Paddy O'Shea
2006-12-11 13:59:18 UTC
Bush lost the war in Iraq, and he's working hard of losing Afghanistan.
You guys really have so very much to be proud of ..
You guys really have so very much to be proud of ..
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/20902.html
by John Lillpop
Democrats Rejoice in Bad Iraq News
December 09, 2006 01:00 PM EST
As the findings of the Iraq Panel reverberated throughout the universe
on Wednesday, it was difficult to tell who was more thrilled by the
public stoning of President Bush.
Did Islamofascists celebrate with the most gusto, or was it Democrat
politicians who cheered the loudest at the awful news about America's
apparent failed policy in the Iraqi theater of the war on terror?
Incoming majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada promised that, starting
in 2007, the Democrat-majority U.S. Senate will pursue a more
aggressive oversight role, including an examination of faulty
intelligence that helped to form the justification for the 44- month
conflict.
``We are going to look on how the intelligence was manipulated prior to
going to war,'' Reid told reporters.
Isn't that just so typical of an out-of-touch liberal? Reid is full
of himself when it comes to "Getting Bush," but utters nary a word
about doing whatever it takes to win the war.
Why in Hades do Democrats refuse to rally around the United States and
it's commander-in-chief during time of war?
Come on Democrats, you have both chambers of Congress and Rumsfeld's
head. It is time to win this danged war, rather than playing partisan
politics-- especially with so much at stake for the United States and
the entire world!
Furthermore, President Bush and the Republicans did not go into Iraq
without substantial support from Democrats.
For example, on October 11, 2002, the United States Senate passed the
Joint Resolution, which authorized military action against Iraq.
Of the 77 votes cast in support, 29 were cast by Democrats including
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Oh, and let us not overlook another liberal who said Yea! That would be
Harry Reid, from the great state of Nevada!
The final roll call for that historic vote is available here.
Those 29 Senate Democrats were joined by 81 Democrats in the U.S.
House, including the likes of Jack Murtha, Tom Lantos, Patrick Kennedy,
and William J. Jefferson.
All told, 110 Democrats joined most Republicans in authorizing
President Bush to take military actions necessary to defend this nation
against future threats.
To be sure, things have not gone well in Iraq, and America needs to
find out what went wrong and why. But our immediate focus should be on
winning the war on terror, rather than mutilating a sitting U.S.
president in order to set the stage for the 2008 presidential
elections.
As to the "Bush Lied, People Died" foolishness spouted by liberal
kooks, remember that, according to leftist politicians and the liberal
media, G.W. Bush is a stupid simpleton.
That characterization begs the question: How was an
intelligence-challenged Republican president able to manipulate 110
brilliant Democrats into voting for war?
Perhaps the real simpletons are those with a D next to their names?
by John Lillpop
Democrats Rejoice in Bad Iraq News
December 09, 2006 01:00 PM EST
As the findings of the Iraq Panel reverberated throughout the universe
on Wednesday, it was difficult to tell who was more thrilled by the
public stoning of President Bush.
Did Islamofascists celebrate with the most gusto, or was it Democrat
politicians who cheered the loudest at the awful news about America's
apparent failed policy in the Iraqi theater of the war on terror?
Incoming majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada promised that, starting
in 2007, the Democrat-majority U.S. Senate will pursue a more
aggressive oversight role, including an examination of faulty
intelligence that helped to form the justification for the 44- month
conflict.
``We are going to look on how the intelligence was manipulated prior to
going to war,'' Reid told reporters.
Isn't that just so typical of an out-of-touch liberal? Reid is full
of himself when it comes to "Getting Bush," but utters nary a word
about doing whatever it takes to win the war.
Why in Hades do Democrats refuse to rally around the United States and
it's commander-in-chief during time of war?
Come on Democrats, you have both chambers of Congress and Rumsfeld's
head. It is time to win this danged war, rather than playing partisan
politics-- especially with so much at stake for the United States and
the entire world!
Furthermore, President Bush and the Republicans did not go into Iraq
without substantial support from Democrats.
For example, on October 11, 2002, the United States Senate passed the
Joint Resolution, which authorized military action against Iraq.
Of the 77 votes cast in support, 29 were cast by Democrats including
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Oh, and let us not overlook another liberal who said Yea! That would be
Harry Reid, from the great state of Nevada!
The final roll call for that historic vote is available here.
Those 29 Senate Democrats were joined by 81 Democrats in the U.S.
House, including the likes of Jack Murtha, Tom Lantos, Patrick Kennedy,
and William J. Jefferson.
All told, 110 Democrats joined most Republicans in authorizing
President Bush to take military actions necessary to defend this nation
against future threats.
To be sure, things have not gone well in Iraq, and America needs to
find out what went wrong and why. But our immediate focus should be on
winning the war on terror, rather than mutilating a sitting U.S.
president in order to set the stage for the 2008 presidential
elections.
As to the "Bush Lied, People Died" foolishness spouted by liberal
kooks, remember that, according to leftist politicians and the liberal
media, G.W. Bush is a stupid simpleton.
That characterization begs the question: How was an
intelligence-challenged Republican president able to manipulate 110
brilliant Democrats into voting for war?
Perhaps the real simpletons are those with a D next to their names?