Nov 06 2006

Still Impeachment Vs War On Terror

This election still boils down to whether we want to spend the next two years in congressional investigations and impeachment hearings (even as a PR campaign for ’08) or whether we will keep our eyes and ears on our enemy and focus on the War on Terror? The Democrats have never once believed terrorism is all that serious or a big threat. That is why we were attacked so many times under Clinton and narry a rallying cry. If you think I am off track here, read the liberal views for yourself:

On the other hand, Democrats could take the House, and perhaps even the Senate. What difference would that make to the war? Obviously, in one or both houses, the opposition could then convene hearings in which both the present conduct of the war and past failures and deceptions could be investigated. Congressional hearings can be a powerful forum. Until now, it has not served the Bush administration’s purposes to have the American public well instructed on the complexities of Iraq, but intensive media focus on testimony by the war’s witnesses, critics, and victims would change that.

We have been here before. Of all the acts of opposition to the war in Vietnam, none was more consequential than the hearings presided over by Senator William Fulbright — a Democrat challenging a Democratic administration. The Fulbright hearings served as the nation’s classroom, with a visceral uneasiness about the war evolving into informed opposition. The decisive election year was 1968, and, sure enough, voters cast their ballots for peace.

Of course, what this means is bringing our brave men and women of the military back home and to honor them with grillings by fanatical liberal lawyers (who would rather defend a terrorists than support our military). It means more John KErry’s getting up an lying through their liberal teeth (like we have now in numerous Democrat commercials running across this land). The left have a dream: Paying Bush back for 2000, 2002, 2004. The rest of us have real lives and respect for those who serve and sacrifice to protect us. This year’s choices are clear. Impeachment or fighting terrorists. And how our troops will be used in either choice is clear.

Update:: Michael Barone points to clear signals by the Democrats over the last few years why this is actually the case, and the choice this year.

17 responses so far

17 Responses to “Still Impeachment Vs War On Terror”

  1. az redneck says:

    And the very worst is:

    “The only way out of the disaster was to accept defeat.”

    What a sad commentary on the mood and lack of understanding on the part of the American public. The consequences this time would be even worse than then. They will definitely follow us home if we walk away! How can anyone doubt that??


  2. az redneck says:

    Close your tags before HH gets here!

  3. Kitty Litter says:


    Yet another reason the DEMS MUST LOSE: Still Impeachment Vs War On Terror…

  4. HaroldHutchison says:

    The HTML is screwy again…

    (Not knocking AJ).

    Seriosuly, you cannot beat something with nothing. And the Dems have really offered nothing.

  5. AJStrata says:

    Hey man, If you don’t tell me I wouldn’t know!

  6. tarpon says:

    Slip sliding away, right off the cliff.

    Monday is day of reckoning for the pollsters, can’t end on predicting a Democrat win that turns out to be a loss — So the race is tightening and too close to call. Sure it was.

  7. Retired Spook says:

    Tarpon, that was my first thought too. I realize there are a lot of stupid and ignorant people in this country, but I’d like to think that, at the end of the day, perhaps even after they’ve stepped into the voting booth, the majority is going to realize that, as HH noted, the Dems have really offered NOTHING.

    The waiting, though, is torture, and I’d be willing to bet we won’t know the final outcome on Wednesday morning. Look for numerous repeats of the Washington, 2004, Governor’s race.

  8. kathie says:

    Yes, Yes the Dems have a plan—–bring the troops home and we will have enough money to buy the middle class, they will love us and we will be back in power. Prove Bush lied with endless hearings. Then we can say it is his fault if every thing goes to hell in a hand basket because if Bush hadn’t lied we would never have been in Iraq in the first place. Of course it would destroy our reputation in the world but we hate us any way so who cares. A few 100,000 people die, but the middle class will love us because we will give them cheaper education, higher minimum wage and better health care. And the story goes on.

  9. pagar says:

    America’s reputation was destroyed, when John Kerry and the democrats told the South Vietnamese and the world that America was not going to stand by people, who had stood by us every step of the
    way in Vietnam. People, who knew the moment they said they would stand with the Americans, that if the Americans lost in Vietnam they
    were dead. John Kerry and the Democrats, signed these peoples death
    certificate, when they pulled the financial support from South Vietnam.
    I have no idea how anyone would convince any non-American to stand
    by America, when they know that as soon as Democrats are in power, their enemies, (the ones Good Americans said “We’ll protect you from”)
    will be impowered. John Kerry and the Democrats seem to be loyal only to enemies of America.

  10. The Macker says:

    Don’t you think the Senate is the crucial battleground ?

    That’s where the judges will be confirmed, Thats where any phony impeachment trial would be held. Thats where other appointments will be confirmed.

    And that’s our best shot.

  11. Ken says:

    Gee Pagar, if America’s reputation was already destroyed in the
    Vietnam debacle, why would you be in favor of a hopeless war
    endeavour in Iraq?

    Kathie, “it would destroy our reputation in the world” (if we bring the
    troops home?) Have you read the polls? Bush’s war has already
    destroyed our reputation in the world, we are regarded as the most dangerous nation in the world, followed by Israel.

    Strata, are you wrried that the Arabophobia of the past forty
    years in the MSM and schools etc. might have helped cause
    a degree of brutality on the part of America in Iraq which the
    Iraqis , and **UK officers**, have already charged the US as
    having committed?

  12. AJStrata says:


    I am only worried you may hurt yourself accidentally. There is no hatred of Muslims in America. Notice we never highjacked their planes and crashed them into their cities. Try and activate some brain cells and ponder this Ken. If we were such evil brutes, why didn’t we just wipe out the Arabs under false pretenses and a rain of bombs? It’s not like we don’t have the means to obliterate them if we wanted to. And its not like the world could do anything to stop us!

    See kid, if we were like you fantasize – the Arab oil fields would be ours and Muslim population would have seen its own holocaust by now.


  13. The Macker says:

    Our Iraqi Front in this global War was precise and surgical, unlike WWII. Had we caused that kind of devastation, the “insurgents” would have swiched sides and been our cheering section. But we exercised great restraint with our strength and continue to do so, all to our credit.

  14. Ken says:


    “precise and surgical”?…chronological swipes…like the four hundred Iraqi civilians killed in Persian Gulf War Fisrt phase, killed in thatr
    fallout shelter in Baghdad where Bush One said he was sure Saddam was hiding?…like the war crimes of Fallujah condemned by several international agencies as destroying a whole city?; this solidified
    the Sunni insurgency against us, by the way.


    your generalized comments take on faith Russia would stand idly by, even though it has enough nukes to make us regret your hypothetical slaughter.
    but 450,000 innocent Iraqis ain’t bad. along with the Lebanese
    and Palestinians whose killing was financed by America for the
    past couple of generations….they amount to more than 3,000,
    incidentially.proxies (even when they’re the tail which wags the dog)
    don’t remove culpability.

  15. The Macker says:

    That 450,000 is totally bogus, and by a factor of about 10. No need to re-hash this. That study was debunked on a number of counts. And no need to reply to your other comments.

  16. Ken says:

    No, Macker, the study was confirmed by many leading epidemiological experts and other expert authorities, which documented when challenged.

  17. Ken says:

    Here ,the leading experts in the world confirm the study.