Democrats Implode
Wednesday, November 22, 2006 at 09:04PM It has been only two weeks since the Democrats won the majority in the House and Senate and the train wreck has already begun. In fact, they don't take power until January 2007 and with Nancy Pelosi at the helm, things are already a mess for the Dems. Infighting, ineptitude, rampant stupidity and arrogance is sure to make the next 2 years fun to watch, and thankfully they will be so busy hurting each other that they may not be able to do too much damage to America. Here are a few of the debacles so far:
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
The New York Times called it "Already, A Democratic House Divided" . It started with incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's brilliant idea to nominate incoherent D-John Murtha as the House Majority leader. The internal Democratic vote handed Murtha and Pelosi a dramatic defeat as Pelosi rival D-Steny Hoyer was overwhelmingly nominated to the position, leaving a sulking, pouty Murtha in the background of photo ops at Democratic press conferences.
RANGEL AND THE DRAFT
D-Congressman from NY Charlie Rangel disingenuously proposes a reinstitution of the draft. Here is some of what Rangel is saying:
“Cruelest thing of all is to be stationed in Iraq and listen to the Kissingers and everybody else say that there’s no military victory and the President saying you got to stay there until there IS a military victory, and your’e not fighting people with uniforms or flags, you’re walking each and every day scared to death that some roadside bomb is gonna kill you. And the question would be, why you there if people like Kissinger say there’s no military victory? It seemed to me there's not enough patriotism in this country to warrant us going to Iraq and staying in Iraq."
“The top military guy over there says our troops aren't combat ready."
"Everytime someone says "more troops", they're saying that somebody's kids will be placed in harm's way, but not mine. How can you say "we support the interest" but not my kids?
"Military recruiters target the poor, not Harvard students" (Sounds like Rangel agrees with John Kerry that our troops are uneducated)
“We don’t know who the bad guys (terrorists) are.”
Aside from his inability to use correct English or speak in proper sentences, Rangel's ineptitude is so deep that he refers to GEN Abizaid as "the top military guy in over there" because he cannot name the "top military guy" "over there" or his position, let alone get right what he says. It's GEN John Abizaid, Congressman, and he is in charge of the U.S. Central Command in the Middle East.
Soldiers who are "scared to death" don't re-enlist over and over and commit themselves to two, three or four tours in Iraq. Re-enlistment and recruitments are over 100% in every active duty branch of service for 2006.
Gen. John P. Abizaid didn't say our troops aren't "combat ready" or that we don't have enough, but that "Our troop posture needs to stay where it is," and “When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing. They believe that they can move the country towards stability with our help, and I believe that.”
Henry Kissinger didn't say the United States cannot win militarily. In fact, Reuters shamelessly titled its report, "Kissinger says US victory in Iraq is impossible" This is a bogus reconstruction of Kissinger's comments. The first sentence of the article corrects the misleading nature of the headline:
Sun Nov 19, 12:32 PM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger said on Sunday it was impossible for the United States to achieve military victory in Iraq.
Kissinger: "If you mean by clear military victory an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control ... I don't believe that is possible," he said.
In other words, Kissinger said that the Iraqi government cannot win alone, and that should not be defined as "military victory."
When Kissinger was interviewed on Fox News by E.D. Hill last Friday about the U.S. winning militarily in Iraq, his response was:
KISSINGER: I don’t like the distinction between saying “Is this a military or a political solution?” because when you say “political solution” then it implies that there is no military component to it. Clearly, there has to be a political negotiation about the whole area, but that cannot possibly work unless the United States is present and unless the terrorists and Iran don’t believe they can sweep the field by themselves. So we have the requirement of a military balance and a diplomatic initiative, and the two have to go together.
The idea behind Rangel's draft proposition is to galvanize support against the war. It's also a purposeful insult toward Republicans who stereotypically have their kids in Harvard and Yale as well as a slap at the President whom anti-war nuts love to accuse of not sending his daughters to war. "Draft the Bush Twins" comes to mind from counterprotesting at Cindy Sheehan and anti-war events.
Of course, Rangel inadvertently reiterated John Kerry's slip of the tongue about the uneducated state so soldiers with his "Why are they only recruiting the poor who can't turn down $100,000?" Rangel himself cannot speak proper English or make and educated argument to salvage his ramblings about the war and soldiering. Maybe he should join.
Charlie Rangel said it best himself: "It seemed to me there's not enough patriotism in this country to warrant us going to Iraq and staying in Iraq." Democrats cannot fathom the kind of audacity and patriotism it takes to make a person willing fight for his country even during wartime. Patriotism is wasted on Rangel.
ETHICS
"We will make this the most honest, ethical and open Congress in history."- Nancy Pelosi on winning the House and Senate.
Her first act as incoming House Speaker was to nominate John Murtha for House Majority Leader, despite Murtha's past as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal. Here is the footage of Murtha with the undercover agent. Abscam 1 and Abscam 2. Here's an explanation of the scandal and Murtha's problems on Hannity and Colmes.
Now it looks as though Pelosi, who was called one of the most "brilliant minds I've ever known" by Murtha, is considering naming D-Rep. Alcee Hastings as chairman of the House intelligence committee. The problem is that in the late 1980s, Hastings, "then a federal judge, was impeached by the Democratic-controlled House on bribery and perjury charges and removed from office by the Democratic-led Senate. He was later elected to the House and subsequently joined the intelligence committee."
And here's the fun part: Votes to impeach Hastings included Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel!
Yep, it's going to be an interesting two years.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/780275
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (11)
Now Charley Rangel would be laughable were he not a sitting member of Congress. The last time he floated the idea of a draft he did not even vote for it. I think I know why, the then speaker of the House put it to a vote by a Unanimous Consent Order. Rangel didn't like that idea because it would have been shot down immediately and his chance to grandstand would have evaporated.
Finally we have "ethics reform". Pelosi's support of Murtha and Hastings has inadverdantly given truth to Murtha's characterization of talk of ethics reform being a "lot of crap". If those are the face of the most ethical Congress ever, we are up the poluted estuary with no means of propulsion.
You've been sending me unwanted e-mails for months tellimg me things like my husband is too much of a coward to go back to Iraq etc., so I banned your e-mails. Now you have the courage to post here. I've tolerated you so far but your act of being nice isn't fooling me. Because of your persistent and nasty mails, which I might just post, I''ll give you just enough time to read this kiss off before banning.
Everyone else, this has nothing to do with anyone's constitutional right to freedom of speech or my inability to articulate an argument. We all know that's not true. ben is not welcomed and has continued to bother me around the internet. Those days are gone.
It made me pretty upset to see the overt sexing of Kissinger's statements. Most American's don't look past the headlines, but if they did and simply read the first sentence, they'd see the contradiction. The MSM has done what it can to help us lose this war. SHAME ON THEM.
I have decided that since the Dems are now in power, I should become a registered Democrat and take up bank robbery. That way, when I get caught, I can simply give back the money, say I am sorry, and all will be forgiven. Atleast it seems to work for every liberal who seems to get the proverbial teet stuck in the wringer ( ie:Harry Reid, Kennedy - any of them, Michael Richards, and the list goes on)
Maybe someday there will be a new TV show - Extreme Democratic Makeover! - that would be willing to supply the needed, ah, "makeover" necessary to complete my transformation into a Pelosian Democrat.
The Republican party is the exact same way. They are split on issues as well.
The solutions are not within bipartisanship or the parties cooperation.
The solution is getting people in office that are not selling out to the parties instead of representing their people.
It seems like the people that we have elected, past and present, are only interested in their own special interests and what are the favors for them.
When the voters write their politicians expressing their views, it gets tossed off to the side. There is no special interests once the votes have been counted.
By the way... click out Dick Morris and Eileen McGann write-up when it comes out at the website- FamilySecurityMatters.org. Their post will be called “The Giant, Helpless, Pitiful Democratic Majority”... It too is a good read, Amy.
AubreyJ.........