posted June 16, 2006 03:13 PM            

These democrat whiners and cut and run artists have been trying to hand the terrorist enemy in Iraq...and elsewhere a victory they can't win on the battlefield...just like their cherished and fondest memories of Vietnam.

The Senate and House said no. Some democrats had the good sense to say no as well and the votes weren't close.

Harry Reid attempts to cheer up a despondent Nancy Pelosi, the woman masquerading as the Minority Leader of the House. Reid refused to follow Nancy off the cliff and voted with the majority in the Senate

House Rejects Timetable for Iraq Pullout
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, June 16, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The House on Friday handily rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, culminating a fiercely partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats feeling the public's apprehension about war and the onrushing midterm campaign season.

In a 256-153 vote that mirrored the position taken by the Senate earlier, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.

"Retreat is not an option in Iraq," declared House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Achieving victory is our only option ... We have no choice but to confront these terrorists, win the war on terror and spread freedom and democracy around the world."

"Stay the course, I don't think so Mr. President. It's time to face the facts," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California answered, as she called for a new direction in the conflict. "The war in Iraq has been a mistake. I say, a grotesque mistake."

Four months before midterm elections that will decide control of Congress, House Republicans sought to force Republicans and Democrats alike to take a position on the conflict that began with the U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003.

Democrats denounced the debate and vote as a politically motivated charade, and most, including Pelosi, voted against the measure. They said that supporting it would have the effect of affirming Bush's "failed policy" in Iraq.

Balking carried a risk for Democrats, particularly when they see an opportunity to win back control of Congress from the GOP. Republicans likely will use Democratic "no" votes to claim that their opponents don't support U.S. troops.

In fact, 42 Democrats broke ranks and joined with all but three Republicans to support the resolution. Two Republicans and three Democrats declined to take a position by voting present.

Republicans and Democrats alike explained the decision, as each side saw it, that voters have to make in November.

"The choice for the American people is clear; don't run in the face of danger, victory will be our exit strategy," Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, said.

Countered Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.: "It's not a matter of stay the course. It's a matter of change direction."

Some GOP incumbents who face tough challenges from Democrats in November issued qualified support for the measure while criticizing the GOP-led Congress.

"The American people are looking to us to answer their questions on how much progress is being made, what are the Iraqis themselves willing to do to fight for their freedom and when will our men and women come home," Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., said before voting in favor of the resolution.

The House vote comes one day after the Senate soundly rejected a call to withdraw combat troops by year's end by shelving a proposal that would allow "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in Iraq in 2007.

That vote was 93-6, but Democrats assailed the GOP maneuver that led to the vote as political gamesmanship and promised further debate next week on a proposal to start redeploying troops this year.

Congress erupted in debate on the Iraq war four months before midterm elections that will decide the control of both the House and Senate, and as President Bush was trying to rebuild waning public support for the conflict.

The administration was so determined to get out its message that the Pentagon distributed a highly unusual 74-page "debate prep book" filled with ready-made answers for criticism of the war, which began in March 2003.

But as the death toll and price tag of the conflict continue to rise, opinion polls show voters increasingly frustrated with the war and favoring Democrats to control Congress instead of the Republicans who now run the show.

Sensitive to those political realities, Republicans in both the Senate and House sought to put lawmakers of both parties on record on an issue certain to be central in this fall's congressional elections.

The Senate vote unfolded unexpectedly as the second-ranking GOP leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., introduced legislation he said was taken from a proposal by Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and war critic. It called for Bush to agree with the Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawal of combat troops by Dec. 31, 2006.

Democratic leader Harry Reid sought to curtail floor debate on the proposal, and the vote occurred quickly. Six Democrats, including Kerry, were in the minority.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., predicted that terrorism would spread around the world, and eventually reach the United States if the United States were to "cut and run" before Iraq can defend itself.

posted June 16, 2006 03:25 PM            

So, in spite of what whining and posturing, lying democrats say about pulling out of Iraq, it's just political bullsh*t...except for the the usual suspects who are so far left they never saw an enemy they wouldn't surrender to.

Senate Rejects U.S. Troop Withdrawal in Iraq
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, June 16, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Congress plunged into divisive election-year debate on the Iraq war Thursday as the U.S. military death toll reached 2,500.

The Senate soundly rejected a call to withdraw combat troops by year's end, and House Republicans laid the groundwork for their own vote.

In a move Democrats criticized as gamesmanship, Senate Republicans brought up the withdrawal measure and quickly dispatched it — for now — on a 93-6 vote.

The proposal would have allowed "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in Iraq in 2007.

Across Capitol Hill in a daylong House debate, Republicans defended the Iraq war as a key part of the global fight against terrorism while Democrats assailed President Bush's war policies and called for a new direction in the conflict.

"When our freedom is challenged, Americans do not run," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in remarks laden with references to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"This is a war that is a grotesque mistake," countered House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. She called for a fresh strategy — "one that will make us safer, strengthen our military, and restore our reputation in the world."

House Republicans moved toward a vote on a nonbinding resolution Friday morning to reject any timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces.

Democrats, for their part, seized on reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wants, as part of a national reconciliation plan, to pardon insurgents who had attacked U.S. troops. In both the House and Senate, Democrats urged Republicans and the president to denounce the plan.

Congress roared into debate on the three-year conflict four months before midterm elections that will decide the control of both the House and Senate — and as Bush was trying to rebuild waning public support for the conflict.

The administration was so determined to get its message out that the Pentagon distributed a highly unusual 74-page "debate prep book" filled with ready-made answers for criticism of the war.

"We cannot cut and run," the Pentagon battle plan says at one point, anticipating Democratic calls for a troop withdrawal on a fixed timetable.

As the debates got under way, the Senate sent the president an additional $66 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan — legislation Bush promptly signed — and the same day, the Pentagon announced the U.S. death toll for the war had reached 2,500.

"It's a number," White House press secretary Tony Snow said of the grim milestone. He said that Bush "feels very deeply the pain that the families feel."

The president has tried to rally support for the Iraq war in the days since the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the recent completion of a new Iraqi government.

But as the death toll and price tag of the conflict continue to rise, opinion polls show voters increasingly frustrated with the war and favoring Democrats to control Congress instead of the Republicans who now run the show.

Sensitive to those political realities, Republicans in both the Senate and House sought to put lawmakers of both parties on record on an issue certain to be central in this fall's congressional elections.

The Senate vote unfolded unexpectedly as the second-ranking leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., introduced legislation he said was taken from a proposal by Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and war critic. It called for Bush to agree with the Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawal of combat troops by Dec. 31, 2006.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said if the United States withdrew prematurely, "I am absolutely convinced the terrorists would see this as vindication." He predicted terrorism would spread around the world, and eventually reach the United States if the United States were to "cut and run" before Iraq can defend itself.

Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada shot back: "Two things that don't exist in Iraq and have not, weapons of mass destruction, and cutting and running."

He accused Republicans of political gamesmanship and sought to curtail floor debate on the proposal. The vote occurred quickly.

Kerry called the vote "fictitious" and promised further debate next week on the issue. He and five other Democrats were in the minority on the vote — Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Barbara Boxer of California, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Senate Republicans claimed victory with the lopsided tally. "This sent a good message that the United States Senate overwhelmingly opposes a cut-and-run strategy," said John Cornyn of Texas.

In the House, partisan politics took center stage from the day's outset.

Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., attacked war critics as defeatists who do not deserve re-election. "Is it al-Qaida or is it America? Let the voters take note of this debate," he said.

Republicans arranged for the debate to culminate in a vote on a resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.

posted June 16, 2006 05:06 PM            

News max farticle News max farticle News max farticle News max farticle News max farticle News max farticle

posted June 16, 2006 05:55 PM            

"Democrats, Out to Lunch and Out of Their Minds"

posted June 22, 2006 05:45 PM            

Liars
By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 22, 2006

The antiwar Left’s claim that “Bush lied” about Saddam Hussein possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction has itself been proven a lie.

Last night Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-MI, released the declassified overview of a report produced by the National Ground Intelligence Center, the group that has searched Iraq for Saddam Hussein’s WMDs since 2004. Its stunning revelation: there were WMDs, after all.

Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions, which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf war chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf war chemical munitions are assessed to still exist. That means in addition to the 500, there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-MI, noted this is significant, since “the impression that the Iraqi Survey Group left with the American people was they didn't find anything.”

The report further justified President Bush’s rationale for toppling Saddam: he had WMDs that he may have transferred to terrorists.

Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the Black Market. Use of these weapons by terrorist or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out. The most likely munitions remaining are Sarin- and mustard [gas]-filled projectiles.

For emphasis, Sen. Santorum added, “And I underscore ‘filled.’” Ready-to-use WMDs apparently dot the Iraqi map. As evidence continues to pour in about Saddam’s connections to al-Qaeda, Zarqawi, and other terrorist networks prior to the invasion, the nightmare scenario writes itself.

All of which makes the anti-Bush, antiwar Left’s rhetoric sound more shrill and opportunistic than it did at the time:

President Bush “engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate the facts in service to a totalistic ideology.” – Vice President Al Gore in a 2003 speech before MoveOn.org.

“As in Vietnam, truth was the first casualty of this war.” – Ted Kennedy in a speech at Johns Hopkins University early last year.

“What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate. It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war.” – Howard Dean, in the same interview in which he said “the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.”

“We know now that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction over there. But Coretta [Scott King] knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here.” – Rev. Joseph Lowery, at Coretta Scott King’s funeral.

“He misled every one of us.” – John Kerry in 2003.

“He lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and he lied about the war.” – Maxine Waters, D-CA.

“We cannot lead if our leaders mislead.” – Former President Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

These rhetorical assaults made against a sitting president during a time of war would be somewhat less vicious, egregious, or gratuitous were they born of heartfelt conviction. However, yesterday’s disclosure was not exactly news. For one thing, many of the “Bush lied”/”Saddam never had WMDs” brigade had thundered that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons before, during, and after the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Only after the Soros-funded "base" of their party made a pro-war stance political suicide did most of today's critics turn against the president, the war, and the mission they had sent more than 100,000 American troops to die achieving.

Then the president’s harshest detractors turned a blind eye to proof of Saddam’s verboten cache.

President Clinton, James Woolsey, David Kay, and Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski indicated years ago they believed Saddam still had WMDs. Then the weapons themselves started turning up.

In early 2004, Dutch officials discovered five pounds of yellowcake uranium ore in scrap metal imported from Iraq.
In subsequent months, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found parts of banned al-Samoud 2 (SA2) missiles shipped around the world as “scrap.”

In April 2004, Jordanian officials seize 20 tons of WMDs from al-Qaeda containing 70 different chemical agents, including Sarin and VX gas. King Abdullah announced on April 17 the stockpiles originated in Iraq. If detonated as planned, they would have killed at least 80,000 people.

The following month, Saddam loyalists fired a “chemical binary projectile” filled with Sarin gas at U.S. troops in Iraq.

In early 2006, Gen. Georges Sada, the number two man in the Iraqi air force, told American media outlets that Saddam Hussein buried some WMDs in concrete underground bunkers in Iraq; others he shipped or airlifted to Syria with Russian assistance.

Yesterday’s announcement by Santorum and Hoekstra is but the most specific documentation of “An Inconvenient Truth”: Saddam did not destroy his weapons stockpiles, the UN inspectors were indeed inept, and the weapons may yet fall into the hands of terrorists if American troops are prematurely withdrawn from Iraq, as Messrs. Murtha and Kerry long to do.

How has the Left greeted this news? For the most part, they have focused on more “pressing” stories, such as the Marines being charged with murder, Republicans not increasing the minimum wage, anal sex (which is apparently Arianna Hufftington’s beat), and Making the Case for Impeachment (naturally).

A few have responded. The Daily Kos featured the headline “PA-Sen: Santorum Makes **** Up.” To justify its profane assertion, it cites all the inspectors who didn’t find WMDs – which is rather like the defense calling witnesses who had not see the accused commit the murder.

Even as incontrovertible proof exonerated the president, Gucci Marxist and ignoramus Robert Scheer told MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson last night, “We’re talking about whether it’s right to lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction…so I want a candidate that will tell the truth about the lies of this administration.”

As the weeks unfold, the Democratic Party’s base will likely adopt Scheer’s m.o. as their own: after all, the Big Lie tactic has proven successful elsewhere. The Left’s hardcore activists, invested in American defeat in Iraq and Republican defeat in ’06 and ’08, will not refrain from calling President Bush a lying Nazi even if Saddam, in a fit of hunger-induced insanity, admitted every sin and dark machination lurking in his evil heart.