Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Good News, Bad News

So, do we call the Dems unpatriotic yet? Or, do we just go along, acting as if it is perfectly normal for one of the two predominant political parties within the only remaining superpower on the face of the earth to openly now, openly, root for our defeat in Iraq? The Dems have been given chance after chance to prove otherwise. Yesterday brought the latest example of blatant political power grabbing at the expense of the security of our armed forces overseas and our people here at home.

Yesterday a story emerged from the pages of The New York Times. The Op-Ed page ran a contribution from Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, both Democrats in good standing. They are back from an eight day trip to Iraq where they traveled around the country, speaking with soldiers and civilians. These two men are respected by both sides of the aisle for their intellectual integrity. They are both of the left side of the aisle, definitely, but they are of good reputations. O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank in D.C. and Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. They were both opposed to the way the Iraq war has been executed. They were both opposed to the surge.

That was then. This is now. They have become aware that the surge is working in Iraq.

"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

"...the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place."

I think they are very aware and quivering over it. They will refuse to listen to General Keane, as I posted about a few days ago on the actual reality on the ground. Michael Barone, a walking encyclopedia on American politics, pointed to the example of Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, as I did in my earlier post. She was the representative, you may recall, that was so overcome with anger that she had to leave as Keane spoke, she claimed, because he's nothing but a big fat liar and she wasn't going to listen to his testimony. She had quite the little hissy fit, making professional women across the country proud of such a display. Not.

The problem is, with the progress in Iraq under General Petraeus, the Dems voted for him unanimously in the Senate and with a good majority in the House to carry on the surge. The Dems, however, didn't really believe it would accomplish anything. And if progress was made before the withdrawal they demand occurs, they planned on continuing with the insistence of doom and gloom, aided and abetted by their friends in the media. They never, ever, considered that two respected fellow Dems would tell some truth to the country. And in The New York Times, no less. Holy cow.

Now what?

Well, the icing on the cake yesterday was a verbal interview with the Washington Post reporters Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza and Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina . The interview was recorded for the Internet version of the newspaper. Clyburn was asked what he thought would be the reaction of the Dems if the surge progress report from General Petraeus in September showed good news. His response: "that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that." A real big problem for us, he said. That may not seem like a smoking gun to you about the Dems game plan but Clyburn is not just any congressman. He is the number three person in the House of Representatives for the majority party, the House Majority Whip. He takes his orders directly from Grandma Mimi Pelosi.

So, good news is bad news if you are rooting for the defeat of your country at a time of war. Sounds like treason to me. Certainly sedition.

The Dems just want to be in control. They don't want to lead. They investigate instead of legislate, hoping to smear every Republican possible up until the 2008 election. What have they accomplished since January? The minimum wage increase, which President Bush called for in his past State of the Union addresses anyway. No opposition there. That's about it. They have sent bills over to the Senate, yet they remain in limbo.

The Dems in leadership are not a part of mainstream America. They think they are the majority now because the voters mandated a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. They were wrong. Polling consistently shows, while Americans are worn out by the war and frustrated, rightly so, Americans don't want a loss. We are Americans. We expect success.

Bad news is not good news to us.

The influx of Blue Dog Dems into Congress in 2006 is working against the left wing of the party. The Blue Dogs respect General Petraeus and have every intention to listening to him, waiting for his report to congress. It doesn't matter that creepy voiced Harry Reid declared the war lost in March and then again and that Petraeus is incompetent in May. So, why'd he vote for an incompetent to lead the surge? Was he duped by that stupid George W. Bush again?

The Democratic leaders in both houses are cowards, not worthy of holding office in this country. They are so obsessed with power that nothing else matters. I think they are doing us a favor. By waking up this early into the election season, the heartland of America is noticing and taking notes about them. It's not pretty. The people of the heartland don't hate Bush more than they love America, as the Dems prove over and over that they do.

Unpatriotic. They are despicable people and America is noticing. Defeatism is not an acceptable political strategy.

6 comments:

Incognito said...

Wonderful news about O'Hanlon and Pollack!

Isn't it sickening that there are those who are actually hoping for failure for political reasons. Truly despicable!

AC said...

I can add nothing, not even a smidgen, to this excellent post. Great reporting and analysis.

The "good for the country, bad for the Dems" is all over the place. This morning, while trying just to catch a weather report, I lucked up on the morning's "money Report" and it was with absolutel glee the reporter was describing the rise in the price of oil and the plunge in the stock market. Her agenda was showing. I can only imagine all the libs huddling together trying to figure how to spin all things good into bad and vice versa. What a pathetic way to live.

What an untruthful way to live. P*** on them.

Law and Order Teacher said...

As usual, well done. I think it's great. Let the Dems speak and speak and speak. As Woodrow Wilson said, (I'm no fan of his) "Nothing chills nonsense like exposure to the air."

Angevin13 said...

spgqdmThe Dems own defeat.

Obviously, I'm hoping for a strongly positive progress report from Petraeus in September, for obvious reasons. But I'd be a liar if I didn't admit that one of the reasons is to see that slimeball Harry Reid squirm...

Paul is a Hermit said...

ppoxdIt doesn't seem to matter. Unless a picture of Harry and Nancy in Bed with, oh, man, there's so many, Kim Jung Il and that scum of the earth, Osama with Hugo Chavez painting toenails, all naked at George Soros's house. In the last week of elections, at least half of the country is voting Democrat because that is how long they retain stuff like this.

The media has amnesia concerning any good news about this country; only a Democrat like Lieberman will have them descend like vultures.
If good news can't be refuted or countered, it's quickly not talked about.

Thing is, people are rightly skeptical concerning supposed good news. A testimony saying there has been significant improvement as the VP is saying, really tells people nothing.

Debbie said...

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack are taking heat today from the far Left bloggers. They are really being rough on them.