Posted on 07/22/2007 12:19:52 PM PDT by MissEdie
On April 12th Harry Reid said the following: "we are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war." Around the same time Chuck Schumer smirked "the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle." If the war was going really, really well would it be a lead weight around the ankle of the Administration and the Republicans? Of course not, so Liberals need the war to go really badly for them to win the seats Reid thinks they will and for the War to be the deadweight Schumer wants it to be.
The events this week in the Senate only highlight the fact that to Liberals, the War is a political opportunity the like of which they have not had in a long time. They don't care if we win. They don't want us to win. They don't care about American troops; the more that die, the better for them. They don't care what the consequences will be if we lose; from a political or military perspective or the effect on foreign or domestic policy. The only thing they want is a victory in the 2008 election and they will do anything to get that, even if it means contributing to America losing this war and our soldiers being killed.
Back in May they deliberately delayed funding so that they could make empty political gestures like waiting to send the funding Bill to Bush on the 4th anniversary of the "mission accomplished" speech. This past week they pulled another empty political stunt in the form of an all night session in the Senate. They knew the Bill could not get enough votes to succeed and if it did, they knew it would be vetoed, just like the funding Bill in May. But they went ahead anyway regardless of any demoralising effect on our troops or the encouragement it gave to our enemy. Dick Durbin actually had the cojones to stand there and wax lyrical about the fact that families of soldiers had sleepless nights so it would be no sacrifice for the Senate to have a sleepless night. He said this as a cot was being set up for him to take a nap. What does keep soldier's families awake at night is the fact that we have a Senator that has done as much as Al-Qaeda to cause American casualties and who has also accused them of being no better than Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot.
The bottom line is; Liberals have a stake in America being defeated. That means that the more American fatalities, the better for them. If you have any political party in your country that sees the defeat of your country as a political opportunity, that party is probably not good for the survival of that country. Every little bit of good news coming out of Iraq has been ignored by the mainstream Liberal media and ignored by Democrats in Congress. They have constantly undermined the President and our troops non-stop since the run up to the 2006 elections, by the way they campaigned and the way the 2008 candidates are campaigning now.
When the Iraq Survey Group issued its final report, the Democrats were full of "listen to the report, follow the recommendations". The buzz phrase was a "change of course". The report also recommended a troop surge to stabilise parts of Iraq. Bush decided to implement this and it has been attacked ever since. The Democrats asked for a change of course and they got it. When Bush decided to do this he appointed General Petraeus to oversee it. He was confirmed by the Senate. He told the country that it would take time; not only to get the 20,000 surge troops in place, but for them to start to make an impact. He said it could not really be judged until the Fall.
Before even the first 10,000 troops had arrived in Iraq, the Democrats were calling the surge a failure. About the time when they actually started the enhanced patrols, Harry Reid announced that the War was "lost" and that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Pace and General Petraeus were "incompetent". I wonder what pool of military expertise Reid was dipping into to come up with that gem? Maybe that vast pool of military experience and background that Dick Durbin floats around in? They have never given the surge a chance and they never intended to. They don't want the surge to be successful, it is not in their interest. If it is good for Bush and this country, it is bad for them. Even now they have a constant and consistent chorus of "the surge is not working, the surge has failed" even when it is nowhere near its conclusion. They want this idea fixed in the minds of the public so that when the report comes of how effective it has been it will be deemed a failure.
Liberals like to continually remind us of the Presdient's poll ratings and how bad they are. They conveniently forget to mention that the figures for Congress, the Democrat-controlled Congress, are lower than Bush. Congress currently has a 19% approval rating, with Reid himself at 12% for his performance as leader of the Senate. The country might be tired of the Iraq War and want our troops home, but they most certainly do not approve of how Congress has tried to usurp the authority of the President to control the military during time of war. Who would you trust to make military decisions based on advice from the Pentagon, George W. Bush or Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
Reid went even further than the empty, pathetic political gesture of the all night session earlier this week. In a little-reported act of spite for his spurned victory he blocked a vote on a Bill that would have increased pay for those military personnel on active duty in Iraq and a Bill called the John Doe Bill. This Bill would have prevented lawsuits from being filed against members of the public who reported suspicious behaviour to authorities. Liberals would rather support bottom feeders like John Edwards than public spirited members of the public preventing attacks. It seems ironic that recently it has been those same members of the public that saved us from attack at Fort Dix and in England a few weeks ago.
We need to support politicians that support our troops. We don't need to elect people that undermine our military, especially in time of war. If Liberals do gain the Presidency in the 2008 elections, we will know that they did it on the backs of dead American soldiers, in their graves because of the support Liberals gave to our enemy. Shame on them and shame on us if we elect them.
What else is new? Shumuckie is a world class smirker ... big time ........
In their evil minds, the democrats see dead soldiers as less independent and Republican voters.
read
Liberals Need American Soldiers To Die
but of course.....lib/dems pray the US loses in iraq!!!!
but they always cry....they support the troops!!!!
I fail to understand why people keep referring to them as liberals. They are more appropriately socialists. Socialists and Islam both seek the destruction of the U.S. because our Democratic Republic is anathema to their ideologies of a strong centralized form of government that takes power away from the individual. That is why we have repeatedly witnessed the Socialists in the Democrat party denounce the actions of our troops but never denounce atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists.
These liberals should be banned from visiting Walter Reed Hospital. I jsut can’t imagine what those service people would say to them.
As it’s been since the mid-60’s.
liberals need anything bad to happen to America so they can beat their chests and say, “see...I told you!”
Liberals despise the military and would sacrifice all of them if it meant gaining more power. The liberal reign of terror is coming to an end.
A very good analysis. This is the only thing that perfectly explains the democrats behavior. If, as they, say, they were interested in what was best for the country, and for our soldiers, you would see a very different approach and a very different set of words to match their actions.
No one can keep up a deceptive conspiracy without occasionally letting slip their true agenda. Harry Reid is quite clearly only interested in increasing the political power of his party. He cares not a wit about the country, and even less about the military. He, Dick Durbin, and Nancy Pelosi come from that part of my generation that despises the military, loves the communists, and believes that their form of elitist despotism is destined to rule this country. And, they intend to make themselves rich in the bargain.
Unbelievable. We need to get rid of the liberals no matter what it takes.
They are truly bottom feeders, the lowest of all scum .
BTTT
Well said. Yet we keep hearing idiots say there is no difference between the two parties.
America needs liberalism to die. It's them or us. There is no middle ground. And the time to play nice is over.
Amen!
These guys and girls dressed as guys are dispicable human beings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.