Anyone saying our Troops "terrorize children and women in the dead of night" is calling them "terrorists." Can't get semantically more clear than that.
his morning, Fox & Friends cohost Greg Kelly was arguing semantics with a high ranking combat veteran over what Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry — you remember, that long-face, French-looking loser who kept reminding every animal, vegetable (i.e., fellow Democretins), and mineral he came across that By The Way I Served In Vietnam™ — told Face the Nation host Bob Shieffer on December 4, 2005:
...there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh, uh, uh, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the, of, of, of, of, of, uh, historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that.
Mr. Kelly flat-out said Jr. Senator Stuck'N'Irak wasn't calling our Troops "terrorists."
Let's see. "Terrorizing" kids and children and women. Now what does one call people who terrorize civilians? That's right. One calls them "terrorists."
Al-Qerry called our Troops "terrorists." Just like Iran's rubber stamping parliament just did.
Mr. Kelly and a few other journalists simply want to deny that a sitting member of Congress, in the middle of a World War, would so blatantly equate our Troops with the bloodthirsty enemy they're fighting. But it has happened. Multiple times.
Sen. Osama bin Bama: We've got to get the job done there (in Afghanistan) and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.
Sen. Ticked Turbin: If I ... did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners (at Guantanamo) in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some mad regime, Pol Pot, or others that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Sen. Tedboat al-Qennedy: On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked: "Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?" Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management — U.S. management.
Congressional Record, 5/10/04, p. S5058.
Rep. Jack MurderthaTroops: Our troops overreacted (in Haditha, Iraq) because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.
Then we have Representatives al-Qonyers, al-Honda, al-Jones (OH), al-Lee, al-MqDermutt, al-Rangel, al-Sqott (VA), al-Starq, al-Towns, al-Waters, and al-Watson voting "No!" to a 2003 resolution "Expressing the Support and Appreciation of the Nation for the President and the Members of the Armed Forces Who are Participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom."
All of the above are — surprise, surprise — al-Qaedaqratic Party politicians.
Wake up and smell the treason, Mr. Kelly et al.
I never thought I'd live to see the day when "leading" members of a purportedly American political party would, over and over, lyingly trash our Troops for strictly partisan purposes, especially when those same Troops are fighting a World War to defend us all and all our freedoms. Now that I have I refuse, for our Troops' sake, to ever live in any state of denial about it like Mr. Kelly's obviously doing.
Al-Demoqrats and RINOcrats want to raise taxes to buy middle-class parents' votes. It isn't about The Children. It's all about selfish politicians' own greed and power.
ocialism is achieved when the people effectively vote themselves the public treasury. Although politicians' promises of "free" handouts from government are not possible without their voters' promises of electing them to government office and power, in the end only those politicians benefit. They get their power while the people get higher tax bills, a shrinking economy, less job opportunities, and much greater need and demand for more such "free" handouts. This cycle continues until there is no one left who is productive enough to keep paying for the same amount of handouts. At that point the handouts also diminish. But the politicians get to keep their power because they now have the people by the throat as well as by their wallets.
Al-Demoqrats know all this. Like Lucifer, each of them realizes she can't command any meaningful level of widespread dependency and control over people without their personal approval. Both the Devil and the Demoqrat (but I repeat myself) also know people won't give either one that approval without some assurance there's something in it for them. Of course, he or she is only too happy to turn such people's greed against them in order to feed his or her own. So each will — being invariably satanic in both motive and effect — offer these people any illusion of assurance which makes them at least feel they're about to get everything they wanted in return for selling him or her their very souls.
Al-Qongre$$'s 109-page bill "to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes" (PDF here), is a perfect example of al-Demoqrats' devilish desire to so solidly instill in us an inescapable dependence on federal government handouts that we have no choice but to let them perpetually run it, as they alone can promise to make us feel firmly and forever beholden to their ever "generous" release of more and more of "our" government's seemingly endless largess.
Colin McNickle, writing in Philadelphia's Evening Bulletin, totally gets it. The Allsocialist Press, of course, is totally clueless. Because Mr. McNickle's comments are much better suited than anything I could write for fisking the latter's report glowing approval of al-Qongre$$'s middle-class soul vote buying scheme, it's best that he do the honors:
Veto Is Certain, Bush Tells Pelosi By CHARLES BABINGTON
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush insisted to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Friday that he's going ahead with his promised veto of a major expansion of a children's health program despite its overwhelming approval by Congress.
The 'S' In S-CHIP Stands For Socialist By: Colin McNickle, The Bulletin 09/27/2007
There can be no better contemporary example of the creeping crud of socialism than the congressional exploits surrounding reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. But it's refreshing to see that President Bush has drawn such a deep line in the sand. Whether it's a Maginot line, however, remains to be seen.
[Screecher] Pelosi, D-Calif., said she told [President] Bush in a morning phone call that she was praying he would change his mind. "I think I have to pray a little harder," she told reporters moments later, at a Capitol ceremony where Democrats celebrated passage of the proposed $35 billion increase in the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
The quite generous and well-intentioned program, generally known as S-CHIP, was designed at its 1997 inception to cover truly needy kids. But just to be safe — just to make sure those on the cusp didn't slip through the cracks — even kids well above the poverty line (a line, by the way, that discounts government subsides) were afforded medical coverage. Children in families of four earning 200 percent of the poverty level (just over $41,000 a year) are eligible. The program expires a week from today.
Of course, leave it to Disciples of Dependence to use kids in pursuit of statism's faux communal good.
It's doubtful that any new arguments were made in what [Naggy] Pelosi called "a friendly, friendly conversation." She said she reminded [President] Bush that many Republicans [In Name Only] voted to raise tobacco taxes to fund a program expansion, and that many governors from both parties support it.
Under one early Democrat proposal, children in families with incomes exceeding $80,000 would have been eligible for government medical care. Upward of 75 percent of all American children could have ended up being covered under the government plan. The numbers have been ratcheted down but they're still quite onerous. And in typical fashion, Democrats keep lowballing the real cost.
"He said he liked people who don't give up," [Ninny] Pelosi said, but he also made it clear he is not backing down.
White House press secretary Dana Perino confirmed [Comrade] Pelosi's account.
"The president has been very clear for months that if the bill came to him in its current form that he would veto it," [Ms.] Perino said.
Mr. Bush has promised an uncharacteristic spending veto. And it's a veto that can likely be sustained in the House. Of course, chickens often do come home to roost.
She added: "What he did say is, 'I'm going to veto this bill, and after that, let's see if we can sit down and come to a compromise.'"
Now just because S-CHIP involves children doesn't make socialized medicine any more palatable. In fact, using them as human health-care shields is downright despicable. Taxes would have to rise to cover the escapade. The cost of private insurance coverage for kids will skyrocket or dry up altogether. And all the goodies that come with socialized medicine will soon follow. Long waits. Crappy care. Can dead kids be far behind?
The president deftly stated his position — what should be every American's position — in a Thursday news conference: "Our goals should be for children who have no health insurance to be able to get private coverage, not for children who already have private health insurance to be able to get government coverage."
Congress and [President] Bush have agreed to fund SCHIP [Shouldn't that 'P' be a 'T' so we get a truly accurate acronym for this socialist crap? Just asking, 's all.], at its current level, at least through mid-November.
Aware that the issue could be potentially explosive politically, the White House released a day early the part of the president's radio address that dealt with the insurance[socialist] program. In the address, [President] Bush urged lawmakers to "work out a more responsible approach."
"Congressional leaders have put forward an irresponsible plan that would dramatically expand this program beyond its original intent," he said in the remarks, which were taped Friday and being aired Saturday. "And they know I will veto it."
The grossly expanded S-CHIP program "is an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American," he said.
Eighteen Republicans [In Name Only] joined a solid Democratic block Thursday when the Senate voted 67-29 for the $35 billion expansion. The House passed the bill Tuesday, 265-159, with 45 Republicans [In Name Only] voting for it.
Actually, you might as well call it the Socialist Democrat Recruitment Act of 2007. Just as liberals and progressives and Democrats want to bolster their constituency by amnestitizing hordes of illegal aliens, they'd simply love to be able to create millions of new government health-care dependents. Inculcate and indoctrinate as you inoculate. What a plan!
It's outrageous, of course. As is the intellectual vapidity of supposedly smart people and institutions shilling for the latest government entitlement.
A veto override requires a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers, a threshold that Republicans say they can prevent in the House. [President] Bush is likely to receive the legislation next week, lawmakers said.
[President] Bush has proposed a $5 billion increase in SCHIP, which now covers 6.6 million children from modest-income families that are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. The bill approved this week by Congress, he says, is too costly, goes beyond the program's original intent, and shifts too much insurance burden on the government rather than private providers.
Incredibly, the New York Times was critical of the Bush administration implementing rules that make it difficult to enroll kids in S-CHIP in families of four with income at 250 percent of the poverty level. That's about $51,000, folks. And The Times calls restricting applicability "too stringent"?
It also labels as "ideological" the administration's opposition to "expanding government insurance programs." Using that logic, so too would be the world's horrific repulsion to the Holocaust. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial called the case against what essentially is a big bear hug for greater health-care socialism "academic arguments (that) obscure larger truths."
The Times seems to have no problem entertaining government health care for children in families of four with annual earnings of $82,600. No wonder there are new projections that by 2040, 60 percent of Americans will depend on the government for their income.
Analysts say the legislation would allow about 4 million of the estimated 9 million uninsured children in the United States to gain coverage.
Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said SCHIP should be focused on children from families with incomes that fall below twice the federal poverty level — $34,340 for a family of three. [Secretary] Leavitt said the administration wants to talk with lawmakers about other steps that can be taken to help uninsured children from families above that income level.
Now, kiddies, it's time for the childish For The Children™ portion of the Asshaturated Press' report ever predictable, immature appeal to emotion always commiserately underlying its pro-Democommierat Party propaganda:
Democrats feel [Like what else do they ever do? Think?!] the SCHIP program is popular, and sense a political blunder on the part of [President] Bush and his congressional allies. Friday's Democratic event, which included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev[er Saw A Tax Increase He Didn't Like]., featured several small children whose families have relied on SCHIP for medical coverage.
In addition to the traditional entreaty of S-CHIP expansion being "for the children," its apologists also cite polling data that show a majority of the public want such a thing. But as stark as this is going to sound to some, the late, great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises nailed the malady in "Socialism," his seminal 1922 work:
Propagandized with woefully little counterargument, "The truth is that most people lack the intellectual ability and courage to resist a popular movement, however pernicious and ill-considered."
Cameras clicked and whirred as [Béla] Pelosi briefly [and very Saddamishly] held a small boy, and his Elmo doll, on her lap. She said there "are 10 million reasons" for [For the last time, APee, it isn't "Bush" or "Mr. Bush." It's President] Bush to sign the bill, citing the number of children the proposed expansion would cover.
Associa[lis]ted Press reporters Deb Riechmann and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.
The bill is HR 976.[Subtract 3 from the 1st digit and 1 from the 2nd, and its number would be more accurate too.]
It is a lack of intellectual curiosity and proper education that allows America's Socialist Democrats to lead an ever more-gullible populace by the nose. And for that, a nation founded on the premise of liberty, freedom and individualism should be ashamed of its slide into collectivism.
Prof. von Mises said that what is needed to stop the trend toward socialism and its soon-to-follow despotism is "common sense and moral courage." Better add a large bolus of economics education for the illiterati.
Pity that all are in such short supply in America these days. But grand kudos to President Bush, who deserves criticism for so many failings, for being dead-on in fighting liberal efforts to make the "S" in S-CHIP stand for "socialist." Here's hoping his Maginot line holds.
Given that the Republican Party would take an even worse drubbing in the contributions department if its members in the House permit al-Qongre$$'s latest effort to tax and spend us to death even more, to advance any farther than President Bush's veto pen, I'm certain his Maginot line against this kind of socialist SCHIT SCHIP will hold, Mr. McNickle.
Hilldabeast's favorite billionaire George $oro$ funds his lying liars' lies swallowed by Demogullibrats.
esse MacBeth entered Army boot camp in 2003, but was booted out 44 days later before finishing due to his "entry level performance and conduct." He then started telling every anti-war anti-America/Bush-hating Dupocrat and other liberal he could find that he had served multiple tours in Iraq, won a purple heart, and witnessed and participated in atrocities like "burning [Iraqis'] bodies ... hanging their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."
Demosaps and other liberals ate it up, believing without question every word and using his name and "story" to help them raise big contributions.
On Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh featured this phony soldier as an example of the Dodocrats and other liberals' Willing Suspension of Disbelief™ when it comes to any and all lies about the World War.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don't understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that's over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so.
RUSH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?" I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever.
RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.
CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.
RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.
CALLER: A lot of people.
RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.
CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I've done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they're using in their IEDs. They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it didn't really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.
RUSH: Well, that's a moot point for me right now.
RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. What's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.
Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."
Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.
The next day a mudslinging Web site owned — like Moveon.org, and the New Democrat Network — by Hsu'llary Rotten al-Qlinton's billionaire bud George $oro$, cherry picked the above transcript in an attempt to lyingly smear Rush as a "denouncer" of any of our Troops "who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq."
Demochumps, totally unconcerned about finding out whether MediaMudders was lying yet again, accepted its lie as any good Truther would and came out of the woodwork to pile on top of the Smear Rush bandwagon.
rmy Spc. Ross McGinnis, Navy Petty Officer Michael Monsoor, Army Reserve Sgt. James Witkowski, Marine Sgt. Rafael Peralta, and Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham, and their families and the friends they laid down their lives for, are forever in the grateful heart of this fellow countryman of theirs.
evelopment, Relief and Education for [Illegal] Alien Minors Act — the nightmarish "brain" child of Senator Ticked Turbin, Demogulagrat of Polpotnoise — is trying to rise off the same laboratory table the mad senatorists used to cobble together their last hideous, Amnesty for Lawbreakers® creation.
The illegal alien [student] who applies for this amnesty is immediately rewarded with "conditional" lawful permanent resident (green card) status, which can be converted to a non-conditional green card in short order. The alien can then use his newly acquired status to seek green cards for the parents who brought him in illegally in the first place. In this way, it is also a backÂdoor amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens who brought their children with them to the United States.
We the People have a choice. Let this polpotician and his deformed laboratory assistants once more attempt to force us taxpayers to pick up the tabs for lawbreakers' college tuition, or demand that the Senate remove his non-germane Amnesty Amendment to our Defense Authorization bill.
We've paid for the equipment and electricity these mad senatorists are misusing to bring to life their deadly monsters. We're even paying Baron von Turbin and his humpbacked Igors' salaries. What they do inside that unauthorized social-engineering laboratory they're trying to construct is our business. It's time for us to again tell them they can't unleash anymore of their Frankamnesteins on us or our children.
Send a free fax to you Senators and tell them, "Once you start rewarding some law-breakers, you end up rewarding them all."
"We would've invited Hitler before 1938." -CU Prez
e prepared for some Tough Questions™, Mr. Tyrant of Iran. The liberals at Columbia have promised to grill you on your islamaniacal "republic's" repression of women, hanging of homosexuals, support of terrorism, and production of nuclear weapons.
Columbia Usefulidiotsy's Liberal #1: President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, is it true that it's George Bush's fault that your country has been acting the way it has these past few years?
Islamofascist Repressors of Iran's Tyrant (translated): I'm glad you asked that. I can see that I'm addressing a reasonable and very informed audience. In answer to your question, yes, it has been the president of your country who has been causing us to do what we feel we have to, to respond to his merciless threats against my peaceful country.
CU's Liberal #2: Mr. President, as president of a country that has been under constant threat of attack by a warmongering U.S. president, do you feel that we here in this country should do more to protest the numerous violations of International Law[®] perpetrated by George Bush and his outlaw regime?
IROI's Tyrant: Thank you for your very insightful question. It is, of course, obvious that our peaceful country has done nothing to cause the leader of your country to terrorize the people of Iran as he has. We want nothing but peace and to resolve all conflicts, and all he wants to do is wage war and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in his quest to conquer our Islamic nation so he can gain control over our oil supplies. But I would hope that the more reasonable people of your country — like all of you here — would rise up and demand that he stop destroying the peace my country has been working so hard to build in our lands. So, yes, I support your desire to protest what he is doing.
CU's Liberal #3: Welcome to Columbia University, President Ahmadinejad. We feel we need to hear from all sides on every issue because we feel that's what leads to mutual understanding and respect, especially in the area of foreign relations. Do you share this feeling?
IROI's Tyrant: Yes. I most certainly do. That's why my country's government has been negotiating in good faith with other countries to resolve any misunderstandings they might have over our peaceful development of alternative energy supplies, such as nuclear electricity. Your own country is trying to move away from its reliance on so-called fossil fuel sources of energy and develop more sustainable ones. That's what we've been trying to do as well; and we feel our country has as much right to do that as yours does.
CU's Liberal #4: Mr. Ahmadinejad, I heard your speech at the United Nations and was most impressed by your call for peace in the Middle East and throughout the entire world. Do you feel that George Bush owes you and the people of Iran an apology for making it less possible for such a peace to occur?
IROI's Tyrant: That is the main reason I accepted your kind invitation to explore and exchange ideas between this exceptionally intelligent student body and myself. I want to raise awareness among all your people about my country's struggle to help the whole world become a more peaceful place for everyone. That way you students can have a better chance to continue your studies without having to live in a constant state of fear that your leaders will plunge your country into another endless war against peoples of different religious beliefs, which only spreads intolerance and mistrust between nations. I want you and all your citizens to know that our Islamic nation wants to be your country's friend and partner in this endeavor, but cannot be so long as you have a government led by people who are intolerant of other religions and who want to destroy everyone's chance of having real peace.
CU's Liberal #5: Thank you, Mr. President, for accepting our invitation to participate in this open forum. Since you feel that our leaders have failed to let you and your country live in peace, do you have any preference of whom you'd like to see lead our country after the next election here? That is, who do you feel will be the one most likely to let you live in peace if she, or maybe he, were elected president of our country?
IROI's Tyrant: I thank you for your question. Normally I am reluctant to impose my opinions on anyone regarding their votes in any election. But in this case I feel I am obligated to express them, not just for my country's sake but for the sake of an entire world that only wants true peace. That's why I can say, without any reservations, that my country's government would be very pleased to see your former First Lady elected president. My good friend, the president of Cuba, wisely says that she and your Barack Obama would make a "seemingly invincible ticket." I agree with President Castro on this and would endorse such a ticket. I know my government could work with her to build a more peaceful relationship between our two countries.
Republican National Committee's telemarketing firm asked me to renew my party membership...
nd their representative — bless her heart — got to hear in No Uncertain Terms™ my conditions, to wit:
When I see a photograph of the 700th mile of border fencing being built, I will renew my membership. Or at the very least, the 70 miles that are supposed to be built this month.
To which she replied, "But the president doesn't have anything to do with funding of fences," etc., etc.
I was compelled to correct her. "Excuse me," I said. "The bill has been passed. The money has been appropriated. The only thing we're waiting on is for the President of the United States to do the construction."
That's when she thanked me for my time and hung up.
She had said it was important to advance our conservative agenda. Sounds reasonable. Except at the top of that agenda is strengthening our national security. So how, in the middle of a World War, are we going to advance it if we remain unwilling to fully secure our still vulnerable borders?
As long as I have to keep asking where's the fence, the Republican leadership has no business asking me where are my membership dues.
President Reagan: "The only real failure in life is the failure to try."
ost. Failed. Not working. Get out. Quit.
Dhimm al'Qrats always demand we give up when something doesn't turn out to be an easy win. They'll never demand we try harder to overcome any difficulty that stands between us and total victory.
Had Harpy Reid been Dhimmirat Leader on January 27, 1967 — the day three American astronauts lost their lives during a Project Apollo launch test — he would've come out the next day to demand we forget trying to send anyone to the moon. It's too hard. It's costing lives. We'll never make it. The program's a total failure.
Had he been in the Continental Congress on December 23, 1776 — the day Tom Paine published these words:
THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.
— Humbuggy Reid would've stood up and declared the Revolutionary War lost. It's too hard. It's costing lives. The Troops' enlistments are all going to expire. General Washington's plan is a total failure.
Retreat. Surrender. Defeat. Disgrace.
These words we associate with Doomoqratic Party politicians because their vocabulary contains none of encouragement, hope, or that uniquely American attitude — once common among members of Congress in time of war — of continuing on, no matter what the odds, and doing whatever it takes to achieve another victory for human freedom.
So it's not surprising that Harridan Reid's moribund brain cells are incapable of increasing his language skills so they include any mention of the following hopeful and encouraging assessments.
It might be possible to demonstrate in principle that the Anbar Awakening movement could spread outside of the province, but it is not necessary, because it has already done so. Although some media outlets continue to portray this spread as speculative or potential, it is, in fact, well documented. Australian counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen recently described it in detail in a post on the Small Wars Journal website; Michael Gordon described it in even greater detail in The New York Times Magazine this weekend, and U.S. military and political officials have been briefing on it for many weeks. Local Sunni Arabs all throughout Central Iraq have come forward to volunteer for service in the Iraqi Security Forces in order to fight al Qaeda in Iraq and bring peace to their war-torn lands. This movement has gained great traction in Diyala Province — another area that was so heavily infested with AQI and Shia militias that many had given it up for lost — where it helped secure the gains of recent U.S.-ISF operations that cleared its capital, Baqubah. It is growing rapidly in the areas south of Baghdad (which Michael Gordon wrote about), including in the area formerly known as the "triangle of death" and serious al Qaeda safe havens in the Arab Jabour area. It has spread into Abu Ghraib, where more than 2,400 Sunni young men volunteered to join the ISF, and over 1,700 have been accepted by the Iraqi government. And it has even spread into Baghdad itself, where â€œconcerned citizens groupsâ€ are helping U.S. forces track down and eliminate AQI fighters and leaders and to secure their neighborhoods. Movements are starting to grow even in Salah-ad-Din Province, site of Saddamâ€™s hometown of Tikrit and Samarra, and also a major base for Sunni rejectionists and AQI fighters. The evidence of the spread of these movements is absolutely irrefutable. Anbar may be unique — and many of the local movements outside the province have ostentatiously refused to call themselves "awakenings" or to model themselves after the Anbar movement — but the Iraqis themselves are aggressively adopting the Anbar model to suit local circumstances in order to work with the Coalition and the Iraqi government against terrorists and militias to secure their homes.
Six months ago, insurgents operated freely around Baghdad's belts. Now U.S. and Iraqi forces limit them to discrete areas, more distant from urban centers, where they cannot easily defend themselves, or support one another or their vehicle-bomb network.
Smaller groups who escaped from their safe havens during combat operations generally fled along the Tigris and Diyala River valleys. The remnants of al Qaeda in western Baghdad can no longer quickly reinforce their positions from outside or within the city.
Gens. David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno followed up Phantom Thunder with Phantom Strike. The new campaign, launched on Aug. 13, aims to prevent terrorists and militias from reconstituting their forces in Baghdad, its belts or elsewhere. U.S. and Iraqi forces are moving along the river valleys to destroy the remnants of enemy groups and eliminate any new safe havens they try to establish. Their operations are also preventing Shiite militias from taking over territory al Qaeda once controlled.
Given that the [draft] report [by Harried loseReid's GAO] doesn't attempt to acknowledge progress, it sounds as though it may not even account for the agreement on several key legislative issues that was announced by Iraqi leaders a few days ago.
One wonders, too, what business the GAO has writing a report on Iraq. Did members of that agency travel to Iraq? Did they discover any facts that have not already been widely reported? What expertise, if any, did they bring to their task? Until 2004, "GAO" stood for "General Accounting Office." That agency has been best known for auditing government programs. It's hard to see what light its report can shed on the situation in Iraq. In any event, the report has probably already achieved its real purpose: generating negative headlines about Iraq.