« Venezuela's Tailspin Continues | Main | Prince Chucklehead Compares Global Warming to Hitler »

May 1, 2007

Traitors Seize on "Mission Accomplished" Speech

Pro-terrorist Democrats are planning a special ceremony today to ridicule President Bush's declaration on this date four years ago that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

Obviously, they had ended — against Saddam Hussein, who will never again use WMDs against his own people or anyone else. Current combat operations are against stateless terrorist groups that prominently include al-Qaeda, and that receive significant support from America's worst enemy, Iran.

Striving by the lowest means possible to achieve American defeat, verminous Democrat leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi deliberately chose today to present the President with legislation demanding we surrender to Islamic maniacs who flew planes full of Americans into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and who held our embassy personnel captive for 444 days.

To be used as pro-terrorist propaganda by Democrats.

Posted by Van Helsing at May 1, 2007 8:33 AM


The MISSION (Remove Saddam Hussein from power) was Accomplished... A war involves many missions and the War against goons like Saddam and Al-Qaeda will last a life time.

....Unless 1 or more American cities are hit with WMD's killing millions of Americans - in that case it will be over much sooner as the gloves come off and the real offensive begins.

Posted by: General Jack D. Ripper at May 1, 2007 8:57 AM

Glenn Beck takes on the Global Warming Moonbats... Glenn better be careful or he will be shipped off to a re-education work camp along with everyone who appears on that program...

Posted by: Anonymous at May 1, 2007 9:55 AM

The MA banner wasn't for Bush, it was for the men and the women of the Abraham Lincoln, but, as is typical of the left, they just want to spit on the military and belittle their accomplishments. Just like Harry Pelosi and Nancy GReid.

Posted by: V the K at May 1, 2007 3:23 PM

I'm just glad Bush vetoed that piece of crap bill.

Posted by: TBone at May 1, 2007 5:31 PM

Just for the record, here's the speech.

Most of that seems very premature by anyone's standards but, to his credit, he did say this:

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

OK, difficult would be a bit of an understatement. And that isn't hindsight, that was foresight (assuming they actually looked at that, which is anyone's guess). In fact, if they really had any clue what they had gotten us into, I doubt he would have held that speech at all. So, maybe they really didn't have a plan after all. See where I'm going with this?

Forget it. Keep on trusting the buffoons that got us into this mess.

Posted by: ChenZhen at May 1, 2007 6:08 PM

>>>OK, difficult would be a bit of an understatement. And that isn't hindsight, that was foresight (assuming they actually looked at that, which is anyone's guess).

In the Viet Nam war, the US never foresaw the communists inciteing our own news media and college students into propigandizing for the enemy. In World War Two NO ONE foresaw the Japanese useing suicide planes. In World War One, The Germans never foresaw the US Doughboys useing SHOTGUNS. In the Boar War, the British didn't foresee their machinegun crews getting hit by long-range rifle fire.

So what, ChenZhen?

Posted by: KHarn at May 1, 2007 6:47 PM

Indeed, the "Mission Accomplished" banner was put up by the Navy guys, not upon order or even suggestion from the President or anyone in his administration, which the MSM and Defeatocrats forget ("How convenient!," to quote Dana Carvey).

Further, in his 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush promised, a la Churchill, a long and bloody struggle, certain to carry on past his term in office ("I have nothing to promise but blood, sweat and tears"). Considering that we are unwilling to do anything, apparently, to crush the cockroaches running the Islamofascist State of Iran, I'd have to agree with GWB that it's going to be a helluva long fight (the words "eternal" and "endless" come to mind).

I'll be interested to see what the Hildabeast does about the next terrorist attack on this nation, once she takes office in January, 2009. Presuming that, like her husband, she does absolutely nothing, possibly that will be enough to see her impeached, tried and convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors," and thrown out of office. Of course, one can hope that anyone but Hilda will be elected come November '08, but it ain't lookin' good right now, folks.

Posted by: jc14 at May 2, 2007 6:54 AM

Happy Mission Accomplished Day!

Never get into a fight -- unless you have a plan to get out. W. never had one.

Posted by: Ronald Reagan at May 2, 2007 11:36 AM

While reading your rhetoric ("Pro-terrorist Democrats" and the implication that Saddam really had and used WMD), I'm wondering your meaning about Pelosi and Reid "demanding we surrender to Islamic maniacs who flew planes full of Americans into the World Trade Center and Pentagon". Didn't these maniacs die on 9/11 too? We fighting dead people too? Grasping for enemies to help sell your snake oil here? I recall a question that Mr Bush was asked just prior to the Nov 7 elections while he was stumping for his party. He was asked "what does 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq". His verbatim response was "nothing".

Posted by: Ron W at May 2, 2007 12:29 PM

Ron W,

Sorry, if I had realized moonbats would be reading, I would have used shorter words. The 9/11 terrorists were acting on behalf of al-Qaeda. Many of the terrorists we have been fighting in Iraq are affiliated with al-Qaeda. The connection between them is al-Qaeda. Is it coming clear now?

Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran and against Kurdish villages in his own country is too well-documented to fit down the memory hole, no matter how many times liars repeat on TV that he had no WMD. But anyone who thinks that trying to destroy al-Qaeda before it attacks again is "grasping for enemies" is unreachable, so why am I bothering?

Posted by: Van Helsing at May 2, 2007 3:50 PM

Methinks GWB was responding to the question "What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?," in which case his answer is: basically correct.

There were, however, several known and who the hell knows how many unknown Islamic terrorists residing, resting and recuperating in Iraq throughout Saddam's reign (of terror, of the first order), so it is hard to say that Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11.

As for WMD's, it surely looks now that Saddam was "ramping down" his penchant for developing these kinds of munitions, but leaving everything in place to accelerate those programs at the first opportunity (when the US was occupied elsewhere - say in Darfur, the Balkans; you know, places where people whose sole mission in life is to kill us live?). If Saddam didn't move his WMD stockpiles, et al., to Syria in the months (and months and months) leading up to the invasion of Iraq and the deposing of His Enormity, he would have to have had the IQ of a pencil eraser.

Posted by: jc14 at May 2, 2007 10:04 PM

A couple of thoughts. Iraq and AQ are not nor were they allies as you would like to imply. By definition, I suppose a WMD could be an AK7 under the right conditions but that wasn't what we were looking for. To manipulate the truth and then represent it over and over does make it true. I would say nice try but realistically, it was fairly lame.

Posted by: Ron W at May 4, 2007 11:37 AM