Dems leadership more dangerous than terrorists
In her own words and as of this writing still published on speaker.house.gov, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi documents, for all to see, her long standing and steadfast support for the Democratic party’s surrender agenda as well as other failed initiatives that provide nothing positive for the United States of America.
In addition to the failure of a 100 hour, day, month, lifetime, whatever legislative agenda her promise to drain the swamp and end the culure of corruption in Washington which she blamed entirely on the GOP has not been honored. The leading Democratic party Presidential candidate has since embraced lobbyists as real Americans and been shown to accept campaign contributions from numerous criminals with no intervention from Pelosi or her party. The swamp endures.
With a press release title like, ‘Pelosi: Bush and His Republican Allies Are Preventing Extra Funds from Reaching Our Troops’, Nancy Pelosi continues to adhere to her surrender strategy even after the Congressional approval rating has fallen to the lowest level in many years. There is no evidence to support her claim that the American people desire surrender. To attempt to shift the blame for not providing timely appropriations to the troops on President Bush is as shameless a tactic as her surrender strategy which this latest ploy supports.
Here is a review of the surrender strategy of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and friends:
source: speaker.house.gov
11/21/2006
“The war in Iraq is one of the most critical issues confronting our nation, and the American people have clearly called for a New Direction in Iraq,” Pelosi said. “We know that ‘stay the course’ is not working, has not made our country safer, has not honored the commitment to our troops, and has not brought stability to the region. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished group of experts as House Democrats discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq.”
Apparently Nancy Pelosi only considers the like minded far left fringe as ‘the American people’. Anyone who supports the troops and their mission for victory in Iraq is not included by Pelosi since they oppose surrender.
source: speaker.house.gov
12/05/2006
“We predicated some of the conversation in a letter that Senator Reid, myself and others in the leadership sent to the President on October 20. At that time, we reiterated our concern that ‘stay the course’ was not a strategy, but a slogan. We urged the President to work with us in a bipartisan way and we presented four changes to current policy: first, redeployment and transition of our troops out of Iraq; second, disarm the militia; third, have an international conference to discuss with the countries in the region the stability and reconstruction of the region, especially Iraq; and fourth, to amend the constitution to relieve some of the civil strife and to spread some of the political advantages that the elections there promised.
The last two excerpts are from just after the 2006 midterm elections. From the beginning the Democrats as stated by Pelosi above have steadfastly supported surrender in Iraq. Their first of the four misguided policies above calls for ‘redeployment and transition out of Iraq which is plainly surrender. That is followed by a near impossible task after a suggested surrender, an appeasement and unnecessary meddling in Iraqi affairs after departure. But that is the way of the Democratic party, now and in the past.
source: speaker.house.gov
12/06/2006
“The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has concluded that the President’s Iraq policy has failed and must be changed. As the November elections clearly demonstrated, that is an assessment shared by the American people.
“Months ago, House and Senate Democratic leaders suggested to the President that he implement one of the Study Group’s chief recommendations – to change the primary mission of U.S. troops in Iraq from combat to training and support, which would enable the redeployment of U.S. forces to begin. Now that the Study Group has endorsed this proposal, I hope that the President will recognize that he must take our policy in Iraq in a new direction.
Pelosi touts the Iraq Study Group as well as the recommendations of the 911 Commission Report. Funny how she makes no mention of Section 4.5 of the 911 Commission which details failures of the Democratic party against terrorism and Osama Bin Laden leading up to the attacks on the WTC in September 2001. That report details the failures of the Clinton Administration in stopping Osama Bin Laden and perhaps the 911 attack. The ABC airing of the ‘Path to 911′ was met with oppostiion from those associated with or involved in that failure. But the docudrama was derived from the 911 Commission Report and you can read it for yourself.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha and friends have supported surrender in Iraq and still do. Even with the success of the troop surge that they have criticized for nearly a year they continue to be fully invested in surrender and appeasement of terrorists. Do they even know how silly they look?
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Mark My Words, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Stageleft, Church and State, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I would like to read your blog, but will not do so because of the white text on blackground. Don’t you realize how difficult and tiring that is to read? When you go to black text on white I will be back. LCB
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
They do not care how silly they look…..they are too busy trying to “appease” their far left, liberal, unhinged base, which is impossible.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Even black text on a white background can cause the problems you describe. In general, dark text on light backgrounds favors brightly lit rooms where viewing the site whereas the reverse favors less brightly lit rooms.
Sorry for the inconvenience. The format on this site will not likely change in the near future. Perhaps you could select viewing preferences from your browser that would alleviate the difficulty you are experiencing.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
It is a national tragedy that Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi and the full democratic leadership have elected to forfeit the confidence of the American people in seeking to undermine all policies intended to protect American interests. By so doing they have splintered their previously bright 2008 electoral prospects. Media disinformation to the contrary look for new democrat party leadership in 2009 in the wake of a series of stunning democrat election losses in 2008. As President Lincoln observed in part “…you can’t lie to all the people all the time.”
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
The title of this article shows how irrelevant it is. You are sadly out of touch with what ordinary Americans want. Ordinary Americans are tired of four years of casualties and economic waste in Iraq. It is true that Congress gets low approval ratings. You leave out the most important part though. Those low approval ratings are not due to the fact that the public disagrees with withdrawing from Iraq within a year. They are due to the inability of both democratic and republican representatives to work towards that goal. Congress is made up of almost as many republicans as democrats. If you break down approval ratings carefully, you will see that the democratic representatives in congress are rated higher than the republican representatives.
According to Scott Rasmussen, the democrat candidates for Congress currently have an 11 point generic ballot advantage over GOP candidates. Other polls, generally support this conclusion. Gallup says the advantage is 12%.
The real story continues to be the abysmally low approval ratings of George Bush. Pew Research’s most recent poll says that his approval is stuck at exactly 30%. He has been below a 40% approval rating for over 18 months now. He’s about as popular as Darth Vader or castor oil.
All of this of course is just speculation. We won’t know how the American people really feel until November 7, 2008. In the meantime though, I find it pitiful you choose to lower the level of national discourse about Iraq by comparing the Congressional leadership to terrorists. I think this rightwing desire to call everyone who disagrees with them a terrorist or unpatriotic is much of what plays into your abysmal lack of popularity. Keep it up….we’ll elect six new democrat senators in 08′ at this rate.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Since most of the American people think the Iraq war was a mistake and want us to get out now, that must mean that most of the American people are more dangerous than terrorists.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Mark, the generic advantage towards democrats has always been there, and is certainly NOT due to the American public being “tired of four years of casualties and economic waste in Iraq”. That generic advantage, for whatever it’s worth, disappears when D or R is replaced with real names. If the front in Iraq is unpopular, it is as least as much due in part to the American public’s disgust with us having to fight with both of our hands tied behind our back.
Many comparisons are made with WWII, saying we won that war in just 4 years. Well, yes, we did. That was 4 years of TOTAL WAR, no quarter asked from the enemy, and none given to the enemy. If, in WWII, the enemy shot at our soldiers from a mosque, they could have been assured that they would soon be lying in a pile of rubble. Today, in our civilized war, that won’t happen. That certainly makes rooting out the enemy much harder, and makes things last a good bit longer.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Mark:
I find your point on speculation refreshing. However I do not compare the Congressional leadership to terrorists. The post plainly reads’ …more dangerous than terrorists.’
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Doug Garrett:
You seem as confident of GOP victory as Mark does of Dems victory. Although I cannot recall for sure, I believe the voting public has had a tendency to put one party in the White House and the other in Congress. While pundits have scoffed at such outcomes, that would be my guess for now.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Spree:
While I may catch flak for it, I of course agree with you. What others may find bothersome about posts like this are born of my opinion that all Americans are in some way responsible for what America does. Regardless of why we entered Iraq there is no way to undo it. The better choice for a conclusion to this war is to successfully complete the mission which will honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice and provide an enduring solution for the people of Iraq. Anything less will only compound the mistakes made to date. A successful outcome will do more to correct the problems than surrendering and casting blame.
Final notes, bob, I agree, Roy, I don’t think you really believe that and thanks to all for stoppin’ in and taking the time to comment
December 4th, 2007 at 11:48 am
As always, this blog provides for many of us ‘non-citizens’ a clear view without bias.
My opinion is as follows, and I can truly say that many of us non-voting legal immigrants share that view: The display of the leadership by the dems/libs is a disgusting, incompetent, and deranged syndrome only due to the hate of Pres. Bush. This is payback time for 2000, which many still believe that that election was stolen, regardless of facts of it not to be the case.
9/11 happened because of imcompetence to the prior administration, namely Clinton, Clarke, Berge, Gorelick etc.. The dems are those who like to be ‘liked’ going as far as selling out this country.
Unless those of you complaining on this site are immigrants from countries without the freedom, opportunity offered here in the US obviously have no clue how the US is being ‘played’ worldwide. Often I hear how ‘bad’ America is, however those who are claiming such are dems/libs, and responsible for the harm it causes, such as labling of ‘liar, hitler’ of this sitting President. This display of immature, childish, and disgusting behavior by dems/libs has caused distrust towards the US worldwide.
The damage done by libs/dems will take time to repair, and can’t be dome by a Hillary, Obama or Edwards.
The ‘progressives have destroyed the moral fabric of this country, and unless a leader who is willing to restore with vigorous courage the once admired morals of this country, there is no stopping the downslide for much worse to come.
The sabotage by dems/libs, their brethren in the CIA, State Dept, o;d media is fully displayed, anything to destroy this president. The derangement syndrome causes to think irrationally, and underminding the troops, the american people, allies, and friends of the US is done on purpose.
They want to lose this war because they feel the can retain power, or rather increase power to establish a socialized America. It is a sad display of congress. To sell out a country only for power is troubling, and many of us wonder whether the next attack which is coming unless those who suffer from BDS can reverse their sabotage on this president, and do what is right for the american people, allow the safety of this country.
So for all of you coming here complaining, take a good look into the mirror, and see what it is you are doing, and contributing to your people, hopefully you awake soon enough, and stop this nonsense displayed for years. Should an attack happened, it is on you!
I love this country, and I am thankful for its people, who have welcomed me with its warmth, and spirit.
So stop all this nonsense, and do what is right for the sake of the people!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
icrutchfield:
All I can say is, impressive post. And that is not because it appears there is a compliment on the front end of your comments, although that doesn’t hurt. I generally agree with the sentiment and the tone.
As always, thanks for stoppin’ in and taking the time to comment.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Stanford,
” …more dangerous than terrorists.” is a comparative statement, but not one you need apologize for nor in any way back off from. Indeed, appeaseniks are always at least as dangerous to a society (and usually, as in this case, more dangerous) as those they seek to succor and should meet just condemnation from any thinking person.
Now, that said, I am in a strange position. I firmly believe the situation in Iraq results from prosecuting the wrong war at the arong time in the wrong place by the wrong means. Bremmer’s misadministration of Iraq after the initial ousting of Saddam was all the evidence I needed to affirm my belief that the thing was not well thought out.
But.
The U.S. had adequate cassus belli, in spite of what the nutroots may say. There was no lying or deception leading up to the voiding of the cease fire and the continuation of the Gulf War conflict.
Saddam did support jihadist terrorists.
Saddam did not comply with the UN sanctions.
Saddam did continue to assert he had weapons of mass destruction, at least internally–and both before and after intelligence affrims this position.
Etc.
AND, “We broke it, it’s ours to fix” is a principle that applies here just as much as the FACT that leaving with our tails between our legs and the “Iraqis” ill-prepared and equipped to maintain an orderly state, a la Vietnam (where, the war essentially won, the Democrats forced the U.S. out while leaving the South in no position to defend itself from further agression (30 cartridges and a “be ye warmed and filled”)… and so naturally the Democrats got what they wanted: a defeat of the South Vietnamese people AFTER the U.S. left, something they could then portray as a defeat of the U.S.) will simply encourage further attacks by honest Muslims. (Note: I don’t use the disingenuous term, “Islamofascists” because Islamic terrorists are those who are honestly, openly and diligently following the true example of the Butcher of Medina.)
A precipitous exit is stupid, immoral and will simply reaffirm in others’ minds that America has become an ally that cannot be trusted, a hollow giant with no will to persevere and prosecute its aims to completion.
I an ideal world, Pelosi and her partners in crime would not be elected. If by chance and chicanery they were elected in such a world, they would be introduced to Dr. Tarr and Mr. Fether at their own, specially hosted “necktie party” as a direct result of their treasonous acts.
Alas! We do not live in such a world, and their treason does seem to be prospering… *sigh*
December 4th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
David,
As always your contribution is admired for its colorful style and insightful references. I will add that what may have appeared as an apology (above) was my benevolent nature offering assistance to a reader who misunderstood the plainly written text.
Thanks for stoppin’ in and for the commentary.