Democrats; Bush won’t veto defense bill

| April 25, 2007 | 0 Comments

Obviously, Democrats haven’t been paying attention lately. They honestly think that the president won’t dare use his veto to block their pork-laden, cowardly spending bill for Iraq. Why? I’ll let the head moonbat tell you – from Anne Flaherty of AP via the Washington Examiner:

“For the first time, the president will have to be accountable for this war in Iraq,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Tuesday. “And he does not want to face that reality.”

Hey, Blinky! Ya’all have been calling this “Bush’s War” since the first sandstorm slowed our advance on Baghdad. There have been two elections since the war started and the only thing you ran against was the president and the war. How is he avoiding responsibility?

Ya’all are avoiding the responsibility of accepting the fact that there was no alternative to this war, and you’re not taking responsibility for the troops you get killed because of your careless words and your anti-American rhetoric.

Ever since the war started you Democrats have been running away from your vote for the war. Ever since 9-11, you Democrats have been avoiding your responsibility to the citizens of this country by placing personal politics ahead of our national security.

As Dick Cheney said yesterday, as reported in the S.A. Miller and Jon Ward of the Washington Times;

Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday criticized Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for making “uninformed and misleading” statements about the war in Iraq.
    “What is most troubling about Mr. Reid’s comments yesterday is his defeatism,” the vice president said in a rare Capitol Hill press conference. 
    “Indeed, last week, he said the war is already lost, and the timetable legislation he is pursuing would guarantee defeat.”

Hear the Cheney rant at Flopping Aces, courtesy of Curt, read it in it’s entirety at the White House website or watch part of it thanks to Big Mo at Hang Right Politics.

That’s all there’s been from the Left – hell, since before the war actually when the Bonior/McDermott surrender mission went to Iraq six months before the “rush to war” and declared that Hussein was more reliable than our own President.

Luckily, the President doesn’t show signs of backing down, according to Bill Sammon of the DC Examiner;

“I’m disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen this course,” Bush told reporters on the South Lawn. “Instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops, and they choose to make a political statement.”

Bush reiterated his vow to veto the bill, which would provide $100 billion for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus billions more in unrelated “pork” spending. The bill also orders the administration to begin withdrawing forces from Iraq by Oct. 1.

And Captain’s Quarters reported yesterday that the Democrats slipped in a minimum wage hike to insure the President wouldn’t sign the bill. What does the minimum wage have to with Iraq?

It’s a purely partisan political exercise and the Democrats aren’t afraid to admit it. Why should they be ashamed, they’ve got their willing accomplices in the press;

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the Democratic caucus, said, “We feel very good about where the caucus is.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Democrats will send Bush the bill with the hope that the president has a change of heart. But, Hoyer added, they don’t expect it.

“We are very, very hopeful that the president will sign that bill, will change his mind and come to the recognition that this bill does in fact set off a new policy for our engagement in Iraq,” Hoyer said.

See? They’re hopeful – very hopeful. And we all know how the Left measures success by intentions, not by results. So what if more troops are dying this week in Iraq as a propaganda move by al Qaida to influence public opinion in the US during this debate. Jules Crittenden has the backstory on the 9 killed yesterday that none of the wire services have deemed important enough to tell us yet.

Vice President Cheney isn’t afraid to tell the truth, however;

“Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics,” Cheney told reporters at the Capitol after attending the weekly Republican policy lunch. “Senator Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election.”

“It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage,” Cheney said.

He’s being kind – it’s criminal to declare the war lost to gain a political advantage. Like Uncle Jimbo says – treasonous. Punishable by hanging. But I’ll go along with David Broder’s idea of Reid’s canning (via Crotchety Old Bastard). Too bad Broder is too politically correct to advocate for the firing of Nancy Pelosi, too.

Category: Antiwar crowd, Politics, Terror War

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *