When President Bush is right, he's exceptionally right.
ou, he, I, everyone. We all oppose war and want all of them to end now. With the exception of terrorists and extremist Bushhating "progressives" with their wobbly, escapist heads in the sand — each of whom squishily feels that America must always lose every war as an atonement to The World™ for all our "evils" — he, I, and everyone else firmly believe that we have no choice but to win this one.
Choosing surrender and retreat and pretending all would be well and diplomatically manageable and containable afterwards is national suicide. This War will end either with our country's victory or with her defeat. Only the deluded feel that anyone could ever find any middle or common ground with islamist butchers whose one unnegotiable term is the wholesale subjugation or slaughter — makes no difference to them which — of every man, woman, and child on the planet.
On the domestic-enemy front, al-Qaedaqrat Party politicians are desperately trying to force our country and allies to surrender now and lose the War because they feel that will hurt George W. Bush in the polls and thus help them win the next election. Like terrorists, power for them is to them an end that always justifies any means whatsoever, even or especially if it means the assured and resounding defeat of all our Troops whom they say they "support." So the very last thing Dhimmegalomaniac Party politicians ever want to do is work with our president to find any solution to anything, lest he should receive any of the credit. John Hinderaker sums up their unconcealable motives as well as Repollican cowardice in the face of our domestic enemies:
- [The president] said again today that he welcomes "a good, honest debate" about the war. Unfortunately, however, there is no honest debate going on. Most Democrats want to lose in Iraq so they can blame the Republicans and gain political advantage. Some Republicans care less about whether we win or lose than about their re-election next year. Neither group is in a position to tell the American people, honestly, what it wants. So President Bush is pretty much alone as a voice of reason and candor on the war.
Since the mainly Dhimmi media overwhelmingly support the al-Qaedaqrat Party with their votes
and campaign contributions
along with their unethical and unprofessional spin
, it should surprise precisely no one that the polls and surveys those very same Dhimmediacrats incessantly commission regarding the War proportionately parrot the relentlessly one-sided All Bad, All the Time® theme of their stories about it.
Al-Qaeda and other terrorist gangs in Iraq appreciate not only the extreme surplus of overly unfavorable coverage our side receives but also the constant scarcity of any unfavorable coverage at all theirs receives from "our" media. Their main sponsor Iran very much appreciates it too (NonParty Politics).
The Islamofascistic Reich of Iran and its islamoterroristic confederates also appreciate the enormous help they're all receiving from al-Qaedaqrat Party politicians ruling the al-Qongress.
First, Ninny Peloseri's House tried to set April Fools' Day as our country's Official Surrender Date™.
This week, Haji Reid's Senate will try to sneak in a series of their own Official Announcements of America's Surrender to Tryants and Terrorists in the form of amendments to our country's defense budget. Senator Joe Lieberman, who believes "these amendments regarding Iraq... are untimely, they are unwise, and they are unfair," explains their implications:
- They are untimely in the sense that they are premature and should await September, when, as ordained by this Congress itself in the supplemental appropriations bill, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will come back to report to us fully.
They are unwise, if ever adopted, because they would essentially represent a retreat from Iraq, a defeat for the United States and the forces of a new Iraq, a free Iraq, and a tremendous victory for Iran and al-Qaida, who are our two most significant enemies in the world today.
Offering these amendments at this time, in my opinion, is unfair: unfair, most of all, to the 160,000 Americans in uniform over there — men and women, brave, effective, in my opinion, the new greatest generation of American soldiers, committed to this fight, believing we can win it, putting their lives on the line every day. They have made tremendous progress already in the so-called surge, counteroffensive. To snipe at them from here is, in my opinion, unfair.
That is why I will oppose all the amendments I have heard about thus far....
So I appeal to my colleagues, let's not undercut our troops and legislate a defeat in Iraq where none is occurring now, where hope is strong, where the momentum is, in fact, on our side. If you question that, at least show the fairness and respect for General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, and all the people working for us there to wait until September, which is what we said we would do, until we take a serious look at these amendments. If we go down the path the amendments entice us toward, what awaits us is an emboldened Iran, a strengthened al-Qaida, a failed Iraq that will become not just a killing field but will destabilize the entire Middle East and also, I fear, imperil our security here at home.
Announcing, for example, a Unilateral Nonaggression Pact with Iran, whose theocratic rulers supply the weapons al-Qowarda terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan use to kill and maim our Troops, is more than unwise. It is the sort of appeasement that makes Neville Chamberlain look like a reckless warmonger. Same with announcing a Unilateral Declaration of Terrorists' Rights (a la al-Leaky & al'Specter), a Unilaterally Set Date for America's Surrender (al-Finqgold, al-loseReid, et al.), a Unilateral Cessation of Combat Operations (al'Collins & al-Nelson), a Unilaterally Imposed Expiration Date on War Authorization (al-Qlinton & al-KKK), a Unilateral Release of Terrorists from Guantanamo Bay (al-Harkin & al-Feinkenstein), and a Unilateral Downsizing of America's Wartime Military (al-Headinthe Sanders).
No victory, no peace. That should be our national chant. Not the al-Qaedaqrats' No surrender, no appeasement.
However, attempting to get stuck-on-stupolls "progressives" to feel that a change of course away from their self-serving plan of total capitulation to the enemy is what's needed here would be a bigger waste of time than scanning those pointy skulls of theirs for any detectable level of brain wave activity, as the following Senate-floor exchange between John McCain and Barbed Boxhead demonstrates.
BOXER. [BOXHEAD. . . .] I am so glad we are going to be doing the Defense authorization bill and have our opportunity to actually put our ideas into action. I will be supporting every single amendment that will result in a change of course, accountability, starting to bring the troops home.
I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Delaware [
The Plagiarist Biden] for allowing me to go before he goes.
I yield the floor at this time.
[Applause in the Gallery.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant-at-Arms will restore order in the gallery. The expression of approval or disapproval is not permitted.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
- Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I certainly appreciate the passion of the Senator from California and her concern for the men and women serving in the military and those who have sacrificed a great deal already. The fact is, according to Lee Hamilton and Henry Kissinger, General Zinni, and according to literally almost every — not all — respected national security expert in this country, it is acknowledged that we will have a lot more casualties.
The Senator's concern is emotional and well-founded and very moving. I am also moved by the fact that Henry Kissinger and Lee Hamilton say Congress should drop fixed deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. As Commander in Chief, the President needs flexibility on troop withdrawals. He will accept no bill that has a timeline or a fixed date for withdrawal. Lee Hamilton says:
The American people have the war in Iraq figured out. They know American troops cannot settle Iraq's sectarian conflict, and they want to withdraw responsibly. They do not want a messy or sudden withdrawal to prompt wider sectarian strife and an escalating humanitarian disaster.
To some degree, I have seen this movie before. I remember when the debate was going on on the floor of the Senate on our withdrawal from Cambodia on December 15, 1970. Mr. Gravel, now one of the candidates for President of the United States, said:
We come back to the argument of protecting American forces. It is simple. Take the forces out and we do not have any problem. It is simple. Do not get into Cambodia. Do not get involved. Then we do not get into anything.
Yes, there was an argument on the floor of the Senate about withdrawal. There was an argument that prohibited the United States from being involved in Cambodia. Three million people were slaughtered — one of the great acts of genocide in modern history. Yes, we cared about American casualties after Vietnam and we withdrew. The North Vietnamese attacked and millions of people got on boats, thousands were killed in reeducation camps, and thousands were executed. I have seen this movie before. I have seen this movie before from the liberal left in America, who share no responsibility for what happened in Cambodia when we said, no, as I quote Senator Gravel:
We come back to the argument of protecting American forces. It is simple. Take the forces out and we do not have any problem. It is simple. Do not get into Cambodia. Do not get involved. Then we do not get into anything.
Then a Dictatorat, not surprisingly, rudely interrupts Senator McCain.
BOXER. [BOXHEAD.] Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
- Mr. McCAIN. I would like to finish my comments, and then I will be glad to yield to the Senator from California.
Continuing to quote Senator Gravel:
What would happen if Cambodia fell tomorrow? It may well fall. . . . Obviously, it would become communistic. We would have some gnashing of teeth, but life would go on. We would have our traffic jams and everything else.
There were no traffic jams in Phnom Penh, Madam President, not a one. In fact, all of the people were killed or told to walk out of the city.
Life would go on. Basically, that would increase the casualties of Americans in South Vietnam. That would be the difference, except the American people are going to get up and say, "We do not want Americans getting killed at that rate."
. . . it means we are going to put more money in, and if there is a danger that Cambodia will be overrun 6 months from now, we would have to escalate to the next higher step, and they will devise some way of getting American troops in there. Or they would go the mercenary route until they butcher enough of those people.
This, to my mind, is wrong, and adds nothing to our security. Supposing South Vietnam fell, and became totally Communist tomorrow, and then Cambodia fell and became totally Communist; would that appreciably change the life of my colleague from Kansas? Would that change his life?
The debate goes on and on. It is very worthwhile reviewing the debate that went on about Cambodia and Vietnam, not to mention, as I mentioned earlier, the impact of losing a war on America, our military, and others.
The Senator from California and I am sure the Senator from Delaware will speak very movingly about the strain on the families of the men and women and the strain on our troops.
By the way, we do in this authorization bill before us increase the size of the Marine Corps and the Army, and we need to increase it even more because of the challenges around the world — something that some of us have sought to achieve for a long period of time.
But the fact is, when you lose a war, the consequences of failure are far, far more severe on the military than the strain that is put on the military when they are fighting. It is a fact. It is a fact of military history. It is a fact of the war that we lost in Vietnam, which took us well over a decade to restore any kind of efficiency in our military.
I will be glad to yield to the Senator from California.
A lesson in history from one man who most suffered its consequences.
Does the Dhimmiqrat get it? Sadly, no. She's too busy wetting her fingers and sticking them in the air.
BOXER. [BOXHEAD.] Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding. The Senator made the point that the liberal left wants us out of Iraq. I want to make sure the Senator is aware that the latest polls show 70 percent of the American people want us to have a strategy to leave. And my question is, A, is the Senator aware of that? And, B, the followup to that question is, has the Senator read the various proposals, the Levin-Reed proposal, which I strongly support? There is no precipitous withdrawal.
I think the Senator is setting up a straw man, if you will, here. The fact is, those of us who want to leave want to do it in the right way—
Apparently the liberal mob in the peanut gallery is, not surprisingly, ignoring the rules and making rude noises — again.
- Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the regular order.
BOXER. [BOXHEAD.] And we also change the mission to continue training the troops, and so on. I want to make sure the Senator is aware of that point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Senator McCain now tries to give the Dhimmiqrat a lesson in courageous leadership — a concept obviously completely foreign to her.
- Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from California for that thoughtful question. The fact is, I do read the polls, and if the Senator from California had paid attention to my opening statement, she would have known that I made it very clear that I understand the frustration and sorrow of the American people. I also know a lot of us are not driven by polls. A lot of us are driven by principle, and a lot of us do what we think is right no matter what the polls say.
The Dhimmiqrat is stung by this bucket full of truth and screams, "Oh! You cursed brat. Look what you've done. I'm melting! Melting! Oh, what a world! What a world! Who would have thought a good little senator like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness. Oh, I'm gone, I'm gone, I'm going. Oh. Oh."
Senator McCain continues:
So I appreciate the concern of the Senator from California about whether I read the polls. I appreciate that greatly. But I do know also that when you send a signal, and I appreciate the Senator's concern — I was talking about the liberal left addressing the war in Cambodia, is what I was speaking of. The record is clear, and I will be glad to provide other quotes of a similar nature. But I do also know that those of us who study history, those of us who spend time in Iraq, those of us who spend time with various leaders, such as General Zinni, such as General Scowcroft, such as Secretary of State Baker, such as many others, we all know what the consequences of a date for withdrawal will be. And it isn't my opinion alone. It is shared by a broad variety of national security experts in this field.
I also point out that it does have an effect on the troops in the field when they see effort after effort after effort to withdraw, to force them to be withdrawn and, obviously, a failure of their mission.
I welcome this debate, as I said earlier. I think it is important to inform the American people. I think it is important to have a respectful exchange of views. And I will continue to respect the views of the Senator from California, but I will tell her that I have seen this movie before, and I have seen what happens when we have a defeated military and we have people who assure us that a withdrawal is without consequences.
I believe, as Henry Kissinger as recently as a few days ago said:
. . . precipitate withdrawal [from Iraq] would produce a disaster. It would not end the war but shift it to other areas, like Lebanon or Jordan or Saudi Arabia. The war between the Iraqi functions would intensify. The demonstration of American impotence would embolden radical Islamism and further radicalize its disciples from Indonesia and India to the suburbs of European capitals.
Natan Sharansky says the same thing. A person who knows about oppression, who knows about freedom, who served as a beacon to me and a hero in my entire life says:
A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces could lead to a bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by comparison.
All of these are statements by people for whom I have the greatest respect. I hope we will heed some of their admonitions.
Madam President, I yield the floor [after mopping it with Dhimmiqrats' treasonous little "brains"].
After calling him their "good and valuable friend," Al-Qaedaqratic politicians summarily dismissed everything Senator McCain — who's speaking from terrible first-hand experience — warned them about, and proceeded with their betrayal of our country and all her citizens.
The ones who'll benefit the most from this week's overt acts of treason are, of course, America's enemies. They could not wage their holy war against all of us with any hope of success absent the aid and comfort Dhimmiqrats continually give them.
Encouraged by these Duplicitic Party politicians' Profiles in Discouragement, Iran and its terrorist clientele are ramping up their own plans for America's defeat.
WASHINGTON - Al-Qaida is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States
Why? It already has hundreds willingly helping it out in the
1st al-Qongress and "U.S." State Department.
...and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment, The Associated [with tyrants, terrorists, and traitors] Press has learned.
Capabilities beyond House and Senate bills calling for America's total surrender? Isn't that rather redundant?
The draft National Intelligence Estimate is expected to paint an increasingly worrisome portrait of al-Qaida's ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and inspire attacks, even as Bush administration officials say the U.S. is safer nearly six years into the war on terror.
"Expected" to be Bad News (© Asshaturated Press), just like al-jazeernalists gleefully "expected" President Bush to give up and outline some "'post-surge' phase," as they billed it, in his speech last Tuesday? Is anyone expected to ever trust "our" press to ever report anything truthfully anymore?
Among the key findings of the classified estimate, which is still in draft form and must be approved by all 16 U.S. spy agencies:
"Draft," translated from
Liberalese Progibberessive Speak®, means "any textual matter, scribbling, or even crayon drawing, penned on stolen agency stationary by a Democrat Party donor 'working' at that agency, which immediately afterwards was handed over, in violation of law, professional ethics, and 'solemn' oaths, to another Democrat Party donor 'working' as a reporter at any mainstream media outfit willing and eager to publish it, provided such publication either furthers in whole or part the power-grabbing agenda of the Democratic Party or hurts in any way one or more Republican office holders, or both."
That is, pure partisan propaganda.
_ Al-Qaida is probably still pursuing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and would use them if its operatives developed sufficient capability.
Correction to the previous definition: "any textual matter, scribbling, crayon drawing, or statement of the mind-numbingly obvious, penned on stolen agency stationary by a retarded Democrat Party donor...."
_ The terror group has been able to restore three of the four key tools it would need to launch an attack on U.S. soil: a safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas, operational lieutenants and senior leaders. It could not immediately be learned what the missing fourth element is.
That "haven" consists of exactly two or three caves shared by those lieutenants, leaders, and other flea-infested rats who are each scheduled to go on a date soon with 72
virgins raisins all draped in pigskin burqas. The fourth element is running al-Qongress. So the draft should've read "able to maintain one of the four key tools...."
_ The group will bolster its efforts to position operatives inside U.S. borders.
Al-Qaeda's trying to get more Defeatistic Party politicians elected to al-Qongress? Either that or the Iranian-supplied terrorist cabal, like its not so strange bedfellows on the left, is very dissatisfied with Peloseri's progress getting our Troops to tuck tail and run. (Camp Sheham can just smell her first international endorsement!)
In public statements, U.S. officials have expressed concern about the ease with which people can enter the United States through Europe because of a program that allows most Europeans to enter without visas.
They could do the same thing with far greater ease through Mexico. Too bad we don't hear as much concern expressed inside the
Doltway about that.
The document also discusses increasing concern about individuals already inside the United States who are adopting an extremist brand of Islam.
Democapitulatic Party politicians adopting a dhimmitudinal appeasement strategy is another example of their extremism. They're also increasingly concerned that a few individuals inside their party are still having some reservations about it. Perhaps this is what
the document Exhibit 1 in an unauthorized-disclosure prosecution is really discussing, since "an extremist brand" of The Religion of Decease is the same as saying a wetter brand of water.
National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative written judgments that reflect the consensus long-term thinking of senior intelligence analysts.
That is, when they aren't just drafts.
Government officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because
...disclosing classified information to any unauthorized person is a felony punishable by up to ten years in federal prison.
...the report has not been finalized,
That won't save you, Accomplices (to crime) Press. Draft or not, it's still classified information you're not authorized to have.
...described it as an expansive look at potential threats within the United States and said it required the cooperation of a number of national security agencies, including the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security Department and National Counterterrorism Center.
Is Google a banned site at AP? Did any of the ace reporters there fail to recall we already have an Office of the Director of National Intelligence
that "oversees and directs the implementation of the National Intelligence Program" and whose officials "continue to emphasize integration across the [Intelligence] Community"? Apparently that's not nuanced enough for the smartier-than-thou braindead trust cranking out these insipid
National security officials met at the White House on Thursday about the intelligence estimate and related counterterrorism issues. The tentative plan is to release a declassified version of the report and brief Congress on Tuesday, one government official said.
Another biased libstream media wishful expectation. Why don't you just hire some of those remaining al-Qaeda lieutenants as "journalists" to accept all future unauthorized disclosures? Would save the terrorists the time and trouble of having to go out and read their intellegence reports online or in a newspaper.
Ross Feinstein, spokesman for National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, declined to discuss the document's specific contents.
Knowing that his doing so would be a felony and all.
But he said it would be consistent with statements made by senior government officials at congressional hearings and elsewhere.
Public statements, as opposed to treasonous disclosures by any of "our" federal employers more loyal to their Dhimm al'Qrat Party than to our country. Of course they wouldn't be able to commit those felonies without the help of their accomplices at AP.
The estimate echoes the findings of another analysis prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center
NCTC is under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, by the way.
...earlier this year and disclosed publicly on Wednesday. That report — titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West" — found the terrorist group is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," a counterterrorism official familiar with the reports findings told The Associated [with traitors] Press.
Regrouped so much that it's resorting to carbomb-driving doctors in the U.K. National Health Service. Not much operational strength was evidenced there.
But enough about al-Qaeda owing Iran's mad mullahs a refund.
Al-Qaedaqrat Party politicians have been so busy focusing on political benchmarks in Iraq they're once again completely failing to even glance in the mirror and examine some of their own in Washington:
A Tale of Two National Legislaturesby The Man Who Runs America The real debate over Iraq is between those who think the fight is lost or not worth the cost, and those who believe the fight can be won, and that as difficult as the fight is, the cost of defeat would be far higher. I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must. So we're working to defeat Al-Qaeda and other extremists, and aid the rise of an Iraqi government that can protect its people, deliver basic services, and be an ally in the war against these extremists and radicals. By doing this, we'll create the conditions that would allow our troops to begin coming home while securing our long-term national interests in Iraq and in the region. When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq, it will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it will be good politics.
– President George W. Bush
Now, I know the benchmark news is good on the military side. On the political side — and we'll have Tony Snow here at the top of the next hour to discuss all this. But, frankly, folks, all this benchmark stuff, even with the good news on the military side, frankly, who cares? Who really cares about the benchmarks? These benchmarks were imposed by leftists in Congress....
We are in Iraq — and I've said this repeatedly — and we are there because it is in our national security interests. This is not just a stabilize-the-country mission. There is much, much more to it. Frankly, the president was great today in explaining the rationale. Our military, along with Iraqi armed forces, are making solid progress. The interim report indicates that. The Sunnis are now turning on Al-Qaeda, and that's all that matters. What we have here is we have an incompetent, obstructionist Democrat Congress which has accomplished nothing good for this country, trying to use benchmarks to tell another legislative body it's not up to standards? The Democrat Party and the Democrat-led Congress is one-for-seven in its benchmarks, and that one is a worthless minimum wage bill.
These guys have no business telling anybody else, fledgling or otherwise, how to do their jobs. It's pretty funny if you stop and think about it. Our Congress can't do anything right or well right now, despite the fact that our politicians live in luxury. They don't have to worry about getting gunned down or running into a roadside bomb on the way to work every day. They live in the lap of luxury, and he still can't get anything done. Our politicians live in a safe country. (No thanks to them, by the way.) Our Congress sets down standards for everybody else, but they can't even fund the military; they can't control taxing and spending; they can't control the border; they can't reform Social Security and Medicare, but this Congress will tell everybody else what they have to do, and that it must be done tomorrow! A bunch of incompetent boobs in the Democrat Party running this Congress can't do diddly-squat in the House or Senate, and they dare to sit and tell a fledgling little democracy like Iraq and Prime Minister Maliki, "You aren't good enough, pal. You aren't moving fast enough to meet our standards." Sorry, folks. It doesn't wash.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid now run Congress. They are responsible for what does or does not occur there. They keep talking about Bush this and Bush that, but they have the power of the purse. They can come up with fixes for entitlement programs. They can de-fund the war if that's really what the American people want. They can initiate tax cuts for all Americans. They can confirm solid judges. They can direct funding for border security. They can do all these things. Yet they do nothing! All they do is harass and investigate the administration and now tell the government of Iraq that it ain't good enough and it's not moving fast enough, that the benchmarks aren't being met. They probably gave them some impossible benchmarks to meet anyway. Let me suggest something. For all I know, which is a constant judgment and assessment of this Congress, the Iraqi parliament may well be more competent and more successful than our Democrat Congress. Harry Reid can only hope to be as good as Maliki. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, who has nothing good to say about the Iraqi government — and this is something, folks, I want you to hear me on. This is important.
Nancy Pelosi, who has nothing good to say about the Iraqi government, an ally of the United States, slobbers all over the Iranian and Syrian terrorist regimes — and we learn in this report that the Syrians are sending "50 to 80 suicide bombers per month for al Qaeda in Iraq," and she's over there breaking bread with this little Bashar Assad? She doesn't criticize the conduct of the Syrians. She doesn't criticize the conduct of the Iranians in slaughtering American soldiers, in torturing and imprisoning dissidents, attacking Israelis and all the rest. She broke bread with the mass murderer of Syria, and he wants to go do the same thing with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in Iran, and she was all happy about the pictures. She tried to present the pictures to the world that she runs this country, that George W. Bush doesn't, that the US Congress does. Well, she's not got much to point to in terms of her accomplishments to make the world proud of what she's doing — and yet they sit there and they demand that other legislatures, other legislative bodies do it, do it right and do it tomorrow, or receive our condemnation. Why doesn't Congress set out any benchmarks for Syria? Why doesn't Congress set any benchmarks for Iran?
They can sit there and make all these benchmarks for Iraq all day long. Well, let's set some benchmarks for the Iranian nuclear program. Let's have some benchmarks here for Syria and some of these other terrorist regimes. We are holding the Iraqi government to standards that our own Congress can't meet. Another example: We hear it said that they can't even agree on how to split up oil revenue. Yes, they're having a problem with dividing the wealth in Iraq. Of course, our people in this country and the Congress say, "Oh, that's horrible! They can't even figure out how to split up the oil revenue?" Well, our damn Congress can't even agree to open up drilling in ANWR! Our Congress can't even agree to reduce regulations to allow the construction of refineries. To tell the Iraqis where they're screwing up in their energy program? No nuclear plants are being built, no new refineries are being built. They don't do anything to get rid of the regulations that actually would help us become energy independent. We have no effective energy policy — and yet here they are pointing fingers at the Iraqi regime for not figuring out a way to share the wealth. I think we should take some of these benchmarks that I have just mentioned, the failures of the US Congress, measure our Congress against them, and give them a grade and let's see how the Democrat Congress would fare under such benchmarks....
Congress doesn't have leaders; it has politicians. Leaders lead. Politicians play politics, and today there's no connection between the two.
Where is al-Qongress' "Plan B" for meeting all its own benchmarks?
Meanwhile, Iranian aggressors observe al-Qongress' internal wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth and thinks, "Keep it up, losers, and it'll be our side that's going to win this War."
Labels: agenda driven mainstream media (BIRM), aided and comforted enemies, al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaedaqratic Party, Religion of Decease, treason, World War IV
Comments (registered users)