Custom Search

Friday, March 16, 2007

Welcome K-Mart Shoppers: Democratic Votes for Sale on Aisle Two

This is the quote of the day and it comes from Representative Harold Rogers, a Kentucky Republican accusing Democrats of loading up the legislation — which now has a price tag of $124 billion — with an array of sweeteners, simply to draw support for a controversial plan to bring closure to the Iraq war.

The full quote, in the NYT, is this:

“Welcome Kmart shoppers,” Mr. Rogers said. “This is the shopping mart for those who are nervous about supporting the precipitous withdrawal of troops. This is an effort to buy votes.”

It is, he is right. We spoke about the political games the Democrats have been playing, earlier in the week and how many Democrats were balking and deals being made for their votes.

Mention of this issue can be found here, here, here, here and yesterdays piece here.

Bribery in its finest form.

Of course, as usual, when Harry Reid and his ridiculous "withdraw from Iraq in 120 days" plan, that not even 30% of the American public approve of, was shot down for the idiocy it was, he did what he usually does.... whined like a baby.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, countered, “The Republicans are rubber-stamping the president’s failed policy. That’s the message here.”

A little reminder to Harry boy here.

First: The "majority" of Americans do not even agree with your plan you sniveling worm.

Second: In case you haven't noticed, there has been some serious progress happening in Iraq and if you had bothered to be present for General Petraeus' first report, you might have been informed of this.

NOTE: This morning, General Petraeus briefed congressional leaders from Baghdad live via satellite feed, providing them with an assessment of the situation on the ground, outlining the successes of the new plan to date, and some of the challenges that lie ahead. Not a single Democratic Leader from the House attended to receive the General’s first progress report.

This brings up a slew of issues right here.

If the Democrats are so worried about our troops, so confident that we can see no success in Iraq, wouldn't you think that they would be eager to hear the Generals first report?

Guess not.... now let us hear someone explain why they were not present.

Third: You are losing support, not gaining it, with every good news story that our media is now, finally starting to show the American people.

Instead of creating a roadmap to help the terrorists, why don't you start actually "supporting" the troops and start working towards success rather than doing everything you can to force defeat on our great country and hand victory to our enemies.

The Democrats even had a couple of their own party crossing the aisle and standing up against the insanity of the withdrawal plan.

Two Democratic Senators, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, crossed party lines to oppose the withdrawal plan. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent and staunch supporter of Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy, voted as expected with the Republicans. Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican running for president, was campaigning in Iowa at the time of the vote.

I asked "What if" the other day. What if we succeed? Do the Democrats have a backup plan if America succeeds in Iraq despite the Democrats best efforts to force us into defeat.

I have found no answer other than no, they have no backup plan and are now stuck in a corner, actively wishing for defeat and more deaths so they can claim victory.

Isn't that a sad state of affairs, when the Democrats victory can only come from America's defeat?

Yet another thing that the Democrats have in common with al-Qaeda and our enemies.

The best part of this article in the New York Times, for me, was this:

The Senate also passed the Gregg Amendment 82 - 16: Congress should not reduce funds for the troops. And the Murray Amendment (96 - 2) which endorses providing funds for training, equipment and other support for the troops, as well as health care for veterans.

Remember the Gregg Resolution that Harry Reid refused to allow debate on a few weeks ago because he knew it was the only resolution, at the time, that had bipartisan support?

Well, it passed. Reid finally had to let it come to the floor and while his proposal crashed and burned, the Gregg resolution was voted on and won with 82-16.

Further into the article:

Across the Capitol, the House Appropriations Committee advanced its version of that legislation by a vote of 36 to 28. It was considered a major test vote, with Representative Barbara Lee of California the lone Democrat voting against it.

There was their good news, America's good news is that was a test vote and it will be much harder to get it through the rest of the house, past the Senate and is already lost because the President has vowed to veto it. Some believe it won't even make it to the Presidents desk.

WASHINGTON — President Bush has a one-word response for Democrats who want to set a timetable for a troop withdrawal from Iraq.


Legislation to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq cleared its first Senate hurdle yesterday, but Republicans predicted that they would soon defeat it, and Bush backed them up with a veto threat.

The legislation, calling for combat troops to return home during the next 12 months, "would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America’s strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq," White House officials said in a statement.

The strong veto message underscored the intensifying struggle between the administration and the new Democratic-controlled Congress and came on a day in which the Pentagon conceded in a report that "some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a civil war."

President Bush and other administration officials have avoided saying that U.S. troops had been thrust into a civil war among Iraqis.

Democrats in the House and Senate are advancing different bills calling for the withdrawal of troops. Bush has threatened to veto both.

That is the problem with trying to micromanage a war, the President is and will continue to be the commander-in-chief.

Tough luck!

One last quick note to the far left... This was a loss for the more radical portion of your party, there are enough of us that still believe that victory for America is worth fighting for, and you can let the Plame issue and the US Attorney issue distract you from realizing that we won't surrender, especially when we are seeing success and progress, but it does not change the reality that there will be no timeline given to the terrorists, there will be no immediate withdrawal and the media is no longer ignoring the good news from Iraq.

Tides turned.

Lets try all rooting for our military for a change instead of doing everything possible to undermine them and our President.

Politics are not more important than winning the war on terror and until you realize this and start acting accordingly, no one is ever going to trust you with our national security.

That is the bottom line.

I will end this how I started it...our quote of the day.

“Welcome Kmart shoppers,” Mr. Rogers said. “This is the shopping mart for those who are nervous about supporting the precipitous withdrawal of troops. This is an effort to buy votes.”

Damn I like Rogers.... That cracked me up when I first read it and still has me chuckling.