The Disgraceful Dems
I watched the House debate on HR 2956 yesterday.
Of course, CA had the most loons: (Remove sharp or heavy objects from monitor area. Upchuck bag may be useful.)
Woolsey, Lynn (D) – 6th District
Rep Patrick Murphy should be ashamed!
And here’s the sponsor of HR 2956:
~ to name just a few. They were some of the most defeatist and disrespectful to our troops! How they can say we support the troop, they are so brave and have done an outstanding job, all the while bleating how it’s a failure is beyond my comprehension!!
What does that say except we are only applauding your service because we have to but we actually don’t care one iota for you or your mission. All we care about is beating down Bush and keeping our seats.
There are 17 Republicans out of 50 Representatives in CA.
You will notice that Gen. Pelosi has many videos of the Democrats speeches on YouTube but the Republicans do not. Come on!! Get with the program!! How do you expect to beat the Dems if you let them get the lead – again and again!!
I wish I had recorded the speech Rep Gingrey of GA gave yesterday ~ he apologized to the military families for the behavior of the Democrats. Hooah!
But I do have the video of his speech on the surge given on July 8:
You can see more speeches from the Surge debate here.
Then there is the speech Rep. Shadegg gave:
“Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I honor him and respect him deeply. But this legislation is deeply and fatally flawed. It will damage America and American interests for two reasons:
“First, it is a purely political document, hopelessly vague and meaningless. Let me explain why. The bill turns on two key terms. One, that the United States transition to a ‘limited presence’ in Iraq within the next 120 days; and, two, that the President provide a justification of the ‘minimum force levels required to protect the United States’ national security interests in Iraq.’
“While I am pleased that the authors recognize that we are in Iraq to protect our national security interests, again, the legislation is hopelessly vague and therefore meaningless. Neither of these two key terms, ‘limited presence’ and ‘minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests,’ is defined. Oh, the bill has a definition section and other terms are defined, but ‘limited presence’ and ‘minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests’ aren’t defined.
“You might ask yourself, why would the authors of the measure leave two such critically important terms undefined? Well, the answer is easy: because this bill is not about policy; this bill is about politics.
“The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows exactly why these terms are not defined, and indeed the Democratic Leadership knows why these terms are not defined. They are not defined because they need ambiguity. Indeed, ambiguity in this legislation is essential to its passage. They know that they can’t agree on what the meanings of these terms are. You see, if they defined ‘limited presence’ as too many troops, then their most liberal, most antiwar Members would not vote for the legislation. They couldn’t. And, if they defined limited presence too low, then their Blue Dog Members would not support the bill. Again, this bill is about beating up on the President and about scaring nervous Members of Congress.
“Again, let’s look at the other term, ‘minimum force levels required to protect U.S. national security interests.’ Why not define what the minimum is? Answer, again, if they define it too high, those who want out tonight and want out force levels at the lowest conceivable level couldn’t vote for the bill. And if they define it too low, then those who recognize we face a threat from Iran and other regions’ interests wouldn’t vote for the bill. It is deeply flawed for those reasons.
“And I would ask proponents of the bill what they would say if the President, as he could under the language of the bill, were to decide that ‘limited presence’ means 154,000 troops, just 1,000 fewer than we have now. That would comply with the letter of the bill, but it wouldn’t satisfy proponents of the bill.
“And what if the President, as he can under the language of the bill, were to define the term ‘minimum force level required to protect U.S. national interests’ not as 155,000 troops as we have today, but rather at 500,000 troops?
“You see, they can’t agree on those terms. I wonder how many of the Members realize that the critical terms in this bill aren’t defined.
“The bill is also flawed for a second reason, and that is that it reneges on the essential agreement Congress struck just 2 weeks ago. It is a little bit like Lucy pulling the football out from under Charlie Brown just before he kicks it. Here, don’t rely on my opinion; rely instead on today’s Washington Post. You see, today’s Washington Post editorial makes the case for me. The Washington Post, not exactly a conservative journal, says, ‘It seems like just weeks ago, because it was, that Congress approved funding for the war in Iraq and instructed General David H. Petraeus to report back on the war’s progress in September.’ Ladies and gentlemen, this isn’t September.
“The Post goes on to write, ‘Before Congress begins ordering withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer some hope.’ We owe it to those generals to give them, as the Washington Post says, the months they asked for, but, instead, we have given them 27 days.
“I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.”
Just for a hoot, I’ve included the video of The Occupation Project’s visit to Sam Farr’s office in February. These are some of the people I have had to deal with for the past few years.
I will not miss them…
You have to see the fellow at the end – most indignant!
Blah Blah Blah…