By J.B. Williams
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Clearly, even with a controlling majority in both houses of congress, today's Code Pinko Democrats are still stuck on playing spoiler, the helpless dissenting minority victim, spinelessly limited to non-binding and non-, well, pretty much non-anything and anti-everything obstructionist tactics. I told you so-- before you put these do-nothing ninnies in power!
Real leaders could have passed a "binding" resolution calling for a shift in battle strategies that would improve our soldier's ability to win in Iraq. Real leaders would have offered a "binding" resolution that forced Bush to take the gloves off in Iraq and finish the mission, bringing our soldiers home in victory and stabilizing the region.
Real leaders, truly concerned about the outcome in Iraq, would have offered multiple options for how to succeed in Iraq. They would have passed a "binding resolution" demanding an all-out, no-holds-barred military crackdown, putting an end to al Qaeda, criminal and sectarian violence aimed at innocent Iraqis, who are trying desperately to build a national future.
At the very least, real Code Pinko anti-war leaders would have passed a "binding" resolution cutting off further funding for the mission and demanding an immediate withdrawal until the Bush Administration brought its plan for victory back before congress--
But no, Democrats did none of these things. Of course, it goes without saying that real leaders wouldn't try to call a war that Democrats promoted for years and voted for on numerous occasions, "Bush's war" either.
In predictable liberal fashion with nuanced stylish flare, symbolism again trumps substance. Spineless Democrats passed a non-binding resolution that does absolutely nothing to either improve or stop the Iraq mission, or even nudge its current course in any so-called new direction.
Their much celebrated resolution simply reads, Disapproving of the decision of the president announced on 10 January 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that:
1. Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
2. Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W Bush announced on January 10 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
I must admit that I am glad they put in clause #1, because everything else they have said and done for the last six years was starting to make me think they didn't like our soldiers at all. What a relief!
But no withdrawal of troops, no cut in funding, no new direction on the ground, no liberal ideas regarding a new offensive that would improve our odds of success - nothing, zilch, notta, zippo, absolutely nothing!
Well, not quite nothing actually-- The resolution says in essence;
We love and support our troops, but not their mission and we hope they win, but we won't help, and we think our soldiers serve honorably, except those running Soviet styled Gulag's and razing villages in the middle of the night, raping and plundering little Iraqi children, and we trust our brave young soldiers to defend freedom, just not in Iraq and did we mention today that we hate George Bush and we are going to do all we can to make certain he can never claim victory in Iraq?
That's what the resolution says, no more, no less, and that's exactly what they mean. This explains why terrorists around the globe applauded Code Pinko Democrats return to power. Democrats help terrorists win the propaganda war and we all know that the only way terrorists can win the real war is to win the propaganda war, causing America to simply quit and go home.
The non-binding resolution is otherwise a non-event. But they sure made a huge display of doing nothing and that was the point, wasn't it? Their voter base didn't really need to see action, they needed to see symbolism. They're liberals, symbolism is what they do.
I told you so! Before the '06 elections, when all you Code Pinko Dumbo-crats were clamoring at the feet of your fearless symbolic pretend leaders, with child-like blind faith that they would actually change the course in Iraq on your behalf the moment elected, I told you no such thing would happen, no matter who won the mid-terms.
Come on, say it ...I was right! Everybody else already knows. Just say it!
Not only that-- I told you that this symbolic message allegedly intended for Bush (but actually intended to appease war critics stupid enough to think Democrats were actually going to end a war they voted for and promoted for years), would actually be better received by someone else, and here it is, in big bold headlines--
Moments after the historic House vote to do nothing, Al Jazeera led its Middle East propaganda headlines with US House denounces Bush troop plan, which obviously would have been more accurately stated, House Dumbo-crats denounce Bush war on terror in Iraq--again! 17 Republicrats seek political cover too.
Al Jazeera quoted a proud Speaker Pelosi who said: "The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home." What an odd string of words to describe this peculiar resolution, which clearly does no such thing-- I can't figure out if the new Speaker thinks everyone who might read that statement is really stupid enough to buy it, or if she is just stupid enough to buy it herself?
Of course, the Pelosi quote followed Al Jazeera subtitle "Symbolic resolution", then went on to point out, 'Plan goes ahead', Bush's plan that is. Democrats don't have a plan, remember? Even Al Jazeera figured it out-- You've got to admit, Code Pink must be RED HOT by now. I mean, those pink bloomers must be in a real wad. They're marchin' mad, I'm sure of it!
Only Code Pinko Prince Jack Murtha, new chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, seems ready to lay down the gauntlet, announcing that he would condition the release of any additional funds in a way that would hamper future troop deployments. Murtha said Democrats must "deny the president the ability to send more troops into Iraq and to insist on restoring our military readiness." That-a-boy Jack! Without your cut-n-run attitude holding the party-wide determination for retreat and defeat together, what kind of future would terrorists have today?
This they call "leadership"? This they call a new positive direction? This is what they think Americans voted for last November? They might be right--in their own demented way.
Obviously, it's pure hyperbole, symbolism, chest pounding, hand-wringing and nothing more. A demoralizing display of defeatism at its worst and a poorly veiled attempt to hide from the far left core of their party, who voted them back into power on the predictably broken promise of ending the war in Iraq. It's political cover. It allows Democrats to say they did something while doing nothing. That's all, folks.
Even though their ignorant voters don't know it, Democrat politicians do know that there is only one way to end the military action in Iraq and that's to win it. Of course this knowledge has not stopped Democrats from working to obstruct that mission, nor will it, as you can see.
Democrat politicians knew they could never end the war in Iraq short of victory, no matter how many seats they won in congress. But their idiot voters didn't know it and most of them still don't know it or won't admit it, even after this ridiculous non-binding symbol of over-puffed egos and anti-American intentions.
But the rest of us know it and now Democrats are formally on record for exactly what they are and where they stand. What they are is cowards and they stand for nothing. The current circus stunt resolution proves it, once and for all.
What else needs to be said? Democrats have hitched their political wagon to the success of America's enemies. Could it be any clearer at this point?
Next--!
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement