Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Filibuster!

Its on. Unfortunately, life on the road this week will get me to bed long before its over, but the debate thus far has been actually most enlightening. It also profiles the vast differences between the President and Senators and the differences among the quality of Senators.

Thus far I’ve seen:

Diane Feinstein. Her objection was primarily that combat in Iraq was killing Californians, and presumably the sons and daughters of other states as well, and was monetarily expensive. Feinstein made no mention of the cost of defeat in Iraq. Feinstein says Iraq has angered the Islamic world against the United States. Had we invaded Iraq or based the military in Saudi Arabia in 1979 when the Islamofacists first attacked the US directly by seizing the American Embassy in Iran? At least Feinstein cited real statistics and told no lies.

Lamar Alexander. Lamar spent his time talking about bi-partisanship and urging adoption of the Baker Hamilton Report. While supporting the Constitutional authority of the President Lamar wants the country to come together around a bi-partisan Iraq plan. Lamar is a nice guy but we don’t need need bi-partisanship over Iraq, we need victory in Iraq. Lamar did raise the irony of the dysfunctional American Senate criticize the Iraqi Parliament for dysfunction.

Mary Landrieu. Very disappointing. Landrieu spewed lie after lie. As posted here on the Real Sporer, neither the counter terrorism evaluation released last week nor the NIE released today say Al Qaeda has restored its capacity to pre-9.11 strength. They have grown stronger in Pakistan, not globally, over the last year. The former cutie claimed Al Qaeda was not in Iraq at all-another wildly irresponsible lie. Mary Landrieu showed a poster of Osama, claiming the Bush Administration has stopped looking for him. How are you going to get him in Pakistan Mary? Are you going to invade Pakistan?

Joe Lieberman. Joltin’ Joe was the only Senator who showed any leadership whatsoever. Lieberman talked about the costs of defeat, liberally citing Al Qaeda’s most senior leadership discussing their view of Iraq as the “Central Front” of their war on US and the home of the future caliphate they intend to establish after chasing the Great Satan from Mesopotamia. I have yet to hear any Democrat, tonight or at any other time, describe the day after withdrawal in any terms other than withdrawal is the only objective. Joe described that as running from Iraq, giving Al Qaeda the victory they are telling the world they will win there. Until that question is answered no one should take the war critics seriously as anything other than misguided, venal or both.

Sherrod Brown. This one is a real left wing hater straight from the John Kerry/ Hillary Clinton/Ted Kennedy template. Brown completely devoted his time to complaining about defective equipment or wild personal attacks on President Bush and Vice President Cheney. If requiring our personnel to go to war with imperfect equipment were of any historical significance or consequence, we’d better get that FDR Memorial down, as any American tanker could tell you. Ask your WW2 grandparents how our fighters fared against Japanese Zeros or German Me 262 jet fighters and you’ll hear about inferior equipment that killed ten times as many Americans as have died in Iraq. The political attack was sufficiently vile and hypocritical as to speak for itself.

Susan Collins. More on Baker Hamilton. A little shot at the President, a little shot at the Democrats but mostly a plea to play nice. It ain’t happening this time around Susan so choose sides and go to war. If you think you’ll get re-elected if you desert us on an issue like this I think you need look no farther than John McCain’s Presidential race and reassess your position.

Bob “Mendacious” Menendez. He did not spew the blizzard of lies that poured out of Landrieu and the, quite literally, drooling and spitting Sherrod Brown, but a most disingenuous presentation about the filibuster. One long complaint about the unfairness of the filibuster, as if the judges issue just never existed. Quoted Bobbie Kennedy, which is quite apropos` given the similar mob connections. The speech was literally all politics without one substantive word about what would happen in Iraq if we left. The wading pool is deeper than is this guy. Oh, wait—now he’s going down the casualty and cost road and drifting into the benchmarks and possibly finishing with a lie about Afghanistan and Pakistan, Now he's blathering about Tora Bora (two years before Iraq) and opium poppies. Mendacious indeed.

Bob Mendacious did it, I have to get some sleep. Wake me when its over or when Joltin’ Joe Lieberman puts an end to this madness and crosses the aisle to caucus with the people who like him.

9 comments:

defeating john mcquisling is priority number one said...

Sorry, I'm pissed about this whole thing and thinking out loud.

This is why I am not a Republican. I WILL NOT help elect leftist douchebags like Collins, Lame-ar, Light-in-the-loafers Lindsay Graham, and others. Don't give ONE CENT to ANY Republican orgainization.

The proverbial elephant in the room is that we still have a CINC who is unwilling to prosecute the war to the fullest. Wax Mookie, reduce Fallujah and Sadr City to craters, and declare open season on mosques.

If the Iraqis are unwilling to stand up and fight with us, fuck 'em. People who have to be persuaded to be free do not deserve to be free. It would not be cutting and running at that point, but giving Iraqis what they want. Isn't that why we went in there in the first place?

So long as we have an incompetent CINC, this mess will continue.

when the going gets tough the tough get going..some say said...

I agree with some of your thoughts Mcquisling, but don't really get how not being a republican contributes to your goal. What does that have to do with anything?

Are you saying you've decided to leave the field of battle, are returning home and will let the terrorists (d's) win? It's just too tough to continue? You give up?

How is that different than the democrat cut and run approach to serious problems? Serious people who care about serious issues don't just give up when things get a little messy and go back to their safe little world of watching sit-coms instead.

And, if defeating mcquisling is job number one, why are you so willing to "fuck" this infant democracy because you are annoyed? I think that is a very unwise approach to the problem.

We are the oldest democracy in the world and look at what's going on in our Senate. For gods sake...our Senate is having a Civil War too. They can't decide anything either. There are no leaders there. Just a bunch of hand wringers.

We are supposed to be the experts. We are the ones that invented this whole process. Perhaps the Iraqi Govt is watching us and thinking that's not much of an example to follow.

Harry Reid is a terrorist. Joe Lieberman is fighting terrorists. He's a true statesman and a big hero to America.

We are not fighting Iraquis in Iraq. We are fighting mostly Saudis and Iranians who have come IN to Iraq to take over that country as the capital of their caliphate. Iraq is simply the battlefield. We aren't in a war with Iraq anymore. That war is over.

We just captured the #1 Al-Qaeda guy in Iraq. That was not a normal Iraqi citizen civil war participant. That was a terrorist.

How will you sort them out? How will you handle another Iranian controlled country? How will you sleep at night knowing you participated in our defeat by giving up when that nuke hits Israel and "wipes them off the face of the earth" - to quote President Crazy from Iran.

How will you feel when that car bomb blows up in the middle of downtown and kills everyone at 801 Grand.

Don't be as weak as you see our CINC being. Be tougher.

Spotlight said...

Shhhh! Change the headline on this post! You're not supposed to admit the Republicans are filibustering.

The press is covering for you. Channel 8 last night did the whole story without using the F word. Several other news reporters have done the same, according to the links at TPM.

i gotta crush on obama too said...

I really think Obama can win this thing. I'm impressed with many things so far and among them are these criticisms in recent weeks.

Obama has:

_Rejected the notion that Hillary more prepared for the job. "The only person who would probably be prepared to be our president on Day One would be Bill Clinton—not Hillary Clinton," he said.

HE'S CORRECT. THE EXPERIENCE THING IS A RED HERRING. EXPERIENCE IS CODE FOR STATUS QUO. STATUS QUO HAS GIVEN US A 14% CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL RATING. LET'S TURN THE PAGE FROM STATUS QUO WITH ONE MORE CLINTON.

_Repeatedly reminded voters that she supported the Iraq war resolution, trying to cut off any credit she might get for trying to repeal the authorization now. "There are no do-overs on an issue as important as war," he said, and called her approach is "convoluted."

SHE ALWAYS SAYS WHATEVER IT TAKES HER TO SAY. SHE FORGOT THE INTERNET WAS INVENTED BY AL GORE AND WE KNOW WHEN SHE PARSES. SHE WAS FOR THE WAR BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST IT.

_Pushed back at Clinton's efforts to portray herself as a candidate for change. "Change can't just be a slogan," Obama said. "Change has to mean that we're not doing the same old thing that we've been doing."

I LOVE THIS. CHANGE CAN'T BE A BUMPER STICKER. OBAMA REALLY IS CHANGE. HILLARY REALLY IS JUST A RETREAD. WE'VE ALREADY SEEN HOW THEY RESPOND TO TERROR. LET'S TURN THE PAGE.

The heart of Obama's campaign is convincing voters that Clinton is a Washington establishment candidate—the quasi-incumbent, as his campaign manager called her recently—while he will bring fresh views for voters tired of politics as usual.

OBAMA CORRECTLY POINTS OUT THE HYPOCRISY OF BEING THE INCUMBANT, THE MOST EXPERIENCED WASHINGTON POLITICIAN IN THE RACE, YOU INTEND TO HAVE YOUR FORMER PRESIDENT HUSBAND TO HAVE A BIG BIG ROLE IN YOUR ADMINISTRATION LIKE IT'S A THIRD TIRED TERM...AND YET CALL YOURSELF A CHANGE AGENT. I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF THE WORD CHANGE IS IS.

Everytime I think of Fred debating Hillary, I get goosebumps. She's no Margaret Thatcher, that's for sure.

if hillary states it's about change, what will change with bill? said...

If Bill Clinton is willing to use cigars as sex toys with 21 year old interns in the oval office as PRESIDENT, how will he behave when he's just the First Man and he has a bit more privacy and won't have world leaders on hold while he's marinating his cigar with the intern?

If he's willing to grope the breasts of and assault a volunteer worker in the Oval Office who is asking for a paid staff job at the precise moment her husband is committing suicide because he's broke (which is why she needed the job), how will he behave when he's NOT in the Oval Office and have a bit more privacy?

Do we really want our Secret Service having to be Pimps for the First Man?

thank god bush still has veto power over the scaredy cat hand wringers said...

I couldn't help but notice all the "bumper stickers" the d's used in their presentations last night. LET US VOTE.

Did they take those from the republicans when we were trying to get up or down votes on Judges a while back?

I think they insisted that the judges were SOOOOO important that we needed 60 votes.

Well, if we needed 60 votes for judges, we surely need 60 votes on an issue of far more grave importance.

Saving Western Civilization from the Burka patrol is far MORE important and there should be far MORE concensus from the folks who claim to be statesmen than simply 51 votes. You need 67 at minimum.

Anonymous said...

Ted, you raise a geat point at the end of your column about Joe Leiberman. The D's have divorced themselves from Joe. They hate him. They think he's a terrible terrible person.

If he's as serious about the war as I believe him to be, he can make the biggest difference of anyone if he'd just go ahead and cross the aisle where he is welcomed as a Senior Statesman.

He, all by himself, could put that terrorist traitor Harry Reid out of business so we can do what needs done.

He, all by himself, has the power.

defeating john mcquisling is priority number one said...

8:29:

Soldiers aren't dying because of our Senate's Civil War. Jorge Boosh only has himself to blame for the Senate. He screwed Toomey and look what we ended up with.

Are you saying you've decided to leave the field of battle, are returning home and will let the terrorists (d's) win? It's just too tough to continue? You give up?

Not what I am saying at all. If those who are supposedly on your side are shooting at you, it might be a fairly good idea not to have them as friends any longer.

How is that different than the democrat cut and run approach to serious problems?

Um, you didn't read the post. I would unleash the B-52 and start levelling some cities.

And, if defeating mcquisling is job number one, why are you so willing to "fuck" this infant democracy because you are annoyed? I think that is a very unwise approach to the problem.

Again, you didn't finish reading. People who need to be persuaded to be free, do not deserve to be free. If the Iraqis want to live in a violent muslim shithole (and if we believe in letting people decide things for themselves)let them.

We are supposed to be the experts. We are the ones that invented this whole process. Perhaps the Iraqi Govt is watching us and thinking that's not much of an example to follow.

There are many times I would concur with their assessment.


We are not fighting Iraquis in Iraq. We are fighting mostly Saudis and Iranians who have come IN to Iraq to take over that country as the capital of their caliphate.

Agreed.

Iraq is simply the battlefield. We aren't in a war with Iraq anymore. That war is over.

Again, agreed. Which is why we CANNOT lose this war. The Reids, FineSwines, Hagels, Bushes, McQuislings, and Kennedys of the world are unwilling to do what it will take to win. War is not a pretty thing, nor is it something to be undertaken lightly. Once we are in however, we must be ALL in. Take the gloves off. Send in the CIA and the Mossad, turn off the BBC, CNN and don't look back.

How will you sort them out?

We don't. We kill them all and let Allah sort them out.

How will you handle another Iranian controlled country?

You take out Tehran. If they do not get the message, you hit Mecca.

How will you sleep at night knowing you participated in our defeat by giving up when that nuke hits Israel and "wipes them off the face of the earth" - to quote President Crazy from Iran.

It won't. Israel will take them out first.

RF said...

Mcquisling,

You need a reality check. You sound more delusional than Gravel. Your approach may work in your macho mind, but it ain't gonna work in the real world. We are not in the 1860's or 1940's anymore - like it or not.

Labels

Amazon Bookstore