Posted on 02/10/2007 12:04:13 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Memo to the national Democratic Party: Having a reputedly Hezbollah-supporting imam lead you in a Muslim-based spiritual and political prayer does not support your contentions that your values better reflect true Christianity than those of Republicans and that you support the troops. Continues...
===============================================================
The Senate Resolution Will Not Be Televised
At the DNC's winter meeting last week, Hillary Clinton told the nuts gathered there that she "wanted to be very clear about" something: "If I had been president in October 2002, I would not have started this war!" Would've waited another 6 months, at least! Oops, Bush did. She vowed that if Bush doesn't stop the war in Iraq that she voted for, then she will, if you make her president. There's this saying, 'when hell freezes over.' I think there's also this saying, 'when Bill Clinton becomes First Lady.'
Hillary said that a then-looming quorum call after the filing of a petition to be read by the clerk for a motion to invoke cloture on the question of debate over a non-binding resolution sends a clear message!
Showing their deep love for America, the Democrats opened their meeting with a Hezbollah-supporting Muslim Imam offering a prayer trashing America and calling on Allah "to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation" in Iraq. The Imam stopped short of calling for beheadings and more 9/11s, so Democrats insist he's a "moderate." He appeared to ask Allah to convert all Democrats to Islam. I hope Allah gets right on it. Pelosi would look so much better in a burka.
At the gathering which was held in the Hilton hotel ballroom in D.C., former Sen. John Edwards told the inmates that to wait until January 2009 to stop the war in Iraq that he voted for is to wait too long. It risks the danger of Edwards changing his mind again (was pro-war, then lukewarm, then pro-war, then semi-lukewarm, currently anti-war). "This is not a time for political calculation!!!', he said calmly, wagging a moist finger toward the crowd. "This is the time for political courage!" The courage it takes to stand with a majority of randomly selected adults in the latest Gallup poll! And, of course, the courage that remarkably comes with not actually having to cast a vote to, say, cut funding, given Edwards's status as the former senator. But it does display herculean courage to give non-binding glib speeches.
Sen. Barack Obama told the gathering he was against the war Hillary and Edwards voted for before they voted for it even though they now say they were tricked into voting for it by a 'moron.' Sen. Chris Dodd -- another Democrat who's thrown his turban into the ring -- said he's "disappointed we can't find a way to do more than send a meaningless message to the White House" and stop the war in Iraq he voted for. (Dodd now says he wouldn't have voted that way had he known then he was being tricked by a chimpanzee with magical powers.) "I don't believe spending a week debating a non-binding resolution is the change America voted for," Dodd added. Dodd's unique theory is that Bush invaded Iraq for purely political reasons. Yeah, that's why his polls are so high right now.
If Democrats keep moving left like this to stroke their nut base, by the time the '08 primaries roll around, Hillary will be leaning toward a comprehensive health care plan for al-Qaeda as the Breck Girl tops that with a 102-acre estate for the jihad boys now in Gitmo, complete with 72 tax increases.
Liberals scream endlessly about 'THE IRAQ QUAGMIRE' brought on by the BUSHCHENEYHALLIBURTON WARMACHINE, yet the speeches at the Hilton illustrate the HOPELESS IRAQ-STYLE QUAGMIRE the party finds itself stuck in. While Democrats are betting the Great Satan's troop surge doesn't stand a chance up against an invincible buncha rock-throwing goat herderborgs in impregnable mud huts, if you had to sum up the Democrats' latest 'deeply held' pathology on Iraq, it would go something like this: We need troop caps, the troops aren't safe, don't send reinforcements, bring back the draft, there ain't enough troops, the surge is too big, no evidence this surge is enough, more troops = more targets, send more troops to Afghanistan, troops are mercenaries, we support the troops, don't support the mission, troops are torturers, Abu Ghraib, we support the troops, troops need more armor, must stop the funding, can't stop the funding, this war's a mistake, must win this mistake, this war's unwinnable, troops doing a marvelous job, troops losing the war, need a troop cap and if the cap fits you musta quit.
It's this stunning display of clarity which has BushCheneyHalliburton doing circles around libbies and why the Democrats' credibility on Iraq right now is just about even with horse dung. And now the Democrats' Terrorists Encouragement Resolution seems bogged down in a quagmire too. A week ago the resolution was a slam-dunk. It would've run into trouble earlier had it not been for all those Kyoto-killing winter storms keeping Rove busy.
The vote on Monday for cloture on the Democrats' resolution fell way short of enough votes to cut off debate -- 60 needed to stop debate and go for a vote. So now that Republicans are in the minority, they've gained control of the Senate!
On Monday, after hours and hours of floor debate on Iraq, Sen. Harry Reid held a news conference accusing the GOP of blocking floor debate on Iraq. In an epochal shift, the New York Times agreed with Democrats and accused Republicans of blocking debate. Here's how it goes: Reid puts forth a motion to cut off debate, the GOP blocks the motion to cut off debate. Democrats then run to the press complaining hysterically that the GOP is blocking debate. The press then responds by quoting the Democrats that the GOP is blocking debate. The Democrats then cite the press as proof that the GOP, by blocking the motion to cut off debate, is trying to cut off debate -- a charge that is highly debatable.
Democrats claim they've got a "mandate" from voters to stop the war but they can't muster enough support to even stop debate about debate over a meaningless resolution. Yeah, let's have these guys run the war.
Of course, Democrats deny their resolution is to help the enemy. They say it's all for the troops. We just wanna offer our troops the lack of support they deserve!
The Democrats' real plan was to steadily ratchet up pressure on the White House to surrender in Iraq -- starting with the Terrorists Encouragement Resolution, opening the door to another resolution which opens the door to another resolution with steadily growing RINO defections until the White House waves the white hanky. But hold on. Sen. Judd Gregg comes along, screws up the whole game plan with his own resolution. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Cojones) tells the Democrats what their options are: We want votes on all 3 resolutions -- McCain, Gregg, and Warner-Levin. Don't block the Gregg alternative, and magically we won't block yours. In the spirit of bipartisanship, Democrats rejected the offer. And stamped their feet. Late Tuesday the Democrats even rejected a GOP offer to drop the McCain resolution, with just straight up-or-down votes on Gregg and the Democrats' surrender resolution.
Besides ignoring the omniscience of Warner-Levin, the Democrats' beef with the Gregg language boils down to (paraphrasing): 'Congress should not cut off or reduce funds to troops in the field.' Most Democrats for now are pretending they don't support cutting off funds, which means the Gregg language would attract the most votes, which means the real headline from all this would be: Senate Mysteriously Votes to Back Ruthless BushCheneyHalliburton Warmachine: Rove Diebold Manipulation Suspected.
That could bring the White House down! In rollicking laughter.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
God bless and have a great weekend, y'all.
By jove, I think I've got it.
Thanks JohnHuang2! Once again you've clarified what really happened.
Well done!
btt
Did you hear this Iman on Hannity's radio show yesterday? He ranted for 5 minutes to avoid answering Sean's question: "Is Hezbollah a terrorist organization?"
And the Dems think we need more dialog with these people.
Yea! And how refreshing after the constant, incessant, endless attempts to deceive the American people through the MSM that democrats really do care about the country and the troops and really don't believe in the George Bush, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, Halliburton conspiracy. I haven't heard so much BS since BC was P R E Z, and hip waders were the uniform of the day.
Everyone with a brain, and quite a few without, ought to understand that to let anyone with a D in front of their name, anywhere near to anything with GOV, in front of it, deserves what they get. No one could make this stuff up but the MSM and their lackies in Government, or is it the other way around? I'm so confused. NOT!
I left out a really important word CIC.
I have a criticism. This sentence...
if you had to sum up the Democrats' latest 'deeply held' pathology on Iraq, it would go something like this: We need troop caps, the troops aren't safe, don't send reinforcements, bring back the draft, there ain't enough troops, the surge is too big, no evidence this surge is enough, more troops = more targets, send more troops to Afghanistan, troops are mercenaries, we support the troops, don't support the mission, troops are torturers, Abu Ghraib, we support the troops, troops need more armor, must stop the funding, can't stop the funding, this war's a mistake, must win this mistake, this war's unwinnable, troops doing a marvelous job, troops losing the war, need a troop cap and if the cap fits you musta quit.
...is factual (although I would have tolerated the attributions to aforementioned democRAT congresscritters), it is a run on sentence, with poor syntax, and generally not up to the standards of "My Two Cents."
Having said that, why aren't you syndicated yet, or have the editors job at the Washington Post or the NYT?
Ok, I know the answer to the second part...
5.56mm
"...he was against the war Hillary and Edwards voted for before they voted for it even though they now say they were tricked into voting for it by a 'moron.'"
Yes, obviously the Smartest Woman in the World and Lord Edwards (he lives in a palace, you know) are not fit to lead this country, if they were tricked by a guy they say is stupid. This point should be thrown in their faces in every interview, but the Leftist msm is too busy propping up Democrats.
Bump
"It's this stunning display of clarity which has BushCheneyHalliburton doing circles around libbies and why the Democrats' credibility on Iraq right now is just about even with horse dung. And now the Democrats' Terrorists Encouragement Resolution seems bogged down in a quagmire too. A week ago the resolution was a slam-dunk.
"Democrats claim they've got a 'mandate' from voters to stop the war but they can't muster enough support to even stop debate about debate over a meaningless resolution. Yeah, let's have these guys run the war."
As usual .. you make more sense than ABCCBSCNNNBC all put together.
And .. while it may seem implausible .. if we have fighting on our soil Madam President would invoke martial law - disbanding all elections .. allowing her to appoint herself permanent dictator.
And .. this would allow her to SEIZE ALL THE OIL COMPANY PROFITS which she already claimed she wanted to do.
It's really not as far fetched as you may think.
The only problem .. WE HAVE THE GUNS!
Thank you so much for this excellent wrap-up!
:-) Fun read. Thanks!
Now that's scary!!
Thanks JH2, as usual, Love your postings..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.