May 10 2007

SurrenderMedia Trying To Cover For Dem Surrender On Iraq

Published by at 1:45 pm under All General Discussions,Iraq

President Bush is about to get his way. He will have funding without restrictions on HIS decisions on how to progress the war. In a laughable cover up attempt, the SurrenderMedia is trying to cover for the Surrendercrats behind the figleaf that Bush has compromised on ‘benchmarks’.

resident George W. Bush, under growing political pressure, said Thursday the White House will seek agreement with Congress on benchmarks to measure progress in Iraq.

At the same time, the president pledged he would veto a bill, expected to be passed by the House later in the day, that would cut off funding for the war by the end of July.

“We reject that idea. It won’t work,” the president said.

“One message I have heard from people of both parties is that benchmarks make sense and I agree,” Bush said. He said his chief of staff, Joshua Bolten, would talk with congressional leaders “to find common ground” on benchmarks.

Of course the media is lying to itself. It seems to have amnesia (or loss of Google). Bush has been talking benchmarks since Oct 2006. What he will not accept is punishments on Iraq and restrictions on war funding. Just as the CNN poll numbers I showed earlier illiustrate, America doesn’t mind seeing a plan laid out – as long as the troops are funded and not withdrawn. It seems the Dems will crumble – as predicted on some leftwing sites. No one is going to be fooled by this fake facade being thrown up the liberal media to cover the retreat of the liberal Congressional leaders. No one. This should have the far left up in arms in not time. BTW, the reason I know there are no restrictions is Bush is behind the idea!

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “SurrenderMedia Trying To Cover For Dem Surrender On Iraq”

  1. The only problem is the buill in the Iraqi parliament. If Sadr has pulled it off, then we’re hosed.

  2. Soothsayer says:

    It’s not just the mythical SurrenderMedia, folks, that are opposed to the Warpublicans plans for perpetual conquest:

    Colin Powell aide Lawrence Wilkerson had this to say:

    The language in [the Constitution] about impeachment is nice and precise -– it’s high crimes and misdemeanors,” he said. “You compare Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes for which he was impeached to George Bush’s high crimes and misdemeanors or Dick Cheney’s high crimes and misdemeanors, and I think they pale in significance . . . “I think we went into this war for specious reasons,” he said. “I think we went into this war not too much unlike the way we went into the Spanish American War with the Hearst press essentially goading the American people and the leadership into war. That was a different time in a different culture, in a different America. We’re in a very different place today and I think we essentially got goaded into the war through some of the same means.”

  3. lurker9876 says:

    Bush and Cheney committed NO high crimes. They did not goad us into war. Congress voted to approve it. They voted to enact the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act to topple Saddam.

    These two guys are making stuff up.

    The impeachment process won’t fly in the Senate.

    I see that the House rejected the nine-month Iraq withdrawal

  4. lurker9876 says:


    Gonzales deflects Democrats’ criticism Good for him. House Judiciary Committee has found nothing. And the Republicans supported him. It remains a non-scandal story.

  5. scaulen says:

    Lawrence Wilkerson huh, impeccable source and not the least bit biased as all of your sources seem to be.

    (snip)Wilkerson was responsible for the one-week review of information from the Central Intelligence Agency that was used to prepare Powell for his February 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council. His failure to realize that the evidence was faulty has been blamed on the limited time he had to review the data. The subsequent developments led Wilkerson to become disillusioned:(snip)

    So he is against the war that he helped start? But it’s not his fault because he didn’t have enough time to review the intel? Another finger pointer among many it seems. It’s funny how the Democrats always quote “the buck stops here”, but never accept their own share of the blame. Once again the only word that comes to mind is hypocrite.

  6. Soothsayer says:

    Gonzales indicates White House lies about its involvement in Attorneygate:

    Weeks after the White House ruled out the involvement of President George W. Bush in any discussions on the firing of 8 US Attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Thursday morning that the President discussed the matter with advisers in an October 2006 meeting.

    “I’ve now been made aware of the fact that there was a conversation with the President that basically mentioned the same thing in October of 2006,” the Attorney General said while answering a question from Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA).

    “The same thing” referred to voter fraud cases in three US Attorneys’ districts, which Gonzales earlier acknowledged had been raised by Karl Rove in a meeting “sometime in the Fall of 2006.”

    Gonzales’ statement varied from remarks by White House spokespersons that the President had not been involved in any discussions of firing US Attorneys.

    “I have said on the record for several weeks now that there is no indication that the President knew about any of the ongoing discussions over the two years, nor did he see a list or a plan before it was carried out,” said White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino on March 27, 2007.

    Furthermore, in a March 21 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow had been asked about a Nov. 15, 2006 e-mail from former Gonzales chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers asking “Who will determine whether this requires the President’s attention?”

    Snow was then asked “did the President have to sign off on this?” referring to the firing of the Attorneys, to which he responded, “The President has no recollection of this ever being raised with him.”

    A reporter later clarified, “Just to follow, did you say, again for the record, that the President has no recollection of ever being asked about any of this?”

    Snow answered, “Yes, the removal – yes, that is correct.”

    Either Perino and Snow are lying – or Alberto Gonzales is. Geeze – this is going to be hard to figure – who is the bigger liar, Tony Snow, Dana Perino or Alberto Gonzales. Inquiring minds want to know.

    This story is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger . . .

  7. lurker9876 says:

    I don’t have a problem with WH’s involvement with the firings of the USA’s. Bush has every right to hire and fire those USA’s. And Bush has every right to delegate Gonzales to decide who to hire and fire. And Gonzales has every right to delegate some of those decisions to his people.

    I don’t see a problem with any of it. It is still a non-scandal story.

  8. scaulen says:

    It has become static, just an annoying buzz that when you concentrate on something important, it disappears. The only time I even see it being mentioned is where ever there is a left wing propaganda pusher trying to hide the Congress’ disgraceful treatment of the troops.

  9. MerlinOS2 says:

    Harold C.

    Relax buds this will lower your blood pressure

    In Baghdad, the Sadrist block has pushed a draft bill through parliament calling for “a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and a freeze on the number of foreign troops already in the country.” The parliament would also have to approve the UN mission in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007. A Sadr aide claimed to have 144 of the 275 parliamentarians supporting the bill. The bill is under legal review and has yet to reach the speaker of the parliament’s desk.

    According to Alertnet, the bill is actually a “petition, which is nonbinding,” and must be presented to speaker. “Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that’s called for by a majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what will happen next is unclear.”

    The Kurdish block backed the legislation but “only on the condition that the withdrawal timetable be linked to a schedule for training and equipping Iraq’s security forces.” The Sadrists didn’t include this requirement, prompting the Kurdish block to refer to the legislation as a deception.

    The Sadrist block pulled off a masterful propaganda stunt. Expect the bill to be defeated when it comes to the full vote in parliament, as prior versions have been.

  10. jimbo1 says:

    Hey Soothie I know things are all rosy in your little liberal bubble…..but….explain to us why DEM House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer….voted AGAINST his party on the Iraq funding.WASHINGTON, DC – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement after a united Republican Conference defeated H.R. 2237, a bill offered by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) that would have forced an unconditional American retreat from the biggest front in the War on Terror, by an overwhelming vote of 171 – 255. Joining Republicans in defeating the proposal was House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD):

  11. lurker9876 says:

    Merlin, hope you’re right.

    Guess Hoyer didn’t believe in funding it through July.