Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Night and Day, “Harry Reid on the importance of House-Senate conferences” edition

Reid and his leftist cohorts in 2006:

The conference process in the 108th Congress is a case study in how the Republican leadership abused the Rules of the House to block Members, both Republicans and Democrats, from legislating in an informed and thoughtful manner. House-Senate conferences are a critical part of the deliberative process because they produce the final legislative product that will become the law of the land.

Reid and his leftist cohorts today:

According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are “almost certain” to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps–not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate–that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December.

“There will almost certainly be full negotiations but no formal conference,” the House staffer says. “There are too many procedural hurdles to go the formal conference route in the Senate.”

Video link here.

Hypocrisy: It’s what’s for dinner.

January 5, 2010 Posted by | corruption, hypocrisy, Night and Day, Reid | Leave a Comment

Reid: Opposition to ObamaCare is like support for slavery, or something

Excerpt from the story:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago. 

The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement — even though it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery. 

Senate Republicans on Monday called Reid’s comments “offensive” and “unbelievable.” 

But Reid argued that Republicans are using the same stalling tactics employed in the pre-Civil War era. 

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’” …

Opposition to socialized medicine is the same as trying to deprive people of their humanity?  Thanks for the clarification, Harry.  No wonder you’re trailing in every poll in NV.  It’s like he knows that he’s going to lose, so he’s trying to ram every piece of socialism through before he’s shown the door out of the Senate and into the old folks home.

Exit question:  How will Harry’s constituents in NV feel about being called slavery supporters, considering a majority of them oppose ObamaCare?

December 7, 2009 Posted by | health care, Reid, shameful, socialism | 2 Comments

Reid in electoral jeopardy in NV?

Polls are mere snapshots in time, and as such, should be taken with a grain of salt…especially 14+ months in advance of an election.  But man oh man, how awesomely McAwesome would this be?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trailing a top Republican challenger by 11 points ahead of next year’s election, according to a new poll.

The Mason-Dixon Polling and Research survey, reported Sunday in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, showed GOP candidate Danny Tarkanian leading Reid by 49 percent to 38 percent in Nevada.

Tarkanian is a former basketball player for the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and recently announced his candidacy.

The new poll also showed Sue Lowden, chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Party and a possible candidate, leading Reid by 45 percent to 40 percent.

In other words, Reid’s losing to pretty much anyone he faces!  Ed’s got some great analysis of this, a snippet of which is here:

Under any other circumstances, that’s what Reid would do, but he can’t afford to retire now.  He would be the second Democratic Senate Majority Leader in a row to get thrown out of office by his own constituents (Tom Daschle got a compulsory retirement from South Dakotans), and he can’t allow that to happen by default with a retirement.  The embarrassment would permanently damage the Democratic agenda in the Senate and take what little luster remains of the Obama administration. The Democrats have to fight for Reid, which makes the stakes even higher for them — and the embarrassment even worse if he loses.

Will Reid try to save himself by retreating on ObamaCare and cap-and-trade?  Normally I’d guess yes, but I’m not sure that Reid will get the luxury of listening to his constituents.  If he wants a big Democratic Party rescue, he’ll need the national interests pushing for both big agenda items, especially the unions and the hard-Left organizers.  Without them, he’s sunk, big warchest or not.  Also, he’s probably boxed into the Obama agenda thanks to his actions this year and the yoke he shares with Nancy Pelosi and Obama.  It’s probably too late to salvage independents in Nevada already.

If the NV GOP has any competency at all, running the commercial over and over again where Filthy Harry says the war in Iraq was lost (as well as hit parade of other Reidisms) ought to do the trick.  How cool would it be to dispatch two consecutive Senate Democrat Leaders?

hreid

“You kids get off of my lawn!”

August 24, 2009 Posted by | polls, Reid | 5 Comments

Blagojevich appoints Obama’s replacement

This whole Blago fiasco is more entertaining than chaining Barney Frank to a church altar.  Here’s the latest:

Blago, exercising his constitutional duty, has picked O’s Senate replacement: former IL AG Roland Burris.  Hey, nothing says “I’m innocent of these corruption charges” quite like picking a donor and political crony to fill this “golden” seat, right?

Harry Reid says the appointment ain’t happening.  Since Burris is black, how quick will the left accuse Reid of being racist?  Don’t hold your breath on that one, folks.  Anywho, Reid is probably out of luck on this one, but the legal wranglings could provide for some comedy gold.

December 30, 2008 Posted by | Blagojevich, corruption, Obama, Reid | 2 Comments

Franken’s plan to have Reid install him now toast?

If you’ve been following the MN Senate race, you know that Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) was certified the winner of the election over the batshiite crazy moonbat Al Franken by a couple of hundred votes.  The recount is about 92% done, and Coleman’s lead has been steady, now hovering around 300 or so.  That’s including an “oops, we missed a bag of heretofore undiscovered ballots the first time, so let’s count it now!” type of discovery that resulted in the Dems stealing the Washington state governor’s race in 2004.

In short, it looks as though Franken is going to lose the recount.

Will that make him concede the race?  Heck no!  He’s going to sue to get counted 12,000 absentee ballots that were lawfully rejected, hoping that he can convince a judge to change the election laws after the fact to apply retroactively.  If that doesn’t work, he’s going to ask the Democrat Senate to ignore the will of Minnesotans and to install him, not Coleman, into that Senate seat.  Before yesterday, Harry Reid showed an interest in doing that.  Today?  Not so much.  From ABC News blog:

…The fact that 60 is now off the table might sap enthusiasm and momentum for an extended legal battle for the would-be 59th Democratic seat — where Democrat Al Franken is locked in a recount with Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.

What’s the connection? First — it’s important to consider that recounts are fought in the legal realm as well as the public sphere. The possibility of Minnesota providing the magical Six-Oh to Democrats would have kept intense national attention on the race, and would have virtually guaranteed pressure from liberal activists to keep the fight alive to the end.
…
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has hinted that he’s willing to have the Senate intervene, if Democrats maintain questions about the integrity of the vote.

But would Reid want to take such a politically explosive step if it wouldn’t even bring him 60 votes? Particularly when Republicans will control at least 41 votes in the new Senate — enough to filibuster any such move, and effectively kill it?

Some Republicans, at least, think not.

“Saxby’s re-election ends the 2008 Election for all intents and purposes,” Republican strategist Vin Weber, a former House member from Minnesota, e-mails The Note. “By Friday, with Norm Coleman having won the Minnesota recount, the enthusiasm for overturning the results of an election will deflate rapidly. The Franken Campaign’s hopes that Minnesota would be the ‘60th’ seat are no longer relevant, and I suspect that moderate Democratic voices in the Senate will begin pouring cold water on the Franken-Reid effort to drag this matter onto the floor of the United State’s Senate.” …

Chambliss’ win guarantees that the left will not have a filibuster-proof majority.  There may be a lot of RINOs in the Senate (such as McCain, Voinovich, Specter, Snowe, and Collins), but one thing will always hold party loyalty together, and that is Senate representation.  If the Dems try to install Franken into a seat he didn’t win, the GOP will filibuster any attempt to do so.  Reid may be an idiot, but he’s not that much of an idiot.  He will pick his battles more carefully, since there really is no strategic difference between 58 and 59 liberal Senators.

December 3, 2008 Posted by | al franken, Minnesota, Reid | 1 Comment

Dems blame McCain’s plan…or lack of plan…for bailout deal collapse

Chris “Countrywide” Dodd:

Republican presidential nominee John McCain was blamed for de-railing negotiations by blindsiding lawmakers with his support for an alternative plan.

The ‘very contentious’ meeting broke up after Republican leaders said they had to go back to their rank-and-file to discuss the new proposal…

After the hour-long White House meeting, [Dodd] said: ‘What has happened here is that we have spent seven straight days to find a rescue plan for the economy.

‘What this looked like was a rescue plan for John McCain. To be distracted for two to three hours by political theatre doesn’t help.’

Democrats said the Republicans were on board with the deal until Mr McCain intervened an injected presidential politics into the situation.

Hmmm…that’s not what Reid says:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) completely dismissed McCain’s role in the meeting, saying that he spoke last, said nothing important and had little to do with the negotiations.

So which is it?  Did McCain offer no plan, or did he offer a plan that blew the bailout deal (you know, the one that had only four House Republicans agreeing to it?) out of the water?  Geez, pick a line of attack (regardless of whether it’s another typical liberal lie) and stick with it!  You lefties can’t seem to stick to your story lines, can you?

September 25, 2008 Posted by | McCain, Reid | 2 Comments

Night and Day, “Reid plays politics with America’s economy” edition

Red yesterday:

Reid specifically challenged McCain on Tuesday to take a position on the bailout package.

“I got some good news in the last hour or so … it appears that Sen. McCain is going to come out for this,” Reid announced.  (Turns out Reid was wrong. – Ed.)

Reid today:

A Democrat tells ABC News that, in a phone call late this afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that it would NOT be helpful for him to come back to Washington, D.C., to work on the Wall Street bailout bill.

Reid wants McCain to come to DC…then he doesn’t.  Theorizes Ed:

He wanted McCain on the hook so that Reid could blame McCain for the political fallout.  When McCain called Reid’s bluff — and that’s what appears to have happened here — Reid did what Reid always does: retreat.

I think Reid fears more than just the idea that McCain will “risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation’s economy.”  What Reid fears is that McCain will return to lead the Republican effort to reach a compromise, and the Senate and House GOP will let him do it.  If McCain takes ownership of the bailout effort and manages to get his suggestions on limiting executive compensation and so on as part of the finished product, he will be able to trot McCain-Dodd on the campaign trail as yet another reform he’s accomplished by working across the aisle.  And in a time of crisis, no less.

And what will Obama be able to say?  He gave a couple of speeches and raised cash for himself while McCain went to work for the nation.

Democrats: Country second, party first.  Disgusting!  And you folks wonder why I’m sick of politics?

September 24, 2008 Posted by | hypocrisy, McCain, Night and Day, Reid, shameful | 2 Comments

Financial crisis proves that Democrats are idiots

In addition to Reid’s comments that they don’t know what to do, this nugget illustrates their absurdity:

The Democratic-controlled Congress, acknowledging that it isn’t equipped to lead the way to a solution for the financial crisis and can’t agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get out of the way.

Lawmakers say they are unlikely to take action before, or to delay, their planned adjournments — Sept. 26 for the House of Representatives, a week later for the Senate. While they haven’t ruled out returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for help.

One reason, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, is that “no one knows what to do” at the moment. …

Another crisis, another Democrat vacation.

So the Bush administration’s policies are supposedly responsible for the financial sector mess we see right now, correct?  OK, then the Democrat response is to…ask for help from the administration?  In other words, criticize the administration for its actions, then demand that the “inept” administration do what you admittedly have no idea what to do.  Hypocritical, no?

By the way, when McCain says that Obama puts himself first and his country second, he’s 100% correct.  What a sad sack of anti-American crap!

September 19, 2008 Posted by | economic ignorance, hypocrisy, Obama, Reid | 3 Comments

Reid admits the obvious: I’m an economic illiterate

When Harry Reid isn’t suffering from fits of hypochondria about coal and oil “making us sick”, he spends his time screwing up the U.S. Senate and admitting his economic illiteracy to the world.  From ABC News blog:

ABC News’ Z. Byron Wolf reports from Capitol Hill: Don’t look for any legislation in the near future to address the financial crisis.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asked today what new regulatory actions Congress can take, said, bluntly, “No one knows what to do. We are in new territory here. This is a different game. We’re not here playing soccer, basketball or football, this is a new game and we’re going to have to figure out how to do it.”

…

And he seemed to forget how he voted on a now-controversial bill that largely de-regulated the financial services industry in 1999. It was written by Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, who has since retired and is a McCain economic adviser. And Democrats, including Reid, opposed the bill when it first passed the Senate with 54 votes.

But they voted for an updated version of the bill in December of 1999 and President Clinton signed it. Reid and all but 7 Democrats in office at the time voted for the version of the bill that ultimately became law even though he said he opposed the bill when he spoke on the Senate floor today.  Regardless, Reid said the de-regulation is less important than the current administration not enforcing remaining law.

He opposed the bill that, um, he voted for?  Man, that’s a neat trick!

Reid says “no one knows what to do”, yet McCain is the economic ignoramus?

September 18, 2008 Posted by | economic ignorance, hypocrisy, Reid | Leave a Comment

Quote of the day

From Harry Reid (D-NV), on why America shouldn’t be energy independent:

“Coal Makes Us Sick, Oil Makes Us Sick.”

Reid makes us all sick. Idiot.

July 1, 2008 Posted by | global warming, oil, quote of the day, Reid | 5 Comments

Reid: Founding Fathers would approve of pork

The more this asshat speaks, the more of a caricature he becomes.  From The Hill:

“As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks,” Reid said, noting that the Founders dictated in the Constitution that all spending should originate in Congress, not the executive branch. 

Yes, I’m sure that the original George W, as well as his homies Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc., thought that the proper role for the federal government was to pilfer taxpayer money to fund quarter-billion-dollar Bridges to Nowhere in Alaska or to confiscate darned near a million bucks of productive people’s fruits of labor to fund online courses for a NV community college.  What federal purposes those serve, I have no idea, but Reid swears that we fought the Revolution for that purpose.

Citizens Against Government Waste found a quote from Jefferson that, as luck would have it, seems to contradict Reid:

Thomas Jefferson made a similar prediction in a letter to James Madison dated March 6, 1796, challenging Madison’s proposition for improvements to roads used in a system of national mail delivery. Jefferson wrote:

Have you considered all the consequences of your proposition respecting post roads? I view it as a source of boundless patronage to the executive, jobbing to members of Congress & their friends, and a bottomless abyss of public money. You will begin by only appropriating the surplus of the post office revenues; but the other revenues will soon be called into their aid, and it will be a scene of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest. 

Then again, what does Jefferson know about what the Founding Fathers thought of pork?  It’s not like Tommy J was one of the Founding Fath…oh, wait.  Yeah, he was.  OK, never mind.

March 13, 2008 Posted by | pork, Reid | 2 Comments

Reid: Filibusters = stabbings

Just when I thought that moron couldn’t get any stupider, he shows me that I was incorrect in that assumption.  From Politico:

Reid and Democrats have pointed to the 72 cloture motions — which cut off debate and require 60 votes — as “filibusters.” Republicans say these are not true filibusters, since many of the motions pass overwhelmingly.

Nonetheless, Reid says Republican contentions that they’ve only forced 65 or so cloture motions proves the point. Here’s the stabbing quote:

“Is it 72; is it 65? It’s like you’re charged with aggravated assault and the complaint says you stabbed somebody 72 times and you say no, it’s 65 times,” Reid said.

Reid liked the analogy so much he used it again on a follow up question. “The picture is clear what the Republicans have done. Whether the stab was 72 times or 65 times — a lot of filibusters,” Reid said. “The American people see what’s going on.” (We sure do, and we see you’re a buffoon and a hypocrite. – Ed.)

Oh, I see.  So when Dems were in the minority, they were stabbing Bush’s judicial nominees?  How odd, since I seem to recall Harry saying that those “stabbings” were a way to constrain the majority (which, presumably, is a good thing).  Now that the shoe’s on the other foot, these “stabbings” sure seem a lot more painful.

Jackass.

March 6, 2008 Posted by | Reid | 1 Comment

Reid: GOP is “stalling” a motion that I made

If, by “stalling”, you mean advancing YOUR motion to the floor of the Senate for an actual vote so America can see you take a position, then yeah…stalling.  From Ace of Spades HQ:

This is a little inside baseball but it nicely demonstrates just what tools the Democrats are.

Reid and Dick Durbin are accusing Senate Republicans of ‘stalling’ debate on a housing bailout bill. How did those nasty Republicans do that? By voting FOR a motion Reid himself made.

Yesterday Reid brought up a bill that would have cut off funding for the troops in Iraq and set a withdrawal date. They seem to do this every week or so, I imagine it’s a fundraising tactic. Normally the Republicans filibuster, the nutroots hit the donate button and business goes on.

But the evil Republicans didn’t play by the rules and called Harry’s bluff basically saying, ‘hey, there’s a lot of good shit going on in Iraq to talk about, so let’s have it’. This sets the stage for 30 hours of floor debate on Iraq.

Now Reid is upset that he can’t bring up the housing bailout bill and because the Republicans exposed him as a craven jackass who uses money for the troops as part of just another legislative game to be played.

And to top things off by demonstrating just how clueless he is, Reid said yesterday that ‘a civil war rages’ in Iraq. Harry? You need some updated talking points.

So when Senate Democrats say they ‘support the troops’, remember what they really mean is they support their use as a political weapon but not much else. 

If you have not yet done so, feel free to go ahead and question the left’s patriotism.

February 27, 2008 Posted by | defeatism, Iraq, Reid, shameful | Leave a Comment

Reid: Al Qaeda “winning”

I’m telling you to go ahead and mark this on your calendar as a prediction made three years out: Harry Reid will not run for re-election in 2010.  That could be the only sane explanation for why he keeps saying crazy shiite like this with impunity.

Harry Reid doesn’t know when to give up, or more precisely, when to give up on giving up. After spending the last several months trying to live down his declaration of America’s defeat in Iraq on the Senate floor, Reid once again gave al-Qaeda a propaganda boost that sounds as if he took it from Ayman al-Zawahiri’s latest video message:

Indeed, Republicans have gotten their way in the battle over spending, have forced Democrats to jettison rollbacks of tax breaks for oil companies, and have beaten back attempts to pay for expanded children’s health care programs with a tobacco tax increase. Even though they’re in the minority, the GOP, backed by President Bush, has used the filibuster to block Democratic priorities over and over this fall.

“Who’s winning?” Reid asked a group of reporters. “Big Oil, Big Tobacco. … Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq. … The American people are losing.”

Really? I realize that Reid spends most of his days in denial, but even the media has dropped this meme. The Petraeus surge has driven AQ to the brink of complete disaster in Iraq, so much so that many of them have shifted to Pakistan. The level of violence in Iraq has starkly decreased, avoiding the “civil war” that Reid seems eager to declare.

Remember Hillary’s insult to David Petraeus involving a willful suspension of disbelief? Reid must have a willful suspension of reality.

Go to hell, Reid.

December 19, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, Iraq, Reid, shameful | 1 Comment

Specter thinks Reid is a mental lightweight

How badly must one suck in order to have Arlen Sphincter (RINO-PA) question one’s mental acumen?  From the Washington Times:

Sen. Arlen Specter today challenged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s ability to serve as leader, saying the Nevada Democrat sabotaged progress on long-stalled spending and taxes bills by calling Republican lawmakers “puppets” for President Bush.

“I really wonder if he’s up to the job when he resorts to that kind of statement, which can only further the level of rancor and animosity with that kind of an insulting comment,” Mr. Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, said on the Senate floor.

The criticism punctuated the stalemate in the Democrat-led Congress, which is fast approaching the end of the session without a fix to tax increases set to clobber middle-class families next month and without passing 11 of the 12 annual appropriation bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

Meanwhile, Mr. Reid is poised to call another vote linking emergency war funds to a plan for a U.S. pullout from Iraq. The same measure failed in a vote lost month, as did 63 similar Iraq votes this year.

Quips Bryan at Hot Air:

By all means, Sen. Reid, let’s have surrender vote #64 even while things are looking up in Iraq. Let’s hammer the middle class with a tax hike and call the people that you need to bail you out “puppets.” Let’s lay off thousands of defense workers in the middle of a war. That’s some brilliant statecraft you’ve got working there.

No wonder Reid’s approval ratings in Nevada are abyssmal.

December 6, 2007 Posted by | Reid | 1 Comment

Murtha: “Surge is working”; Reid: “No, it’s not!”

Someone check the forecast of Hell, because Abscam Jack “Let’s redeploy Iraq troops to ‘nearby’ Okinawa” Murtha conceded that the surge is working.  However, true to his prior word not to believe any progress reports from Iraq that might show the surge has reaped benefits, Harry “Land Shark” Reid dismisses his buddy Murtha’s observation.  From Politico:

Democrats are increasingly bailing on their previously held view that the troop surge in Iraq has been a “failure,” but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn’t ready to jump on the bandwagon with other Democrats who say the surge has worked.

The Senate re-opened for business on Monday after a two-week Thanksgiving break, during which key Democrats traveled to Iraq and declared that the surge is working, at least from a security and military perspective. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one the top war critics, stunned fellow Democrats late last week with his statement that “the surge is working,” even though he added that political reconciliation has been lagging. Murtha’s view was backed by Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), who also said the surge worked after he returned from Iraq.

But Reid, in a Monday press conference, ceded no ground.

“The surge hasn’t accomplished its goals,” Reid said. “… We’re involved, still, in an intractable civil war.” 

Reid can almost taste the defeat, ergo he won’t allow anyone (including the insolent pukes within his own party) to pull the white flag out of his hand.

It’s official, Reid: You suck.  Big time.  Punk #ss b#tch.

December 4, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, Iraq, Reid | 2 Comments

Reid: CA wildfires result of global “warming”

The sleazy unpopular senator from Nevada has a theory as to what’s behind the recent spate of wildfires in southern California:

“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package. 

See, if those mean ol’ Republicans would have voted on Reid’s energy plan, then Reid could have stopped global “warming” and southern California wouldn’t be roasting right now.

And to think I thought arsonists may have had something to do with some of these fires!

Wait, Harry, let me guess: global “warming” caused these otherwise decent chaps to lose their minds and go on an arson spree. Is that it?

Idiot.

October 24, 2007 Posted by | global warming, Reid | 1 Comment

Reid to retire in 2010?

It’s a rumor, to be sure.  With poll numbers like these, who can blame him?  Good grief, how it must chap Harry’s defeatist posterior that he ranks below Dubya and Rush in his own state!

October 16, 2007 Posted by | polls, Reid | 1 Comment

Rush’s “phony soldier” flap

This is probably the only time I’m going to bring this up, because the MSM and the left (pardon the redundancy) will be keeping this going for a while. Last week on his show, Rush Limbaugh was talking to a caller, and the following exchange took place (note that this exchange wasn’t Dowdified like the Media Morons and BowelMovement.org have done):

RUSH: It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it’s not. And what’s really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

RUSH: It’s frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

John F’ing Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam) called Limbaugh’s remarks “disgusting and an embarrassment.” Yeah, the same Kerry who completely made up stories about atrocities he allegedly saw in ‘Nam (and later admitted he never saw it, but just heard about it). The same Kerry whose famous “cut of ears, cut off limbs, fashion reminiscent of Jenjiss Khan, etc.” lies earned him the praise and adoration of the guys he served with to the point that these guys sank his presidential aspirations faster than a Ted Kennedrunk car. Yeah, that guy.

And Tom Harkin says wonders if Rush “was just high on his drugs again.” Tee-hee-hee…funny, considering that Harkin is himself a “phony war hero”, too!

Sen. Harry “Land Shark” Reid wants a Senate resolution of condemnation, and has dared uttered these words:

Reid stated that he is confident that “Republicans join with us in overwhelming numbers,” arguing that “anything less would be a double standard that has no place in the United States Senate.”

“Double standard”, Reid? You mean like showing outrage to someone like Limbaugh but not at ABC News for talking about the very same thing? You mean like being torqued about Limbaugh referencing these DOJ “phony soldier” prosecutions (Operation Stolen Valor)? Is that the kind of double standard to which you refer, you sanctimonious pile of chicken squeeze? No damned wonder your approval ratings are at 19%!

This is simple and requires no further explanation, and to reject this is to reject reality: the “phony soldiers” to which Limbaugh referred are people like Jesse Macbeth, Micah Wright, Scott Beauchamp, the perps in Operation Stolen Valor, and others who are not only against the war (nothing wrong with that), but who are against the war and totally fabricate credentials and events that simply are not true and never happened. Is Reid defending Macbeth and the other shameful liars, or is he just willfully disregarding facts and reality the way that the left always does? You tell me.

Besides, is there anything more disingenuous for a leftist like Reid to pretend to care about the troops? Reid says that they’ve already lost the war, and he defends Abscam Jack Murtha who has slandered our troops and branded them as “cold-blooded killers” (and Abscam Jack is currently being sued for such defamation). Reid has done everything within his power to secure defeat so as to gain political power. And Reid has the temerity to pretend to care about the soldiers? Un-freakin’-believable.

October 2, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, moonbats, Reid, Rush, shameful | 11 Comments

Reid gets Clintonesque with meaning of "compromise"

From the LA Slimes:

Sen. Harry Reid offered his cooperation in December when the Iraq Study Group unveiled its recommendations with a plaintive call for a bipartisan effort to change the course of the war.

“Democrats will work with our Republican colleagues,” promised the Nevada Democrat and soon-to-be majority leader, just weeks after an election that swept Democrats into the congressional majority on a wave of public frustration over Iraq.

Eight bitter months and nine major Iraq-related votes later, the meaning of Reid’s pledge has come into sharp focus: Democrats will work with any GOP lawmaker willing to vote for a mandatory troop withdrawal; other Republicans need not apply.

This bellicose, uncompromising legislative strategy — on display again this week as Reid refused to allow votes on nonbinding GOP-backed Iraq proposals — has been an obstacle to any real bipartisan compromise on the war all year. And it effectively ended any chance that a significant number of Republican lawmakers critical of the war would join with Democrats this summer on any Iraq-related legislation.

The Democratic strategy has yet to yield many tangible results. Just eight of the 250 Republicans in the House and Senate have joined with Democrats calling for a withdrawal.

Excellent leadership, Harry. For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

July 23, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, Reid | Leave a Comment

Reid to moonbat base: Oops, our bad!

From the Turkish Press:

Anti-war Senate Democrats Tuesday plotted a new showdown with US President George W. Bush over Iraq, but admitted they had erred by making supporters think they could end the war.

“On Iraq, we’re going to hold the president’s feet to the fire,” said Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, saying debate would start in two weeks time.

Less than a month after bowing to Bush’s demands and approving a 100 billion dollar war budget, Democratic leaders pledged a new challenge to the White House on withdrawal timelines, troop readiness and curtailing the president’s authority to continue the fight.

Reid said however that Democrats, saddled with a thin majority in Congress, had raised unrealistic expectations about their ability to end the war, among supporters who powered their takeover of Congress last year.

“We set the bar too high,” he said, noting that under Senate rules, Democrats needed 60 votes in the 100 seat chamber to thwart Republican blocking tactics.

Translation: “We said what you wanted to hear, but we knew there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in Havana that we could do a damned thing about Iraq. Oh, well, at least it got us elected. Solving problems isn’t really our forté, anyway. Bitching about them, on the other hand…”

Just as I have a bad case of buyer’s remorse for having voted for Bush, the left (especially the moonbatosphere) is having an equally bad case of buyer’s remorse for putting in these shysters last November.

June 13, 2007 Posted by | moonbats, Reid | Leave a Comment

Keep talking, Reid … UPDATE: Video link to Dennis Miller’s shredding of Reid

UPDATE at the end of the post.

From Rasmussen:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now viewed favorably by 19% of American voters and unfavorably by 45%. Just 3% have a Very Favorable opinion while 22% hold a Very Unfavorable views.

Reid has been very visible over the past week in the furor over immigration reform. The effort to pass a bill that was more popular in Congress than among voters may have hurt public perceptions of the Democratic leader. His ratings are down from a month ago when 26% had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Senator. Reid’s highest ratings were 30% favorable in February.

The face of the Democrats in the Senate is roughly half as popular as Jorgé W. Bush. I’d be interested to see what the voters of NV think of their nutjob Senator.

Hey, in fairness, I gotta say what the new RNC Chair is facing:

A new poll shows that U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez’s approval ratings with voters have plunged to an all-time low, apparently reflecting his support for a controversial immigration-reform bill.

Only 37 percent of those polled by Quinnipiac University approved of the way Martinez was handling his job, while 34 percent disapproved and the rest were undecided. That’s down from a high of 48 percent approval — and 22 percent disapproval — in February, before the latest immigration bill was announced.

“The rest were undecided” as to whether he sucks or blows. We Floridians aren’t exactly enamored with our Senator, either.

UPDATE (06/11/2007 – 12:56 P.M. EST): Hat tip to Lee for drawing my attention to this (link to video here). Dennis Miller mercilessly (and justifiably) rips Reid a new one.

June 11, 2007 Posted by | polls, Reid | Leave a Comment

KS Dem guv pulls a Blanco, Reid joins in after debunking

“Shame” is a word missing from the Dems’ vocabulary. From Hot Air:

When disaster strikes, Democrats increasingly turn to blaming Bush rather than leading their voters through the proverbial–or literal–storm. Blame Bush first and ask questions later. That’s what looks like Kansas Gov Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, tried in the wake of last Friday’s deadly tornado in Greensburg.
With President Bush set to travel to now-razed Greensburg, Kan., on Wednesday to view the destruction wrought by Friday’s 205 mph twister, Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said she planned to talk with him about her contention that National Guard deployments to Iraq hampered the disaster response.

“I don’t think there is any question if you are missing trucks, Humvees and helicopters that the response is going to be slower,” she said Monday. “The real victims here will be the residents of Greensburg, because the recovery will be at a slower pace.”

Sebelius said that with other states facing similar limitations, “stuff that we would have borrowed is gone.”

The problem is, there is a question about all that “missing” stuff. It’s not missing. And Kansas doesn’t need it.
…
Sibelius seems to have wanted to have her own Katrina, but it didn’t quite work out. First, she’s wrong and Brownback and WH Press Secretary Tony Snow rebutted her with the facts. Kansas got what it needed and FEMA even moved supplies in before requests came in. The Iraq war had no impact on equipment or the relief effort. Second, while Katrina worked out great for the DNC it didn’t work out so well for Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco. So Sibelius backtracked.

As Snow pointed out, only 10% of KS National Guard is deployed to Iraq, and only 10% of the remaining 7000 were moved to the disaster area. Also, as Paula Zahn had to painfully point out, “Kansas has not asked for any reinforcements or extra equipment from neighboring states…. The Army says it has enough equipment for both a simulated drill and the real-life disaster, and argues, if the governor of Kansas has an urgent need for more bulldozers, backhoes, or Black Hawk helicopters, she only has to ask.”

Having been confronted with those pesky fact thingys, Sebelius backtracked…but Reid did not. Oopsie.

I am reminded of a skit on SNL where Daryl Hammond plays Chris Matthews and Dan Aykroyd plays Andrew Card. Card makes outlandish claims about Bush, such as “he is 10 ft. tall” and other widly insane stuff. Matthews asks: “Does it bother you that none of that is true?”, to which Card responds “If it doesn’t bother Rove, it doesn’t bother me.”

This is the same kind of thing. Sebelius spits out some easily verifiable claptrap which is almost immediately debunked, yet Reid parrots the discredited lie anyway. Hey, if it doesn’t bother the Dems as a whole that none of that was true, then it doesn’t bother Reid or Sebelius.

May 9, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, Reid, shameful | Leave a Comment

Lowry commends Reid’s honesty

As I mentioned before, and Rich Lowry echoes, Harry Reid didn’t say anything that his party doesn’t truly believe. From Lowry:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a bright, shining moment of honesty when he said that the war in Iraq is lost.
He unburdened himself of what he and many of his colleagues have long believed about the war. Now if only Democrats saw fit to continue with their truthtelling. Then they would acknowledge that their mandate for a U.S. withdrawal beginning in October is a policy predicated on our defeat, and that they don’t think anything can or should be done about Iran and al Qaeda feasting on a prostrate Iraq and the country possibly descending into genocidal bloodletting.

This position would be unimpeachably logical. It would accept, in the words Reid has repeated a lot lately, “facts and reality,” as Democrats see them. One could strenuously disagree with this position but still see a certain honor in its frankness and internal consistency.

Democrats, of course, are doing nothing of the kind. Instead, after Reid’s “lost” comment, they retreated back into their fog of evasion, contradictions, and groan-inducing implausibilities. The party of defeat has a deep identity crisis because it can’t admit what it is, and thus lives a life of dishonesty and unconvincing denial. (Such dishonesty and deception isn’t unique to Iraq, since Dems are dishonest about their true feelings on a lot of issues they know are rejected by normal America. – Ed.)

Reid didn’t disavow his remark, but his spokesman said that in the future he will “couch it more.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said that Reid had “more a problem of tone rather than of substance.” Democrats therefore have resolved themselves to find euphemisms for the word “lost.” Their current favorite is “there is no military solution in Iraq.”

Asked about his “lost” comment on CNN, Reid said, “I agree with Gen. Petraeus,” because Petraeus has said only part of the war is military. Saying that the war is multifaceted, however, bears no relation to the proposition that it is lost. Pressed on as to what message it sends to the troops to tell them the war is unwinnable, Reid said, “Gen. Petraeus has told them that.” Really? Reid apparently inhabits an alternate reality created by his need to weasel his way out of his own convictions on the war.

Reid doesn’t want to hear it if Petraeus has anything positive to say about the war. “I don’t believe him,” Reid said of Petraeus’s reports of progress. This is not surprising. Like many Democrats, Reid has a faith in defeat that is impervious to all contrary evidence. Acknowledging any fluidity in conditions in Iraq — say, how our position has improved in Anbar province in recent months — is to tacitly admit the folly of making final statements about defeat or victory. So Reid fixates on exactly the indicator that al Qaeda in Iraq wants him to — the spectacular suicide bombings meant to undermine our will.

To compensate for giving up on this war, Democrats conjure an imaginary Iraq War to which they will be utterly committed and which we will fight until glorious victory. That is the war we supposedly will fight against al Qaeda in Iraq — after, of course, we withdraw our troops and hand over the Anbar and Diyala provinces to it. Sen. Chuck Schumer, in Reid cleanup mode, says then we’ll be wondrously positioned to go “after an al-Qaida camp that might arise in Iraq.” Might? We already are engaged in a fight with al Qaeda in Iraq now — to keep it from stoking a full-scale sectarian war and from taking over swathes of Iraq — but the Democrats think that we’ve lost it.

“No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats,” Reid maintains. What a pathetic canard. As if believing a war is lost has no effect on your will to succeed in it. Reid might have been right if he had said the past tense, “wanted.”

Democrats are under no obligation to think the war can be won. But they should feel obliged to their consciences and voters to be forthright about what they believe. Waiting for them to do that seems the real lost cause.

Notice that when Reid thinks he hears Gen. Petraeus say the war is lost, he believes him…but when the same Gen. Petraeus says there is progress in Iraq, Reid doesn’t believe him. Why, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that Reid is believing only what he wants to hear! I know, I know…that’s just crazy talk.

The left is just too heavily invested in defeat to concede progress or acknowledge victories that occur along the way. They’re like compulsive gamblers who keep pumping their coins into the same slot machine because they just know it’s going to pay off any minute now.

April 30, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, Iraq, Reid | Leave a Comment

Al Qaeda quoting Reid’s defeatism

You lefties can spin this all you like, but the inescapable conclusion is that Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader of the United States, has emboldened Al Qaeda, who is the greatest enemy to America today (and yes, moonbats, they are more of an enemy than George Bush!).

From Weasel Zippers:

Islamic State Of Iraq: The Cross Worshippers And Their Henchmen Plans Have Collapsed Apr 25, 2007 By Ubaidah Al-Saif, Jihad Unspun Arabic Source: Al-Fajr Media As usual, this was followed by a swift visit by the new (American) Defense Minister “Gates” who said, “The American support to the Maliki government is not unlimited”, insinuating that the American administration is impatient with the Maliki government that is incapable of handling the strikes of the Mujahideen. This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader (sic) Harry Reid who previously said, “The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.”

Will someone explain to me how Reid’s actions don’t meet the Constitution’s definition of “treason”?

April 27, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, Reid, treason | Leave a Comment

Sen. Inhofe: "Recall Reid!"

From NewsMax:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should be recalled by voters over his “un-American” remarks about the Iraq war, Sen. James Inhofe declared.

Speaking with NewsMax pundit Steve Malzberg on “Bill Bennett’s Morning in America” radio program Wednesday morning, Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, expressed outrage over Reid’s criticism of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, his call for a timetable for withdrawal and his assertion that the Iraq war is “lost.”

Asked if the Nevada Democrat should resign from his leadership position because of his comments, Inhofe said: “I think it’s more serious than that. I think there should be a recall . . . for saying something as un-American as that.”

He also said: “But it would have to emanate from the people who elected him.

“I can’t imagine that something isn’t going to happen.”

I can. Reid was just re-elected in ’04, in a state that Bush carried the same night. The senile old coot may be an embarrassment, but the good people of Nevada keep sending him back.

April 26, 2007 Posted by | Reid | Leave a Comment

Dems backing off from Reid’s "war is lost" sentiment

Sure, they believe the war is lost. But they’re not completely stupid. They don’t want to be portrayed (accurately, I might add) as being anti-troop, and Marines like Pat Dollard calling out Reid certainly doesn’t bolster the left’s facade of “supporting the troops”. From Politico:

Several leading Democrats said this week that they did not agree with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s recent statement that “the war is lost” in Iraq, even while they support his broader message.

But they did agree that Reid’s wording was clumsy and potentially damaging. Even the Nevada Democrat himself appeared to be backing away from his remark.

Jim Manley, Reid’s spokesman, said earlier that the “war is lost” comment was not in Reid’s prepared text for the news conference last Thursday. But from now on, Manley said, the senator will “couch it more”: The mission in Iraq is not working and must be changed.

Must have been a Kerryesque “botched joke” (which, coincidentally, also maligned the troops), right? Continuing:

Democrats have long tried to shed their image of being soft on national defense. Recent polls suggest they are making strides, showing that more voters trust congressional Democrats than they do the president to handle the situation in Iraq.

But statements such as Reid’s — while delighting those who have turned against the war — provided Republicans an opportunity to shift focus from the merits of President Bush’s Iraq war strategy to the level of support from Democrats for the troops.

If the Democrats would spend a fraction of the time coming up with a non-defeatist strategy of their own, instead of poormouthing our fine soldiers, then such efforts by the GOP to portray them (accurately, I might add) as being soft on defense would fail worse than Ted Kennedy at sobriety. Continuing:

None of almost a dozen Democrats contacted by The Politico said they agreed with Reid’s statement. Instead, they support what they believed was his overall theme: The war cannot be won militarily, and the president must adjust his strategy. They just wouldn’t have said it as Reid did.
…
Some launched into Clintonesque explanations.

“I think it depends entirely on what your definition of ‘lost’ means. That sounded familiar, didn’t it?” former senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, said to laughter on Ed Schultz’s radio talk show Monday. “What I mean is, I don’t think there is winning or losing in Iraq. There is certainly no military victory if it’s used in that regard. The only way there can be security and peace on the ground in Iraq is for there to be a political solution.”

We can always rely on the left to complicate simple terms like “sex”, “is”, and “lost”, can’t we? Nicely done, Silky Pony.

Finally, this nugget:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) deflected the question, saying that the war was never defined and that his 2002 vote should not have been construed as a green light to invade Iraq.

Right. You voted to authorize the president to go to war, then you have the nerve to tell us that your vote shouldn’t have been construed as a vote to go to war. Bubba and Silky Pony might be able to get away with such creative word-mangling, but you can’t, Harkin.

April 25, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, Iraq, John Edwards, Reid | Leave a Comment

Marine not feeling the Dems’ love

If the left purports to “support the troops”, they aren’t very good at showing it. This Marine seems to, shall we say, vehemently disagree with “douche” Harry Reid’s assessment that the war in Iraq is “lost”. From Pat Dollard:

yeah and i got a qoute for that douche harry reid. these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or atleast the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP’s voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA’s. it sucks that iraqi’s have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete shit more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday. we could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. and then we could wait for 3,000 more american civilians to die before we say “hey thats not nice” again. and the sad thing is after we WIN this war. people like him will say he was there for us the whole time.

Semper Fi, sir. Please be aware that most of us do not share Senator Douche’s anti-soldier defeatist sentiments.

April 24, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, Iraq, Reid | Leave a Comment

Bush vs. Congress on pork-laden Iraq spending bill

From Dick Morris:

Democrats in Congress are heading into a game of chicken with the Bush White House akin to the Gingrich-Clinton government shutdown battle of 1995-96. The roles are reversed this time – so the Republicans are likely to prevail.

The consequences will be lasting. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will find their party shattered. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be forced to choose sides in their party’s schism.

The game will unfold predictably. The House and the Senate will compromise on the differences in their legislation funding the Iraq War; the end product, carrying poison-pill language that sets a deadline for troop withdrawal, will go to the White House to face an inevitable presidential veto. The Democrats’ override attempt will fail – and a deadlock will ensue.

Then the Democrats will threaten to withhold funding for the war in Iraq unless the White House agrees to some form of deadline. The Bush administration will reply that it will never agree to a schedule for troop withdrawal – and both sides will glare at the other across an abyss.

But Bush will, inevitably, win the game of chicken. Pelosi and Reid have too much sense to be caught denying funding to troops in combat. Bush will make the price of obstinacy too great for the Democrats to bear.

Nobody will want to be in the position of cutting off funding and appearing to undermine the troops during a war.

But the consequences for Pelosi of a retreat will be serious: She’ll leave behind her the party’s left – who will never vote for funding without also mandating withdrawal. Pelosi will have to scramble and craft a majority with a combination of Republican votes and support from the center of her own party.

The speaker will probably wind up having to vote against the majority of her Democratic members. That spectacle won’t be healthy for her future authority or control.

If the Republicans are smart, they will let Pelosi hang by her own rope and will force her to break her party apart by twisting arms for every last vote to pass a funding bill.
…
The left will not forgive a vote to fund the war without requiring a withdrawal date – but the general electorate will not look kindly on pulling back funds during a war.

For his part, President Bush needs to stand firm as this process unfolds. The split the funding resolution will catalyze in the Democratic Party may be his party’s only hope of hanging onto the White House in 2008. He should resist calls for compromise, since any halfway solution or diplomatic wording that could appeal to both sides will rescue the Democrats from the horns of their dilemma – and run most or all of the risks for the troops and the mission in Iraq as the current bills present.

Bush should demand a clean appropriations bill or guarantee a veto. If he doesn’t flinch and congressional Republicans don’t defect, it will be bad news for the Democrats.

This is a rather rosy assessment by Morris that makes what I believe to be a very faulty assumption. The assumption is that if the Dem Congress sends Bush a pork-laden Iraq appropriations bill and Bush vetoes it, the Dems in Congress would look bad. With the MSM on the Dems’ side? Pfffft! Puh-leeeeze!

I recall the government shutdown of 1995-96 quite well. Bubba’s approval ratings were quite low before the shutdown, as evidenced by his party’s monumental and wholesale electoral #sskicking in November ’94. The new GOP Congress sent Bubba a budget that slashed federal spending on a plethora of wasteful (and unconstitutional) programs. The GOP banked on Bubba signing the bill to avoid risking the government shutdown, and since his approval ratings were already low, surely he’d sign it. They bet on the wrong horse.

Bubba got in front of his sycophants in the media and blamed the mean ol’ GOP for wanting to shut down the government because he wouldn’t let them starve kids and kick old people in the streets. Only a boob would believe that was the GOP’s desires, but fortunately for Bubba, many a leftist boob work in the MSM. Bubba and the MSM successfully demonized the GOP Congress for shutting down the government, Bubba’s approval ratings rebounded, and he went on to win a decisive re-election effort.

Shoe’s on the other foot now. We have a Republican president and a Democrat Congress threatening a train wreck. Who would the MSM demonize? Morris seems to think it will be the Dems who get demonized. I’d like to think he’s right on this, but I don’t. The MSM is just too freakin’ slanted to allow Mistress Nancy and Harry “Land Shark” Reid, not to mention Shrillary and Osamabama, to take a big hit on this. The headlines would read “Bush denies Iraq soldiers funds, food, weapons”.

Miss dhimmi in Syria, but Mistress Chicken in D.C.!

April 4, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, Iraq, media bias, Obama, Pelosi, Reid | Leave a Comment

"Bush mocks pork in war funding"

Better late than never? From the Washington Times:

President Bush yesterday ridiculed House and Senate lawmakers for pork-laden Iraq war funding bills that set 2008 deadlines for full U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, vowing to veto what he called “arbitrary” limits on U.S. military commanders.

Addressing a group of raucous ranchers at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association in Washington, the president drew laughter and applause as he lampooned the competing bills now working their ways through Congress.

On the Senate bill, Mr. Bush noted that “there’s $3.5 million for visitors to tour the Capitol and see for themselves how Congress works.” To loud laughter from the cattlemen, he added: “I’m not kidding you.”

“The bill includes $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers,” he said to laughter. “There’s $6.4 million for the House of Representatives’ salaries and expense accounts. I don’t know what that is, but it is not related to the war and protecting the United States of America,” he said to more laughter and applause.

The president urged lawmakers to deliver a bill he can sign.

“Here’s the bottom line: The House and Senate bills have too much pork, too many conditions on our commanders, and an artificial timetable for withdrawal,” Mr. Bush said. “And I have made it clear for weeks, if either version comes to my desk, I’m going to veto it.

Hey, whaddaya know! The man might dust off his veto pen for the second! Had he known where that pen was over the last five or so years when his party was porkin’ it up, he might have spared his party the bloodbath of last November (well, partially spared them, anyway). Continuing:

“It is also clear from the strong opposition in both houses that my veto would be sustained. Yet Congress continues to pursue these bills, and as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field,” he said.

Democrats, however, accused the president of stubbornly sticking with a failed Iraq policy and demanded that Mr. Bush listen to the American people.

“Now that congressional Democrats have voted to give the troops the resources they need in combat, including a strategy to change course and get them out of a civil war, it’s up to the president to drop his stubborn veto threat so there is no delay in funding for our troops,” said Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “He should also stop ignoring the will of the American people, put partisanship aside and work with Congress to fix his failed policies in Iraq.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada agreed.

“Why doesn’t he get real with what’s going on with the world?” he said after Mr. Bush’s speech. “We’re not holding up funding in Iraq, and he knows that. Why doesn’t he deal with the real issues facing the American people?”

How disingenuous (yet typical) of the left! If Reid and his leftard ilk can explain how peanut and spinach subsidies (and other pork projects) have squat to do with war funding, I’d love to hear it.

March 29, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, pork, Reid | Leave a Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers