| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Comments by the Dark Lord Cheney today |
| 2007-04-13 |
| Ol' 'Big Dick' Cheney (snark from Wonkette) spoke today and had some good'uns as he always does. Who would our enemies fear more: Cheney or the Silky Pony? 'nuff said. I have entered certain highlight but I encourage you to read it all. The American people spoke in the mid-term elections, the 110th Congress has arrived in Washington, D.C., and for the first time since 1995 the Democratic Party now controls both the House and the Senate. It was, in retrospect, a narrow victory. A shift of only 3,600 votes would have kept the Senate in Republican hands, and a shift of fewer than 100,000 votes would have maintained Republican control of the House of Representatives. I never knew the "mandate" was that small. Did anyone here know that? ... That was the last time the national Democratic Party took a hard left turn. But in 2007, it looks like history is repeating itself. ... Today, as the United States faces a new kind of enemy and a new kind of war, the far left is again taking hold of the Democratic Party's agenda. The prevailing mindset, combined with a series of ill-considered actions in the House and Senate over the last several months, causes me to wonder whether today's Democratic leaders fully appreciate the nature of the danger this country faces in the war on terror -- a war that was declared against us by jihadists, a war in which the United States went on offense after 9/11, a war whose central front, in the opinion and actions of the enemy, is Iraq. ... Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear this over and over again, not as an argument, but as an assertion meant to close off argument. The Dhims want to personalize this conflict. Like if we get OBL it is over, like with Hitler. But OBL is only a figurehead of an movement and there are others and well as many who would follow in his footsteps. BushCo understands the real enemy is the hopelessness of islam and how that makes them want strike out and the way to fix that is give those poor folks the chance to live like free, modern men. Like us. ... Yet the evidence is flatly to the contrary. And the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. "The most serious issue today for the whole world," he said, "is this third world war [that is] raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He said, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever." ... Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. Ker-Pow! ... If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us. Duh! Did we only fight ther Germans in Germany and the Japanese in Japan? Nooo. We fought them wherever and whenever we could find them, aggressively. ... ...in the weeks since that vote, the actions of the Democratic leadership have moved from the merely inconsistent to the irresponsible. It's now been 67 days since the President submitted the emergency supplemental request. ... And when they had the votes they needed, they stopped adding the pork, and they held the vote. ... It is strange enough that the Speaker should do anything to anything to undermine America's careful, and successful, multilateral effort to isolate the Syrian regime. But at least one member of the Speaker's delegation saw the trip in even grander terms. He said the delegation was offering, quote, "an alternative Democratic foreign policy." Once again, we must return to a basic constitutional principle. Teaching moment here: No member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has any business jetting around the world with a diplomatic agenda contrary to that of the President and the Secretary of State. It is for the executive branch, not the Congress, to conduct the foreign policy of the United States of America. SMACK! ... This notion of a timetable for withdrawal has been specifically rejected by virtually every mainstream analysis. The report of the WOP! ... Rarely in history has an elected branch of government engaged in so pointless an exercise as Congress is now doing. And yet the exercise continues. Three days ago the President invited the Democratic leaders to meet with him next week to discuss the supplemental. The majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, at first declined to do so. When Nancy Pelosi flies nearly 6,000 miles to meet with the president of Syria, but Harry Reid hesitates to drive a mile and half to meet with the President of the United States, there's a serious problem in the leadership of the Democratic Party. THWAPPP! ... So in less than six months' time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, and then full funding, but with a timetable, and then a cutoff of funding. ... In their move to the left, many leading Democrats have turned not just against the military operation in Iraq, but against its supporters, as well. ... Yet last year Joe was targeted for political extinction by his fellow Democrats. Al Gore himself, who famously endorsed Howard Dean in 2004, refused to help his former running mate, Joe Lieberman, on grounds that he doesn't get involved in primaries. ... But it's far more serious than that. We're talking about a congressional majority with real power and a liberal agenda that, if followed, would have serious consequences for the country. Defeat. ... In light of recent events, it's worth asking how things would be different if the current Democratic leadership had controlled Congress during the last five years. Would we have the terrorist surveillance program? Or the Patriot Act? Or military commissions to try unlawful combatants? We'd have the Feingold Muslim Protection Act. ... The good men and women serving in the war on terror, on every front, are staring evil in the face. Some of them will not make it home. ... The consequences of walking away from Afghanistan were severe, but perhaps hard to foresee prior to 9/11. But no one could plead ignorance of the potential consequences of walking away from Iraq now, ... Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look about for new missions. ... What would it say to the world if we left high and dry those millions of people who have counted on the United States to keep its commitments? ... Instead of allowing problems to simmer, instead of allowing threats to gather thousands of miles away and assume they won't find us at home, we've decided to face our challenges squarely. We offer a vision of freedom, justice, and self government as a superior alternative to ideologies of violence, anger, and resentment. ... When the United States turns away from our friends, only tragedy can follow, and the lives and hopes of millions are lost forever. ... Ladies and gentlemen: not this time. Not on our watch. Does this man understand? I think so. |
| Posted by:Brett |
| #1 Cheney should be front and center to expose the rabid defeatists on teh left. Let him be teh attack dog, they hate him anyway. Their response will be both weak in substance and foaming in invective. Both will turn off mainstream America at the '08 polls. Who can rationally disagree that a strong, assertive, freedom-enforcing and anti-terrorist America is a bad thing? I expect Omar, et al, in the Iraqi blogger community, among others benefitting from our sacrifices to make some penetrating and provoking ads for us RePubs |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-13 21:36 |