Statement by Rep. Adam Smith
H. Con. Res. 63 – Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
February 15, 2007
Madam Speaker:
“It has been nearly four years since the war in Iraq began — four-and-a-half since President Bush and his team in the White House started the effort to launch our nation on the path to this war. We learned a lot during that time frame, but two things stand out. First, the war effort has failed to achieve the outcome the President hoped for, instead creating problems he clearly felt would not come to pass. Even he admitted that he is dissatisfied with the way the war has gone. Second, at every step along the way, beginning with the way the President got us into the war, right up to the President’s latest plan to once again increase the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad, President Bush and his administration made mistake after mistake — failing to an almost incomprehensible level to learn from past errors or to demonstrate even a modest level of competence in prosecuting this war. Countless books from all points on the political spectrum lay out in painful detail all the mistakes this administration made in Iraq.
It is way past time for this Congress to stand up and say enough. We disapprove of what President Bush is doing in Iraq.
But our friends on the other side of the aisle claim that such a statement in meaningless. This is an astounding assertion. The United States House of Representatives — the elected voice of the people of our nation — stating clearly and on the record how they feel about the single most important policy issue of our time is meaningless? This opinion, expressed by the minority party, perhaps explains the utter lack of oversight and accountability that they employed when they were in charge — standing by and acting as mere cheerleaders for the President’s actions in Iraq as he made mistake after mistake. The other side of the aisle at least has a consistent record of believing that the opinion of Congress, a body our Constitution set up as a coequal branch of government with the Executive, is meaningless.
As much as I disagree with this conclusion as to the proper role of Congress in expressing its opinion on the Iraq War, I do understand this initial reluctance to pressure President Bush to change course. In a time of war we all want to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief as a first option, and the powers of the presidency make it difficult for Congress to, in a clear-cut straightforward manner, direct the President in the conduct of war. But the President’s record of mistakes in Iraq makes it clear we can no longer cling to this first option, and, difficulties notwithstanding, the cost of continuing down the same path the President has been pursuing in Iraq has reached the point where Congress must at least try to force a change in direction.
This effort should logically begin with a clear statement from the House that we disapprove of the way the President is conducting the war in Iraq. That is what this resolution does. With this vote members can no longer hide behind, “on the one hand, but then again on the other” statements. We can all mutter about things we don’t like in Iraq, but an official on the record vote is required to make that disapproval clear. Do you support the way President Bush is conducting the war in Iraq? Yes or no.
And make no mistake about it the President’s plan to increase the number of U.S troops in Baghdad represents no change in policy. It is stay the course, more of the same. In the last year we made large increases in the number of our troops in Baghdad twice already. Both times violence went up in the city, and as we have begun the current increase in troops that violence has once again increased. The lesson should be clear at this point — United States military might will not stop or even reduce the violence in that city.
Listening to the arguments against this resolution helps to understand why our President insists on making some of the same mistakes over and over again in Iraq. We are told that our fight in Iraq is a clear-cut battle against the same type of Al Qaeda-backed extremists who attacked our nation on 9/11 and that we are defending a worthy Iraqi government against these evil forces. If this were true, I would support whatever increase in troops was necessary to defeat that evil force.
But it is not even close to true — it is instead a dangerous attempt to paint a black and white picture on a situation that is far, far more complex. Baghdad is caught in a sectarian civil war. Both Shia and Sunni militias are battling each other as well as United States forces and the Iraqi government. It is a complex web of frequently changing alliances and interests that makes it impossible for our troops to separate good guys from bad guys. This is why our troops cannot stop or even reduce the violence. And the Maliki government we are being asked to support spends as much time acting like they are supporting the Shia side of the civil war as they do acting like they want to bring Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds together to form a stable Iraq.
Al Qaeda is in Iraq and we should continue to target them, but that effort will require a far, far smaller U.S. military presence than we have there today. Currently we are expending an enormous amount of resources in Iraq, most of which is going towards putting our forces in the middle of a chaotic civil war where our efforts do not advance and may even retard our fight against Al Qaeda. That massive military commitment reduces our ability to pursue Al Qaeda in the dozens of other nations where they have influence — most glaringly in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This larger, more important fight is not solely or even primarily military. Diplomacy and other efforts to move disaffected Muslim populations away from joining Al Qaeda are a huge part of our battle, and we need to enhance those efforts. But we can’t, because we’re hamstrung both by a lack resources — financial and strategic — that are tied down in Iraq, and because our open-ended occupation of Iraq continues to undermine America’s standing in the world.
Instead of sending more troops to Baghdad the United States policy in Iraq should be to instruct our military leaders there to put together plans to as quickly and responsibly as possible reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We need our troops to focus on Al Qaeda and its supporters, not to be bogged down in a sectarian civil war that is only tangentially related to the larger fight against Al Qaeda.
The first, critical step in this process of changing our policy in Iraq is this resolution. Congress must make its disapproval of the President’s policy in Iraq clear and on the record.”
As for who was telling us there were WMD’s in Iraq well let’s see:
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
NOTE: Can’t blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
NOTE: Can’t blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
NOTE: Can’t blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
NOTE: Can’t blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
– (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
NOTE: Can’t blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
NOTE: Can’t blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
NOTE: Can’t blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Liberals tell us the President Bush is an idiot with the intellectual cpacity of a child in comparision to the great liberal intellects such as Hillary Clinton.
They why, one wonders, do all the great liberal intellects who voted for the Iraq War now tell us they were misled? Are they admitting that indeed someone with the intellect of a child misled them on one of the most important issues of war?
What does this say about one such as Hillary Clinton and how she would do in talks with someone such as Kim Jong Ill or Communist China if indeed she is easily mislead by a child?
Now stay tuned folks for the liberal vitriol and swear words that follow. This is what liberals pass off as reasoned debate.
Intellects indeed. ROFLMAO
PatheticBlogJockey=ResidentScreechMonkey.
I don’t need to swear to call you waht you are: A Treasonous, lying Wingnut.
pbj
Democrats who voted to authorize Bush to be able to go to war made a mistake. Many of them now acknowledge that mistake. Further, after nearly 4 years of watching the remarkable blundering and blathering that characterizes the Bush Administration’s conducting of the war effort, they have come to the only rational conclusion–that this administration cannot be trusted to manage a cake sale. Accordingly, the question is not now simply to determine who should be held accountable for past errors, which is what you want to focus on, but to determine what is best for the nation with regard to where we are now in Iraq. Adam Smith’s statement is about as eloquent as it gets with regard to where we are, how we got there, and where we need to go now. He is a statesman. But, you are far too partisan to ever recognize who actually speaks in the nation’s interest.
pbj,
I just don’t thik the people of the Middle East are worth the effort.
Proud Leftist says:
Now perhaps you can direct me to where I can read of Hillary Rodham Clinton making such an admission. After all, she wants to be the next president. As voters confronting her on the campaign trail have pointed out, she never admits it was a mistake without making qualifications blaming others.
And what is the Democrat plan for Iraq?
Adam Smith’s statement is incorrect.
It should be:
It has been nearly four years since the war in Iraq began — four-and-a-half since President Bush and his team in the White House in concert with the congress, including prominent Democrats, started the effort to launch our nation on the path to this war.
Democrats now control congress. If they wanted to they could cut off funding for the war. They don’t even want a nonbinding resolution about that because then they would have to make their actions match their rhetoric. If they truly believe this war is wrong, they would immediately use thier MAJORITY to end it tomorrow. They are hypocrites.
Hillary Clinton has not acknowledged her mistake, and I did not say all Democrats had. She needs to do that. Her greatest mistake was in trusting a Republican. They, like you, do not recognize the truth even when it’s fucking them in their puckered up assholes. Democrats do not have the power at the moment to simply stop the war because they do not have enough votes to overcome the inevitable filibuster that the Republicans would mount. By the way, what is so difficult for you simpletons to understand with regard to the following: getting the hell out of Iraq not only constitutes a plan, it constitutes the best plan.
Lessee…how many times did Smirk “flip-flop” yesterday about what kind of explosives in Iraq could be where, and who was responsible, and whether he knew for sure or could blame someone else if he was wrong? Yeesh, he was changing his goddamned story so fast that the news services couldn’t keep up–for a while the Reuters Web page had two contradictory headlines.
Patience, my ass…I want to impeach someone!!!!!!
http://www.thirdworldtraveler......roops.html
Don’t Support Our Troops
by Joe Mowrey
“When does support become facilitation? When does care and concern lend itself to the commission of crimes against the populations of other countries? When does loyalty supplant responsibility? Though I have my own answers to these questions, I can’t answer for others. But I do believe they are questions that need to be asked.
The Bush administration made outlandish claims about Iraq and the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. They insisted that the government of Afghanistan was harboring those responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Incredibly, in the next breath, they convinced many people that Iraq was responsible for those same attacks. All this was done without presenting even the slightest legitimate evidence for these claims. Being the good patriotic citizens that many of us are, we willingly sent our children off to kill and be killed, to murder thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq for no other reason than that a handful of politicians and media pundits told us to do so. And all the while we continue to chant the myopic slogan, ‘Support Our Troops.'”
re 9: How is it that some politicians could see through the charade of the buildup to the invasion of Iraq and vote against it, while others, equally intelligent and well informed, voted for it?
I believe that the answer to that question is that the politicians who voted FOR the war knew that the rationale was based on slanted and outright false information, but chose to vote in favor of it to cement thair bona-fides as Democrats who were “strong on defense”.
Is anyone’s child’s life worth Hillary Clinton looking strong on defense issues even though she knows her vote is morally and factually wrong?
I don’t think so. Therefore, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary OR the Presidential election.
Perhaps PBJ wants to discuss Doouglas Fife, whom Tommy Franks described as the”dumbest f****ing man on the planet.
Yes, that Douglas Fife, who claimed that Mohammed Atta was seen in Prague, despite the fact that he can be clearly seen on video aty an ATM in Florida at that time.
Yes, the same Douglas Fife who publicly asserted that Saddam Hussein was to have been one of the 9-11 hijackers. . . . .
The same Douglas Fife who, after he left the DOD along with Donny-boy Rumsfeld, pitched a job “teaching how to fight the War On Terror” to the Pentagon, for $500,000+
a year. Amazingly, he was given this job, but was quietly let go a month later when the New York Time begain enquiring about this. . . . .
A number of folks are criticizing Democrats because they are voting for a non-binding resolution, rather than cutting off funds.
Of course we all realize that this argument is self-serving.
The President (regardless of our personal opinion of him) takes the lead on foreign policy and is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
Congress has a role in this process. They are to “advise and consent”.
Mr. Bush and his supporters seem to take this phrase to mean “consent to whatever we decide, and keep your traps shut.”, and for several years now, that seems to be what has happened.
This Congress has finally taken up its duty to advise.
It would have been better if this advice could have been given and received in private meetings in the Oval Office, with the President and his administration listening to the view of the overwhelming majority of the American public, delivered through their elected representatives.
Here, I can even agree with some Republicans. We should try to avoid airing our dirty laundry in view of the rest of the world, and work diligently to come to a consensus that we can all support.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration does not wish to listen to advice.
This resolution is the next step. It is unfortunate, but cannot be avoided. The Congress must formally advise the President that they and the American public think we’re going the wrong way. This advice must be given in such a way that it cannot simply be ignored, and that is what the resolution does.
Hopefully, this will be enough. Hopefully, the President and his advisors will listen and find better solutions. Hopefully, but I’m not counting on it.
But we must give it a try. When and if this fails, we can use Congress’ funding ability to direct change, but that is a very drastic step, and having 535 people directing a war is a recipe for disaster. The only excuse for walking into that disaster is that it might be better than our current situation.
The Republicans would like us to propose a “solution” to this mess. The reason is that by now they have figured out that there are no good solutions, and anything we propose will have serious problems. Eventually we may have to simply take the best of the available (bad) solutions.
Still, there is one thing that you must do when you find that you have dug yourself into a hole.
Stop digging.
Congress may have to take Mr. Bush’s shovel away from him.
lucy @ 12
You may very well be correct, but I’m not quite ready to ascribe such cynical motives to Dems like Hillary and John Edwards. Political calculations surely figured into some of the yes votes among Democrats. But, I think that many of them just had some doubts about what was right, and decided to trust the Administration. After all, Bush’s untrustworthiness and incompetence were not as apparent then as they are now. I won’t vote for Hillary in the primary, but if she’s the D’s candidate, I’ll have no trouble pulling the trigger for her.
For what it’s worth, Hillary isn’t exactly my favorite either.
This is for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that all the rightie pundits seem to be looking forward to her being nominated. The only things that can possibly mean are that:
(1.) They consider her the easiest to beat; or
(2.) They figure that once in office, she’ll be about as much of a Democrat as Zell Miller.
adam smith is an idiot.
Thank you!
YO
Adam Smith’s shit has a higher IQ than you do.
YO is an ignorant slut.
FORGIVE MY WINGNUT BRO YO. UH. NAAAH. SCRATCH THAT. THERE’S NO EXCUSE FOR HIM.
IT’S PBJ WHO’S IGNORANT (IF DON’T MIND STATING THE COMPLETELY OBVIOUS). AT ONE TIME IT WAS FASHIONABLE TO BASH SADDAM HUSSEIN BUT ALL ANY POLITICIAN HAD TO DO WAS TALK TO SCOTT RITTER OR ANYONE CONNECTED WITH THE WEAPONS INSPECTIONS TO KNOW SADDAM WAS NO THREAT TO ANYONE.
HELL, YOU COULD TALK TO THE ISRAELIS. SADDAM WAS A LOW PRIORITY FOR THEM.
Attention pbj:
Please try to remember how the “intelligence” was tweaked and how the recently retired head of the European division of the CIA told the White House that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs or even programs. 3 weeks before the invasion.
It’s obvious you know how to cut and paste, but please do the rest of the research.
Sad Day Today.
Democrat party officially jumps the shark. Denounces the mission of our troops, undermines the CINC, undermines the USA, essentially sides with Al Qaeda. All the while our troops are in harms way.
Sad Day indeed.
Oh and as PBJ so nicely pointed out. It was full bi-partisan support for the war. So drop the crap about “bush lied” it don’t float.
And @11
Take your “I think our military are baby killers” crap and stuff it. I can’t believe the liberal veterans who post here aren’t P.O’d at that filth and denounce it…
Our military personel are the best trained, ethical, loyal, patriotic, disciplined and effective people one could hope for. I am so proud of what they do for all of us, every day.
They provide the freedom we enjoy every day.
God Bless them and keep them safe.
Rep. Smith.
Shame on you. Shame on your lack of leadership.
You should come home and go read your speech to the personel of McChord and Ft Lewis in person… See what reception you get….
Hey PBJ, I can cut and paste too:
“All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in “degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein’s ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”
You go Adam! Very eloquent and right on the mark.
“This opinion, expressed by the minority party, perhaps explains the utter lack of oversight and accountability that they employed when they were in charge ,,,”
No, not exactly — it stands for the GOP’s utter contempt for our democracy and the people of our country.
1, 2 How pathetically lame — trying to pass the Iraq fiasco off as something liberals did. This war was designed, brought to you, and led by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donny Rumsfeld, and their Republican Party. No one else. You fuckers own this pig lock, stock, and barrel.
Let’s not forget that Bush misled Congresss about how he intended to use the authority they gave him. Congress intended war should be the last resort; Bush never intended anything except war. He defrauded Congress.
@13 Do you mean Douglas Feith?
@23 You pigfuckers sent our troops into an unnecessary war based on lies. You pigfuckers sent them without body armor or armored vehicles. You pigfuckers turned the Iraqi people against our troops by torturing innocent Iraqis. You pigfuckers lost the war. You pigfuckers have blood on your hands.
@31
You are a perfect example of why the liberal attitude is one of defeat. Do you realize that what you are saying and spewing is exactly what the jihadist are saying and spewing?
“You pigfuckers sent our troops into an unnecessary war based on lies”
No, actually…We went to war based on an attack on our soil by Islamic extremists whom had been at war with the USA for years and we were in denial about it.. (your hate blinds you just like the jihadists)
“You pigfuckers sent them without body armor or armored vehicles.”
We went to war with the military we had… As the threats change, we adapt. The US Military was in the position/condition it was due from the anti military Clinton years. (check the data on force levels and the decline in funding during the Clinton Admin)
“You pigfuckers turned the Iraqi people against our troops by torturing innocent Iraqis”
Hmmmm. Really… and your proof of that is? We KNOW that Saddam and his psycho boys ran 24/7 torture/murder chambers 365. Death squads, secret police, very nazi stuff.
Some over zealous troops demeaning a few prisoners hardly reaches this level. So your commentary that the Iraqi (BTW you are fond of trying to say there are no Iraqi’s just shia,sunni and kurds) people were turned against our troops is ridiculous.
“You pigfuckers lost the war. You pigfuckers have blood on your hands.”
The USA is at war. Just becuase you are a defeatist and fond of spewing this crap doesn’t make it so…
One last thing, your attempt to somehow add weight to your post by calling me a pig**** is so sad. Nice try but the shoe don’t fit.
-NOTE: Can’t blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.-
You’re right for once, PBJ! That was back before Clinton flattened what was left of Saddam’s WMDs in a four-day bombing campaign called Desert Fox.
Note the duration: four days – as opposed to four YEARS (and counting)
Can you really be this stupid?
-Now perhaps you can direct me to where I can read of Hillary Rodham Clinton making such an admission.-
OK, looks like you are that stupid, pbj. From Nov. 2005, and NEWSMAX, no less!
Hillary Clinton: Iraq War Vote a Mistake
For the first time since she voted to authorize the Iraq war three years ago, 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is now saying that vote was a mistake – in an apparent move to pacify growing dissatisfaction with her position among the Democratic Party’s left-wing base.
“If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed,” Clinton said, in an email sent to her supporters on Tuesday.
While saying she took full responsibility for her error, Clinton repeatedly insisted that she had been misled by “false” intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction presented by the Bush administration.
Citing “assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections,” Clinton lamented: “Their assurances turned out to be empty ones.”
Please do not bring your sex life into the discussion mini-minister. We don’t want to hear about it.
Puhleeze. Democrats are hypocrites. They don’t have enough votes to pass a “real” resolution but they have all the time and votes to waste time with a “nonbinding” resolution. What a load of BS!
So cut and run IS the Democrat strategy. Thanks for clearing that up. Yet I have to wonder why they haven’t passed a resolution to cut off funds for the war. Perhaps it is because they are HYPOCRITES!
Congress also controls the purse strings. They could cut off funding tomorrow if they wanted to. Demcorats are afraid to bring it to a vote. They are hypocrites.
No he has not. I seem to recall a vote in which the majority of Democrats voted to go to war. The difference is that now that the going is getting tough, the Democrats are folding like cheap tents. They are just sailing the winds of political expediency irregarless of naitonal security consequences.
What a bunch of limp wristed gobbledygook.
Oh puhleeze. You are smearing it on even thicker than usual propaganda minister. Liberals have been working from day one to undermine our national security. Howard Dean once said there is no reason we need to have the best military in theworld. Michael Moore said there is no terrorist threat. Liberals LIVE to air it in public.
When the advice is to surrender to terrorists and give up our sovereignty, I am damn glad he doesn’t. Liberals were more concerend with some Iraqi getting pantie’s on his head than the screams of Nick Berg as they sawed off his head.
You mean like the UN resolutions that Saddam could not ignore?
We already have over 535 people trying to direct this war. The Democrats are hypicrites on this. Kerry complained there were not enough troops as was every other Democrat during the last presidential election. Now that Bush is sending more, they are opposing him. Democrats would oppose Bush if he said puppies were cute just to oppose him.
War is not a good solution, but sometime the only solution. The terrorist have a bet that America doesn’t have the stomach for a long fight. Democrats are about to prove them right. If that is what Democrats beleive, then I say take action. Stop this fence sitting, poll taking, political balloon floating mishmash crap. Democrat control congress. For Christ’s sake- HAVE THE COURAGE OF YOUR CONVICTIONS FOR ONCE IN YOUR MISERABLE LIVES! Defund the war and let the chips fall where they may. The American people will sort it out.
The only hole we have is in the perception of the terrorists that we will not fight back when attacked. That hole was dug by William Jefferson Clinton when he failed to respond in any meaningful way to repeated attacks throughout his presidency. Kobar Towers, African Embassies, Somalia, USS Cole. In all those isntances, America under Democrats was defeated or fled the battlefield. The vulnerability and ineffectiveness of our military was amplified in the terorrists minds and the ongoing liberal dissent has emboldended them to continue their fight.
Good work traitors. Osama would be proud of you.