The Doves in the Night-time
149 Democrats plus Socialist Bernie Sanders voted against a House resolution that "[d]eclar[es] that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary."
Mind-boggling. The full text of the resolution is here; in its most relevant part, it reads as follows:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;
(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;
(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;
(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and
(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
Aside from provision #3, whatin the world could the Democrats have possibly disagreed with? But there had to be more. The following exchange with Sherlock Holmes in "The Silver Blaze" is illuminating:
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
Here, the "curious incident" wasn't the dog that didn't bark -- it was the doves that didn't chirp. If the Dems had disagreed only with provision number 3, nothing would have prevented them from offering their own resolution with the same wording, absent that provision. So there had to be more.
How I wish that someone on one of the Sunday morning shows would ask a Democratic leader: Exactly what in the resolution did your caucus oppose?
Mind-boggling. The full text of the resolution is here; in its most relevant part, it reads as follows:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;
(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;
(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;
(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and
(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
Aside from provision #3, whatin the world could the Democrats have possibly disagreed with? But there had to be more. The following exchange with Sherlock Holmes in "The Silver Blaze" is illuminating:
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
Here, the "curious incident" wasn't the dog that didn't bark -- it was the doves that didn't chirp. If the Dems had disagreed only with provision number 3, nothing would have prevented them from offering their own resolution with the same wording, absent that provision. So there had to be more.
How I wish that someone on one of the Sunday morning shows would ask a Democratic leader: Exactly what in the resolution did your caucus oppose?
posted by LadybugUSA at 12:09 PM
4 Comments:
>> The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war has proven to be a failure.>>
Not that there's likely to be any point in answering this, but...
http://tinyurl.com/hoamo
I expect nothing less from the 150 pukes with (D) and (I) behind their name (as well as the 6 who did likewise in the Senate yesterday)........But what really gets me are the 3 Republicans who voted with the infamous 150.
Rep. John J. Duncan (Tennessee), Rep. Jim Leach (Iowa), Rep. Ryan Paul (Wisconsin)........Paul and Duncan are usually solid Conservative voters, but Leach is a RINO in every sense of the word.
Each of them should be tossed out on their ass for this vote, however.
"Actually, as I suspect you already know, the Republicans refused to allow any amendments or changes to this ludicrous bit of political theater."
Exactly, wrabkin. Sometimes I wonder if these amateur obfuscations are intended to program the minions as much as they're designed to wear you, me, and our fellow lefties down. ('Let's see if they'll bother with this one.') Thanks for writing what I lacked the energy to.
Ditto,
By your logic every war America has ever been involved in has been a "proven" failure. Also, I knew it wouldn't be long before the left began to color our troops as mentally unstable.
Wrabkin & Duke-Stir,
Carol is clearly asking why the Democrats didn't offer their own resolution. There's nothing to stop them from doing that. In fact, that's a common practice to keep from being painted into a corner by the language of the opposing party.
It's a good question, too. Do the Democrats have NOTHING to say on this issue other than:
Surrender
We're losing
It's all our fault
We're the bad guys
etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home