PDA

View Full Version : Democrats Show True Colors Not Blue but Yellow



fontman
08-02-06, 02:57 PM
Democrats Show True Colors Not Blue but Yellow
August 02, 2006
Will Malven

Here we go again. The Democrat leadership once again proves Karl Rove was correct when he stated in New Hampshire that:

"They may be with you for the first shots, but they're not going . . . to be with you for the tough battles."

At the time Rove said this, it was treated by the Democrats and the Paleo-media as though it was a statement coming from the President of Mars, but the truth is that the statement was no revelation, it was a simple statement of fact.

Since Viet Nam (a war the Democrats got us into), Democrats have had no stomach for war. They see every war as another Saigon waiting to happen and every battle as another TÍt Offensive. They believe that the American soldier is a corrupt, murderous, rapacious, stupid, thug, without whom the world would be better off.

Let us remember as we hear our Liberal brethren decry the treatment that our troops returning from Viet Nam suffered, loudly declaring "Never again!" that it was they, not Conservatives, not those of us who supported the war effort, who were guilty. Let us recall that those who were spitting on our returning heroes, those who hurled the epithets of "Baby-killers!" and "Murderers!" were not Republicans or Conservatives, they were these very same hand-wringing, guilt lobbing, Liberal Democrats.

Let us remember how they proudly declared "We support the troops, but not their mission," yet at the same time sought with all their might to get military recruiters banned from school campuses.

So now we have the latest salvo from the none too steady Left, a letter from those erstwhile "loyal members of the opposition" to President Bush declaring their undying devotion to abandoning Iraq to the terrorists and the Iranian Shia infiltrators. It's as if the Democrats have gathered together and asked the question:

"How can we best encourage the terrorists in Iraq, undermine the moral of our American Soldiers, and ensure that President Bush's efforts in Iraq fail so that we are faced with another Afghanistan in which terrorists have free rein and freedom becomes a faded dream for the Iraqi people?"

This letter is, as one might expect, full of hyperbole and empty attacks. They attack President Bush for the lack of "a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory." What it doesn't do is outline any "coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory" from the Democrats. That is because the Democrats have no coherent strategy for Iraq except to CUT AND RUN, a tactic with which they are thoroughly familiar, having advocated it in every military combat situation for the past 40 years.

Certainly they use a different term for what they propose, but it amounts to the same thing, recommending:

"Reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq will not only give the Iraqis a greater incentive to take the lead for the security of their own nation, but will also allow U.S. forces to be able to respond to contingencies affecting the security of the United States elsewhere in the world. We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006."

Here's my translation of their letter:

"Dear Georgie,

We believe that America should cut and run, leaving the Iraqi people to whims of the terrorists. We believe that capitulation in the face of adversity is the only viable solution because we do not believe in America or in our troop's abilities, so let's bug out. Freedom isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway, the Iraqi people haven't ever had it so they won't miss it anyway.

After all, why spend money on freeing the Iraqi people when we could spend it here at home buying votes from special interest groups. Heck the Iraqis can't even cast a vote here. Why should we help them?

We can't understand why you would want to send our troops over there protecting those people from a nice guy like Sadam Hussein. As far as we're concerned he was just peachy. Oh sure, he brutally killed a bunch of his own people, but that's just "those people's way." We shouldn't have stuck our noses in there; we've got too much going on at home that we need to stick our noses in.

This open ended thing just doesn't make sense, are you saying that you actually want to accomplish something in Iraq? We all thought that you were just kidding about all that "long and difficult" war stuff you were spouting back then. We just thought you were gonna go in there and stir it up a while and then come home. We had no idea that you were serious. God knows that we weren't.

Besides why should we want you to be successful, we don't like you and never have since you stole the 2000 election from Al Gore.

We know you won't listen to us, but this is just a political stunt anyway intended to fire up our base. They know and we know that we don't know anything about defending the nation, but just in case anyone else is paying attention we are going to imply that our suggested strategy of cut and run will enable us to respond to other contingencies throughout the world by cutting and running…when the time is right."

Signed. Your bestest buds,

Harry "the Nepotism King" Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
Nancy "the Wicked Witch of the Left" Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
Dick "Nazi Death Camps and Gulags" Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
Steny "Tax-Tax Spend-Spend" Hoyer, House Minority Whip
Carl "Comb Over" Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ike "Dinosaur" Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Joe "the Plagiarizer" Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Tom "I Shill for Kuwait" Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
Jay "Limousine Liberal" Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Jane "Also Limousine Liberal" Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Daniel "Watergate Hack" Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
John "Redeploy them to Okinawa" Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

P.S. You stink! Nothing personal, it's just politics.

P.P.S Please don't tell anyone that we don't have a plan, we're trying to make our supporters believe we actually do.

So for the third time now in as many months, the Democrats are repeating the call for us to cut and run. They seem to believe their own propaganda that they are winning on this and the other issues. These Neville Chamberlain devotees just haven't learned their lessons yet.

We are at war with Fundamentalist Islam, and these idiots have yet to figure that out. They still believe that we can ignore the terrorists, withdraw from their neck of the woods, and the crazies will leave us infidels alone.

Can anybody reading this truly feel comfortable saying the words "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?" Heck, I could barely stand to type it. Can you imagine having her just two heartbeats away from the Presidency? What a nightmare.

President Nancy Pelosi? Now that's a really scary thought. Yeesh, she would destroy the nation inside of a month.

thedrifter
08-02-06, 03:01 PM
Democrat Letter to the President

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. [American casualties have been falling for three straight months as the Iraqis begin to take over a share of the defense burden. This month’s tally of 44 is the lowest in over a year.] In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy.

Despite the latest evidence that your Administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory, there has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences, no regional effort to establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a struggling reconstruction effort. Instead, we learned of your plans to redeploy an additional 5,000 U.S. troops into an urban war zone in Baghdad. Far from implementing a comprehensive "Strategy for Victory" as you promised months ago, your Administration=' strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions. American taxpayers have already contributed over $300 billion and each week we stay in Iraq adds nearly $3 billion more to our record budget deficit.

In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained.

Rather, we continue to believe that it is time for Iraqis to step forward and take the lead for securing and governing their own country. This is the principle enshrined in the "United States Policy in Iraq Act" enacted last year. This law declares 2006 to be a year of "significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." Regrettably, your policy seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

This legislation made clear that Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited. We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit. Reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq will not only give the Iraqis a greater incentive to take the lead for the security of their own nation, but will also allow U.S. forces to be able to respond to contingencies affecting the security of the United States elsewhere in the world.

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel.

Additionally, every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq's reconstruction and rebuild its economy.

Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction. We believe these recommendations comprise an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment which is not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see. Thank you for your careful consideration of these suggestions.



Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee