Cowards Cut And Run!!
By thespis148 Posted in User Blogs — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In her column today, Mona Charen details the democrat party history of being the cut and run party. Ms. Charen is most compelling in her conclusive paragraphs.
"The Clinton administration was as adamant that Saddam had WMDs as the Bush administration. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declared in 1998 that "what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." [Emphasis added.] Liberals acknowledge the Clinton position but hasten to remind us that "Clinton didn't go to war." No. Because the Democrats are the party of talk, endless negotiations and U.N. resolutions. Even when faced with potentially catastrophic threats, they will not act militarily.
And now, in the midst of a grave conflict, they stoop to any lie to discredit a president who did not lack the courage to act."
The battle continued this afternoon with a resolution on the floor of the House of Representatives calling for the immediate withdrawl of the troops from Iraq. There was an extremely heated and partisan debate. Jean Schmidt of Ohio sent a strong message to Representative Murtha. Tonight, we in Ohio are very proud of Jean Schmidt! In the 7:00pm. hour of Hardball with Chris Matthews, the host stated that these statements by congresswoman Schmidt might "choke her career." This statement by Chris Matthews demonstrates, once again, his partisan view of everything. Schmidt was simply relaying an email message from a consituent in Ohio!
According to this blogger, the procedural vote on the rule passed, but the actual vote to pull out of Iraq remains for later tonight. Check for later updates.
Congratulations to the Republicans in the House for exposing the fraudulent proposal by Representative Murtha. America can not cut and run now!
Thanks to Ian Schwartz for the great clip of Jean Schmidt-you really ought to look at it!
It is my conjecture that all of the signs point to a co-ordinated effort from the democrat party spin machine to use Representative Murtha (as a supposed supporter of the military) as the catalyst to ignite a debate prior to the Thanksgiving recess. Congressman Murtha's political stunt was already parroted by Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, and others in the mainstream media. Between now and the end of the year, it is likely that this strategy will be exposed by leaks from democrat party officials or congressional staff.
I'm sounding like a troll! Please forgive me almighty redstaters!
Clinton relied on real evidence.
You're making a distinction between the evidence used by Clinton and that used by Bush. So that means one of two things:
- Clinton's "real" evidence indicated no WMD, unlike Bush's "fake" evidence. Which means he lied like a rug in innumerable public statements in which he asserted the contrary.
- Clinton's "real" evidence indicated the presence of WMD, just like Bush's "fake" evidence. So Clinton is a craven coward who was happily willing to expose American citizens and interests to deadly danger, and also that Bush did not lie, and was fully justified in taking us into war.
Which is it, El Politico?
The republican leadership forced her to recant the statement.
Why? Because she besmirched the character of a Veteran.
You may disagree with Rep. Murtha, but to call him a coward is beyond the pale.
Is this true?
"Dennis Hastert -- the Speaker of the House who never served -- accused Jack Murtha of being a coward."
Clinton didn't have the same "evidence" Bush had. Clinton relied on real evidence.