Ignorant Defeatism: Ramblings Of The Know Nothings

ANO

I have been feverishly searching for the video of the South Carolina after-debate debates when Fred Thompson spanked Colmes over the failed surge of the Defeatocrats in regards to the retarded Iraqi Benchmarks non-issue issue. I haven't found that video yet so I will post the transcript located at Real Clear Politics: (emphasis mine)

COLMES: You really went after at one point Mike Huckabee and you basically said something about him being part of the blame America first crowd. Is that something you feel about him? Is he a blame America firster, Mike Huckabee?

THOMPSON: When he says our administration has a bunker mentality and that we have an arrogant policy. We went into Iraq with 16 countries. I wonder if they were arrogant, things are turning out well there. He said that he wasn't sure he supported the surge, so he hasn't been totally on board.

COLMES: Is he blame America firster?

THOMPSON: I think that reflects a blame America first attitude that is reminiscent of the Democratic Party.

COLMES: We were told by the president there were about 18 benchmarks and nine of them have been met, a year later. Wasn't the idea that if we haven't met these benchmarks we have to talk about rejiggering our policy in Iraq and they haven't been met?

THOMPSON: The only benchmark is success.

COLMES: They mentioned specific things.

THOMPSON: I didn't. By any measure, whether you're talking about reduction in violence. Whether you're talking about Anbar Province, we're talking about turning Anbar Province over to our allies there, we thought that was lost. Do you remember Harry Reid when he said the war was lost?

The question is, what are the Democrats going to say about this?

COLMES: Wasn't the idea of the surge to give time for there to be conciliation among the various parties. There is no evidence we'd believe there'd be any ability for Iraq to govern and the security forces would be able to do what we were told they would have to do a year after the surge took place?

THOMPSON: That's like saying there's no progress in America if it is not happening in Washington, DC, there's lots of cooperation going on outside in the various provinces. Shia and Sunni are coming together, Shia are coming to us that haven't been with us before. Take yes for an answer, Alan. We've had some success there. You have to live with it.

COLMES: We had the nine out of 18. Not the 18 that we thought we would need before we were going to ...

THOMPSON: I don't know about Washington criteria, all I know is that we're winning in large part due to the surge and the new strategy that we've got and being carried out so effectively. And we can start bringing people home later this year according to our plan as part of our success scenario, that America will be safer because of it.

COLMES: I want to ask you about the National Intelligence Estimate that also came up in tonight's debate. Do we believe the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran or do we say we don't trust our intelligence agencies and we don't listen to what they tell us?

THOMPSON: People like you were critical of our intelligence agencies when they were coming up with invasions you didn't like, you were very critical of them yourself. They are sacrosanct when they say something you agree.

COLMES: I was critical of cherry picking. But 18 different agencies.

THOMPSON: Maybe they are still cherry picking.

COLMES: But 18 different intelligence agencies say the same thing.

THOMPSON: It's not 18 different intelligence agencies, there's some representatives from various places, including the State Department. Let's assume that they're correct, what happened in 2003, when they say that the Iraqis decided to abandon their nuclear plans? 2003. And we invaded Iraq, that's what happened.

COLMES: You don't want to believe them now.

HANNITY: Let me bring you to the right side here.

THOMPSON: You're the man.

And Colmes is a leftists dweeb. As in the past, whenever the Defeatocrats bring up the "Iraqi Benchmarks", they get spanked and they get spanked hard. I find it "Rather" curious that The Surge has brought about the success the Defeatocrats wanted without their precious Iraqi Benchmark mandates. What a bunch of clowns they are. I can just hear them in their closed-door meetings or their private calls:

"But, but, but, that damn Petraeus and those nasty boys in uniform betrayed us! WE were supposed to dictate to THEM but, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! They had to go and start winning without those Benchmarks! Now look at us...on the WRONG end of the stick...AGAIN! DAMN that Bush anyway!"

Cretins all.

We have leftist/socialist cretins such as Matt from Think Digressive saying idiocy that the reason there has been success in Iraq in 2007 because in comparison, 2006 was hell. That whole post is so full of America Hate that I cannot place the content thereof in this post. The poor slog seemingly relies on the liar Olbermann for distorted BDS to come to flawed conclusions. One day, there will come a cure for BDS. Further ignorance similar to the poor troll Matty can be found here.

Yesterday, one of the "benchmarks" was met that the whiners and pathetic defeatocrats have been whining about, even though they themselves did nothing in 2007 but enable and embolden the enemy. Of course, the defeatocrats will naturally ignore the news because it does not fit into their agenda due to their ignorant and blatant hatred of GWB.

The most ranted about "benchmark" was the De-Baathification Law. It passed. Some are whining about it but they are using democratic principles to hash out their differences and they aren't shooting each other over it, either. Sounds like political progress to me.

Dave Price of Dean's World, Susan Duclos of Wake Up America, Power Line, Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters, and Breitbart all have good pieces out in this regard, and, I am wondering why the defeatocrats cannot admit they were wrong, come out and publicly laud General Petraeus and his Surge Plan as the success that it is and has become. Naturally, that would require an admittance that they were wrong from the start and were heavily in the market of political falderal.

I agree with what Power Line has concluded...they are waiting for the Defeatocrats just to come out and openly admit that "we just want to lose." Seeing that they love to lose and have been defeated grandly in their bid for America to lose, you'd think they would be happy about losing as they did in 2007.

As more and more successes in Iraq come into the public eye thanks mostly to the milbloggers and The New Media, I wonder what the new chants will be from the anti-Americanists...could it be; "Too slow! Pull out now!"

The Surrender Caucus, I am sure, are having meetings some place...away from those pesky black helicopters.

The buzz will be collected here but do not expect many of the Leftinistra to comment positively on this happenstance...they are incapable of it.

Be sure to monitor CQ for the following:

[...] I wonder how the anti-war crowd will spin this. My guesses:

1. It's too late -- the sky is already falling!
2. Too many people have died to make freedom worth it.
3. (crickets chirping)

Or is there spin I missed? [...]

Redstate has already chimed in on that one. They are sticking with "crickets", as am I.

Thank God that Al Gore invented the internet. We would never be able to immortalize the Chief Incompetent like this at all. Nor would we have access to news at a glance showing the world what idiots the defeatocrats have been all along, and read about good news about Benchmarks from various sources.

With the approval ratings of CONgress reaching once again an all-time low (how low can they go?) is it any wonder that they are trying to become relevant once again? Have they ever been?

Congress' approval rating has hit a new historic low, as Americans blame both Democrats and Republicans for the impasse over key issues.

The USA Today/Gallup survey, released Monday, showed that Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, give the president, congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans unfavorable ratings.

President Bush's approval ratings have been poor for most of two years, but have been rising in recent months.

Congressional approval, however, has been diminishing.

"The American people just decided that Washington is either incompetent or irrelevant," said Frank Luntz, who has conducted polls for Republicans. "Republicans made promises they didn't keep, and Democrats made promises they couldn't keep. And now it's a pox on all their houses."

The best thing that can happen to America at this point is to unelect everyone in CONgress and replace them with strict Constitutionalists.

The Defeatocramps Just Disgust This DAV

ANO

From Yahoo! News...

AP - The Democrats' flagship proposal on Iraq is aimed at bringing most troops home. Yet if enacted, the law would still allow for tens of thousands of U.S. troops to stay deployed for years to come. [...]

"Flagship" proposal? You mean the sinking into the Abyss of Obscurity "Flagship"?

[...] This reality - readily acknowledged by Democrats who say it's still their best shot at curbing the nearly five-year war - has drawn the ire of anti-war groups and bolstered President Bush's prediction that the United States will most likely wind up maintaining a hefty long-term presence in Iraq, much like in South Korea. [...]

And, Germany, Japan, Kosovo...oh...wait...we aren't allowed to bring up or even to mention Kosovo. Bill Clinton said we would be out of there in a year...what, 8 years ago? Morons.

As we have been saying for seemingly an eternity, this latest quagmire...self-induced...of the Democratic Party Leadership is their last ditch effort to overrun the CONgress and the White House. Their efforts have failed. They tried, once more, to appease their fruit loop fringe anti-Americanist base and it has finally caught up to them. They know it. Their lackies know it. And now, you know it.

We have also said that this is an effort of the DementedRats to lay claim to troops being pulled out of Iraq. This has ALREADY been decided LONG ago as the Surge was building up. I guess the idiots they cater to are just plainly that dumb.

Get over it. We have been in Korea since the early 1950s. We have been in Japan and Europe since the late 1940s. We have been in the Philippines for longer than that. We will be in Iraqistan and Afghanistan for even longer.

Morons.

Catch the wave.

The Democrat Party Is In Trouble

ANO

I can tell from all the distraction techniques being utilized by the rabid moonbat loser bloggers and the theoretical astute propagandists within the Leftinistra's zoo.

Wall Street Journal: Frustration Builds for Democrats

WASHINGTON: The way in which Senate Democrats wavered and then consented to the confirmation of Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general reflects the party's broader struggle to make headway on its national-security agenda, despite President Bush's unpopularity. [...]

Washington Times: Change Called Crucial for '08

Democratic strategists are warning their party and its presidential contenders that they have failed to connect with the voters' demands for change. [...]

Newsweek: This Won't Be the Iraq Election - Fareed Zakaria

[...] When the president announced the surge last January, I wrote a column arguing that it was likely to succeed militarily (by providing better security) but would probably fail politically (because of a lack of political reconciliation). I was both right and wrong. More U.S. troops have meant better security. But they are not at the heart of current improvements in Iraq. The key is that Petraeus has been willing to do what no American official has until now: accept Iraq for what it is and not what Washington wants it to be. Searching for a stable order, Petraeus has allied himself with whoever, within reason, could produce that order. [...]

Financial Times: Democrats Wake Up to Being the Party of the Rich

[...] The decision by Senate majority leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat, surprised many Washington insiders, who saw the plan as appealing to the spirit of class warfare that infuses the Democratic party. Liberal disappointment in Mr Reid was palpable at media outlets such as USA Today, where an editorial chastised: "The Democrats, who control Congress and claim to represent the middle and lower classes, ought to be embarrassed." [...]

Yes, yes, I know. All of this is old news but it doesn't hurt retelling it all. After all, we all know that the elections coming up in 2008 will not be about the Iraq War. It will not be about the impeachment of anyone for uncommitted crimes. Remember, UFO boy's theatrical event to pander and cater to his kook fringe moonbats failed in more ways then one. Knowing he, Dennis Kucinich, was just making noise, he was called on the carpet and his fellow libs quickly shelved the whole quagmire.

The election WILL be about illegal immigration and taxes. Really. That will be the platforms. The War In Iraq is as good as won...the fighting is long from being over but the AQ are on the run and have run into Pakistan. With all the blustering about what they "would do differently than GWB", we shall see what their responses will be for Pakistan. Obama had once said that he would bomb Pakistan and Hillary has changed rhetoric about Pakistan during several debates.

Every time I hear a Democratic Party Presidential Aspirant yammer on about nothing, really, I hear the ramblings of a Phony Patriot.


Anyway, Hillary will retreat into wherever she is right now and will undergo a complete make-over since her self-induced trouncing of self during the last debate. She got got.

The Leftinistra ALWAYS run on the mantra of "change". But, what change have they affected? N.O.T.H.I.N.G.. Why is that? That is easy to answer. They lied to get into power back in 2006 and ever since then, they have back-peddled and waffled and lost EVERY contest. The "change" they wish to affect is not what the vast majority want. And, the vast majority are NOT the kook fringe Moonbats of The Fruit Loop Brigades.

Stand by for the whining.

Even that loser Greenwald knows it.

Catch the wave.

The Democrats Lied and Many Died

ANO

I often wonder how the Leftinistra in this country we call The United States can sleep at night or, whenever, knowing in their hearts that their blatant BDS driven hatred for the military is getting our people in this country's uniform killed and wounded by their actions or, inactions. Is political standing and stature really that overwhelmingly important to them that they are directly responsible for the deaths and wounding of our troops by emboldening our enemy? Don't they realize that all the enemy is doing at the moment is waiting for the Democratic Party Leadership to win?

Why is it, that right at this very moment, when and, as we are winning this War In Iraq, they choose to pull the funds? The only explanation, both plausible and viable, is political expediency. How dare they. And, why are we tolerating this pathetic temper tantrum of theirs?

When we have reports such as this flowing into the news rooms across the globe, why are they being ignored? And, on the verge of Victory, our pathetic Democratic Party Leaders are just plain childishly wrong.

DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SHENANIGANS CAUSES MORE US SOLDIERS TO DIE! Because democrats are choosing to delay funding to the troops at war more US soldiers will die!

[...] Politics is one thing, but politics that cause US military men and women to die is something completely reprehensible. This is an outrage! [...]

Like my Mother used to tell me when I did something dumb like this, "Are you happy now?" I know what my Mother would say to Christopher Dodd, a Presidential Aspirant..."Bugger off you bloody twit!". Check out Gateway Pundit's place for some amazing success numbers and related data.

[...] The poor democrats have got themselves in a pickle. Even The Washington Post admits that the situation in Iraq is improving. But, Democrats just can't see the obvious improvements. They are too blinded by their defeatism.

It goes deeper than this. The current pathetic inactions to fund the war to Victory is their last ditch effort to win in '08. They feel compelled to make amends to their base that they have lied to to get into power and a good shot at the White House back in '06. If they fail now, they are finished for a very long time. No one honors or respects empty shirts and empty promises. Especially the kind undeliverable.

Flopping Aces has said, "At least they are being honest."

[...] Why do the right thing when you can do the thing that will get you re-elected instead?

The surge is working, the Iraqi's are fighting back against al-Qaeda, the parties inside Iraq are starting to work together, violence and deaths are down, and our troops are beginning to come home. [...]

In the NYT the other day, we find this:

[...] Democratic lawmakers and strategists on Capitol Hill said their hope was that even if Republican support for Mr. Bush's strategy held firm, voters would reward Democrats for their efforts at the polls next November, and that there was no risk to failing again and again. [...]

Simply amazing and unconscionable. They think that the American People will reward them for being directly responsible for the deaths and wounds of our men and women in uniform. What kind of a demented mind-set is that?

My friend Susan said it fairly clearly last week:

Yesterday I repeated a question to the Democratic politicians that I had asked previously and have been waiting for an answer to, after showing what their choices were regarding Iraq:

The Choices:

Choice #1: They can acknowledge what is right in front of them and risk the ire of their far left, liberal base, like MoveOn.org and Code pink and the liberal bloggers that have shown they will "go after" anyone that dares speak up and tell the truth. (As they have done with Brian Baird and what they call the Bush Dog Democrats)

Choice #2: They can continue to ignore the progress and success that is being seen in Iraq and mollify their far left, liberal base, while they alienate the moderates of their party and the independents.

The Question:

Note to the rest of the Democratic politicians... eventually you are going to have to pick choice #1 or choice #2 from above because the days of ignoring it and hoping that things will go bad in Iraq are over, and it is time for you to either tell your moderates and the independents to go to hell or to tell MoveOn.org and the far left liberal, unhinged faction of your base to go to hell.

You have left yourself no middle ground. They will not let you have it both ways.

So, whats it to be Democrats?

We are waiting.

SPEAK UP, WE CANNOT HEAR YOU.

Via the New York Times we receive their answer. Petrified of their far left liberal base they would rather tell the moderates and independents to go to hell.

Democrats in Congress failed once again Friday to shift President Bush's war strategy in Iraq, but insisted that they would not let up. Their explanation for their latest foiled effort seemed to boil down to a simple question: "What else are we supposed to do?"

In answer to that question, The Van Der Galin Gazette, gives the answer:

How about putting petty partisanship aside and doing what's right for the future of both America and Iraq?

I have said before that the definition of insanity was to continue to try what has failed 41 times already, expecting to get a different result, just to keep the far left, liberal, unhinged portion of their party happy.

What the Conservatives, Moderates and Independents are seeing and what the Democratic politicians are doing their best to ignore is evidenced by one of the many articles we are seeing in our media, this time in Newsweek. [...] read the rest...

Can you believe these cretins? They fear an insignificant group of loud-mouthed schnooks? They fear these old used up hippies? They fear these anti-Americanist groups? They embolden our enemies abroad AND here at home? All for political aspirations? One of them actually asked, "What else can we do?"

Good God Almighty. And they expect that the country will reward them for their treason? Yes. I said treason. Look it up. No...we will NOT reward them unless it be the gallows.

How Does One Spell "Democratic Party"?: D.E.F.E.A.T.I.S.M.

ANO

Seeing that the Presidential Elections are less than one year away, the Desperadoes of the Defeatist Party are under the illusion or dellusion that the far-left kook fringe of their "party" is Main Stream America.

This bluster before the holidays of Thanks Giving and Christmas reeks of bluster to this DAV. They cannot be this dumb. Can they?

Notice to the Defeatist Party...you are out of touch not only with the vast majority of Americans, you are suffering from the Vietnam Era Hippy Fest Stress Syndrome. This isn't the 60s/70s anymore and President Bush is not on the ballot for 2008. Neither is VP Dick Cheney. Hello? Is anybody out there?

Redstate:

I completely missed this in my first reading of Harry Reid's cowardly refusal to either fund our troops properly, or else face a showdown once and for all: [...]

[...]

I know that you don't give a damn about the troops, Harry Reid: but even for the Democrats, this is low. These unions are some of your most loyal supporters; they pay for your Party's activities. And this is how you repay them? By taking away their Christmas? For what? Whatever extra cash you can shake down from the antiwar movement? Wasn't wrecking thousands of staffers' Thanksgiving plans enough for you?

You vile, petty, little wretch of a man.

AMEN!!

Snakes and Lizards: these pathetic and blatant Leftinistra have everything all back-asswards.

Senate Dems gave the GOP an opportunity, but they rejected it.

The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic proposal that would have paid for the Iraq war but required that troops start coming home.

The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war with no strings attached.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the only way to get troops the money was to approve the restrictions outlined by Democrats.

"Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq's own political leaders," Reid said.

John Aravosis captured the situation perfectly: "[T]he Democrats were ready to give George Bush $50 billion for Iraq today and the Republicans killed it because they don't want to provide any oversight whatsoever. The Republicans think the war in Iraq is going great, and to prove it they just took $50 billion away from our troops."

Is that all askew, or what? These defeatist and moronic sore losers had better be more careful. It's not that I'm sayin'...I'm just sayin'.

The Defeatocrats don't give a rat's ass about the troops, not one damn bit and no matter their pathetic and transparent spin, we can see right through their intellectual idiocy. Especially that idiot, dunce and libtard ReidCo. Go back to your land fraud deals, ya little cretin.

Yahoo! News:

AP - Nearly a year after anti-war voters put them in power, congressional Democrats remain unable to pass legislation ordering troops home from Iraq. [...]

And that is because the American People want a victory and the Defeatists LIED to their far-left kook-fringe morons and anti-Americanists.

Wake Up America: Democrats Finally Being Honest: We Don't Support The Troops

[...] The bill demanding withdrawal from Iraq that the House passed on Weds, was rejected in the Senate today, making this 41 failed attempts to surrender in Iraq.

Also rejected was the motion to get the funds needed to our troops for munitions, food and other things needed by our troops, in a time of war.

Finally the Democrats are being honest enough to let the American people and our troops know they do not support them.

"We'd rather see the Department of Defense, the military planners and our troops focusing on military maneuvers rather than accounting maneuvers as they carry out their mission in the field," Fratto said. "I think Congress should send this money, allow these troops to get the equipment they need. There is no reason why they should not get the money. This isn't like this is a last-minute effort and call for funding."

He said the president sent his budget to Congress back in February last year. Along with that was the supplemental request for more than $145 billion for the global war on terror. The request last month was an augmentation to that request, but they've known that funding is needed, Fratto said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that unless Congress passes funding for the war within days, he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year.

Gates, who met with lawmakers on Wednesday, said he does not have the money or the flexibility to move funds around to adequately cover the costs of the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.

As a result, he said, he is faced with the undesirable task of preparing to cease operations at Army bases by mid-February, and lay off about 100,000 defense department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors. A month later, he said, similar moves would have to be made by the Marines.

I much rather the Democratic politicians do it this way, because it takes the illusion they have been trying to dupe the public with, away, and shines a light right on the fact that they are weak on defense and that they do not now, nor have they, really supported the troops in the field.

Actions are louder and more truthful than words. [...]

And that right there is a bloody mouthful! But, wait! there's more.

Doug Ross:

Whether it's trying to cut off funding for the troops...or declaring the "war is lost" just weeks before the war was won...or simply demoralizing the U.S. military, Harry Reid's mission is clear:


Fortunately, today's Democratic leadership is so unpopular and so incompetent that their chances of achieving defeat are roughly equivalent to the odds that Reid will be hit by an asteroid while accepting an Oscar. [...]

Clarification: apparently, this how the coward ReidCo perceives himself and we all know what perceived reality leads to...schizophrenia.

Apparently, my gut call was correct in that the transparency of this "bluster" is all too obvious. With that said, read this from The Weekly Standard:

The debate over the administration request for funding for the Iraq war in 2008 is growing increasingly complex. As we've covered here, Democrats wrote a Department of Defense funding bill which specifically authorized the Bush administration to borrow funds from regular accounts to conduct the Iraq war for several months, at least. It was clearly the intent of House Democratic leaders to make a show of 'defying the White House' on Iraq funding for several months, secure in the knowledge that they had already acted to prevent any crisis in Iraq funding. The House has now passed Iraq supplemental funding legislation that is dead on arrival, and Congressional leaders assure the White House that no money will be forthcoming until they change course.

It's almost certain that this is just bluster. After all, if Congressional leaders really intended to play a game of chicken, why give the White House a way to access Iraq funds in the defense bill? If they truly intended to blackmail the Pentagon--change course, or else--then why make sure to give DoD the funds it needs to continue the war?

The only logical conclusion is that Congress intended to head off for Christmas and New Year's, bragging to their constituents that they've not given in; that they'll force the White House to come around. Then they could cave after the holidays--perhaps in February, when all attention is focused on the primaries. [...] (emphasis mine)

Bingo. Surely, if this is what the liars of the Leftinistra Cabal of the likes of ReidCo want the illusion to be, and Union jobs are lost just in time for Christmas, then, there goes a herd of voters. When one loses a job just before Christmas and knows ahead of time that which is about to be, the memory sticks don't get erased.

This headline won't set well with voters. Gateway Pundit: Congress Denies Troop Funding- Army & Marines Will Plan Layoffs

This is quaint from SFGate:

[...] Schumer, D-NY, had told reporters that unless Bush accepted the restrictions, the Defense Department would have to eat into its core budget.

"The days of a free lunch are over," he said. [...]

Free lunch? Is this guy a complete moron? Wait. Don't answer that one.

From Right Voices:

Michelle linked to this story and says: "Enjoy your Thanksgiving turkey, Harry"

The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic proposal to pay for the Iraq war but require that troops start coming home.

The 53-45 vote was 15 votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war without strings attached.

The Republican measure failed by an identical vote.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the only way to get troops the money was to approve the restrictions outlined by Democrats.

"Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq's own political leaders," said Reid, D-Nev.

So Iraq doesn't want peace?

Lets take a look at Photos: Mass celebrated in Christian church newly reopened in Baghdad are done with that, head over to Maliki Approves Trial For Shi'ite Militia Leaders. Violence is down in Iraq

Too bad that Harry doesn't keep up with the news.

Reid needs to seek professional psychiatric aid. ReidCo...the modern day Tokyo Rose...didn't she get hung?

Catch the wave:

Others blogging:

Reuters: Senate Republicans bar Iraq withdrawal plan

Snooper / A NEWT ONE: How Does One Spell "Democratic Party"?: D.E.F.E.A.T.I.S.M.

Redstate: You're a mean one, *Mister* Reid.

John Aravosis / AMERICAblog: Republican Senators kill Iraq funding bill

Booman Tribune: Setting the Narrative on the Iraq Spending Bills

Susan / Stop The ACLU: We Don't Support The Troops-Democrats

Kevin Hayden / The American Street: Senate Dems get tough to de-fund the war: now it's our turn

Speaker Pelosi / The Gavel: Once Again, Republicans Refuse to Hold the President Accountable …

Taylor Marsh: Bush Republicans Block Troop Funding

Bob Fertik / Democrats.com: After Senate Rejects Iraq Funds, Pentagon Declares War on... Congress

Salon: Senate rejects war funds tied to timetable

Macranger / Macsmind: Democrats pull the support from troops during time of war, help GOP win in 2008!

Callimachus / Done With Mirrors: Of All the Charlie Browns in the World

CNN: Pentagon: Delayed war funding could hurt military

Merry Christmas From ReidCo and PelosiCo

ANO

And here we have it, folks. At Military Dot Com, we find the following good News from the eyes of the Defeatists in CONgress:

[...] Army Vice Chief of Staff General Richard Cody has ordered top officers at all Army bases to provide detailed plans on how to trim excess spending and replace civilians with troops. Cody directs the bases to work under the assumption that furloughs will begin on or about February 23. Since civilian employees are entitled to 60 days advance notice, they'll get their furlough warnings on December 25, more or less. [...]

That's sweet, isn't it? Merry Christmas. I hope they remember this come elections 2008.

The entire memo is published here at the Fed Blog. We aren't making this up. This is real. This is hard cold fact. The Defeatists will do whatever they feel they need to do in order to gain the Upper Political Hand to appease their fruit loop base which, by the way, are insignificant in the greater scheme of things...like the war effort and National Security.

Our home grown defeatists abhor all this Good News from Iraq and Afghanistan and will wrangle a defeat for America at any and all costs...for political gain...that is all that matters...Political Power.

Talk Left Talking Out Of, er, well, You Know

ANO

In a previous post right here, we brought to our reader's attention the various definitions of "stupid". Some call it "insanity". I call it both, after reading this all so telling and ignorant rant. The Leftards would "Rather" waste tax payers' monies in an effort to do what? hand victory to the enemy? These people are dumber than a box of turtle turds. I can hardly wait until the day we round up all these anti-Americanists and ship them to a place where they would be more comfortable and be among friends...like Iran. They certainly have no friends here...unless you count their fellow insignificant and vast minority in numbers.

Listen to this ignorance. And they wonder why we laugh at their stupidity?

Speaker Pelosi today announced:

House Democrats said Thursday they would send President Bush $50 billion for combat operations on the condition that he begin withdrawing troops from Iraq.

The proposal, similar to one Bush vetoed earlier this year, would identify a goal of ending combat entirely by December 2008. It would require that troops spend as much time at home as they do in combat, as well as effectively ban harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding.

In a private caucus meeting, Pelosi told rank-and-file Democrats that the bill was their best shot at challenging Bush on the war. And if Bush rejected it, she said, she did not intend on sending him another war spending bill for the rest of the year.

"This is not a blank check for the president," she said later at a Capitol Hill news conference. "This is providing funding for the troops limited to a particular purpose, for a short time frame.

As always, we know Bush will veto.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush would veto any bill that sets an "artificial timeline" for troop withdrawals.

As always, I applaud the Speaker's STATED stance today.

As always, the important point here is that the House Dems MUST stick to their guns and tell the President - if he vetoes then he is abandoning the troops in the field. I repeat, the President of the United States will be ABANDONING AMERICAN TROOPS IN THE FIELD!

President Bush is proposing to stab the troops in the back by vetoing funding for them.

A disgraceful man. The worst President in history.

Earth to space aliens at Talk Left...President Jimmy Carter already has that title as the worst President in the history of this nation. Get your heads out of Reid's ass...you could use the oxygen.

And, another thing you liberal morons...

GWB Trounces Congress

THERE YOU ARE GWB!!!
THERE YOU ARE GWB!!!
ANO

IT’S ABOUT BLOODY TIME MR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU FOR HAMMERING THE DEFEATIST TWITS IN CONGRESS AND THE REST OF THE WORLD THIS MORNING!!!

THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!!!

NOW WE ARE GETTIING SOMEPLACE!!!!

KEEP UP THE HEAT AND PRESSURE!!!

Congress Critters

Suicide IS Painful
Suicide IS Painful
ANO

Why do our CONgressCritters insist on defeat and enable our enemies?

Defeatists In The People's House

218 Drive-By Defeatists
218 Drive-By Defeatists
ANO

The 218 defeatist traitors to our troops and our country along with their contact data is listed in alphabetical order over at The Victory Caucus.

Feel free to lock and load…cleared hot.

In case you get lost, the thread is entitled “218 Defeatists in The House”.

The Vaunted Democratic Majority

218 to 212
218 to 212
ANO

430 voted, 5 did not.

So much for the vaunted majority of the Leftinistra in the House.

218 short-sighted morons (which were bribed by the SoH) voted for financing pork spending like spinach instead of voting to support the troops.

Well done morons…well done.

I think there are 218 people in the House that need to be hung.

The Failure Plan of The Leftinistra

The Leftinistra Plan of Failure
The Leftinistra Plan of Failure
ANO

From The Victory Caucus

It’s always helpful to be able to visualize a complex, sophisticated plan like the Democratic leadership’s approach to “victory” in Iraq. And so the Victory Caucus is pleased to present a graphical representation of the latest iteration of the Slow Bleed strategy.

Defeatists of The Leftinistra

WP, TH, ANO

Defeatism…IS It Good for America?

Now, THAT is a dumb question, is it not? Then again, it all depends on who one would ask the question.

A friend of mine from TVC, The Victory Caucus, sent me a link that says it all. This friend of mine, A Proud Infidel, and I are of a kindred Spirit. We loathe the Leftinistra. We know what their “cause” is and how they are going about their business. We have been in the trenches and can smell an enemy clicks away.

Americans loathe the taste of Defeatism. In days of yore in the USSR, their government at one time executed their defeatists. They called them dissidents and their actions did not promote the cause of the government there. We cannot do that here…yet. Instead, we will just break down into a Civil War, street to street, building to building and house to house. Alarmist, you say? Perhaps, just so but more than likely not.

Our country hasn’t been this split politically and philisophically since 1861. I kid you not. Tragically, our children are not being taught the real history of this great Nation called America. They are being taught that alternative life styles are better than family values and that the NEA can better educate them than their dumb parents can because the parents are too busy. They are being taught that socialism and Marxism is better than the Federal Republic our Framers envisioned. This is a sorry time in which we live and we have the offspring of the Flower Children of the Vietnam era now in CONgress leading us down the Path of Doom and Gloom.

Alas, I digress. Here is the link that A Proud Infidel sent to me.

A snipet, if you will…

“…Indeed, two years ago — when the air was already thick with Vietnam clichés — I wrote in this space, “You get the sense that Earth could be invaded by Klingons and some editorialist would hear ‘echoes of Vietnam’ amidst their disruptor blasts.”

So it shouldn’t be as surprising as it seems to be that, lo and behold, the Democrats are behaving as if Iraq is Vietnam all over again. But it is only now dawning on the Democrats that the Vietnam War wasn’t exactly their finest hour.

The Democratic pickle is exquisitely simple: In the past election, they ran as the anti-war party and promised to bring the war to a close, but, like the dog who finally catches the car fender, they’re at a loss about what to do now. As Virginia’s Rep. Jim Moran says of his fellow Democrats, they “want to make sure this is still President Bush’s war,” but the only way they can end the war is to take possession of it. The Democratic base thinks that’d be fine. But, one gets the sense, someone in the party’s leadership understands that might be a problem…”

Amazing, isn’t it? Read the article. It exposes what the Leftinistra really are…A Band of Losers.

The Problems With Liberals

WP, TH, ANO

The top 9 reasons why a Democratic president can’t handle the war on terrorismBy John HawkinsFriday, February 23, 2007

from right here I was going to elaborate further but, I cannot add anything to it at this moment!! Many people assume that the Democrats’ opposition to the war on terrorism and their unwavering determination to undercut the war in Iraq are solely an outgrowth of their dislike of George Bush. While Bush Derangement Syndrome and raw political considerations certainly are part of the problem, you’ve got to understand that the modern Democratic Party is simply no longer capable of dealing with a conflict like the war on terrorism because of the weird ideological tics of liberalism.Look at how weak and helpless Jimmy Carter was when he was confronted by the Iranians. And Bill Clinton? Despite being prodded to take action time and time again by world events like the bombing of the World Trade Center, Saddam Hussein’s attempted assassination of George Bush, Sr., the Khobar Towers bombing, the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole, along with India, Pakistan, and North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons under his watch, Clinton seemed incapable of dealing effectively with any serious foreign policy challenges.That being said, if this nation were unfortunate enough to be burdened for four years with Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or one of the other liberals contending for the Democratic nomination, things would be even worse this time around. Why would that be the case? There are a variety of reasons for it.

1) The Democratic insistence on treating the war on terrorism as a law enforcement issue will make it extremely difficult to deal with terrorist groups. When you have heavily armed terrorists ensconced in foreign nations, sometimes with the approval of their government, it’s simply not practical to capture them, read them their rights, and take them back to America for trial. That is something that should be obvious after that approach was tried by Bill Clinton in the nineties and it failed to produce results. Going back to it in the post 9/11 world, which is what the Democrats want to do, is nothing but an invitation to catastrophe.

2) Ronald Reagan once said that, “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.” Conversely, a super power that seems weak invites attack. After spending the last six years railing against the Bush Administration and fighting tooth and nail against almost every measure that makes it tougher on the terrorists, a Democratic victory in 2008 would be viewed by the world as nothing less than an American capitulation in the war on terror. This would encourage the terrorists to launch more attacks and cause our allies in the fight to lose heart.

3) When the only credible Democratic voice on national security in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, was defeated in the Democratic primary last year, the message sent to Democrats was, “Being serious about defending America may cost you your job.” After that, elected Democrats became even more reluctant to stand up against terrorism, which is really saying something, since the Democratic Party has been nothing but a hindrance in the war on terrorism since they voted en masse for the war in Afghanistan.

4) The Democratic base doesn’t take terrorism seriously and considers it to be nothing more than a distraction from socializing the economy, raising taxes, promoting gay marriage, and the other domestic issues that are near and dear to the heart of liberals. It’s old hat to hear Democrats say that they think global warming is more dangerous than terrorism, but at one point in 2006, 94% of the readers at the most popular liberal blog on earth, the Daily Kos, were actually saying that they thought that corporate media consolidation was a greater threat than terrorism. If you have a Democratic base that isn’t serious about fighting terrorism — and it isn’t — you will have a Democratic President that isn’t serious about fighting terrorism.

5) Using the American military to further the interests of our country makes liberals uncomfortable, even though they’re usually happy to send the troops gallivanting off to the latest godforsaken hotspot that has caught the eye of liberal activists. That’s why many Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, who oppose winning the war in Iraq, are all for using our military in Sudan. However, it is also why those same liberals will oppose using our military to tackle terrorists abroad except in Afghanistan, where it would be politically damaging for them to call for a pull-out.

6) When the U.N. Security Council has members like China, France, and Russia that seem to be financially in bed with every country we end up at loggerheads with, the UN is going to be even more hapless and ineffective than normal. Since the Democrats are so hung up on getting UN approval for everything we do, it will be practically impossible for them to move forward on any serious, large scale foreign policy enterprise.

7) The Democrats are overly concerned with “international opinion,” AKA “European opinion.” The Europeans have mediocre militaries, pacifistic populations, fetishize international law, and have extremely inflated views of their own importance. Other than Britain, they don’t have much to offer in a military conflict, yet even getting token forces from them that are minimally useful is like pulling teeth. Getting large numbers of European nations to cooperate with us on military ventures that are important to American security will be nearly impossible at this point — yet since Democrats place a higher priority on European approval than our national security, they will insist on it. This, combined with the logjam at the UN, would hamstring any Democratic President.

8) The Democrats want to close Guantanamo Bay and put the terrorists held there into the American court system. The justice system in the United States is simply not designed to deal with and interrogate terrorists or enemy fighters captured overseas by our troops. Putting the terrorists held at Gitmo into our court system would only mean that hundreds of terrorists would be freed on technicalities because it’s not advisable to reveal intelligence methods — or because our soldiers aren’t trained in the legal niceties that are necessary for policemen, but should be irrelevant in a war zone. How absurd would it be to catch a Taliban fighter entering Afghanistan, take him back to the United States, have him released by a liberal judge, and then dropped back off on the Afghan border where he’d be back shooting at our troops the next day? If a Democrat wins in 2008, we will get to find out all about it first hand.

9) The intelligence programs that have helped prevent another 9/11 would be curtailed under a Democratic President. As a general rule, Democrats favor weakening our military and intelligence agencies. Add to that the complete hysteria we’ve seen from liberals over programs like the Patriot Act and the NSA tapping calls from terrorists overseas to people in the U.S. Under a Democratic President, we would be sure to see our intelligence agencies systematically stripped of the powers they need to detect and foil terrorist plots.

If a Democrat were to win in 2008, it would give terrorists worldwide a four year respite to rebuild, reload, and run wild without serious opposition from the United States. The price our nation and our allies would pay in blood and treasure for that mistake would be incalculable.

Rep Sam Johnson...(R-TX)

WP, TH, ANO

…is my Senator. He is a hero. He had this to say about the defeatocrats…

Power Line Blog

It is a video so turn your sound UP.