Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts

Thursday, December 07, 2006

more dead horses

I lied earlier, I really do love beating dead horses, muwahaha...

Cherry-Picking Campaign Promises (NYT)

...Democrats eagerly made a campaign vow to promptly enact all of the [9/11] panel’s recommendations...Now that they can taste power again, however, the victors seem to be having second thoughts...Surely, the leaders of the new Congress know they will be risking the nation’s security, far more than their credibility, if they retreat from the vow to do a stronger job of oversight.

Emphasis Mine. And rightly so.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

dead horses

As much as I despise the beating of dead horses, I'm about to engage it a bit of it.

Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies.

As I recall, Nancy Pelosi beat the drum about the 9/11 Commission repeatedly. Oh look, Sister Toldjah has, in fact, documented this: Promises made, promises broken

Not to mention the corruption issue and the complete lack of understand of Iraq and terrorism which I hint at in my previous post: for all his faults

I saw the implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations as a real positive of the Democrat take-over of Congress. Now, I'm having a hard time finding any positives.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Digging for a Plan

I went digging around for specifics on 'a plan' for dealing with Iraq from a leading Democrat other than stay the course or cut-and-run. I found one in a transcript from NewsHour:

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the president said today also he wanted to work in a bipartisan way on Iraq. But then he repeatedly defined the goal as "victory." And he said at one point, you know, speaking of the troops, "I want them home, too, but I want them home in victory, not leaving behind an Iraq that's a safe haven for al-Qaida." And he said repeatedly that victory was leaving an Iraq that was self-sustaining and could defend itself.

Now, can Democrats work with him and embrace that as the goal?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I mean, the point is, is that our presence in Iraq, as viewed by the Iraqis and by others in the region, as an occupation is not making America safer. We are not even honoring our commitment to our troops who are there, and we are not bringing stability to the region.

So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down.

The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

Sigh. So, apparently, according to Iraqis and others in the region, our being in Iraq is not making America safer. Is that credible?

We are not bringing stability to the region. If preventing a democratically elected government from falling prey to Al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias isn't in the aid of stability I don't know what is.

She wants us to redeploy outside of Iraq. I'm sorry but, that's newspeak for withdraw.

Redeploy outside of Iraq. At the same time disarm the militias. Boys and girls, we're leaving now, as we do, would you please pass your guns and IEDs to the left and front of the class? Thank you kids, yes, that's very good...Good luck with that.

And this part: The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

What does he mean? He's said it repeatedly and it was given to you as background as part of this question. And by the way, victory is *not* subjective. Last time I checked, Madame Pelosi is an elected representative in the US House of Representatives. She took an Oath of Office. Perhaps she needs a refresher?