Geffen, an ex-Clinton backer who helped raise more than $1 million for Obama in a single night, put his finger on it when he predicted the Clinton crew “is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive and effective.”
Coming from Geffen, a Hollywood mogul who grew rich from an exquisite talent for sensing the public mood, that prediction should give pause to Clinton’s political leg-breakers. Obama may be stumbling in his efforts to build a bridge to black voters, but nothing will win sympathy for him faster than a mugging by Team Clinton.
And so, with nearly a year to go before the first primaries, the two leading Democrats are at each other’s throats, in a fratricidal battle sure to bring a smile to the lips of Republican strategists everywhere.
Mike Huckabee Update
Here is a Mike Huckabee update, we haven’t heard much about him lately. This is one of the candidates I am seriously considering voting for in the New Hampshire Primary. The other is Duncan Hunter. We just have to see how the debates go, maybe one of them can rise above the frontrunners, none of whom are conservative.
From politico.com
Huckabee: Don’t Forget Me
Exclusive: Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee plans to make a splash on Capitol Hill on Friday with the surprising announcement that Rep. Don Young of Alaska has signed on as congressional chairman of his Republican presidential exploratory committee.
In a letter to House Republicans, Young says Huckabee will help produce “a reawakening of the conservative values that make our country a land of opportunity.”
Huckabee, who moved out of the mansion in Little Rock in January, is rushing to catch up with the frontrunners’ massive organization and plans to officially announce his candidacy in the next few months. He said in a telephone interview that the debates – including the Politico-MSNBC debate on May 3 at the Ronald Reagan Library – will be critical to his chances of breaking out.
“Best I can determine, the floor is the same level for everybody at the debates,” Huckabee said on his cell phone as he ran errands in Little Rock on Thursday. “This election will eventually become focused not just on rhetoric but the results behind the rhetoric.
Huckabee noted with a chuckle the disadvantages of being the frontrunner this early in the campaign. “There’s only one direction you can go, and it’s not a good one,” he said.
His campaign got a critical boost in the South Carolina, which has one of the earliest nominating contests, when he was endorsed earlier this month by former South Carolina First Lady Iris Campbell. Her youngest son, Mike Campbell, will serve as a senior national adviser to the campaign. The late Gov. Carroll Campbell and his family played a critical role in helping Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Bole and George W. Bush win the South Carolina primary.
Young, the third ranking Republican in Congress, is no diplomat but he has deep personal connections with almost every member because he was chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which put him in charge of massive amounts of pork.
Young said in an interview from Puerto Rico that Huckabee is “a man of character and a hell of a speaker.” Young said he’ll travel on Huckabee’s behalf. “He may be a long shot now,” Young said. “But when this settles down, people will see that a governor is best positioned to bring the country together. They have the experience of bringing the opposite sides of a legislature together. People always ask me who I think I going to win and when I say Governor Huckabee, they say, ‘Who?’ So we just need to convince people that he’s a leader with great character.”
Also Friday, Huckabee plans to announce that Rep. John Boozman of Arkansas will be congressional co-chairman of his presidential exploratory committee. Boozman is a member of the Republican Study Committee, the conservative caucus, and so has ties to a group of members whose support could really help Huckabee.
Boozman said in an interview that Huckabee “has a tremendous ability to communicate” and has positioned himself well as a conservative. “This thing is wide open,” Boozman said. “His greatest challenge is going to be coordinating a national campaign.”
Dick Cheney vs Nancy Pelosi
Dick Cheney seems to have offended Nancy Pelosi by stating the truth. That the Democrat party is helping the enemy by destroying this nations will to win this war.
She was so offended she tried to call the president and demand an apology, aren’t these the same people who say we need to debate the war? Well, I guess you can debate and speek your mind only if you agree with the left. That doesn’t sound like debate to me.
From boortz.com:
You gotta love Dick Cheney. He already knows the mainstream media and the Democrats hate him, so he just goes right out there and says exactly what he thinks…and often times, it’s priceless. It all started recently in Japan, of all places. Cheney was giving an interview to ABC News about John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi’s attempts to short-circuit the troop surge in Iraq. Here is exactly what he said:
“I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy. The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.”
And that’s when it hit the fan. A furious Nancy Pelosi tried to reach President Bush to complain, but only got through to the Chief of Staff. Madame Speaker whined that Cheney’s comments were “beneath the dignity of the debate we’re engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support.” Uh-huh. Then Pelosi trotted out her well-worn straw man and accused the Bush Administration of questioning her patriotism, something he didn’t do.
So what’s the problem here? The truth hurts, doesn’t it? Cheney just spoke his mind…and he’s right. The Democratic strategy in Iraq is the Al-Qaeda strategy: surrender. It’s too bad Nancy Pelosi can’t accept that.
Joe Lieberman To Switch To The GOP?
Lieberman Says War Vote Could Prompt Party Switch
While I doubt this will happen, and the only issue I agree with Joe Lieberman on is the war, I think it would be funny if Joe Lieberman turned his back on the party that turned their back on him. Sticking it to all the defeatist and anti-American members of the senate would be great. He is the one Democrat who puts winning the war above winning the white house.
From politico.com:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.
Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.
“I have no desire to change parties,” Lieberman said in a telephone interview. “If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don’t feel comfortable with.”
Asked whether that hasn’t already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: “We will see how that plays out in the coming months,” specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.
He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.
“I hope we don’t get to that point,” Lieberman said. “That’s about all I will say on it today. That would hurt.”
Republicans have long targeted Lieberman to switch – a move that would give them control of the Senate. And Time magazine is set to report Friday that there is a “remote” chance Lieberman would join the GOP.
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter’s (D-NH)Arrogance And Condescension
H
Below is an article from the New Hampshire Union Leader. I know that when the writer says that Ms. Shea-Porter doesn’t respond to her emails she is telling the truth. I have written to her twice and have not even received an email acknowledging she has received it, let alone a response. She isn’t willing to listen to views different than hers.
Rep. Shea-Porter Should Be More Considerate Of Military Families
By Gail Giarrusso
In an article in the New Hampshire Sunday News, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter denies that she and her staff tried to intimidate me and silence my attempt to speekout for our troops.
I would like to clarify information regarding my issue with the congresswoman and her staff.As I have said in the past, I emailed my representative with concerns on a very impotant issue,the Iraq war.
No responce.
In the past,I was able to count on a repectful responce from Rep. Jeb Bradley even when we disagreed on the issue of concern. He would acknowledge my concerns,explain his stand on the particular issue,and assure me that he would consider my views when acting on behalf of the citizens of New Hampshire.This was always done in a written response.
My letter to the editor criticizing Shea-Porter’s position on the Iraq war appeared in the Portsmouth Herald on Jan.27.I received a phone call from a woman on Carol Shea-Porter’s staff the following Monday morning, Jan. 29,criticizing my viewpoints and informing me that Rep. Shea-Porter and her staff disagreed with my views.
This woman spoke in an angry tone of voice and I felt she was attempting to silence my side of the issue. Not once did she refer to the email I had sent to Rep. Shea-Porter previously or her cocern for my nephew and his safety while he serves this nation in harm’s way.
After this upsetting phone call, I sent another email to Rep. Shea-Porter informing her that I was upset that she did not have the courtesy to respond to my email;however her staff was quick to call me after my concerns with the Portsmouth Herald. I asked her if this was how she trained her personnel to deal with military families. I advised her that I would not be intimidated by her staff attempting to silence me.
I did receive a phone call from Rep. Shea-Porter on Monday evening;she was attempting to convert ne to her viewpoint.
After she realized this was not going to happen,she stated,”We are just not going to agree.”
I informed her once again that I will continue to contact her regarding my concerns and speek out publicly on behalf of our troops. She then ended the conversation.
I have continued to email our representitve regarding my concerns over the non-binding Iraq resolutions and informing her of my views regarding how this is affecting our military.
As of this writing, I have not received a response to any of my emails.
Is this the type of costituent service we can count on with Rep. Shea-Porter in office?
Gail Giarrusso of Stratham has a nephew who has served to tours in Iraq
Is The Democrat Party Anti-war?
This is from realclearpolitics.com:
Democrats Disingenuous in Their Anti-War Rhetoric
Why did a majority of Democratic Senators – such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer – vote to authorize a war with Iraq on Oct. 11, 2002? And why is this war now supposedly George Bush’s misfortune and not theirs?
The original fear of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, of course, played a role in their votes – but only a role. In the 23 writs that authorized force to remove Saddam, senators at the time also cited Iraq’s sanctuary and subsidies for terrorists. Then there were Saddam’s attempts to assassinate a former United States president; his repression of, and use of weapons of mass destruction against, his own people; and his serial violations of both United Nations and Gulf War agreements. If paranoia over weapons of mass destruction later proved just that, these other more numerous reasons to remove Saddam remain unassailable.
Nevada’s Sen. Reid summed up best the feeling of Democrats that there were plenty of reasons to remove Saddam Hussein in a post-9/11 climate. He reminded his Senate colleagues that Saddam’s refusal to honor past agreements “constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.” Read more…
Another Article About John Murtha
I know it’s getting repetitve with all these posts on John Murtha and the slow bleed, but we have to keep getting the word out there to as many people as possible, so here is another from the New Hampshire Union Leader:
Murtha Is Close To Directing Our Iraq Policy
By ROBERT D. NOVAK
AFTER 16 undistinguished terms in Congress, Rep. John P. Murtha at long last felt his moment had arrived. He could not keep quiet the secret Democratic strategy that he had forged for the promised “second step” against President Bush’s Iraq policy (after the “first step” non-binding resolution of disapproval). In an interview last Thursday with the anti-war Web site MoveCongress.org, he revealed plans to put conditions on funding of U.S. troops. His message: I am running this show.
Indeed, he is. Murtha and his ally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, were humiliated last Nov. 16 when the Democratic Caucus overwhelmingly voted against Murtha as majority leader. Three months later, Murtha has shaped party policy that would cripple Bush’s Iraq troop surge by placing conditions on funding. That represents the most daring congressional attempt to micromanage ongoing armed hostilities in nearly two centuries, since the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War challenged President Abraham Lincoln.
Murtha’s plan did not surprise Republicans. They were poised to contend that his proposed amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill would effectively cut off funding for the war, confronting moderate Democrats elected after promising voters to support troops. But the Senate rule requiring 60 votes to end debate, which prevented final passage of the non-binding resolution rejecting the troop surge, would not affect Murtha’s plan because appropriations have to be passed and cannot be filibustered.
Thus, unless there is an unexpected retreat of Democrats, Murtha will be driving U.S. policy. That is an improbable elevation for a congressman best known until now as a purveyor of pork. An ideological moderate (75 percent liberal and 40 percent conservative, according to recent ratings), he became a hero to the left by advocating “redeployment” of troops from Iraq.
That prompted Murtha to announce his candidacy for majority leader, which appalled Democrats who knew him well. Two prominent Democrats reminded me that Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 Abscam investigation. He embarrassed himself on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last June by suggesting a redeployment of troops from Iraq to Okinawa. A year earlier, the Los Angeles Times reported firms represented by his lobbyist brother received funds approved by Murtha’s appropriations subcommittee.
None of this prevented Pelosi from endorsing Murtha for majority leader against heavily favored Rep. Steny Hoyer. When Hoyer won, 149 to 86, in the Democratic caucus, Pelosi and Murtha were seemingly repudiated. But since then, Hoyer has appeared the odd man out in the Democratic caucus.
Murtha and Pelosi are setting party strategy in close collaboration with Rep. George Miller, Pelosi’s close associate and consigliere. Murtha has made clear that the non-binding resolution, whose merely symbolic nature infuriates anti-war activists, was only the “first step.” Murtha, chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, did not hide the purpose of setting standards for training, equipping and resting troops: “They won’t have the equipment, they don’t have the training, and they won’t be able to do the work.”
When Murtha revealed the strategy, the House Republican staff quickly dispatched e-mails to GOP members that list Democrats who had campaigned last year against restricting support for troops in the field. The messages asked: “Will they side with Jack Murtha and their leadership in Washington, or with the promises they made to their voters?”
But only eight such Democrats, including six newcomers, were listed. Rep. Nick Lampson, who returned to Congress from Tom DeLay’s conservative Texas district, had said (according to The Associated Press) that “he opposes withdrawing until the Iraqi army is capable of controlling the country.” Lampson declined to talk to me when I said I wanted to ask him about Iraq. Freshman Rep. Brad Ellsworth won election to a swing district in Indiana by saying (according to the Evansville Courier & Press) that “he would not support any measures that would cut funding for forces in Iraq.” Ellsworth said he was “too busy” to talk to me after I said the subject was Iraq.
It seems all but certain that Democrats will pass what Murtha frankly calls an attempt to prevent funding of the surge. Improbable though it may seem, blunt and brassy Jack Murtha is moving close to command over U.S. policy on Iraq.
Robert D. Novak is a Washington columnist and commentator on the FOX network
