Senate passes Iraq spending bill; Update: Iraqi spokesman criticizes
posted at 1:23 pm on April 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Just across on Fox News. On to the White House now for the promised veto, although that won’t come until next week. Standby for the roll; it’ll probably look almost exactly like this, the roll from the vote a few weeks ago in which the Senate passed its own version of the spending bill.
Update: Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on the Democrats’ “plan”:
Mr Zebari said the bill was “part of the politicking, basically, in Washington, and this has been damaging in fact to the security, political development, not only in Iraq, but in the entire region”.
He said a decision to withdraw US troops “should depend on conditions on the ground”.
“The moment that Iraqi forces, security, military, are self-reliant, capable of standing on their own, defending their own country, providing security, then definitely there would be a way for the troops to leave.”
Update: Lieberman’s speech before the vote is making the rounds right now. The money bit:
My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.
But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?
On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.
So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?
Update: Iraqslogger reports on Petraeus’s press conference this morning at the Pentagon: “When a reporter asked what might happen if a date was enforced for the redeployment of US troops–such as is currently under debate in Congress–Petreaus cited a reversal of this recent progress as the most significant consequence of that type of proposed transition of mission.”
Update: Slogger also cites recent reports in several Arab papers of Sunni tribesmen making gains against Al Qaeda in Anbar, to the point where they’ve allegedly secured permission from the Iraqi government to pursue AQ into neighboring provinces. It’s not clear how credible the sources are, though. What is clear is that AQ’s focus lately has shifted to Diyala province, on the border with Iran; Roggio describes the maneuvers and countermaneuvers going on right now in preparation for Petraeus’s Diyala campaign later this spring.
Update: It might not be a coincidence that the jihadis are moving into an area that borders Iran. The New York Sun has an interview today with a former Kurdish police office turned Iranian spy who claims that Iran is issuing special ID cards to Sunni terrorists that grant them safe passage through border checkpoints. If that’s true, then nothing short of surrounding Diyala and sealing the border with Iran will stop AQ from escaping when the heat is on.
Update: A dismal but worthwhile article in WaPo describes just how little progress the Iraqi parliament has made on key issues like rebaathification and the oil law. It’s hard not to share the Democrats’ defeatism when you read it. They’ve got a majority of Americans ready to pull the thin green line keeping them safe out of the country, not to mention the fact that suicide bombers have already infiltrated their own building, and they still can’t reach a compromise on at least one of these issues?
Update: Still no roll, but CNN says Hagel and Gordon Smith were the GOP crossovers.
Update: The Iraqi government reacts:
“We see some negative signs in the decision because it sends wrong signals to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process,” Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press…
“Coalition forces gave lots of sacrifices and they should continue their mission, which is building Iraqi security forces to take over,” al-Dabbagh said. “We see (it) as a loss of four years of sacrifices.”
Update: Here’s the roll. Not that it would have mattered, but McCain and Lindsey Graham couldn’t be bothered to attend.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Nifty.
Ringmaster on April 26, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Hooray! All the world’s problems finally solved.
Back to pr0n.
a4g on April 26, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Bring the press!!!!
Have the signing right in the middle of the garden.
Just as he’s about to sign, I want him to ask, “Does this bill contain a deadline?” It does….
VETO!!!!
It’s about time that he vetoed something!!
HarryStar on April 26, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Well, the leftist losers did it to us again. During my war we lost 58,000 lives in vain and now they’re about to ante up another 3000+ lives. In the future, our youth should think twice before they volunteer to give their lives to such a sorry bunch of disgusting political opportunists.
rplat on April 26, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Good news for our enemies, especially anyone who believes that the U.S. lacks the guts and spine to fight a war to the finish. To the rest of us, it’s a national disgrace.
ReubenJCogburn on April 26, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Hey, Harry, that BS you and Chuckie were spouting about picking up seats………?
It’s gonna be the Opposite of That.
Janos Hunyadi on April 26, 2007 at 1:35 PM
our youth should think twice before they volunteer to give their lives to such a sorry bunch of disgusting political opportunists.
Better they should give their lives to a sorry bunch of bumbling incompetents, eh?
Lehuster on April 26, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Democrats might have just secured their defeat for a long time
Does anyone recognize the phrase “Waive the bloody shirt?”
Republicans and waive the bloody uniform and country flag instead!
And if no one gets it i’ll explain it if you ask
Defector01 on April 26, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Being a VietNam Vet folks..I wont say what my brain is thinking…line them up and i will pull the triger as many times as it takes to deal with traitors.
davy on April 26, 2007 at 1:38 PM
This is a potential moment for a turn in the tide of effective advocacy for sensible Iraq War policy. Bush is an ineffective communicator, has spent most of his political capital on “changing the tone” with an opposition party as strident and irreconcilable as Iran and Syria.
It’s time to speak the truth, coordinate the message. Stop buying the other side’s standards. And enlist powerful and effective voices to make the case.
Anil Petra on April 26, 2007 at 1:38 PM
I’m glad the Iraqi FM called the Dems out. You guys should get “the Boss” to pressure some one at Fox to put the dude on the air and talk about what exactly is at stake with the Dems playing politics…..
liquidflorian on April 26, 2007 at 1:40 PM
This war is being fought by the greatest soldiers in the world and they are led by the most competent officers and non-commissioned officers in the world. Only that band of losers in the congress can cause them to be defeated.
rplat on April 26, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Joe - who needs evidence? The left is right. As always. Regardless of the facts presented to them. They are right. Or else, dammit.
lorien1973 on April 26, 2007 at 1:42 PM
I can understand the frustration and anger with our political leaders, but don’t think we need to emulate the HuffPo.
Slublog on April 26, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Bush will veto this and the Dems will be forced to send a bill without a surrender clause. They arent gonna get the 2/3s to override. We’re not out of this yet, and the fact that the left is clueless and trying to pull this irresponsible and politically inept crap, we might get a boost. They’re doing this to keep the Nutroots happy, not for a national audience, and the fact that the left is playing games with the military budget is gonna bite them. You can’t get away with that type of abusive behavior unscathed after the way Vietnam vets were treated, particularly if you’re a liberal.
Bad Candy on April 26, 2007 at 1:45 PM
davy,
Go davy..go davy…go davy…Need some more bullets???Go davy…go davy…Save one for me…
Rock on………….
doriangrey on April 26, 2007 at 1:45 PM
I guess I’ll be the first to ask. I have no idea.
Esthier on April 26, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Being a VietNam Vet folks..I wont say what my brain is thinking…line them up and i will pull the triger as many times as it takes to deal with traitors.
davy on April 26, 2007 at 1:38 PM
I can understand the frustration and anger with our political leaders, but don’t think we need to emulate the HuffPo.
Slublog
Not talking about any Blog..im talking about the traitors in both congresses.
davy on April 26, 2007 at 1:46 PM
This war is being fought by the greatest soldiers in the world and they are led by the most competent officers and non-commissioned officers in the world.
I’m not talking about the troops, I am talking about the Republican politicians and appointees in the Executive Branch. They are the incompetents, they’d been screwing things up from the get-go. Responsibility for this fiasco should be fixed firmly on them.
Lehuster on April 26, 2007 at 1:47 PM
And I would prefer that you didn’t. Let the left stew in assassination fantasties - we should be above that sort of thing.
Slublog on April 26, 2007 at 1:47 PM
President Bush should do something unprecedented and melodramatic, like march over to Capital Hill, storm into Harry Reid’s office, grab the bill right off of his desk, and stamp “VETO” on it with a huge, red, cartoon-like stamper. Then he should snarl, “Try again,” and stomp out. All this with cameras in tow, of course.
Now THAT would make great TV.
aero on April 26, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Assuming that Bush does not blink, he’ll veto the bill.
When he does, the Democrats have two options: Give Bush the bill he wants, or give him nothing (pass no funding bill at all) which effectively cuts off funding in two months. The moonbats, of course, would want this.
When Gingrich tried to do the same after Clinton vetoed the spending bills, Clinton called his bluff and the government shut down for a few days until the Republicans blinked.
I believe that Bush has been reading history, particularly Teddy Roosevelt, as well as Gingrich’s experience. When Roosevelt wanted to send the Great White Fleet on an around the world cruise a century ago, Congress refused to allocate the money. Roosevelt sent the fleet ANYWAY, using money allocated to other things, even though there was not enough money for the fleet to complete the tour.
Roosevelt know that Congress would have no choice but to fund the cruise because they would not allow the fleet to be stranded, out of funds, on the other side of the world.
Bush will, I predict, do the exact same thing: keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan even if the Democrats refuse to pass a bill — and the Democrats know it. They *will* cave and give him a clean bill because they end up looking worse than Gingrich did.
georgej on April 26, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Minor correction: The left can get away with it if our numbskulls on Capitol Hill let him.
Yeah, let’s not. Take a breather davy, I understand the bad blood with Vietnam, particularly because thats what the leftists are trying to recreate domestically, but we can’t reach a Nutroots level of poisonous rhetoric.
Bad Candy on April 26, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Too bad our new overlords the Islamokazis banned it.
steveegg on April 26, 2007 at 1:50 PM
You are assuming, of course, the liberals are rational. I fear that they’re stupid enough to not send any supplemental.
steveegg on April 26, 2007 at 1:52 PM
By all accounts, the surge is helping. It the Left could sit still for a moment and let it play out, this “fiasco” could be on its way to being fixed.
Esthier on April 26, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Particularly because the left has the MSM, and any nasty quote from our side will get used to pound away at us, so we can’t get into this sort of rhetoric davy, especially since Malkin’s been so against it.
For every conservative line of nastyness, there are 10000 pages of liberal venom thats ten times worse, but we don’t have a media to cover ours up.
Bad Candy on April 26, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Oh come on, let’s be fair here. There side is full of children in high school and college. Naturally they’re full of cursing and assassination fantasies.
Esthier on April 26, 2007 at 1:56 PM
I’m awaiting hairy ried and sharrott brownie to answer Joe Lieberman’s question….tic toc…tic toc…
Rudy nailed the dems yesterday and Joey L nailed them today…all they can do is trash Rudy…they have no answers…no plan to win…
areseaoh on April 26, 2007 at 2:02 PM
always know…History will never forget them. If we have one of course.
tomas on April 26, 2007 at 2:02 PM
“Fixed” for the left means “lost.” They’re betting everything on our losing. If we don’t lose, that means they were wrong. If they were wrong about the war, what else are they wrong about?
Laura on April 26, 2007 at 2:04 PM
How about the millions who were slaughtered after congress stopped funding Viet Nam. The lefties have never answered for those deaths yet. That is all blood on their hands.
Wade on April 26, 2007 at 2:04 PM
As suggested elsewhere: Bush should veto the bill on the Fort Bragg parade ground surrounded by the entire post!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 26, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Liberals aren’t rational, they’re opportunistic and see everything as political. Right now they are playing to the Nutroots, because they know if the don’t throw some carne rojo to them, their kookiness is gonna get out of control and spill into the mainstream, which would be a DISASTER for them. They know if they deny troops money, they’re toast in ‘08 and maybe further down the road because its political poison to screw the armed forces like that, you simply cannot do that after Vietnam. Which is interesting given the lefts rush to make Iraq into Nam. Remember, these are the same people who swear to God they support and care about the troops, theres a reason for that, and its the same reason they can’t screw around with the military budget.
So for the left, they are playing a delicate political game. They have to keep the Nutroots powderkeg that they’re sitting on from going off, without looking like they’re screwing the troops over and without taking clear ownership of us losing, and risking losing the American mainstream. I don’t think they’ll be able to do it, but they’re certainly trying.
Bad Candy on April 26, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Defeat Accomplished
infidel4life on April 26, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Huh?
No, its not. Please for the love of God, stop panicking. It ain’t over, if anything, we’ll get a bump because the left is in an impossible position, as long as we can keep our numbskulls in line and not to muck it up.
Bad Candy on April 26, 2007 at 2:16 PM
I must say I’m becoming more and more a Lieberman fan these days. Common-sense liberals are rapidly becoming extinct, as the tinfoil hat crowd becomes increasingly loud. Why doesn’t he go ahead and cross the aisle? There are a few Senators with an “R” after their name who I’d take Lieberman over any day…
The Sandbox on April 26, 2007 at 2:25 PM
So which need gives way first; the Rats’ need to keep conning the middling or their need to keep placating the Nutroots? I fear the former goes first, just like it did 39 years ago, only there is no Nixon to capitalize on that pending blunder.
steveegg on April 26, 2007 at 2:29 PM
I like and resppect that he’s a principled guy, but he’s a liberal, across the board except for this. I don’t really want him to be an R unless it can break the lefts hold on committees, which won’t happen, and even if it did, that prick Hagel would probably screw it up out of spite.
Bad Candy on April 26, 2007 at 2:30 PM
And as for “rationality”, I’m talking of the Soviet Communism sense of “rationality”, which placed self-survival over world domination.
steveegg on April 26, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Got the link to roll call posted at The Sandbox. Hagel and Smith were the ones who crossed…
The Sandbox on April 26, 2007 at 2:31 PM
…unless it can break the lefts hold on committees, which won’t happen, and even if it did, that prick Hagel would probably screw it up out of spite.
Bad Candy on April 26, 2007 at 2:30 PM
I’ve got Olympia Snowe on the Jumpin’ Pool.
steveegg on April 26, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Just like last time; Cut-And-Hagel and Gordo. Who’s the additional non-vote?
steveegg on April 26, 2007 at 2:33 PM
What IF Bush doesn’t veto it??????
LakeRuins on April 26, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Graham and McCain couldn’t make it to Washington for this important vote?
Slublog on April 26, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Shouldn’t Harry Reid be wearing a turban?
P. James Moriarty on April 26, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Not that it would have made a difference, but still.
Slublog on April 26, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Perhaps the President should consider diverting the funds allocated to PBS, NEH (National Endowment for Humanities), NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) and a few other places for the war effort.
He should also read Stern’s “Gold and Iron” and pay especial attention to how Bismarck and his chief financial adviser Gerson Bleichroder went around the Prussian Parliament to fund the military for the 1864 and 1866 Wars.
Matt Helm on April 26, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Don’t even go there. At that point, I’ll be leading the impeachment charges just to get Cheney as Pres.
steveegg on April 26, 2007 at 2:35 PM
McCain has not made any of the pivotal votes on the Iraq war. Politician first!
LakeRuins on April 26, 2007 at 2:36 PM
McShame has to get his presstitute creds back from Rudi somehow.
steveegg on April 26, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I noticed Bela Pelosi forgot her hijab too.
Isn’t it appropriate that Jane Skinner is wearing black?
steveegg on April 26, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Hell, we could balance the federal budget just by stopping the tribute paymants to Muslim states like Egypt, Afganistan, Pakistan, and all the others.
Billions for defence, not one cent for tribute.
P. James Moriarty on April 26, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Unbelievable.
Great question.
CrimsonFisted on April 26, 2007 at 2:39 PM
What are all you vets bellyaching about? The democrats WON the war in Viet Nam! AND, they’re poised to win THIS one!
….oops.
james hooker on April 26, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Got me. I just know what the problem for them is, I can’t predict for sure. Certainly there is no Nixon to capitalize on it, but we’re not always gonna have someone who can exploit it. As long as there is basic competence (we’ll hope) we can at least get an edge and significant improvement and maybe some momentum, we’ll get a small bump no matter what. The ideal for us politically I think would be either the nutroots winning and alienating most of the country, or a big split in the left that really fractures the Democratic party, the kind of thing where they spend a lot of time shredding each other.
Bad Candy on April 26, 2007 at 2:43 PM
How ethical is it to play politics with our troops lives
abinitioadinfinitum on April 26, 2007 at 2:48 PM
The problem that the Democrats have — and they know it — is that the Congress is not veto-proof. All the talking and posturing aside, Pelosi and Reid know that their words about effecting change are mere rhetoric at this point. They can grab all the headlines they want to, they can smear President Bush and the Executive Branch all they like, but when push comes to shove, they do not have the power in the legislative arm to seize control of the war nor of the troops in the field.
I find it fascinating that Speaker Pelosi keeps claiming victory in passing legislation that has no chance of becoming law. After all, isn’t that the measure of real power? The ability to effect change?
Our founding fathers were right on the money in creating a republic and not a democracy. Opinion polls are the flavor of the month. In a true democracy, each time a question comes up, the polls would decide. In a republic, the only poll that really matters is the poll at the voting booth.
We have time on our side until ‘08, if we use it wisely. The murkier the Democrats make this, the more shrill and strident, the more they claim to know the will of the American people, the more anti-American their rhetoric, the more the conservative base will awaken and take back the direction of this country.
The fundamental flaw in the Democtrats’ thinking, I believe, is that the vote in ‘06 did send a message to the President. We don’t like the way this war is going. We want to win this war. No more advance and retreat. When we advance, no power on earth is the equal of our men and women in the military.
I refuse to believe that Americans want to lose at anything, especially this war.
Tennman on April 26, 2007 at 2:48 PM
I have a better idea but I’m not sure if it’s legal or constitutional. Bush travels to Iraq and, in front of our troops, vetoes the bill. No applause, just a quiet, serious stroke of the veto pen with cameras trained.
CliffHanger on April 26, 2007 at 2:50 PM
…..and national security, western culture, the American way of life, Christianity and all else non-muslim, etc…………….
P. James Moriarty on April 26, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Basic competence was all that Nixon ever offered (and that left sometime before 1972 and the Watergate break-in). Indeed, if second-hand memory serves, Nixon ran on a “get out honorably” platform.
As for the ideal, I wholeheartedly agree. The two items are really one and the same, especially since the nutroots learned from their 2000 Nader adventure.
steveegg on April 26, 2007 at 2:51 PM
How ethical is it to play politics with our troops lives,you demon possessed, power hungry, selfish sad excuse of a human being.—Pelosi OH I AM PISSED my Christian values for scum like Her have just gone out the window!
abinitioadinfinitum on April 26, 2007 at 2:54 PM
I doubt it, because he gets nothing in that scenario unless he can pin the loss of Iraq to the left, and the media would be in full spin mode to stop that, Bush has to know he isn’t gonna win with this media. It would be wiser to let the left dangle and force them either to piss off the Nutroots by not getting the surrender clause and caving to Chimperor McBushitlerburton, or looking like they’re denying the troops money, between post Vietnam politics, and the screeching about not enough armor for years, that will be embarrassing and alienate the center.
Bad Candy on April 26, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Roll is up
McCain didn’t vote on it at all.
Enoxo on April 26, 2007 at 2:56 PM
So long as the Presidential objections are back to the House (where this abomination originated) within 10 days (not counting Sundays) of the abomination being presented to the President, it doesn’t matter where he crafts the veto message.
steveegg on April 26, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Looks like OBL will get moved into the prophet category now.
LakeRuins on April 26, 2007 at 2:59 PM
I’LL SHOW THEM RINOS I’LL STAY HOME ON ELECTION DAY 06 TO PROTEST THE LIKES OF MARK FOLEY AND THE DUBIA PORT DEAL AND THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DEAL. IDIOTS! YOU SHORT SIGHTED FORGETTFUL SELFISH IDIOTS!
sonnyspats1 on April 26, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Neither did Graham, and McCain is campaigning in South Carolina. Guess that campaign is more important.
Slublog on April 26, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Oh puleeze. Stop and smell the sarcasm.
Rush came up with this slogan for the defeatocrats today, comparing this to Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech on the aircraft carrier.
infidel4life on April 26, 2007 at 3:10 PM
*DAMMIT*
Sorry, but as melodramatic as some people get here, you honestly can never tell.
Guess my lexicon of Rush phrases needs an update…
Bad Candy on April 26, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I’m a fifth generation native Oregonian, and increasingly ashamed of it. I’ve just bee told by my employer that my Family Medical Leave to stay home and take care of my live-in girlfriend of more than four years while she recovers from Chemotherapy, is denied. Why? Because in Oregon the term “domestic partner” applies ONLY to same sex couples. This puts me in the position of either losing my job, or running the very real risk of comming home to a dead girlfried (she went into chemo already with a heart condition).
I know this whole line is not in keeping with the thread here, but does anyone know when in the US is the most right wing so we can move there?
Thanks.
P. James Moriarty on April 26, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Oops, wrong quote:
P. James Moriarty on April 26, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Tofu-eating surrender monkeys.
NellE on April 26, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Crap…..”where” in the US
P. James Moriarty on April 26, 2007 at 3:19 PM
“…. and if President Bush vetoes this bill, he will be remembered as the one who failed to support our troops.”
Get serious. We on the other side of the debate have been paying attention for the last four years. For God’s sake.
Anyone Democrat who thinks the public is stupid enough to swallow that fairy tale, has lost a total grasp on reality. I feel like I’m watching a poorly written made-for-TV movie.
fogw on April 26, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Thirty years ago I filled out my first voter registration as an “Independent” although I subsequently voted on issues not by party, I found myself to lean toward the conservative side. Fifteen years ago I wanted to work at an election polling place and was told I’d have to be either a Republican or Democrat to do so. (Stupid, but true.) Since it mattered little to me (then) which party I put on the form I decided to write “Democrat” LARGELY BECAUSE MOST OF THE LOCAL REPUBLICAN COMMITTEEMAN WERE EITHER IN JAIL OR ON THEIR WAY THERE. I NEVER VOTED for Clinton/Gore or any other Democratic Presidential candidate, but gave no further thought to my party affiliation. That is until 8 days ago when Surrender-Monkey-Harry-Reid pronounced the war in Iraq “lost”. After today’s spectacle I called my county’s voter registration office and asked them to send me a form so I could official become a Republican. In addition to that call, I also wrote to both of my (blue state’s) U.S. Senators. I’ve included a copy of that letter and would encourage anyone who feels so inclined to write to their senators and representatives. Unfortunately, I’m told that very few members of Congress will even receive (much less read) mail from non-constituents, so it falls on that state’s voters to let them know where you stand.
Senators Lautenberg and Menendez,
The purpose of this letter is to express my extreme disappointment with your vote today on the Iraq supplemental bill. You and your fellow democrats who support this “slow-bleed” strategy are a disgrace.
You weakened our country today and put our troops at increased risk while lifting the spirits and resolve of our enemy. Unfortunately, this is just another day of work for democrats and your traitorous leaders, Reid and Pelosi.
REGRETTABLY, I HAVE BEEN A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT FOR MANY YEARS. THAT ENDS TODAY when I fill out the form to CHANGE MY PARTY AFFILIATION TO REPUBLICAN. AND I will work hard to DEFEAT ALL DEMOCRATS in the future.
You have so cavalierly put politics before the lives of our brave soldiers with your shameful call to surrender (not to mention the way you padded the original bill with billions for special interests which have nothing to do with the war to buy your fellow democrat’s votes). That speaks clearly and says everything America needs to know about your priorities.
Inevitably, there will be another strike on US soil. Tell me, Senator, when that happens, will you still expect these soldiers that you undermined to protect you and your family?
For you and your phony I-support-the-troops-but-not-the-war fellow democrats I suspect there is a special place in hell.
Now tell me, Senator, If I were now to say, even emphatically, that I still support you, would YOU BELIEVE ME?
From one of the millions of disgusted former Democrats,
Maureen (MyLastName)
NightmareOnKStreet on April 26, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Patriots…Lend me your ears.
Secession is still a valid option….
Tim Burton on April 26, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Ditto…………
and while I have your attention, the 06 elections were much more about Katrina and the way Carville & Co ( the media ) made it into a Massive Failure by Bush, than they were about Iraq
Janos Hunyadi on April 26, 2007 at 3:37 PM
F*ck that, real Republicans don’t seceed, thats stuffs for Democrats.
/YankeeCon
//don’t make us go Sherman again
Bad Candy on April 26, 2007 at 3:39 PM
The 4 D’s of Democratic wartime policy:
Draft, dodge, defeat, draft.
Hening on April 26, 2007 at 3:40 PM
How about sharrott brown of Ohio…he’s a frickin’ Jew…and votes to lose in Iraq….hmmmmmmmmm…wonder what’s his plan is to ’save’ Israel…???…actually called his office…no plan…but he’ll do what hairy ried tells him…he should be recalled and put in a padded cell with dennis k…
areseaoh on April 26, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Sigh…
McCain missed another War vote….
One MORE reason I could never support him…
Romeo13 on April 26, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Rudy G has my vote based on what he said yesterday…you know he hit home because the dems are trashing him today…called them out big time…
areseaoh on April 26, 2007 at 4:08 PM
All that’s required for the triumph of evil
is for good men to do nothing.
unamused on April 26, 2007 at 4:21 PM
It is very interesting that the traitorous dems instinctively know how to adjust their tactics and not tip their hand to the republicans in order to win their “war” to win the white house in 08, but when it comes to the lives of our troops and the honor of this country they are ready to throw in the towel.
Cmon dems, tell us when your squeal point is so we can just wait you out. Give us a date certain that you will throw up your hands and stop battling.
Friggen losers.
csdeven on April 26, 2007 at 4:33 PM
No wonder al-Qaeda didn’t hit the Capitol on 09/11. They knew they’d be needing the help of those on Capitol Hill.
Thankfully, our Founding Fathers saw this one coming and made the President Commander in Chief with the power to veto.
doingwhatican on April 26, 2007 at 5:04 PM
sonnyspats1 on April 26, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Indeed. Elections have consequeces. Post this often, ahead of 2008, please.
If it were not so tragic, I’d feel like I’m watching a comedy. As is, it’s a tragi-comedy, with dire consequences. Tragical ignorance, from our very top ‘leaders’. Misguided children - may Machiavelli get them all.
Entelechy on April 26, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Give me a V, give me an E, …
americaslaststand on April 26, 2007 at 6:32 PM
A Nation full of elected TRAITORS…
NRA4Freedom on April 26, 2007 at 6:35 PM
That is exactly what we need in this day and age. Vetoing it and expecting a fair coverage in the NYtimes just doesnt cut it anymore. Post a video of Bush doing that on youtube! People would actually like that type of thing and that he is acting with conviction not sitting at his desk like a lawyer.
Resolute on April 26, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Lieberman can’t even get decent coverage on Fox News, for crying out loud. He deserves better - that speech was awesome. Granted, it’s Shep Smith… but still!!
Laura on April 26, 2007 at 7:18 PM
He is disgraceful
Wade on April 26, 2007 at 7:33 PM
I love how the “right wing” “Faux News” has such a lefty on the critical evening news. It’s like they’re trying to prove something, but conservatives were already convinced they’re pretty even-handed, and liberals never will be no matter what they do.
Laura on April 26, 2007 at 7:40 PM
I feel like I’m watching a poorly written made-for-TV movie.
fogw on April 26, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Glad to see you have all the answers as usual.And so erudite.
lizzee on April 26, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Osama Bin Ladin published his manifesto on “How to defeat the United States”… using our media and Liberal Democrats, he is one step closer to succeeding.
The real damage is that the Democrats do not see what their vote has done to our greater enemies in Russia, China, North Korea, and Al Queda all over the world….. they are emboldened, they are strengthened, they see what it takes to DEFEAT the United States of America, and I fear, in order to change that perception, many more Americans will have to die before we finally shed political correctness, take the damn gloves off, and treat the traitors in the government and media for what they are.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, two names that will go down in history……. but not the history I think they are going to want…..
PinkyBigglesworth on April 26, 2007 at 7:48 PM
Give me a V, give me an E, …
americaslaststand on April 26, 2007 at 6:32 PM
I admit it took a minute but that is funny!
sonnyspats1 on April 26, 2007 at 8:19 PM
A new low from the democraps (with a little help from Haggle and Smith and Graham and McCain, the latter two not voting). They (all of them) have disgraced our Great Country. Cowards. NO GOOD COWARDS.
Zorro on April 26, 2007 at 9:23 PM
dhimmicrats, defeat-o-crats, Hagel and Smith:
Shame on you. What an insidious, slow, treasonous path you’ve walked. Did you not vote the President (unconstitutionally, but you’ll neve admit that) unconditional authority to carry out the foreign policy delineated in his September 20, 2001 national address? And why did you do that, instead of taking the legally correct path of drafting a formal declaration of war, which only Congress can do? Because this way, you can dodge any negative political fallout if our military doesn’t accomplish the impossible task of performing perfectly. And then you can turn every misstep, every casualty, every perceived setback into a “blame Bush” rant, because you haven’t the fortitude to take the responsibility for which you were elected.
Later, you began to rail about lies, rumors of lies, no-WMDs, Abu-Graib, Gitmo, never considering that even by the most ridiculous pseudo-standards, no military undertaking approaching this scope has ever been conducted with SO FEW DEATHS.
Recently, you gathered up your feeble courage and took the next step, that almighty non-binding resolution, expressing your complete displeasure with the Commander-in-Chief, the man elected to do what he’s doing, with the authority you handed him.
And now you take the final step and directly place American lives at immediate risk by threatening to withhold financial support while they are in harm’s way, accomplishing a threefer of disgrace: Reducing the morale of American military members in-theater; Raising the hopes of our enemies in light of your cowardice; Attempting to subvert the proper authority of the President during wartime, trying to make it impossible to accomplish what he told you would take a long time to accomplish.
You deserve to be tried for treason, and once convicted, to be shot.
Freelancer on April 26, 2007 at 9:31 PM
With Liebs the Republicans would have had the votes, but instead we have two turncoats and two no shows. They’ll hail it as bi-partisan democrat victory
- The Cat
MirCat on April 27, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »