Captain's Quarters -

Cap'n Ed wrote:

Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman make the laughable statement that Democrats are searching for ways to end the war. They have a Constitutional mechanism for doing just that, and it bypasses a veto by simply stopping the funds for the war.

BINGO! I say that they not only have the duty but the moral RESPONSIBILITY to cut the funds if they really believe, as Grand Admiral Reid has said, that the war is lost. We can then set about finding somebody to surrender to, negotiating for the return of our POWs, handing over the president for war crimes, etc. You know: the things countries normally do when they lose a war.

Reid and SanFran Nan boast that "the American people" want the war ended and the troops withdrawn ASAP. If so, then they should have no trouble getting the votes together to exercise their constitutional perogative to cut off the funding instead of trying to engineer defeat by setting up surrender dates and the like.

That they don't indicates just how gutless and dishonest they are. They want to surrender but haven't got the guts to risk the verdict of history for doing so.

I've written it before, and it bears repeating: we haven't had this kind of trash in the Congress since 1860. No, I take it back: at least the Southern members of Congress openly and boldly revolted against the country instead of trying to pull a Judas-like betrayal on the QT.

The dems in Congress, if there is any justice, will go down in history as a loathesome collection of spineless traitors, and their names will be bywords to be cursed in the same breath as Benedict Arnold, Fritz Kuhn, Julius Rosenberg, and Jane Fonda.

Cap'n Ed wrote:

Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman make the laughable statement that Democrats are searching for ways to end the war. They have a Constitutional mechanism for doing just that, and it bypasses a veto by simply stopping the funds for the war.

BINGO! I say that they not only have the duty but the moral RESPONSIBILITY to cut the funds if they really believe, as Grand Admiral Reid has said, that the war is lost. We can then set about finding somebody to surrender to, negotiating for the return of our POWs, handing over the president for war crimes, etc. You know: the things countries normally do when they lose a war.

Reid and SanFran Nan boast that "the American people" want the war ended and the troops withdrawn ASAP. If so, then they should have no trouble getting the votes together to exercise their constitutional perogative to cut off the funding instead of trying to engineer defeat by setting up surrender dates and the like.

That they don't indicates just how gutless and dishonest they are. They want to surrender but haven't got the guts to risk the verdict of history for doing so.

I've written it before, and it bears repeating: we haven't had this kind of trash in the Congress since 1860. No, I take it back: at least the Southern members of Congress openly and boldly revolted against the country instead of trying to pull a Judas-like betrayal on the QT.

The dems in Congress, if there is any justice, will go down in history as a loathesome collection of spineless traitors, and their names will be bywords to be cursed in the same breath as Benedict Arnold, Fritz Kuhn, Julius Rosenberg, and Jane Fonda.

They are using the fact that they don't have sixty votes, or sixty six, or however many it takes for whichever path they dare to tread. They could (to use an extreme example, but any issue is possible) vote to make the US minimum wage fifty dollars an hour, knowing the president has the responsibility to veto it, secure in the fact that they can use it on the campaign trail, and beat him up with it to boot. Scum and lowlife, and same to the RINOs who bail and suck up to these cowards.

I'm getting fed up and want something done about this treason.

I suggest that the Cap'n and other likeminded bloggers get together and write a letter to the President.

In this letter, they should express their willingness to ask the American Public for contributions to a special fund set up for our American Military. This money would go directly to funds to not only continue supporting the Military in Iraq and the Afghan but also for associated costs here in the states.

This should become even bigger than any push bloggers have had to date. Get everyone on board, write the letter (cc the leaders in Congress, Gates, and anyone else that seems appropriate.

I don't have a lot of money, but I would contribute a minimum of $ 1,000.00. If we could get a few million of likeminded Americans to contribute it would send an unmistakable message to the idiots in our Congress.

One that they could not ignore.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Contrast our brave men and women, fighting in Iraq for the freedom and safety of a foreign people they do not know, with the gutless, brainless, spineless, amoral traitor scum that is the Democrat Congress.

Hell does exist on earth, in the lives of fools. Caught between their own lunatic base, their pornographic lust for power and voters who are actually sane, Democrat heads are spinning faster than their media mouthpieces.

Who elected these people? What in sanity's name were they thinking?

Cap'n Ed....Excellent piece here, well done!

This will backfire on Clinton - it is so transparent you can see James Carville's reflection in her face.

The beauty of it is this - when she finally figures out that the majority of her advantages HAVE been her more hawkish tendencies compared to Obama and Edwards....how is she now going to go back to that? It will be John "FlipFlop" Kerry all over again.

Couldn't happen to a phonier person.

The majority of Americans now want a timetable to begin pulling out troops from Iraq.

They want the Iraqi government to start functioning independently.

What's wrong with representing the will of the people?

The next election cycle will tell the politicians the will of the people.

The congressional democrats have determined that another massive attack on the United States would help them (they think we're all stupid) so they propose a total surrender to the terrorists. The only thing worse is their proposal to pull the CIA, which has prevented numerous attacks, from terrorist watch and attack prevention and assign them to 'weather watch'. Every person in congress involved in this 'direct aid' to the enemy should be arrested immediately.

Remember the hot water that Murtha got into for gloating about his "slow bleed" strategy? Rightfully so, in my opinion. But now we are witnessing the slow bleed in action. By delaying the passage of war funding, the Democrats are forcing the armed forces to make cuts that will compromise their readiness, both now and over time. Along with the encouragement their public vascilation provides for the enemy, the anemic funding will result in compromises that will inevitably lead to unnecessary casualties as fewer, lesser-equipped soldiers and marines attempt to do the same job.

I haven't heard anyone connecting those dots, but it seems obvious. The best way to do something sly is hide it behind something else, and chipping away at the Patreus surge by delaying funding by making the President an offer that he must refuse accomplishes exactly that. Congress's choir knows this, as do we, the opposition. But for those less immersed in politics (most folks), this sort of maneuvering is only obvious if the press points it out. How's that working out for us?

What Americans want is a good resolution of this war. Thanks to the feckless MSM, the democrats who suported the war are now being allowed to openly lobby for our defeat and to work for a terrorist victory.
It must be something in the political genes of democrats to permit them to turn against the country and to corruptily seek its defeat.
From Tenet and his blatant lies and oxymoronic defensiveness, to hillary's transparent cowardice, it is now clear why the terrorists ahve not attacked us at home again yet: they know that if they just wait on democrats to regain power, they can strike us freely at hojme and stay safe abroad.

Immolate wrote (May 4, 2007 12:48 PM):

By delaying the passage of war funding, the Democrats are forcing the armed forces to make cuts that will compromise their readiness, both now and over time. Along with the encouragement their public vascilation provides for the enemy, the anemic funding will result in compromises that will inevitably lead to unnecessary casualties as fewer, lesser-equipped soldiers and marines attempt to do the same job.

But... but... but... They Support the Troops!(TM)

(rolls eyes)

I hadn't considered this possibility, as (for some strange reason) it never occured to me that even the dems would deliberately set up our troops to be killed or wounded. But this will be the result of their "slow bleed" strategy. Perversely, they welcome the sight of Americans coming home in flag-draped coffins: every dead GI (they think) means more votes for them.

In all the storm and fury, has anyone realized that, by coercing states to move their Demo primaries to much earlier dates, the Dem contenders have created the liberal utopian dream?
Most of the candidates have government jobs and your tax dollars pay their salaries. For the next 20 months, they continue to receive their paychecks, all the while they are campaigning on their contributors donations (takes a lot of money to fund all the private jet travel, doncha know). They have figured out a way to get paid for one job while absent seeking another, higher paying and more powerful job. And if they lose, they get to keep the original job.
Is it me, or is there something wrong with this?

Started this post on the previous thread, but feel it more appropriate to say this here.

What continues to amaze me... is the level of insanity some are willing to go to, to throw the Iraqi people under the bus in their quest to tag points on Bush. It would seem that it is totally lost on some folks... that if we do pull out before establishing some sense of stability there, we as a nation will no longer have ANY credibility in that whole area of the globe. Ever.

You can forget us having any input in the "Palestinian" issues with Israel. You can forget any credibility if Pakistan and India decide they want to run the flags up and figure out their squabbles on the battlefield. You can forget any meaningful human rights or governmental reform in any of the classical Arab states. You can forget any effort at all from preventing large weapons from getting into the hands of terrorist groups/agents. You can forget for a few hundred years having any positive impact in any of thta part of the world... at all.

Why? Because anyone we ask to stand with us, who might have to put themselves in danger... is going to look at us and laugh... and say "You mean you want us to stand with you?? After abandoning the Iraqi people TWICE!!?!?"

That's the end of any significant cooperation against islamic terrorists folks. Potentially millions of dead Iraqis, instead of what is happening now, are going to pay for that as well... if someone even THOUGHT they were helping or cooperating with us while we've tried to rebuild the country. With nobody to stop them, it's going to get even more bloody than most people can reasonably imagine.

But we'd rather play political brinksmanship with each other.

Cute. Somewhere, huddled around a satellite dish there is a bunch of AQ in Iraq guys laughing it up and slapping each other on the back.

Regardless of WHAT anyone thinks at this point of why we went in there, and how wrong they think it is now (vs what they thought at the time...) we broke their government over our knees (and with more than sufficient cause, IMHO), which makes it our responsibility to help them rebuild it. We owe it to these people to help, just like we owed the Kurds more than we gave them when we screwed them in round 1.

Some of these congresscritters amaze me. They helped to start this dance, and were singing cheerfully with the music when it started. Many of them were even playing the insturments with the band. But ever since it got difficult... they're beside themselves trying to find excuses and means to redeem themselves regardless to the costs or results.

This ever growing responsiblity gap that has creeped into our culture... is one day gonna be the death of us.

The day we put the first boot on the ground, and asked the first Iraqi to stand up with us to help them... we assumed responsibility. Everyone that stood up to be counted, voted, and called for it... assumed responsibility. The why doesn't matter anymore, they why question was already answered. We broke it, we bought it. We owe it to those people to finish, or we're every bit as worthless as the far-far-wacko-left claims us to be and deserve every rotten thing anyone's ever said about us.

We used to be better, as a people and as a nation, than that.

I'd dearly like to catch some of these folks by their collars and say "Responsiblity... google it..."

Pho,
Very well written and thought out post. When I posted above, I guess I tried to say that it appeared that the Dems have figured out a way to prolong the mess without doing anything to help, all the while pontificating without accepting any responsibility for the results of their actions (Nancy Pelosi, call your office).
What you have done is spelled out the difference between politicians and Statesmen. However, as has been said before, "There are none so blind as those who will not see".
Bravo!

I wish Bush COULD call their bluff. I'd love to see Hillary's face when Bush told her he wouldn't veto this sh*t.

I received this email today. I think it's appropriate here:

"The speech George W. Bush SHOULD give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying "My Fellow Americans..."

Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you, there's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office. The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people.

I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank, and that's despite record numbers of homeowners including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. While we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton Administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beach front property than your economic security.
We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this "blood for oil" thing. If I were trading blood for oil, I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell, and don't give me this 'Bush Lied, People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you, regime change in Iraq, was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' establ ished that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, thanks in large part to my Dad's predecessor, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to outspend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't CARE if they survive. In fact, they WANT to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can, but they are. They want to kill you, and the b- - - - - -s are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11, but yo u're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor'.

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dammit, you might just as well Fedex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet.& nbsp; It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News (if in fact those media sources even CARE about the truth.) Even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, but you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. I could say more about your inane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from, but I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford.

I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here, pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America. Some of you know what I mean.

The rest of you, ?????????.

"W" '

I think the Democrats have confused frustration with the war with the desire to just run away. Most Americans, when anyone bothers to ask them, still says they want to win. After awhile however, they grow weary and the truth is if there is another attack on the US and it was planned in Iraq, I am not sure what the reaction would be. I am afraid people would just want to blow the place up. That is my fear, that a lot of what we hear is not so much a desire to lose, as it is disgust.

the dems are catering to their base knowing full well that they won't have any success. they score bonus points for trying. what they are very serious about is the pork in the first bill. this 'dance of the cranes' is strictly aimed at extorting the pork from bush. give us the pork and we'll leave you alone. bush's record to date suggests he'll be only to happy to oblige.

most dems think this war is completely contrived and has nothing to do with terrorism. as a consequence they have no ethical problem with spinning it for political purposes. all the dead and dying are on bush's head. rosie and company, with no IQ shame, proudly pontificate on national tv that the twin towers were brought down on purpose. i rest my case.........

The Democrats have a Hobson's choice to make.

They can defund the war, take full responsibility for the resulting genocide that will claim millions of lives, put America on a collision course for a much larger super-regional war with Iran and Syria and be cast into the wilderness for a generation of GOP rule in Congress and the White House, or:

They can keep playing politics with the lives of our troops and as the President resists and the surge is given a chance to work, Iraq becomes a democracy and we develop a much stronger position against Iran and Syria. Meanwhile the Dems' cowardice will continue to so disgust the American public and their moonbat base that they will be cast into the wilderness for a generation of GOP rule in Congress and the White House.

At least with the second option, we remain in Iraq, prevent genocide, and can stop Iran from nuking Israel off the face of the earth. Either way, the Democrats are politically dead. The Democrats will not survive the beating they get in 08. But at least with the current path of slimy, cowardly Dem politics, we will remain in Iraq to win.

Shrillary doesn't believe any of this crapo. She's pandering to the code pink pinko's.

There will be a lot of pandering by democrats, especially Shrillary every time a poll says she's lost a point or two, in the next 18 months. Just once in my lifetime I'd like to see a democrat stand up and tell the people the truth about what they think, not what they think a little select group of money people think. They can't do that, it would mean they're a republican. I seriously doubt that even Shrillary wants another attack on NYC since her daughter works there. If she did't work there then Katie bar the door.

SoldiersMom,

Wow. What a great speech. Bush would never give it, of course, because he's not a quitter. He's got his faults, and I think he was especially stupid to EVER think he could work with the filthy dems, but on the war he understands the stakes and what will happen if he caves. Plus, I can't imagine ANY president, even the odious Slick Willie, saying those things about the country and the people in it (no matter how true they may be!).

Lighwave wrote (May 4, 2007 04:44 PM):

They [the Benedict Arnold party] can defund the war, take full responsibility for the resulting genocide that will claim millions of lives, put America on a collision course for a much larger super-regional war with Iran and Syria and be cast into the wilderness for a generation of GOP rule in Congress and the White House...

Nah. They did the same thing in Vietnam and got away with it for twenty years. Even then, the GOP "revolution" in '94 was due to democrat corruption, not their shameful sell-out of South Vietnam and the massacres that followed.

So, they'll continue to try to sell out Iraq, safe in the knowledge that nobody but a few of us nasty ol' reichwing fascist Christian homophobes will call them on it, and there aren't enough of us to count. The rest of the country will go back to watching "American Idol", waiting for their free health care, and maybe putting bumper stickers on their cars about "Free Iraq!" or "Stop the Killing in Iraq!" or some such.

doc said, "Nah. They did the same thing in Vietnam and got away with it for twenty years. Even then, the GOP "revolution" in '94 was due to democrat corruption, not their shameful sell-out of South Vietnam and the massacres that followed.

So, they'll continue to try to sell out Iraq, safe in the knowledge that nobody but a few of us nasty ol' reichwing fascist Christian homophobes will call them on it, and there aren't enough of us to count. The rest of the country will go back to watching "American Idol", waiting for their free health care, and maybe putting bumper stickers on their cars about "Free Iraq!" or "Stop the Killing in Iraq!" or some such."

Hate to say it, but I think you're right. American public won't remember this treachery, but you can bet any future potential allies will.

I'm of the opinion that the left is actively working towards a diminished US international influence. The future generations' best chance, and it's not much, is that it will be China and not AQ who fills the void the Democrats are attempting to throw away.

One of the reasons why I read arch-conservative blogs like yours and those at Townhall.com is that I find it endlessly amusing how black and white things are in the conservative Christian world of make-believe. No one with even a modicum of common sense would endorse yanking the funding for this war. For you to claim it as a reasonable option that the Dems are just avoiding for some political reason is another example of how indulging in right-wing polemics has befuddled your brain.

Jeffrey Carr said

"arch-conservative "

"endlessly amusing"

"modicum of common sense"

"polemics has befuddled your brain"

College professor, eh?

Sorry, I was just cherry-picking your cherry picking. Bush tried to do the same thing in Florida in 2000. Oh, wait a minute, that was Gore that did that, after he reneged on his concession speech.

Now, tell us what you would have done as President, starting in 1998 when the Clinton (read GEORGE TENET) CIA said Saddam had WMDs, and at the same time the Clinton Justice Department indicted Osama bin Laden and in doing so said he was working with Iraq. Would you go after them?

Clinton wouldn't, because he was worried about his poll numbers.

(sound of crickets)

PS, your hero Tenet died a quick death this week. Wonder why?

Jeffrey Carr

In reality, Jack Murtha was almost Majority Whip BECAUSE he wanted to cut off funds, and the democrats may not refuse to cut funds, but so far they are refusing to authorize them.

It should be pointed out that as we rail against democrat defeatism and treachery, there is NO voice inside the GOP for disciplining anybody who crosses the aisle to vote with the Dems--and the blab out of Washington is all about Republicans tacking on their own pet peeves as conditional benchmarks as part of the "compromise:"

"One of the reasons why I read arch-conservative blogs"
ARCH-conservative? How come it's ARCH-conservative, and not just conservative? I'll tell you why. You consider anything on the left as liberal, while anything on the right is ARCH-conservative. It's that addiction to scare words. You really should see a shrink about the BDS.

"like yours and those at Townhall.com"
two of the most MAINSTREAM blogs. How about some of the far right blogs? Oh, that's right, we DON'T HAVE TOO MANY. But on the left, it keeps going, and going, and going, until you get all the way to communism/socialism.

"is that I find it endlessly amusing how black and white things are in the conservative"
Lots of things are black and white. It's your trying to not admit the truth by twisting it around that makes it confusing. Show me ONE issue that's not so black and white, and I'll show you what I mean.

'Christian world of make-believe."
Uh, screw you. I'm an atheist, and proud of it. And when it comes to make-believe, you're talking to the wrong side. It's YOU whackos who believe in a conspiracy long after the real bad guys have actually taken credit and proven they did it. What kind of a moron does it take to come up with a conspiracy theory for someone else (namely George Bush) with the guilty standing there bragging they did it?

"No one with even a modicum of common sense would endorse yanking the funding for this war."
Well, by your reasoning (and I agree, no one with any commons sense at all would), then anyone with any common sense at all would realize that these troops needed that funding, right? But, instead, they play games. We'll give you your funding, but you have to capitulate and destroy the constiutional powers of the president and let US be in charge. Same thing in my book as removing the funding if you won't actually send the funding.

"For you to claim it as a reasonable option"
We've NEVER claimed it as a reasonable option. We've only said that if you're going to excercise your CONSTITUTIONAL powers, then you either fund the troops or don't. Instead, they are trying to NOT fund the troops by sending the president a funding bill that he can't possibly sign. This is illegal, and I can't, for the life of me, figure out why they haven't been charged with a crime.

"that the Dems are just avoiding for some political reason"
No, not SOME political reason, but because they know they have only one power here, and they are afraid to say "cut the funding", because they know they'll lose power in such numbers as to possibly give away a super majority to the Republicans.

"is another example of how indulging in right-wing polemics has befuddled your brain."
Is another example of how BDS has befuddled YOUR brain. Come back to reality, moron.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at May 4, 2007 10:13 PM