Nov 15 2007

Dems Try To Surrender Iraq To al-Qaeda – Again

Published by at 7:05 am under All General Discussions,Diyala,Iraq

Nancy Pelosi came one step closer to her nightmare fantasy of ‘reversing’ what has happened in Iraq last night with a wimpy vote on a bill with only sufficient funds for an immediate retreat:

The House tonight passed a $50 billion Iraq funding bill that sets a “goal” of having all U.S. forces out of the country by Dec. 2008, the latest move in the ongoing political struggle over the war.

The “Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act” was adopted by a vote of 218 to 203, with only four Republicans – Reps. Phil English (Pa.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Christopher Shays (Conn.) and James Walsh (N.Y.) – backing the measure.

Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), who has backed other Democratic withdrawal bills, did not vote.

Fifteen Democrats opposed the bill – Reps. Tom Allen (Maine), Brian Baird (Wash.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Nick Lampson (Texas), Jim Marshall (Ga.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Michael McNulty (N.Y.), Michael Michaud (Maine), Vic Snyder (Ark.), Pete Stark (Wash.), Gene Taylor (Miss.), and John Tanner (Tenn.).

15 democrats bailed on Pelosi. The vote is no where near veto proof. As I watched last night the debate panned out as expected: Dems obsessed with claims we are failing in Iraq, the GOP pointing out the endless good news on the sea change in Iraq. The dems crowed about how this bill was a fraction of the $200 billion requested and was meant to only fund a retreat. There was a motion to recommit the entire disaster back to committee, but it failed by even larger numbers – which is telling.

More people voted to let the bill come to a vote than who supported it in the end. To get to a Senate filibuster the Dems needed a House bill to get things moving. It seems some people were more than willing to hand them some more rope. The Senate will be a showcase of endless stories of successes in Iraq. We have had them – the media just refuses to communicate them. But now the GOP will be forced to filibuster – or fill their time with the stories of how Iraq has changed course and is now on a path of rejecting al-Qaeda. Last year Iraqis were allied with al-Qaeda, this year they hunt them down and kill them.

So the question remains, what does Pelosi and the Dems want to reverse in Iraq? Do they want al-Qaeda to get control back in the Sunni Provinces of Anbar, Diyala, Salahadin and others? That’s ‘reversing’ course in Iraq!. US casualties are down something like 66% now, do the dems want our forces to be decimated at twice the rate they are now? Do they want the IED attacks to go up three fold to prior levels? Do they want instead of a couple hundred Iraqis killed a day more like 1,000 to die a day? This is what it means to reverse course today in Iraq. Do they want Sadr’s Militia to run rampant through the streets again? Are they calling for the return of death and chaos to the streets of Baghdad?

There is no Vietnam coming. There is no viable opponent in Iraq, only clear common enemies for the US and the Iraqi people. We have a Arab Muslim country fighting al-Qaeda by our side. And all the Dems can think about is embarrassing George Bush. Well, they are definitely making fools of themselves! I guess they got it half right.

4 responses so far

4 Responses to “Dems Try To Surrender Iraq To al-Qaeda – Again”

  1. WWS says:

    painfully clear that pelosi and reid simply could not care less what actually happens on the ground in iraq, although the do believe that the worse things are the better chance they have of getting more power. that’s all this is about – their overwhelming desire for more power, damn the cost to the country. to that end, the have decided that appealing to the hard left is their best bet towards campaign money and support – the same people who in polls say that it would be better for the world if the US were to lose this war badly.

    that is the goal.

  2. cali_sun says:

    Pelosi and company have done nothing other than to undermine every tool to fight islamo radicals, whether it is wiretapping, interrogations, terror rights, guantanamo, the troops, intelligence etc.. With the assistance of rogue CIA, FBI, and State Dept elements, they made really clear where the dems stand.
    Every american should think very hard if they want to put the dems/libs back in power in 2008; their strategy is to return to a world of 9/10 standstill.
    This nat’l security issue is the most pressing, soc security, immigration, health, education is no issue at all. What do we need that , if we get bombed periodically, and many of us wind up being dead?
    They claim they want USA to be ‘respected’, paying a high prise in return for lives.
    While I can’t vote, because I am a green card holder, I am really angry, because I have never seen a more corrupt bunch of liars, and crooks than the dems/libs, and their followers.
    Having lived with the aftermath of Hitlers crimes, and aftermath, my parents having been severly damaged, and seeing what my country has become (Germany), all these nutcases on the left, and their party have no clue the kind of damage they are doing to this country.
    They are spoiled brats, and act like little children throwing tmper tantrums when they can’t get their way. It is truly disgusting, and I can only say this ‘I pray that they will not return to power, to completely destroy this country’, they need to learn to appreciate the greatness of the USA .

  3. Philadelphia Steve says:

    According to the military estimates from last July, al Qaeda in Iraq constitutes between 6 and 10% of the “insurgency”.

    Claiming that America is just “fighting al Qaeda” in the Iraqi civil war is nothing less that a lie.

    Second, George W. Bush’s “Surge” in Iraq has, after ten months, completely failed to result in a central government in Iraq that exists outside of the Green Zone (recall, that WAS the goal of the Surge. Military control was only the means).

    However the Chickenhawks of the White House wants to continue Bush’s war, all to avoid admitting how he has bungled the occupation of Iraq.

    Attacking the patriotism of those who point out these facts does not change any of the facts.

  4. Philadelphia Steve says:

    “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
    – George W. Bush, 3/13/2002

    Remember this quote? Doesn’t this constitute “surrendering” to al Qaeda?

    For Conservatives, the answer will be, “Of course not.” Conservatives are not permitted, by Republican Party loyalty, to ever hold George W. Bush accountable for breaking off the hunt for bin Laden to launch his personal war in Iraq: With the result that bin Laden is rebuilding al Qaeda, and the United states is now trapped in a sideshow quagmire in Iraq.

    And every single Conservative, without exception, will make alibis for George W. Bush. Because making alibis is second only to spreading hate, as a reason to exist for a Conservative.