Gay Patriot Header Image

Democratic Leadership Favors Netroots over Military Leadership

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 10:33 pm - June 28, 2007.
Filed under: 110th Congress,Bush-hatred,Liberals,War On Terror

With approval of the Democratic Congress falling below that of President Bush, Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to think the solution is to appeal to her party’s base, “working hard to make sure that the fiery liberal wing of the Democratic Party remembers that she is one of them. She is also going out of her way to reassure opponents of the war that she is on their side.

Despite increasing signs of initial success of the surge, the Speaker has joined her party’s leader in the Senate, Nevada’s Harry Reid in reaching the conclusion that the president’s new policy has failed.” (Via Instapundit.) It seems they have based this conclusion not on reports from Iraq — or the opinions of military experts, but on the anger of their party’s base.

Democrats have decided not to wait” for General Petraeus’s September report on the state of the surge and instead intend to press ahead with votes to end the war. They’re not even giving the surge a chance to succeed. And they accuse conservatives of being narrow-minded. They’re the ones who’ve determined the outcome of an operation which has only just begun.

And anyway, didn’t we just go through this a few weeks ago?

This is amazing. Instead of doing their job and working on legislation which can actually win approval by both Houses — and be signed into law by the president, they are working to embarrass the president and please their increasingly angry base. I doubt that’ll improve their sagging ratings.

With the immigration bill defeated, let us hope that my party can return to its principles, promote reasonable conservative policies and so rally the base because the first six months of a Democratic majority have shown a party more eager to posture, pontificate and investigate than legislate. And I don’t think the American people want a government which kowtows to the extreme elements which have come to dominate the Democratic Party of Pelosi and Reid.

Share

27 Comments

  1. What a ridiculous post…in the article you link to it states that Voinovich and Lugar also question the Iraq policy.
    Who is Luger pandering to?
    Is Voinovich trying to get the Netroot approval?
    And then this little alliteration:
    “…pontificate and investigate than legislate…”
    Nice bumper sticker
    Ha!

    Comment by gil — June 28, 2007 @ 11:58 pm - June 28, 2007

  2. “…pontificate and investigate than legislate…”
    Nice bumper sticker
    Ha!

    Sooooo…..what have the liberals done? Their first 100 hours went over like a fart in church as has everything else they’ve touched. What have they actually accomplished that they can be proud of?

    About the only thing they’ve accomplished, really, is to show the American people who they really are, which they tried desperately to hide during the election. Now we get to see what colossal, miserable failures liberals really are.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 29, 2007 @ 12:26 am - June 29, 2007

  3. Did it never occur to you that the reason the Congress is not especially popular is because it has given a very unpopular Bush carte blanche to escalate an extremely unpopular war in Iraq? The people voted last fall in expectation that Congress would reign in the out of control and clearly incompetent Bushies and their disastrous Iraq occupation. One can hardly blame them for being pissed off at the inaction on bringing this foolish foreign adventure to a close.

    Comment by Ian S — June 29, 2007 @ 12:44 am - June 29, 2007

  4. Thanks for the lamest ass excuse in the world, Ian. I knew we could count on you.

    Did it ever occur to you that the liberals were NOT elected to end the war and perhaps the people DON’T want us to surrender to AQ like the liberals want? Perhaps THAT’S why they can’t do anything about it?

    Nah. That doesn’t fit the template you’ve been brainwashed with.

    You’d be surprised, Ian. The American people won’t stand for surrender, humiliation, defeat and telling the Iraqis to go fcuk themselves. The libs would love it, but only if it will get them their power back. They couldn’t give to sh*ts about the Iraqis otherwise.

    Comment by Rob Schellinger — June 29, 2007 @ 2:16 am - June 29, 2007

  5. I hardly think Congress is unpopular because it hasn’t ended the war. If that were the issue, then you’d have seen Democrats (& Republicans) falling all over themselves to support Reid-Feingold.

    I think Congress is unpopular because the leadership is more interesting in bellyaching than legislating. Look how low Harry Reid’s numbers are. And despite favorable press, Nancy Pelosi’s are only a shade above the president’s.

    Yup, Gil, I know Lugar and Voinovich have been critical of the war, but Lugar doesn’t favor a timetable for ending it. And as far as I know, neither does Voinovich.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 29, 2007 @ 2:28 am - June 29, 2007

  6. Despite increasing signs of initial success of the surge,

    Which is why the libs have to turn up the pressure. They can’t have it succeed as victory will expose them for the champions of defeat and al-Qaeda cheerleaders they are. Then their only hope would be another terrorist attack on the U.S. otherwise, they’re doomed.

    Time to get Howie to send some DNC e-mails of encouragement to Zawahri.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 29, 2007 @ 4:02 am - June 29, 2007

  7. The people voted last fall in expectation that Congress would reign in the out of control and clearly incompetent Bushies and their disastrous Iraq occupation.

    Well just think, next fall “the people” can vote for Edwards and he can get his wife to call the “mean spirited” Zawahri and the “bumper sticker slogan” will be over. Then we can focus on real threats to our national security such as Sudan.

    I doubt much else would please the liberals more than telling those in Iraq, who wouldn’t die enough for them, to go screw themselves sideways. Then again, perhaps the libs can throw an ass load of money into importing Iraqi victims to suck on Uncle Sugar’s tit since they can’t get their Mexicans.

    Or even better, Hillary can be elected to get rid of those “fcuking Jew bastards” in Israel for Abbas & Hamas.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 29, 2007 @ 5:54 am - June 29, 2007

  8. From Pelosi and Reid’s lips to Al-Qaeda’s ears.

    Comment by Sean A — June 29, 2007 @ 6:37 am - June 29, 2007

  9. #4:

    The American people won’t stand for surrender, humiliation, defeat and telling the Iraqis to go fcuk themselves.

    Then why has Bush been so unpopular for so long and why aren’t the American people strongly supporting the occupation of Iraq? Where are all the demonstrations opposing “surrender” and “humiliation” and urging more and more troops be sent into Iraq? Your claims are simply inconsistent with the facts: the people want us out of Iraq and they’re are sick and tired of Bush and his Congressional enablers keeping us there in the middle of a bloody civil war.

    Comment by Ian S — June 29, 2007 @ 9:23 am - June 29, 2007

  10. Occupation? Ian. Your language betrays you.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 29, 2007 @ 11:16 am - June 29, 2007

  11. 10: C’mon Dan, you really don’t believe it’s an occupation?

    Comment by Ian S — June 29, 2007 @ 11:34 am - June 29, 2007

  12. Ian, they’ve had three elections. And the elected government wants us there.

    So, no, I don’t see it as an occupation. For the intention has long been to establish a democratic government and then leave.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 29, 2007 @ 12:22 pm - June 29, 2007

  13. Wait – Ian, you REALLY believe it’s an occupation?

    Gawd, you must hate America. And be blind to many facts, as well.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 29, 2007 @ 12:34 pm - June 29, 2007

  14. “So, no, I don’t see it as an occupation.”
    Come on righties!!!! Stop playing your juvenile games.
    We invade. We set up the environment for a new gov. Our troops die to protect that gov. Our troops act as police, army, spies, road crew, bankers, traffic cops even nannies!
    Of course we are occupiers!!!!
    And then this response to Ian pointing out the obvious:
    “Gawd you must hate America”
    Jeez! Have you convinced yourself that 2+2=5????

    Comment by gil — June 29, 2007 @ 4:40 pm - June 29, 2007

  15. #12:

    For the intention has long been to establish a democratic government and then leave.

    Dan, the intent is irrelevant. We have 160,000 troops in Iraq. They are under our control and the Iraqi government has little or no say over what they do. We can’t even trust the Iraqi police or army. We even tell the Iraqis what legislation to pass regarding who gets what benefits of their oil reserves. It is an occupation.

    The vast majority of Iraqis want us to leave and even the parliament has passed a provision requiring their approval of any extension of the UN mandate for our troops in Iraq past December.

    Comment by Ian S — June 29, 2007 @ 8:54 pm - June 29, 2007

  16. Check the internals of some of the polls of the Iraqis. Many want us to stay utnil the country is stabilized.

    And no, if we were there to control the country, we’d be occupiers, but we’re there to remove a tyrant who was violating international law and to establish a stable government and then leave the Iraqis to govern themselves.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 29, 2007 @ 9:21 pm - June 29, 2007

  17. Your claims are simply inconsistent with the facts: the people want us out of Iraq and they’re are sick and tired of Bush and his Congressional enablers keeping us there in the middle of a bloody civil war.

    Your claims are simply inconsistent with the facts: If the people want us out of Iraq (blahblahblah) the liberal’s legislation to make it happen WOULD HAVE PASSED and they wouldn’t have needed BILLIONS of dollars in bribes to make it happen.

    Further, it still amazes me how you team killing fcuktards want us out of that “civil war”, but you want us to march right into Darfur. No inconsistency there.

    Spin that one.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 30, 2007 @ 2:14 am - June 30, 2007

  18. Bottom line, Ian, I would like to see you grab your sack (if you have one) and explain to me, here and now, the following:

    1. How is surrendering Iraq to al-Qaeda going to make us safer?

    2. How is telling the Iraqi people to go fcuk themselves going to make us more popular in the world? We’re supposed to believe the world hates us so if we tell the Iraqis to shove it up left, will that make the world love us unconditionally?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 30, 2007 @ 5:37 am - June 30, 2007

  19. #18: You foolishly assume that al Qaeda is the dominant force in Iraq. It’s not. When we leave, the Iraqis will deal with al Qaeda themselves. Furthermore, since the majority of Iraqis want us to leave, it’s by staying that we are “telling the Iraqi people to go fcuk themselves.” The problem with you war mongerers is that apart from slapping a magnetic ribbon on your SUV, you really don’t support the mission or the troops: it’s funded by running up the deficit and there’s no attempt to share the sacrifice necessary if our country’s future existence really did depend on this occupation. Of course, it doesn’t: it was an optional war in the first place and now it’s an optional occupation where we’re long past wearing out our welcome.

    Comment by Ian S — June 30, 2007 @ 11:00 am - June 30, 2007

  20. Al Qaeda is playing a significant role in fomenting the violence in Iraq, having bombed (for the second time) the Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra.

    And you’re labeling us as “war mongerers” shows an inclination to insult rather than engage. Suggesting we don’t support the mission or the troops is absurd. Many of us give of our time by writing to defend the war and our resources by contributing (our time and money) to agencies which send packages (and other support) to the troops and help returning vets, particularly injured ones.

    Ian, such accusations of our lack of support is beneath you.

    It was not an optional war at all, but one long overdue, considering Saddam’s repeated violations of the cease-fire agreement his government signed — and numerous United Nations Resolution. Nor is it an “optional” occupation. We first need to defeat Al Qaeda, then we can leave. And we seem to be doing that.

    Finally, I don’t see where TGC called Al Qaeda the dominant force in Iraq. I believe he was saying that if we left now, we’d give that terrorist organization a free hand.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 30, 2007 @ 2:30 pm - June 30, 2007

  21. [...] Original post by GayPatriotWest [...]

    Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Democratic Leadership Favors Netroots over Military Leadership — July 1, 2007 @ 5:47 am - July 1, 2007

  22. #20: TGC began flinging the insults and I responded in kind. Sorry. As for supporting the mission, I would think that with the US facing a struggle for it very existence – a meme pushed by many on the right – there would be some shared sacrifice. There isn’t. Hell, we aren’t even trying to pay for the damn thing just foist it off on future generations. As for the military themselves, why has this soldier’s family had to impoverish themselves to care for him if “support the troops” is anything more than a magnetic ribbon? Since war cheerleaders are so fond of invoking memories of WWII, why haven’t they been urging a 1942-style of mobilization of industry to provide the sorts of armor and vehicles required for Iraq in a far more timely fashion?

    Comment by Ian S — July 1, 2007 @ 10:25 am - July 1, 2007

  23. Hi guys, new here, but here are my thoughts:

    1. We are not “occupiers” in Iraq; we are there at the official request of the duly elected Iraqi government–and the two are mutually exclusive. They want us there. They keep telling us repeatedly that they want us to stay until they can handle securing their own nation–facts that are very inconvenient to liberals.

    2. Congress is unpopular because the American people (well, the small segment that put Democrats over the top) thought that Democrats would be better. Americans dont want to pull out of Iraq. They didnt vote for Democrats to pull out, they voted for Democrats because things werent getting any better in Iraq, and Americans want to win. Democrats absolutely refused in their campaigns to say what they would do differently, and now that Americans know that the Democrats great plan for victory isnt victory at all, but surrender, they are unhappy with them as well.

    Americans are also sick to death of the poisonous, hateful political climate–and were hoping that that would change with Democrats in power as well. Obviously it hasnt. What Americans havent yet realised i think, is that the current crop of Democrats are the very reason the political climate is so poisonous–that Bush really did bring a new tone to Washington, but Democrats countered it with new, previously unheard of levels of vitriol, poisonous partisanship and even the undermining of their own country in wartime. Let us hope that people begin to see that powerhungry Democrats have created this environment for no other reason than their own political gain.

    3. WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICANS? Youre absolutely right that Democrats are doing everything in their power to ensure that the surge doesn’t work. That they were calling it a failure before all the troops were even in place is incontrovertable proof of that. So why have Republicans been so silent?

    Democrats in their short tenure have already laid a goldmine of political ammunition at Republicans feet–from blatant and demonstrable undermining of the war effort, to Feinsteins war-profiteering, William Jeffersons 16 indictments, Jim McDermotts loss in court, taking away American workers right to secret ballots, making earmarks secret and closed to debate/vote, undermining Americas borders, sovereignty and national security in order to secure 12 million new Democratic votes, to Chavezian attempts to shut down the opposition press and the worst congressional approval ratings every recorded….and Republicans are nowhere to be seen!

    Democrats won control of both houses of congress on FAR LESS than this. Republicans should be in front of every camera and microphone in the country pointing these things out to America….so where the hell are they?

    Still licking their wounds–most still havent yet grasped that the reason they lost wasnt because Americans rejected conservative ideas, it wasnt because Americans want to pull out of iraq–it was because Republicans got spooked and ran scared. Every man for himself!

    Everything Republicans need to take back congress is right there for the taking. The question is, will they come out of hiding, organize, and go on the offensive against Democrats abyssmal performance in time to convince voters of it…or will they continue to throw eachother to the wolves in a delusional attempt to save themselves and thusly lose even more seats next November?

    Anyway, lol, that was a great deal longer than i intended my first post to be. But there you have it.

    Comment by Will — July 2, 2007 @ 5:28 am - July 2, 2007

  24. #23 – Very well put, Will. Welcome and please post more often.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 2, 2007 @ 12:34 pm - July 2, 2007

  25. #22 – “Since war cheerleaders are so fond of invoking memories of WWII, why haven’t they been urging a 1942-style of mobilization of industry to provide the sorts of armor and vehicles required for Iraq in a far more timely fashion?”

    Because, Wonder Woman, World War II was a DECLARED war by Congress per the Constitution. When Congress declares war, the government is legally able to impound segments of the economy (as FDR did) to help promote the war effort. The government can also institute rationing, price controls and other means to ensure that the war mobilization is fully funded.

    If Bush had asked Congress for a declaration of war rather than a resolution, it would have been a disaster for the economy which was soon to be reeling from the 9/11 attacks – remember the 2002 recession, o ye of selective memory?

    Rather, since 1950 all presidents have engaged in military or “police” actions to avoid the contretemps that ensue when nationalizing the US economy. That is why LBJ’s “guns vs butter” approach led to the 1970s recession under Nixon.

    On top of that, Americans since the 1960s have been utterly incapable of self-sacrifice due to the “Me” generation and the inherent selfishness of the Baby Boomers. Americans over the age of 45 are more interested in their own personal lives than those of their compatriots. THOSE are the ones you need to address.

    I for one since 9/11 have donated considerable time and resources to ensuring that the War on Terror can be won. I am also adamant that atrocities committed by al-Qaeda such as this will never be committed on American soil.

    I can do without for our soldiers. Can you say the same?

    (Crickets chirping.)

    Match, set, game. Get off of Centre Court.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 2, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - July 2, 2007

  26. Oh and BWT – I guess the surge is working, much to the disgust of America’s enemies like Iran, al-Qaeda, the MSM and the DNC.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 2, 2007 @ 2:26 pm - July 2, 2007

  27. lahey burlington ma
    [URL=http://lahey-burlington-ma.cyhajri.info]lahey burlington ma[/URL]
    betta fishes
    [URL=http://betta-fishes.cyhajri.info]betta fishes[/URL]
    boulder colorado porsche
    [URL=http://boulder-colorado-porsche.cyhajri.info]boulder colorado porsche[/URL]
    bussiness weekly
    [URL=http://bussiness-weekly.cyhajri.info]bussiness weekly[/URL]
    naan recipe
    [URL=http://naan-recipe.cyhajri.info]naan recipe[/URL]

    Comment by July — January 12, 2008 @ 9:53 pm - January 12, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.