Son, I say, Son, these are not men; why, they are barnyard animals--at best.
Posted on 09/26/2003 10:04:07 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Last week Secretary Rumsfeld, Administrator Paul Bremer, and several other officials testified before both the Senate and the House about the request for $87 billion to finish the military and civilian tasks in Iraq. The first comments are about the responses of Democrats in Congress to these events.
Robert Byrd: In the Senate, Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) said to Rumsfeld, "Where is the mandate to rebuild Iraq?" Rumsfeld pointed out that the job did not end with the winning of the war. That reconstruction was the necessary end of the process. He did not point out that America has done that with every nation it has ever defeated militarily, including Japan and Germany after WW II. He did not point out that this policy was set by an Act concerning Iraq passed unanimously by the Senate in 1998. And Rumsfeld was far too polite to point out that Senator Byrd was dottering, senile, and past his expiration date.
David Obey: In the House, Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) challenged Paul Bremer to state how long the occupation of Iraq would last and exactly how much it would cost. When Bremer gave no such specifics, Obey shouted at him, "You're stiffing us." Bremer missed the opportunity to point out that how long and how much were never known at the beginning of ANY occupation of any nation by the US. He also missed the chance, which Rumsfeld took up in his testimony, that the rebuilding of Iraq is far less than the Marshall Plan in Europe, adjusted to current dollars. Bremer was too polite to point out that Obey was either hopelessly ignorant of history, or deliberately dishonest.
Teddy Kennedy: Last week Senator Ted Kennedy made the charges that the Iraq War "was made up in Texas," that it was intended "to be good politically," and that "this whole thing was a fraud." He added that the United States was "bribing other nations" to join in the effort. One of the clearest analyses of this rant by the Senatorial relic from Boston was by Charles Krauthammer in his column of 26 September. He ended with this: "It so flies in the face of the facts that it can only be said to be unhinged from reality. Kennedy's rant reflects the Democrats' blinding Bush-hatred, and marks its passage from partisanship to pathology."
When other Senators came to the floor to denounce Senator Kennedy's outburst, some of his Democrat colleagues (who had not heard his speech) rushed to the floor to condemn his critics for "questioning his patriotism." No such thing was going on. Only Kennedy's sanity and integrity were being questioned, not his patriotism.
The proper answer to a series of criminal charges against this President, or any President, is to tell the accuser to "Put up, or shut up." Kennedy's charges are nearly identical to those of wackos at the beginning of World War II who claimed that "President Roosevelt knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor in advance," and that he "allowed" it to happen "in order to force America into the war."
As for the charge of "bribing" other nations to participate, it has usually been the policy of the United States in war and peace to give foreign aid of all types to nations whose policies favor those of the United States. Would Kennedy prefer that dollars from American taxpayers be given in aid to nations who consistently attack US interests? To North Korea, to Cuba, to Syria, to Iran? This is a matter of common sense.
Ted Kennedy has now descended far below the level of political debate or partisanship. He is now of no more consequence than a rabid dog. He is, in a memorable British phrase, dangerously close to "barking mad."
Wesley Clark: Former General Wesley Clark threw his brass hat in the ring a week ago as a candidate for President, but he's had enough time to present three different positions on the subject of the War in Iraq. First, he said he'd vote for it. Then, he said he'd vote against it. Then on his campaign plane he called his Press Person Mary to come forward and explain to a reporter how his first two positions really did not conflict with one another.
Nothing like having a former general when you want a man who is decisive, right? It's only been eleven months since the Members of Congress in both the House and the Senate stepped up to their constitutional duties and voted on the required Resolution to approve "war powers" for the President. It boggles the mind that a career military man has a harder time making a clear decision on war than career politicians.
As for his professional qualifications, he was dismissed a year early from his vaunted position as Commander of US forces in Kosovo. His superior officer at that time was General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In a college forum in Los Altos, California, General Shelton was asked whether he would support Clark as a candidate for President. He said he would not do that. And he said Clark "came out of Europe early ... [for] integrity and character issues." It seems that Clark is an "empty suit," though admittedly an empty suit with lots of medals on it.
But the news gets even worse. One week in the race and Clark is producing waffles like he had a franchise from the International House of Pancakes, but despite that he is immediately LEADING a poll to be the Democrat nominee for 2004. He put the other nine dwarves who are running for the Democrat nomination in a strange position. They thought they were in the Olympic trials for the 1,500 meters. But here they are at the first turn in the race and the leading runner is an elderly man with a walker.
I won't get into here all of the Machiavellian speculations that Clark is actually a stalking horse for Clinton (him and her) designed to trash the whole Democrat field, guarantee a loss in 2004, and leave the field open for Clinton (her) in 2008, with Clinton (him) lurking in the background this time. It does seem appropriate, however, to modify a few of America's best-known military slogans to fit the style of this curious general who is a would-be President.
From the American commander at the Battle of Bunker Hill: "Don't fire ‘til you see the whites of their whatevers."
From Nathan Hale, before the British hanged him as a spy: "I regret that ... that ... that I got caught."
From Captain John Paul Jones aboard the Bonne Homme Richard: "I have not begun to fight, and I never intend to."
From Commodore Dewey at Manila Bay: "Damn the torpedoes; drop anchor now."
From Lt. Colonel Teddy Roosevelt at San Juan Hill: "Charge, as soon as we form a committee to see whether we should charge.
From Brigadier General Mcauliffe, surrounded at Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge and asked to surrender: "D*mn – we're in a tight spot."
From Todd Beamer aboard Flight 93 in Pennsylvania: "Let's stay in our seats until we reach the airport, and decide what to do then."
This is just too easy. You readers can extend it as far you chose. The short of it is, Wesley Clark is no Dwight Eisenhower. Instead, he is Jubilation T. Cornpone. For those who have forgotten this gem from the musical and the movie, L'il Abner here are a few bars from Wesley Clark's unwitting but accurate campaign song:
When we fought the Yankees and annihilation was near,
Who was there to lead the charge that took us safe to the rear?
Why it was Jubilation T. Cornpone; Old "Toot your own horn - pone."
Jubilation T. Cornpone, a man who knew no fear!
When we almost had 'em but the issue still was in doubt,
Who suggested the retreat that turned it into a rout?
Why it was Jubilation T. Cornpone; Old "Tattered and torn - pone."
Jubilation T. Cornpone, he kept us hidin' out!
With our ammunition gone and faced with utter defeat,
Who was it that burned the crops and left us nothing to eat?
Why it was Jubilation T. Cornpone; Old "September Morn - pone."
Jubilation T. Cornpone, the pants blown off his seat!
Who became so famous with a reputation so great,
That he ran for president and didn't carry a state?
Why it was Jubilation T. Cornpone; Old "Wouldn't be sworn - pone."
Jubilation T. Cornpone, he made the country wait!
This song fits so well that it was hard to edit the verses to fit. The great Johnny Mercer was one of its writers. It was Stubby Kaye's second best movie moment. (The first was with Nat King Cole in Cat Ballou. For those who want all the lyrics, click here: http://www.thepeaches.com/music/composers/mercer/JubilationTCornpone.txt
And this is the best that the Democrats can come up with? Think McGovern, Dukakis, and Carter (second time around). And to be fair, also think Goldwater and Dole (him). It is wrong to describe the Democrat Party this time around as the "anti-war" party. They are neither that consistent nor that logical.
Instead, they are the "anti-history" party. Some support the war; some oppose the war. But all demonstrate a blazing ignorance of America's history in both winning wars, and reconstructing defeated nations afterwards.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.
- 30 -
LOL! Good piece overall.
Son, I say, Son, these are not men; why, they are barnyard animals--at best.
It must be really tough to be a RAT at this point in our history. JFK once said that sometimes party loyalty asks to much, but not for today's RATs. They put party loyalty above their loyalty to their country.A couple things:
JFK's book, "Profiles in Courage," followed the stories of Senators who stood against their parties and against popular passion in the name of principle, such as J.Q. Adams, Sam Houston, and Edmund Ross (who cast the deciding vote in the Andrew Johnson Senate impeachment trial). JFK's lessons are dubious, for each of those profiled was felled by popular indignance, and history has not been generally kind to them. Nonetheless, JFK gave the solid warning that principle is more important than popularity.
Our friends -- and the newly inscribed -- in the Democrat party won't like these lessons. At best, they'd interpret those examples to embolden their opposition to the President.
I suffered today through a C-Span airing of a John Conyers speech to a Congressional Black Caucus event. Conyers is precisely the type that JFK's "Profiles" ignores. Conyers sticks to dogma against all realities, and he wouldn't dare miss an election for principle. In his speech today Conyers complained that his constituents weren't backing him enough against Bush, and it keeps him from confronting him. Translation: "I'd really, really wail on the president if you only wanted me to."
Profile of a woose?
Whatever JFK's sincerity, or his legitimacy as an author, his point ought stand: there is no bravery in the Democratic party, c. 2003.
I truly believe the President's pledge to bring a new tone to Washington (as well as a liberal leaning media) has given the RATs a license to lie, spew hate and revise history - unchallenged - and without fear of response or reprisal.
In just the last week the RATs have accused the POTUS of lying, fraud, and bribery with nary a response. Yet when anyone says anything about the mis-statements by the RATs, a whole swarm of them get face time on all the networks claiming their patriotism is being challenged. What a joke. Rove, Bush & Co. better take off the gloves when needed (judges, success of war, etc.)
John / Billybob
I don't know who this person will be,
This may be too brutal:
Republican Strategists Eyeing Dennis Miller
I know, not yet(unless Ahnold wins and for some reason Boxer or Feinstein resign) , but imagine him on the floor of the Senate! : )
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.