"Porcine?" Kerry Is Such A Nuanced Bedlamite
As I hold Ann coulter accountable for her speech, I would be remiss in not pointing this snide, belittling comment made by Senator John Kerry. As a conservative voice on our side of the aisle, we would expect someone of Ann coulter's intelligence and grace to know better than to purposefully drive controversy due to the ridiculous statements she makes. Now, to be fair, Thomas has shown me the actual quote directly from her new book, and after reading that, it is clear that it has been blown well out of proportion. However the "raghead" comment a couple months ago was wholly uncalled for. I would remind her that she needs to choose her words a bit more intuitively.
And Senator Kerry would be wise to remember that himself, and pass that onto to spokespeople who decide to exercise the consummate usage of a thesaurus. Captain Ed Morrissey and Raw Story point this swipe out. Of course, it is expected as this comes on the heels of the strategy being used by Karl Rove and the White House in pointing out the fact that Senator Kerry and his party are weak on the war.
The move comes one day after Rove called plans to exit Iraq proposed by Senator Kerry and Representative John Murtha (D-PA) "profoundly wrong" "cut and run" strategies. "They may be with you for the first few bullets," Rove said, "but they won't be there for the last tough battles."
Both Kerry and Murtha are decorated service veterans.
"The closest Karl Rove ever came to combat," said Kerry spokesman David Wade, "was these last months spent worrying his cellmates might rough him up in prison. This porcine political operative can't cut and run from the truth any longer."
And the closest John Kerry ever came to not cutting and running at the drop of a hat was just after he signed on the dotted line for his service, I am sure. He found the quickest way to get in and out of Vietnam (and yes I will question his record as certain details still do not match up correctly), lied under oath about the actions of the US military in Vietnam, and has been a general pain-in-the-ass over the war in Iraq. He waffled on defense spending--"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." And now he is set on a path to make things even tougher.
Senator Kerry has introduced a new amendment as an attachment to S2766. SA 4203 states, as follows, (No URL to this yet, but Captain Ed found it and reproduced it)
SA 4203. Mr. KERRY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2766, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 437, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 1084. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.
(a) Withdrawal of Troops From Iraq.--
(1) SCHEDULE FOR WITHDRAWAL.--The President shall reach an agreement as soon as possible with the Government of Iraq on a schedule for the withdrawal of United States combat troops from Iraq by December 31, 2006, leaving only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces.
(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED.--The President shall consult with Congress regarding such schedule and shall present such withdrawal agreement to Congress immediately upon the completion of the agreement.
(3) MAINTENANCE OF OVER-THE-HORIZON TROOP PRESENCE.--The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
(b) Iraq Summit.--The President should convene a summit as soon as possible that includes the leaders of the Government of Iraq, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that addresses fundamental issues including federalism, oil revenues, the militias, security guarantees, reconstruction, economic assistance, and border security.
I do not want to hear another liberal accuse us of being concerned with oil. "Oil Revenues" is the second thing he addresses. Secondly, this is nothing more than what Representative John Murtha has presented before. It is precisely the same plan. We do a systematic withdrawal (as our enemies lick their chops in the shadows), redeploy to Kuwait, and abandon this nation. THEN John Kerry wants to institute his "global test" strategy by bringing all the despotism of the world to Iraq's table.
Bordering nations? Those would be: Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. The Arab League? Hmm, that list is a bit longer but it includes: Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Mauritania, Somalia, Palestine (listed specifically as such; not my choice), Djibouti, Comoros, and including the aforementioned nations. Plus, he wants to bring in the UN Security Council? The same Security Council that sold them out in the first place? The same Security Council that ignores the Oil-For-Food scandal that starved millions of Iraqis over the course of 12 years?
Is he kidding? This site might be the Asylum, but we are full oup with three. We do not have a the room for a nut of this magnitude. Get on the phones and get this bill stopped, or that portion of it removed. It it is passed it is highly likely (more like historically accurate) that the president will sign this bill. This bill will come up to debate later this week, according to Majority Leader Frist. Call your senators and raise some hell about this: (202) 224-3121.
Captain Ed brings up this very valid point, which I am sure Senator Kerry has not even considered. Or, maybe he has, and his idea of a "horizon" is back in the United States rather than in Kuwait or Qatar:
First of all, the retreat from Iraq to OTH position assumes that we have an ally in the region that would like to house 135,000 American troops -- one other than Iraq itself, which has repeatedly stated that it does not want the US to leave Iraq yet. It also assumes that having all of our troops somewhere else will have some tactical advantage over having them on the spot when trouble arises. As long as it would take to get troops out, it would take almost the same amount of time to bring them back -- which would probably be far too long to give assistance in any meaningful way. In the meantime, we would lose a significant part of the intelligence we would need to correct any security threat once called.
Yes, who will take us? I doubt that either of the aforementioned nations would like us in their country, especially when that would essentially make them open targets for our enemies. And like a typical child, Senator Kerry, and his staff, are reduced to throwing out insults at people rather than openly and honestly debating this in front of the whole nation like an adult would. This was a sneaky attempt to trick the president into signing a bill for withdrawal. And this also goes to "micro-managing" the war I rambled about on Sunday. The last paragraph of the bill shows that Senator Kerry believes that they can dictate, to the President of the United States--the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military--what he will and will not do in this war.
This bill must be stopped, and if it is not, then the president cannot be allowed to sign it. I doubt, once word gets out about this in greater numbers, that the Senate will be able to muster the sixty votes to beat out the GOP. And aside from loopy Lincoln Chafee, I doubt a single other Republican would be willing to vote for this.
Call your senators.
Tell them to get this amendment out of the bill, or kill it. Our troops will come home when the job is done.
Marcie
As I hold Ann coulter accountable for her speech, I would be remiss in not pointing this snide, belittling comment made by Senator John Kerry. As a conservative voice on our side of the aisle, we would expect someone of Ann coulter's intelligence and grace to know better than to purposefully drive controversy due to the ridiculous statements she makes. Now, to be fair, Thomas has shown me the actual quote directly from her new book, and after reading that, it is clear that it has been blown well out of proportion. However the "raghead" comment a couple months ago was wholly uncalled for. I would remind her that she needs to choose her words a bit more intuitively.
And Senator Kerry would be wise to remember that himself, and pass that onto to spokespeople who decide to exercise the consummate usage of a thesaurus. Captain Ed Morrissey and Raw Story point this swipe out. Of course, it is expected as this comes on the heels of the strategy being used by Karl Rove and the White House in pointing out the fact that Senator Kerry and his party are weak on the war.
The move comes one day after Rove called plans to exit Iraq proposed by Senator Kerry and Representative John Murtha (D-PA) "profoundly wrong" "cut and run" strategies. "They may be with you for the first few bullets," Rove said, "but they won't be there for the last tough battles."
Both Kerry and Murtha are decorated service veterans.
"The closest Karl Rove ever came to combat," said Kerry spokesman David Wade, "was these last months spent worrying his cellmates might rough him up in prison. This porcine political operative can't cut and run from the truth any longer."
And the closest John Kerry ever came to not cutting and running at the drop of a hat was just after he signed on the dotted line for his service, I am sure. He found the quickest way to get in and out of Vietnam (and yes I will question his record as certain details still do not match up correctly), lied under oath about the actions of the US military in Vietnam, and has been a general pain-in-the-ass over the war in Iraq. He waffled on defense spending--"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." And now he is set on a path to make things even tougher.
Senator Kerry has introduced a new amendment as an attachment to S2766. SA 4203 states, as follows, (No URL to this yet, but Captain Ed found it and reproduced it)
SA 4203. Mr. KERRY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2766, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 437, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 1084. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.
(a) Withdrawal of Troops From Iraq.--
(1) SCHEDULE FOR WITHDRAWAL.--The President shall reach an agreement as soon as possible with the Government of Iraq on a schedule for the withdrawal of United States combat troops from Iraq by December 31, 2006, leaving only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces.
(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED.--The President shall consult with Congress regarding such schedule and shall present such withdrawal agreement to Congress immediately upon the completion of the agreement.
(3) MAINTENANCE OF OVER-THE-HORIZON TROOP PRESENCE.--The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
(b) Iraq Summit.--The President should convene a summit as soon as possible that includes the leaders of the Government of Iraq, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that addresses fundamental issues including federalism, oil revenues, the militias, security guarantees, reconstruction, economic assistance, and border security.
I do not want to hear another liberal accuse us of being concerned with oil. "Oil Revenues" is the second thing he addresses. Secondly, this is nothing more than what Representative John Murtha has presented before. It is precisely the same plan. We do a systematic withdrawal (as our enemies lick their chops in the shadows), redeploy to Kuwait, and abandon this nation. THEN John Kerry wants to institute his "global test" strategy by bringing all the despotism of the world to Iraq's table.
Bordering nations? Those would be: Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. The Arab League? Hmm, that list is a bit longer but it includes: Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Mauritania, Somalia, Palestine (listed specifically as such; not my choice), Djibouti, Comoros, and including the aforementioned nations. Plus, he wants to bring in the UN Security Council? The same Security Council that sold them out in the first place? The same Security Council that ignores the Oil-For-Food scandal that starved millions of Iraqis over the course of 12 years?
Is he kidding? This site might be the Asylum, but we are full oup with three. We do not have a the room for a nut of this magnitude. Get on the phones and get this bill stopped, or that portion of it removed. It it is passed it is highly likely (more like historically accurate) that the president will sign this bill. This bill will come up to debate later this week, according to Majority Leader Frist. Call your senators and raise some hell about this: (202) 224-3121.
Captain Ed brings up this very valid point, which I am sure Senator Kerry has not even considered. Or, maybe he has, and his idea of a "horizon" is back in the United States rather than in Kuwait or Qatar:
First of all, the retreat from Iraq to OTH position assumes that we have an ally in the region that would like to house 135,000 American troops -- one other than Iraq itself, which has repeatedly stated that it does not want the US to leave Iraq yet. It also assumes that having all of our troops somewhere else will have some tactical advantage over having them on the spot when trouble arises. As long as it would take to get troops out, it would take almost the same amount of time to bring them back -- which would probably be far too long to give assistance in any meaningful way. In the meantime, we would lose a significant part of the intelligence we would need to correct any security threat once called.
Yes, who will take us? I doubt that either of the aforementioned nations would like us in their country, especially when that would essentially make them open targets for our enemies. And like a typical child, Senator Kerry, and his staff, are reduced to throwing out insults at people rather than openly and honestly debating this in front of the whole nation like an adult would. This was a sneaky attempt to trick the president into signing a bill for withdrawal. And this also goes to "micro-managing" the war I rambled about on Sunday. The last paragraph of the bill shows that Senator Kerry believes that they can dictate, to the President of the United States--the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military--what he will and will not do in this war.
This bill must be stopped, and if it is not, then the president cannot be allowed to sign it. I doubt, once word gets out about this in greater numbers, that the Senate will be able to muster the sixty votes to beat out the GOP. And aside from loopy Lincoln Chafee, I doubt a single other Republican would be willing to vote for this.
Call your senators.
Tell them to get this amendment out of the bill, or kill it. Our troops will come home when the job is done.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home