« Professor Attempts to Squelch Student Speech, Urges Treason and Murder | Main | Moonbat Hackers Destroy Tribute to Troops »

November 19, 2005

Republicans Call Dems' Bluff on Surrender to Al-Qaeda

Last night Republicans proved that while Democrats will use whatever insidious tactics they can to undermine our war effort against al-Qaeda in Iraq, few are willing to associate their names with outright surrender to the organization that killed 3,000 Americans on September 11.

A measure demanding that those opposing the efforts of our troops in Iraq either put up or shut up was soundly defeated. The resolution, put on the floor by Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Duncan Hunter (R-CA), would urge "that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

I won't insult the reader by going into the catastrophic consequences to Iraq, to the United States, and to the world if we were to withdrawal from Iraq while al-Qaeda is still in a position to take control of this critical country. The fact that surrendering in Iraq would spell absolute doom should be obvious to a child.

The vote was 403-3, with six bold souls voting "present." The three calling for immediate surrender were by some remarkable coincidence all Democrats: Jose Serrano of New York, Robert Wexler of Florida, and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia.

Wait, where's Murtha, the guy that made this whole vote necessary with his recklessly irresponsible calls for "redeployment" — a euphemism used by people who don't even have the fortitude to surrender? He voted against it, possibly on the grounds that he wants the surrender to be stretched out over 6 months instead of occurring immediately — or possibly because he never really wanted to lose the war, he just wanted to prevent Republicans from winning it. A third possibility is that Murtha didn't even know what he was voting on, because he has gone completely insane.

Here's Murtha from last Thursday, explaining on PBS when the threat from Islamic terrorists began:

Well, I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started.

As OpinionJournal points out,

So according to Murtha, "terrorism started" either in March 2003 (with the "invasion of Iraq") or in May 2004 (when the Abu Ghraib miniscandal came to light). One wonders where he was in, say, September 2001. One wonders, too, how a political party can keep a straight face while putting him forward as a spokesman on national security.

Clearly, in Murtha's addled mind, loony-left propaganda has displaced reality.

Speaking of the loony-left, why didn't Dennis Kucinich vote for immediate surrender? Ironically, considering how impossible it is to take Kucinich seriously, his excuse for voting against the resolution was that it wasn't serious:

"They have no intention of taking us out [of Iraq]," he said. "This is trifling with the troops. It's playing with people's lives."

Anyone watching the discussion that preceded the vote on C-SPAN could see for themselves that the Democrats — slapping their hands together like trained seals at every defeatist canard thrown out by the senile demagogue Murtha, bobbing their heads up and down like a collection of bobblehead dolls every time the old fool said something that would encourage al-Qaeda — would have liked to surrender. But Republicans banked on their cowardice — a bet that the lopsided vote proved was a sure one.

You almost have to tip your hat to the three moonbats who supported the resolution. At least they had the guts to vote in accord with their convictions. There were six others who almost had the courage. These were the ones who voted "present" — as if they didn't really have an opinion on whether we should turn tail and run, letting Islamic terrorists take over Iraq. By another remarkable coincidence, all were Democrats: Jim McDermott of Washington; Jerrold Nadler, Maurice Hinchey and Major Owens of New York; Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and William Lacy Clay of Missouri.

You don't need to be a believer to find words of wisdom in the Bible. Though the standard interpretation may be inaccurate, I can't help but think of Revelation 3:16:

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Clearly Democrats aren't interested in winning the war. So if they aren't at least going to own up to their desire to lose it, what good are they to anyone?

Posted by Van Helsing at November 19, 2005 12:12 PM


My wife brought home a DVD yesterday for watching after dinner - BUT the Democrat fluster follies on CSPAN stole the evening. What a show. That 403 vote came in lickety-split, in minutes, so the Reps could get outta there and go home for two weeks. Happy Thanksgiving, Republicans. Now that you found your stones, deep on using them PLEEAASSE.

Posted by: Bergbikr at November 19, 2005 1:45 PM

I'm wishing now that the Sig OtherHunter and I hadn't settled in on an evening of Firefly episodes. What history in the making. (I hope)

Q: do the Senate Republican'ts have stones? We'll find out come -- ARRRRGHH!!! -- January.

Posted by: The MaryHunter at November 19, 2005 5:10 PM

You don't think Murtha's sudden major kiss-up to the MSM has anything to do with the ethics investigation he was about to face for setting up companies represented by his brother's "Consulting" firm with multi-million dollar contracts, do you?

Posted by: V the K at November 20, 2005 10:51 AM

PS: My blog-buddy Mr. Right at TheRightPlace sent me an email this morning, here's the short version.

My co-blogger at The Right Place, Anna (also of A Rose by Any Other Name,, has twice written about the plight of a small MilBlog run by Grey Eagle. First, Anna asked people to drop by and post some encouraging words after she noticed some very rude and disgusting comments being left there by leftwing trolls.

I thought that was the end of it, but Anna has just recently posted again about Grey Eagle's blog after she visited once more and saw the newest post Grey Eagle had at the top.

Congratulations To Those Who Oppose The Soldiers I wish to express my congratulations to the hackers, vandals, and anti-war visitors who successfully blocked my ability to post any further tributes to the soldiers. I am sure you find victory in preventing myself and others from having a place to read and pay our respects to the Fallen Female Soldiers, and my brother's in arms, the brave soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division. I can only imagine your satisfaction in justifying the disgrace of men and women who died for this country.

You need to read the whole thing.

Posted by: V the K at November 20, 2005 10:52 AM

Thanks for sharing that link VtheK. I hope everyone who reads this takes the time to visit that site and offer words of support and encouragement. Seems many of our liberal friends who claim to "support the troops" are more interested in undermining their morale through malicious and hate filled pranks. Big surprise, since many of these folks have not made a positive, mature contribution to our nation in their adult lives.

And to the point of his recent vote:

We have had two national elections during which national security issues were widely debated. Congress has held umpteen votes on the subject.

The people have spoken in a clear and precise manner time and again and yet Democrats ignore that mandate as easily as they forget their own words on the subject of Iraq and the threat it poses.

Somehow, I doubt that this latest overwhelming vote will quiet those discordant voices who continue to undermine our ability to secure VICTORY and bring peace with justice to Iraq and ultimately ourselves.

So, as we are one year out from another national election, It will be up to each of us to remind that mushy middle ground who may have missed the significance of this recent vote what is at stake.

It's time, PAST TIME, that we nail the lid shut on those who permit this country to be defeated.

Posted by: Mike's America at November 20, 2005 11:46 AM

Jihad CIndy wants to surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq? Who'd have thunk it??

BTW, Van...whatever happened to the resident moonbat with a handle the same as the KKK Senator from WV?

Posted by: Jonathan at November 20, 2005 8:26 PM

Rob B. has made himself scarce lately. It could be he got sick of getting slapped down.

Posted by: Van Helsing at November 20, 2005 9:41 PM

Methinks the Democrats up on the Hill have retreated into their own private reality where things like the outside world does not matter. All that matters is themselves. Hunter's resolution just helped the mushy middle and even some in the left side to realize how unhinged these people are.

Posted by: Anna at November 21, 2005 11:38 AM

Seems like that old Marine Murtha has some allies in the Pentagon. Seems the two ranking Generals in the Iraq War -- Abazaid and Casey -- want to pull out more than a third of our troops starting in about three weeks.

The rest would be gone pretty close to Murtha's timeline.

Maybe we should leave the war to the Generals -- instead of a guy who hit the silk in the Texas National Guard and hid out for months in Alabama.

Posted by: Ronald Reagan at November 21, 2005 2:04 PM

Maybe we should leave the war to the Generals -- instead of a guy who hit the silk in the Texas National Guard and hid out for months in Alabama.

Or to a guy who smoked dope with the Russkies while wiping his ass with the American flag and writing letters of his "loathing" of the military? I'm speaking of Bill Clinton, not John Kerry.

To sum up "Ronnie" and his ilk's position:

Serving in any national guard capacity is the same as draft-dodging, while openly detesting the military is called "patriotism." Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by: Jonathan at November 21, 2005 6:57 PM