CONGRESSIONAL LETTER TO THE ENEMY - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY
Dear Al Qaeda, Iraq Insurgents, Iran and Terrorists in general,
We the Majority joined with a few in the Minority in the Congress of The United States of America would like to take this opportunity to forewarn you that it is our desire to remove our troops beginning as soon as possible with the final redeployment out of Iraq taking place no later then March of 2008.
In sending this message to you it is our stern desire that while we have given you ample warning as to when you will have free reign in Iraq that we will be instructing the President, George W. Bush and military commanders as to how we expect strategy to be handled until the final redeployment.
We are planning the following:
1. While we here at home claim to support American troops we are placing millions of dollars of needless domestic spending thus insuring a Presidential veto.
2. In placing the above mentioned time line in appropriation bills, this too will insure a Presidential veto.
3. We will be using our Majority position in the Congress to hamper and obstruct any and all military matters until full redeployment is accomplished.
4. In tying up military appropriation bills, necessary monies for American military personnel will be decreased thus making it much harder for our troops to fight you.
5. The lack of monies that these appropriation bills provide will make our forces more vulnerable to your attacks making it possible for your people to prepare for final redeployment of American forces thus making the transition for your taking over Iraq easier and less taxing on you.
We will continue to claim to the American public that we see you as an enemy and a threat in order to deceive them into thinking that we actually believe this and are looking out for their best interests. In doing this we fully believe that just the opposite is true and understand that you are fighting America because we have oppressed you and our forcing military action to end will give you cause to view us in peace and end your desire to kill Americans and our society.
Thank you in advance for not taking advantage of our weakening of the military to kill more American troops but if this is necessary on your part while we force the redeployment out of Iraq we understand, afterall sacrifice is necessary for our ending this war.
On behalf of the Majority in The United States Congress we are:
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader
While the above letter is not an actual correspondence to the mutual enemy of all Americans it is the clear message that the Democrats and a few Rino Republicans have sent to the Islamic fanatics who we are waging war with.
I cannot understand how anyone in their right mind does not see that setting dates and time lines for the removal of American troops only sends a signal to the enemy that, " if you wait and bide your time we will be out of the way so you have the ability to do as you please."
Additionally using funding bills that are necessary to best supply our troops and give them the best possibility of protecting themselves while at war, gives the enemy a better chance of killing more American troops.
Is it unbelievable that Democrats who call themselves patriots think more of Spinach and Peanut subsidies, funding Capitol tours and millions of dollars of other Pork Barrel projects then funding the troops knowing that the very act of Pork and time lines will result in a Presidential veto for the funding bill that cannot be over ridden.
Their claim of supporting the troops is shown as absolute hypocrisy as their actions prove otherwise. The message this bill is sending to the enemy will unequivocally embolden the enemy causing them to increase attacks as they see and understand that our troops are being hung out on the vine by a Congress that is more interested in playing political games than protecting America. This enemy is intelligent, cunning and they know exactly how our system works and will use this move by Democrats to their advantage.
Many try to claim that Democrats are representing majority opinion. While polls show that support for Iraq is weak, the majority still believes that we need to finish the job that was started and not redeploy before Iraq is capable of standing on its own. Time lines as set by the Congress does not accomplish this nor does it pass the Constitutional test as is usurps the authority of the Commander in Chief.
Throughout our history even when majority opinion was against certain US action there are times when doing the right thing is in the best interest of the country. If this were not the case then we would have never come into existence as an independent nation as the majority of Americans wanted to negotiate and remain under the British Crown rather than fighting the Revolution.
Fighting for our Independence and the birth of this nation was right then as finishing the job in Iraq is now. It is in our best national interest, it is a vital theater in the defeat of terrorism and it is the right thing to do!
Ken Taylor
We the Majority joined with a few in the Minority in the Congress of The United States of America would like to take this opportunity to forewarn you that it is our desire to remove our troops beginning as soon as possible with the final redeployment out of Iraq taking place no later then March of 2008.
In sending this message to you it is our stern desire that while we have given you ample warning as to when you will have free reign in Iraq that we will be instructing the President, George W. Bush and military commanders as to how we expect strategy to be handled until the final redeployment.
We are planning the following:
1. While we here at home claim to support American troops we are placing millions of dollars of needless domestic spending thus insuring a Presidential veto.
2. In placing the above mentioned time line in appropriation bills, this too will insure a Presidential veto.
3. We will be using our Majority position in the Congress to hamper and obstruct any and all military matters until full redeployment is accomplished.
4. In tying up military appropriation bills, necessary monies for American military personnel will be decreased thus making it much harder for our troops to fight you.
5. The lack of monies that these appropriation bills provide will make our forces more vulnerable to your attacks making it possible for your people to prepare for final redeployment of American forces thus making the transition for your taking over Iraq easier and less taxing on you.
We will continue to claim to the American public that we see you as an enemy and a threat in order to deceive them into thinking that we actually believe this and are looking out for their best interests. In doing this we fully believe that just the opposite is true and understand that you are fighting America because we have oppressed you and our forcing military action to end will give you cause to view us in peace and end your desire to kill Americans and our society.
Thank you in advance for not taking advantage of our weakening of the military to kill more American troops but if this is necessary on your part while we force the redeployment out of Iraq we understand, afterall sacrifice is necessary for our ending this war.
On behalf of the Majority in The United States Congress we are:
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader
While the above letter is not an actual correspondence to the mutual enemy of all Americans it is the clear message that the Democrats and a few Rino Republicans have sent to the Islamic fanatics who we are waging war with.
I cannot understand how anyone in their right mind does not see that setting dates and time lines for the removal of American troops only sends a signal to the enemy that, " if you wait and bide your time we will be out of the way so you have the ability to do as you please."
Additionally using funding bills that are necessary to best supply our troops and give them the best possibility of protecting themselves while at war, gives the enemy a better chance of killing more American troops.
Is it unbelievable that Democrats who call themselves patriots think more of Spinach and Peanut subsidies, funding Capitol tours and millions of dollars of other Pork Barrel projects then funding the troops knowing that the very act of Pork and time lines will result in a Presidential veto for the funding bill that cannot be over ridden.
Their claim of supporting the troops is shown as absolute hypocrisy as their actions prove otherwise. The message this bill is sending to the enemy will unequivocally embolden the enemy causing them to increase attacks as they see and understand that our troops are being hung out on the vine by a Congress that is more interested in playing political games than protecting America. This enemy is intelligent, cunning and they know exactly how our system works and will use this move by Democrats to their advantage.
Many try to claim that Democrats are representing majority opinion. While polls show that support for Iraq is weak, the majority still believes that we need to finish the job that was started and not redeploy before Iraq is capable of standing on its own. Time lines as set by the Congress does not accomplish this nor does it pass the Constitutional test as is usurps the authority of the Commander in Chief.
Throughout our history even when majority opinion was against certain US action there are times when doing the right thing is in the best interest of the country. If this were not the case then we would have never come into existence as an independent nation as the majority of Americans wanted to negotiate and remain under the British Crown rather than fighting the Revolution.
Fighting for our Independence and the birth of this nation was right then as finishing the job in Iraq is now. It is in our best national interest, it is a vital theater in the defeat of terrorism and it is the right thing to do!
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 3:07 PM
40 Comments:
So finish the job damn it!
This thing is in it's 5th year. It's taking longer to wrap up than our participation in WW2, for cryin out loud (and it was supposed to be a cakewalk.)
The only timeline Bush and Co. have is to run out the clock and dump it on the next (Democratic) president.
Wake up people.
Ken, Thank you for a good post! It took Bin Laden almost 10 years to plan and prepare for the attacks on 9-11. Do people honestly believe it will take us any less time to complete our mission?
Maybe folks need to remember it took 5 years (without inclusion of the after effects) from start to finish of the American Civil War. How many men died for the cause? There were over 500,000 killed, both combined (Union and Confederate). So was it worth your freedom? You bet your bottom dollar it was! I wonder if Mudkitty would have wanted to impeach President Lincoln for this mission.
You, Mudkitty, need to "wake-up". Freedom takes time, patience, diligence, and yes, death. It's part of the casualties of freedom and democracy.
PR - as for the American Civil War, which cause are you referring to?
Tell me about it.
I have tried to express my outrage over the immature antics of the anit-war crowd.
It could the pathetic, "support troops not line" chickenshit line
It could be Pelosi off to Syria who is a larger threat then Iran
It could be Murtha idiotic redeployment to Okinowa
It could be the Hollywood elite blissfully unaware they waould be stoned to death by the very enemy they enable
It could the shortsided selfish posing of the withdrawl date for votes
I am just pissed but still proud to be an American.
If you can't tell the difference between supporting the troops and supporting a corrupt administration and political party than you don't deserve the honor of being a teacher. If you can't tell the difference between supporting the Bush Administration and the troops, then maybe it is you who needs a lesson in basic civics.
Thanks Pamela, many need a wake up call.
OBOB, agreed it angers me to think that anyone can even think that supporting the troops is stripping their funding or burning a soldier in effigy.
Mudkitty , How can you possibly think supporting the troops is jerking funding out from under them while they are at war?
Also Syria is a known state sponsor of terrorism. Look what they have done to Lebannon. It is well known that they are responsible for supplying forces and arms for the Iraq insurgency. They are also supporters of Hezbollah. Remember the recent conflict with Israel ? WHo was it that fought in Lebannon and was supplied through Syria from both Syria and Iran? It was Hezbollah!! Syria is a terrorist state and for Nancy Pelosi to visit them is a disgrace. She has no business in attempting to set American foriegn policy. That is the responsibility of the Executive Branch and the State Department that is part of the Executive Branch. It is NOT the responsibility nor the place of the Speaker of the House.
The Senate approved funding for the troops, the only person who will jerk away the funding is the president, if he vetos the funding bill out of pique over an earmark he doesn't particularly care for (a great case of rope-a-dope if there ever was one.) And the withdrawal wording is non-binding. So the only person who will be cutting off funds to the troops will be the president, himself, by himself. And he won't do it. He'll blink.
Bush has already lied about when the funding supposedly runs out - he said April, when the Pentagon says July (if that...billions of dollars down the drain of republican corruption later...)
The power of the purse strings is the power to control the president so that he doesn't become a king or dictator - sillies. And that power is in control of the congress. Both houses. Try a simple civics course. KT's spin aint it.
Syria is not a terrorist state. Syria is not part of Bushies Axis of Evil. Nor will it become one. That is a smear. Syria has terrorist elements, as your Bush so-called allies, the Saudis and the Packistanis.
When are you going to admit you backed the wrong horse?
Heck...there were terrorists living in San Diego for for six months, that doesn't make Jenn of the Jungle a terrorist supporter.
BTW - the terrorist I referred to, in the above post, were 2 of the 19 WTC hijackers.
But don't take my word for it. Look it up. San Diego harbored terrorists.
Excellent post, Ken!
I am so tired of reading comments from Mudkitty regarding Bush's "axis of evil." What total crap! She's so beyond being reasoned with. I wonder if she hangs upside down like Rosie? This is the last time I even read her comments. They aren't worth the time it takes.
Mud, this is indeed taking longer than WWII. The tactic that ended the war in that amount of time was the use of the atomic bomb. Had we not dropped them (and if you recall, Japan wasn't convinced with the use of only one) then an invasion of Japan would have been necessary. The war would have lasted at least another year, probably more if you consider an insurgency in the Japanese homeland.
Do you advocate similar tactics to keep the length of this conflict withing acceptable time parameters?
Gayle, don't read my comments. This is America, and no one is forcing you to stalk me or to read my comments.
Ah, you're leaving out a few, pertinent, details,
Robert.
Bravo Ken,
You should take that first part and copy and paste that and send that on to President Bush via email.
I am going to copy and paste that and find a way to work that into the all the crap at the top of my page, maybe remove some stuff, since Sandy Burglar is NEVER coming in for his lie detector test, and we may as well through the 9-11 commission book in the trash maybe I will remove that.
The Democrats really should write a letter like that because that is exactly the message they are sending.
You know another consequence of pulling out before the Iraqi Troops can handle thier own Security I hadnt thought about till this last weekend, what happens to Kuwait during the Iranian takeover that will happen when we leave before it's time?
Just a thought.
I would kind of like to finish all this NOW while we are in the neighborhood, so we dont have to return later, which will be the case but the stupid ass Democrats dont realize it or just dont give a damn.
Send it to Bush - that's telling, in and of itself.
So you won't answer the question?
Answer: not in this case. This was supposed to be a cakewalk, remember.
BTW - we dropped the bomb at a time when we were the only ones with the bomb - silly. Big dif. That was then, this is now. You don't get it.
The war against Iraq was a cakewalk, and the mission was accomplished.
This is an entirely different conflict.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel any better. But thinking like that will leave you rightwingnuts stuck in the political wilderness for another 40 years, to the betterment of the Nation.
Holy crud, mudkitty....
It's taking longer to wrap up than our participation in WW2, for cryin out loud (and it was supposed to be a cakewalk.)
Muddy,
Do you ever learn, or do you just rehash empty talking points? My response to you last year:
I've seen people on the left criticize the right for any comparisons of this current war to that of WWII. But since you've put forth the case that Michael Moore himself brought up, I'll post just part of Wizbang's response, because Jay did such a bang-up job of it:
The US involvement in World War II did, indeed last 1,347 days, counting from the attack on Pearl Harbor until the surrender of Japan -- but that was the actual war-fighting. The "major combat operations." Because we were fighting three modern, industrialized, militarized nations, we had to crush each of them utterly. Italy fell when its own people turned on their fascist masters. Germany had to be almost literally bombed back to the stone age, then invaded and nearly every inch conquered. And Japan was bracing for a similar fate when they noticed that two of their cities had put up "gone fission" signs, and we were promising to continue doing that to more cities.
A truer comparison would be from the date of the US invasion (March 20, 2003) to the fall of Baghdad and the collapse of the Baathist government (April 9) -- three weeks.
Now, of course, Mr. Moore is conflating the major combat parts with the occupation and rebuilding. Since he brought up World War II, let's take a look at that.
Germany remained under Allied control until 1949, when the Western powers ceded their districts to the Federal Republic of Germany and the Soviets created their puppet regime of the German Democratic Republic. This partitioning remained until 1990, when the German people finally took their fate back into their own hands -- and got away with it, because the Soviets were far too busy worrying about their own rapidly-dissolving totalitarian regime. That brings the total time of "war and occupation" to about 49 years, give or take a few months.
Unless, of course, you count "occupation" as "having US forces still present." In which case, we come up to the present day.
In Japan, the official occupation lasted until 1952 -- ten years and change after Pearl Harbor. And as in Germany, US forces are still present, so it can be argued that we are still stuck in the "quagmire" of World War II.
Read more...
Prior to entering into any future conflicts, muddy, do you propose we should set an expiration date for the war, before we enter into it? How quick should a war be waged? 1 month? 1 year? 5 years?
And Robert is right. We are in a different phase; in a sense, it's a continuation; but we did win the Iraq War. Even your political allies use that as an argument for wanting us to leave now (seeing what we're in now as being in the way of a civil war).
Mudkitty --
You're pretty footloose and fancy free when it comes to calling the Bush Administration corrupt.
What do you call pushing a timetable bill through the House by cavalierly buying votes with massive pork barrel spending, totally unrelated to the issue at hand, of the taxpayers' money?
Poor Wordspin can't tell the difference between the WW2 and the Marshall Plan. This is the kind of thinking that gave us Bush, and this disaster of a war.
*****
Seth, I wouldn't use the term footlose, etc., I have the courage of my convictions, and knowledge to back it up.
As for the funding bill - they gave Bush every thing he asked for, and more. If Bush vetos the funding bill, then the headline will read:
"Bush Vetos Troop Funds." Which will be the god's truth.
And since when did a republican ever shy away from pork, or worse? Earmarks were invented by the '94 congress. But don't take my word for it. Look it up.
It's called rope-a-dope.
Mudkitty --
The timetable vote was "purchased" with that pork. There is no way one can simply gloss over that fact when the issue at hand was specifically about funding the troops.
This is the twisted way the folks on your side of the aisle do their left-handed business: They offer up something acceptable, then drown it in unacceptable conditions, and as soon as Bush rejects it because of the unacceptable elements, they yell that he's against what they gave him.
Typical of liberals such as yourself, you think the majority of the American people are so dumb that they won't see through this blatantly obvious transparency.
Nov 2008 is only what, 19 months away? Then your ilk will be able to slink back into minority status for another dozen years or so. :-)
Poor Wordspin can't tell the difference between the WW2 and the Marshall Plan. This is the kind of thinking that gave us Bush, and this disaster of a war.
That's rich 'kittylitter...can't tell the difference between end of major combat operations which was a success and the current conflict we are in now (where's your "Marshall Plan" humanitarian compassion for the Iraqis, anyway?). This is the kind of non-thinking that will lose us the war and get us killed.
Seth, I wouldn't use the term footlose, etc., I have the courage of my convictions, and knowledge to back it up.
To simplify: You've got nothing.
As for the funding bill - they gave Bush every thing he asked for, and more. If Bush vetos the funding bill, then the headline will read:
"Bush Vetos Troop Funds." Which will be the god's truth.
This is why your side is moronically selective in hearing and understanding. The President will veto the bill because of the timetable for surrender.
Not to mention that the bill was dead until members were threatened with losing committees, and $21 BILLION was added for districts with needed votes.
Mud did make a point by accident. if patton had been allowed to invade Russia in 1945 as he was planning, the world would certaily be different. :-)
21 billion? Would you like to correct that? Or stand by it, Robert?
Anyone?
Seth - you have no solid reference for what pork is, since you are a republican.
Oh! All of a sudden Seth is going to claim he's an independent! Just like the rest of the shipjumpers.
"BUSH VETOS TROOP FUNDING BILL."
Cuddle up with that one.
*****
Even if it comes down to: "Bush Vetos Democratic Troop Funding Bill" Bush and you Bush supporters are in deep Bandini.
I shouldn't be cluing you into this stuff.
I shall stand by it, Mud.
From the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032900344.html?nav=rss_email/components?nav=slate
President Bush has strongly protested the withdrawal language in both the House and Senate bills, along with $20 billion in emergency domestic spending in the Senate measure, and has repeatedly warned that he intends to veto the package if the offending provisions aren't dropped.
The emergency spending mentioned here is for vegetable farmers in California, shrimpers in Louisiana, and
other things in states where they could buy votes.
Since you refuse to ever cite a fact with sources, Mud, i take your word for nothing. Earmarks were not invented in '94, they simply switched parties. I detrest them regardless of whic party uses them, but the fact is that the GOP did not invent them.
As she has proven multiple times. Mudkitty is incapable of or unwilling to provide ANY hard facts to EVER back up a SINGLE argument she has had.
It is all rhetoric and Democratic talking points.
But the dems give the president all the money he wants...it's funding for the troops...more that what Bush asked for...
Rope a dope.
Keep course, domestically - you guys.
Mud, complete sentences are a great aid to communication.
Actually, the funding eliminated an important piece of equipment that the military asked for, a V-shaped hull armored vehicle that deflects the energy of IEDs. They then inserted $21 billion in "emergency aid" to spinach farmers in California who had their profits hurt by the E-Coli problems a few months ago. It purchased the votes of Califormia dems who wwere not going to vote for the funding bill. It illustrates:
1) Lack of principles by the dem leadership
2) Fiscal mismangement by the dems
3) The lack of principles of democrat reps
4) The reason for the 2nd Amendment.
In you fevered dreams. Believe me, Democrats aren't that organized. Talk about conspiracy theories. Whoa! You must be from Brazil, cuz that's where the nuts come from.
Like I wrote...The Dems gave Bush everything he asked for, and more. It will be Bush who vetos troop funding (over spinach farmers, no less...) It will not be your best day rightwingnuts.
Not to mention, Republicans invented earmarks, and have exploited them for the entire time they were (WERE - being an very operative term) in the minority (where you'll stay, if you keep up this lazy thinking of yours.)
sorry - sic (republicans) WERE in the majority...now in the minority.
Sounds good every time I write it, even if I mangle it.
There's a new congress in town, so I suggest all you outlaws and rightwingers just calm down.
Like you wrote perhaps, but but have refused to cite a reference. However, I have cited references about the bill and it's contents.
As usual, the left understands neither principles nor logic. In the same post that Mud applauds the democrats insertioning pork into a bill for war funding, she assaults the use of pork by republicans.
Robert, site one occasion on this thread where I applauded pork - liar.
Mud wrote: Like I wrote...The Dems gave Bush everything he asked for, and more. It will be Bush who vetos troop funding (over spinach farmers, no less...) It will not be your best day rightwingnuts.
You know that the dems want the President to veto this. You also know, because it has been cited here if nothing else, that the only reason this passed was because of the use of pork to buy votes.
Therefore, because you are preparing to blame the President for vetoing the bill: ergo, you approve of the use of this pork.
Mud, if you want to argue, at least know where you stand on an issue. Socrates said: Know thyself.
The only one who will jerk the funding out from under the troops will be Bush when he "Vetos The Troop Funding Bill" which gave Bush everything he asked for...and more.
Picture the headline:
"Bush Vetos Troop Funding Bill."
Post a Comment
<< Home