Nov 16 2007

For Christmas, Dems Send A “Scrooge You” To Our Troops In Iraq

Published by at 1:30 pm under All General Discussions,Iraq

After a year of putting it all on the line in Iraq, after a year which was the deadliest for US troops fighting a war Congress authorized, after a year of beating the odds and actually winning in Iraq and destroying al-Qaeda, the Surrendercrats in DC are going to reward all this with a petty and spiteful “Scrooge You” to the troops. The Dems are so petty and so small they cannot muster the effort to send the troops what they need (and deserve after all their sacrifice and hard work) to sustain their successes. The pouting, frustrated, moping Surrendercrats are going to go home to their fat and cushy Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and leave the troops facing our enemy high and dry- just to send a message:

Senate Democrats said Friday that money for the Iraq war should be tied to troop withdrawals because the Baghdad government has not taken advantage of the security provided by U.S. forces.

Actually, this claim is false as I noted in a previous post. Repeated here for convenience:

If you look at the big five legislative initiatives that we’ve been trying to pursue, for example, none of them has been signed as a law yet. But I think what’s going on, on that front, is quite interesting. Take for example hydrocarbon legislation and de-Baathification, the biggest of the big five. There are no laws passed yet on either one of them, and yet the government is distributing oil revenue to Sunni provinces proportionately to their populations. And the government is hiring Sunnis into the Iraqi security forces.

Reid is either a big fat liar or a big dumb ass. But let’s get back to the “Scrooge You” message for our troops:

Democrats said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties war money to troop withdrawals, they would not send Bush a bill.

Instead, they would revisit the issue upon returning in January, pushing the Pentagon to the brink of an accounting nightmare and deepening Democrats’ conflict with the White House on the war.

“The days of a free lunch are over,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Chuckie Schumer seems to think supporting our troops is some kind of useless luxury. Our troops are not asking for a ‘free lunch’. They need the resources to stay on the offensive and keep them and as many Iraqis as possible safe. How can these petty politicians sit around their plush Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners knowing they gave NO thanks to our troops, and NO Christmas cheer? Instead they went on vacation happy with the “Scrooge You” they sent to those risking all to cover their wide posteriors from attack. These political vultures are so deep in their BDS they cannot even put on the charade of caring about our troops and their successes to date. Their journey to The Dark Side is complete, they are now more political machined than American human beings.

17 responses so far

17 Responses to “For Christmas, Dems Send A “Scrooge You” To Our Troops In Iraq”

  1. kathie says:

    So Democrats have in effect defunded the troops while fighting for their lives and they are asking for American support? They are despicable!

  2. WWS says:

    this is the exact same mistake that Gingrich & co made in 1996 when they tried to force a government shutdown – refusing to do your job always looks bad and Clinton came out a big winner because of it. Bush will be the beneficiary of the same process. Astounding that the dems didn’t learn this lesson since they almost all lived through it.

  3. WWS says:

    this is the exact same mistake that Gingrich & co made in 1996 when they tried to force a government shutdown – refusing to do your job always looks bad and Clinton came out a big winner because of it. Bush will be the beneficiary of the same process. Astounding that the dems didn’t learn this lesson since they almost all lived through it.

  4. WWS says:

    this is the exact same mistake that Gingrich & co made in 1996 when they tried to force a government shutdown – refusing to do your job always looks bad and Clinton came out a big winner because of it. Bush will be the beneficiary of the same process. Astounding that the dems didn’t learn this lesson since they almost all lived through it.

  5. Mike M. says:

    Oh, this could get nasty, particularly if Bush has the nerve to hit back…and he has absolutely nothing to lose.

    Make no mistake, this stunt leaves DOD holding the bag financially. No budget, just a continuing resolution that does not include funding for combat operations. President Bush is perfectly justified in bashing Congress HARD, recalling them to duty, and sending Federal Marshals to enforce the recall.

    That, or put a few Dems on the Vallandingham Express. Back in the Great Unpleasantness Between the States, President Lincoln had Congressman Vallandingham, leader of the anti-war Democrats, arrested and expelled.

    Not from Congress…from the United States.

    It’s an example that Bush might just find worth copying.

  6. Terrye says:

    I tend to think Reid is a big dumb ass. That does not mean he could not be a liar too, but I think dumb ass is more likely.

    What happens if the troops run short of supplies? How will that look? and it takes money to retreat. It really does, an orderly and systematic withdrawal does not mean hike your skirts and run for the door.

  7. dhunter says:

    How did the democrat presidential candidates vote on defunding the neaarly victorious troops they support? Who has what it takes to ask them ? ANYONE?

    Traitors and fools who cannot be trusted with the lives of you and your children. Shameful beyond description.

  8. MerlinOS2 says:

    Actually it reaches out further than that. Gates has said that if noting is done he will lay of thousands of DOD personnel and have to cancel contracts.

    This is not a scare tactic since funding for the DOD now has many more restrictions in the laws as to how it can be spent rather than shifted around like many years ago.

    Reid is dumb enough to try to pull this off. With that kind of threat, how many DOD people and contractors will go out a spend freely for Xmas shopping when they might need the money next month to pay their mortgage.

  9. Earl g says:

    We’ve a very dangerous crowd these democrat’s and as you’ll see that this was exactly their goal: Senate Dem leaders float plan for forced filibuster

    Senate Democrats might force Republicans to wage a filibuster if the GOP wants to block the latest Iraq withdrawal bill, aides and senators said Tuesday.

    Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin…said Tuesday that allowing Republicans to carry out a threatened filibuster is a strategy that Democratic leaders have discussed with him. But he declined to comment further.

    “I’d rather that statement come from the leadership”….

    …Pelosi told them the endgame was the Senate, according to one meeting participant. A date certain would have a hard time winning a majority support in the Senate, while a goal could attract additional wayward Republicans, she reportedly said.

    On their latest Iraq plan, Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to cut off debate. Instead, they are considering making Republicans carry out a filibuster to highlight that it is the GOP preventing an unpopular president from changing course in Iraq.

    House leaders have been pressing Reid to intensify the fight with Republicans by forcing them to filibuster major bills rather than holding failed cloture votes and criticizing the GOP after bills are pulled from the floor.

    “That is the only way you can give Americans a clear view of who is obstructing change,”

    Reid said Tuesday that if the bridge fund does not pass, the Pentagon can start paying for the war out of its regular appropriation. That $459 billion spending bill passed last week and was signed into law Tuesday. If that’s seen as not supporting the troops, voters should blame Republicans and President Bush, not congressional Democrats, he said.

    Except there is no means to legally continue any funding: Democrats are at it again

    Congress has two primary options for funding the war for the next few months. One option is to permit the Defense Department to borrow against its fiscal 2008 budget base. The second option is to include enough emergency funding in the defense spending bill or another fiscal 2008 appropriations measure to permit operations in Iraq to continue for several more months. But neither option is workable. First, H.R. 3222, the Defense Department appropriations bill for fiscal 2008, has not been enacted, meaning the president has no appropriations bill to borrow from. Second, antiwar Democrats like Rep. David Obey, who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Rep. John Murtha, who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, have said they will not consider supplemental funding for the war until next year.

    If Congress fails to pass a supplemental appropriations bill funding the war in the next 20 days, it would appear to be legally impossible to continue military operations in Iraq for any extended amount of time — including the successful troop surge. Similarly, it would jeopardize continued funding for production of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, which is an integral part of the military’s efforts to protect American and coalition troops from roadside bombs.

    It’s quite possible the Dem’s are celebrating having just cut-off the funding.

    …and I’m so mad I can spit.

  10. dhunter says:

    I hope W. addresses the nation from Baghdad at Thanksgiving, with AlMaliki by his side and declares a major victory in Iraq. A victory by thousands of brave US soldiers and freedom loving Iraqi’s that is being put in jeopardy by Democrat fools in the senate and house in these United States.

    While serving turkey to the troops he can say honestly that it may be their last good meal thanks to the current crop of presidential candidates in the Democrat party and their AlQeada allies in the house and senate.

    Call them back into session to pass a troop funding bill that is needed to finish the job by the troops (they SUPPORT).

    And by the way don’t gamble in Nevada until “Baghdad Bob” aka Harry Reid is gone. Its’ Vegas that elected him.

  11. pjo says:

    Maybe a boycott of Vegas would be the ticket, I think just the threat of one and why stop there NJ and MI are couple of other states where there is a lots of gambling and Double Dem Senators, like Levin and Little Debbie S.

  12. Terrye says:


    This is exactly why I got so frustrated with hardliners on issues like immigration. They stood shoulder to shoulder with Democrats when it came to damaging Bush, they had to know how important it was that a war time president maintain enough support to keep the mission alive. But driving down Bush’s numbers was something some people on the right seemed downright proud of, and now we can see where it got them.

    The war and the troops should be our number one priority, not obsessing about Dubai ports or the North American Union.

  13. dhunter says:

    I fail to see a tie in between illegal immigration and funds for the troops. I happen to live in a part of the country where illegals work in packing plants and the daily police log is filled with a disproportionately high number of hispanic names for crimes of all sort. Not to say that manying aren’t hard working honest folk just that many aren’t.

    That said funding the troops has nada to do with immigration, unless I miss your point. I don’t know any republicans that were trying to drive down Bushs’ poll numbers, just some, like myself, that disagreed on policy.

  14. clarice says:

    What’s the strategic advantage?
    If we win–and we appear to be winning–the Reps can honestly say that we did even though the Dems tried to make us lose.
    If we lose–they can say it was the Dems fault:We were clearly winning and the Dems cut off funds.

    I’d start cutting all the $5 billion in earmarks which the DoD never wanted in the first place. Start with Murtha’s district–then everything in California and Nevada.

  15. crosspatch says:

    My guess is that some troops overseas are going to be changing their voter registration.

    The Pelosi/Reid Democrats are just plain wrong on this one.

  16. crosspatch says:

    it’s kinda funny … I just happened across an old posting of mine here from June 1st, 2006. Here’s what I said in response to another poster’s question:

    Crosspatch, do you think “turning” Ramadi would be a severe blow to the hearts and minds of our MSM here at home?

    That is a more complex question than it appears to be on the surface. If things start going well in Iraq, the MSM will simply go silent on it. They won’t report good news but will be ready with criticism for any setbacks even after things start to go well. In other words, you are going to hear nothing but bad news, only less of it.

    Iraq is just another issue in a long laundry list of issues that those who share a particular world view use to influence the perceptions of the polled public. The thing is that right now they have a lot to talk about around the Iraq issue but that can change and as I said, when it does they will simply go silent.

    Original thread here:

    It is kind of ironic that I found it since it was long forgotten. I was doing a google search on the media going silent on good news from Iraq based on a posting I had read at the anchoress.

  17. Terrye says:

    The tie dhunter is that no president with a low approval rating has had a member of his own party follow him to the White House. The ridiculous infighting and namecalling from the right on this issue has weakened Bush and divided the party and that will not only make it easier for the Democrats to win in08, it helped them in 06.

    After all if you believe Tancredo Bush is part of a conspiracy to sell out America to Mexico, so why trust him on Iraq?