...was fought on the floor of the House of Representatives last night. I'm not going to belabor you with my take on last night proceedings-- though I'll certainly inject some --what I will do is share some telling reaction from several others who had lots to say about last nights showdown.

Anyone who reads this blog knows I don't care much for Liberalism. Liberalism, as it currently manifests itself, is a disease; a cancer; a blight on the face of this nation. And it must be Excised. But again, as stated in previous posts, Ideals are not so easily killed. Instead, ideals-- like some viruses --must be allowed to run their course, until such time the body can adapt and shrug it off. Of course, sometimes the body dies, or is irreparably damaged, but without a vaccine-- a greater, more powerful Ideal --what other choice is there?

Which is where we find ourselves this morning. The virus of Liberalism has been coursing through the veins of this nation for quite a long while, but it appears the fever may now be breaking. Democracy may yet be saved in this nation. The Democratic party, however, is all but hopeless. A new Ideal must be built in the minds of its adherents if it "hopes" to survive what's coming.

A lot of Opinion is raining down in America this morning, not unlike atomic fallout in that every brow dirtied with ash is sullied, burned, and the potential for damage too great to be ignored.


Posted by Tom Brevin:
Hats Off To Three Democrats
November 19, 2005

"Let's recap what happened last night. After months of publicly berating President Bush as a liar over pre-war intel and after invoking a rarely used rule to shut down the Senate two weeks ago, Democrats are crying foul because....? Because Republicans challenged them to stop trying to have it both ways on Iraq after a leading, well-respected member of the Democratic party came out and called for the immediate withdrawal of troops.

Did the resolution contain the language the most Democrats would have liked? No. But politics ain't beanbag (which the Dems have shown by the examples listed above) and the bottom line is that you have to win elections if you want to control the process.

That being said, you'd have to be a fool to believe there are only three Democrats in the House who support the language of the resolution offered last night to bring the troops home immediately. At the top of the list is Nancy Pelosi who, instead of voting her conscience and representing her constituents, decided to play victim and accuse Republicans of "politicizing the war" - something she's been doing non-stop for more than two years now.

Wanting to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq doesn't make you a coward. What does make you a coward is when you truly believe we should get our troops out of Iraq immediately, you have a chance to vote for doing exactly that, and you choose not to because you fear the political consequences of being on record revealing your position to the public. This was not a vote on some obscure provision of the budget, it was the most supremely important subject on which members of Congress have the privilege and duty to vote.

So hats off to Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York for having the courage to vote what they really believe. And shame on those who didn't."

Not a particularly glowing endorsement of Democrats, I'd say. But it's a game they wanted to play, and when it came to "put up, or shut up" they chose to hang their heads and shut up. I know I'm belaboring the point, but all this goes back to Democratic inability to accept their loss of the 2000 Presidential election. All symptoms point to that event.


From The Nation, November 28, 2005 Issue:
Democrats and the War

Everything that needs to be known is now known: The reasons the Bush Administration gave for the American war in Iraq were all falsehoods or deceptions, and every day the US occupation continues deepens the very problems it was supposed to solve. Therefore there can no longer be any doubt: The war--an unprovoked, unnecessary and unlawful invasion that has turned into a colonial-style occupation--is a moral and political catastrophe. As such it is a growing stain on the honor of every American who acquiesces, actively or passively, in its conduct and continuation...

The Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of Bush's disaster should not be permitted to excuse the creation of a worse disaster by continuing the occupation...

In the coming weeks and months The Nation will help identify--and encourage support for--those candidates prepared to bring a speedy end to the war and to begin the hard work of forging a new national security policy that an end to the Iraq War will make possible."

A colleague at work is reading Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?", which isn't surprising; he actually believes there's nothing wrong with robbing the rich through higher taxes simply because they can afford to pay a higher rate, because the poor are so pitifully unable to fend for themselves, and the rich... They are so mean and greedy. In effect, Success is to be punished, and under-achieving rewarded.

What liberal Media? Well, The Nation for one, who has completely lost any shred of objectivity. It's one thing for a Paper to endorse a candidate, but it's quite another for a Paper, or News "outfit" to openly state as its mission an active search for a worthy and proper candidate, one who espouses its own ideals.

Papers do not enter voting booths, people do.

What happens when The Nation finds its Ideal man or woman? How ethical is it for a news organization to actively campaign for a specific candidate, like the Big 3 did for Mister's Gore, and Kerry? What happens to such organizations? They lose their credibility. What Liberal Media, Indeed!


From Rocky Mountain News:
A rough week for Iraq debate

What sort of country does Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid think we live in?

"President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove must stop the orchestrated attack campaign they launched on Veteran's Day," the Nevada senator said this week. "It's a weak, spineless display of politics at a time of war."

So it is "spineless politics" for a president to defend himself from critics who charge that he lied to the American public in leading them into war?

And this is the Lie of the Democratic Party: "We can claim as true whatever we wish to be true, but you have no right to question our assertions, our motives or our truths." hypocrites!!!

If Democrats were interested in Truth they'd stand behind the President in this war effort. Not for any political advantage they might achieve, but because it's the right thing to do. What surer way to achieve political strength than to demonstrate one's resolve to do what is right in the face of media distortion, and sagging public approval? Conviction wins battles, and strength. Not "any way the wind blows" politics; which is what the current Democratic Party practices.

Democrats, who hammered away at the President, and this nation for quite some time now, have found their hand called. As it turns out there was nothing of significance in the cards they held; only innuendo, distortion, and lies-- things they gleefully attached in epithet to President Bush. But the Bush Presidency isn't dead, despite all the rumors to the contrary. The Democratic Party is proven to be a bad card player, vindictive shrills, and disinterested in truth. They care only for power.

Patriotism, despite Mr. Kerry's inference to the contrary, is not defined by the wearing of our military's uniform, it is defined by the actions and words of the patriot. Mr. Murtha is indeed a veteran, and a heroic one at that, and I have no doubt he feels patriotic toward his nation and its military, but Patriotism is transitory, fleeting. It changes with the tide, the day, the waning of strength and years. As resolve gives way patriotism is eroded, and soon replaced with defeatism. That is where the Modern Democratic Party is today. They give token lip service to America's "shining city on a hill" status, but demonstrate by their actions their belief that America is lost.

Vietnam was lost because of Congressional resolve, or lack thereof, which transferred its defeatism to, and eroded public support for, the war. We lost that war not because of superior enemy numbers, but because of inferior American leaders. If we lose this war, it won't be because of a superior enemy, it will be because an inferior party, and a media establishment that knowingly discourages and disparages our Armed Forces and the nation as a whole, that emboldens our enemy, and demoralizes our military-- to say nothing of what it is doing to this nations collective psyche. We will lose far more than a war, if Democrats are allowed to continue their war against America's best interests.

Want an accurate assessment of why the War on Islamic Extremists, and our current effort in Iraq is not only necessary, but the right thing to do? Check out A Brief History of a Long War (Iraq, 1990-2003) at the Mudville Gazette. It's a long, but rewarding read.


After two and half hours of House Debate on C-SPAN last night-- time that would otherwise have been spent watching our stations programming (CBS), I couldn't help but think this event was an Important Battle in this current, politically bloody national debate. The booing, and cat-calls were so very British, I was struck by how uncivil it all was. But then that's just what this whole Iraq War debate has been-- uncivil. And while our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan face death each and every moment on the front line, one party seeks to undermine their effort for political expediency, while the other seeks to protect the efficacy of the blood that has already been spilled for a cause that any rational thinking person would call worthy.

If the Iraqi people ultimately fail to create a democratic, free nation, free of the tyranny of Islamic Extremism, it can't be because we cut and run. If Iraq fails it must be because of their own efforts after we've given them every tool and advantage for success. To do less would dishonor the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform, and this Great Nation we lovingly call America.