They pretend to care about the troops, but verily, they’re bothered by the fact that the United States is using the military at all. I don’t know a single liberal who gives a damn about loss of life if they didn’t know the person who died. The mere fact that we’re at war hurts their feelings, and that’s why the want us to lose and come home. Selfish and misguided.

As far as the democrats are concerned, as I have said before, they have gone ALL IN on losing Iraq. They are incapable of recognizing any good news that comes out of Iraq (such as the recent positive signs from the initial surge) because such good news negates their entire platform.

Pat does us all a service by following the ‘logic’ of these people to its natural conclusion. The thing that makes me want to puke the most is that these women and girly men boyfriends of theirs are the same f***ers who want us to invade Darfur and put a stop to the genocide–a “real” genocide, as opposed to Saddam Hussein’s “fake” genocide.

Whoever decided to not prosecute Jane Fonda for treason made an enormous mistake. You should always be able to say anything you want, but the consequences of saying the worst of things no longer exist.

Everybody “supports the troops.” It’s more than just a sticker on your bumper; my father sends the troops cigars and lemonade. That’s support.

The liberals aren’t interested in what our enemy says or does. And that is a big mistake.

Unfortunately the surrender-crats in the house passed their “we surrender” bill with the help of two traitorous Republicans.

I think the problem though is not the Congress as much as it is the silent majority, which is complicit in this. Unfortunately, they have taken everything spoon fed from the media, and now simply wish to put their head in the sand and worry about the value of their house, or what HD TV they’re going to buy, or who’s winning on American Idol.

Does America exist anymore? Or, is it worse, in the modern age of mass media, the Internet, and comfy Western lifestyle, have we lost the ability to rationally think, consider consequences, and understand the context of the world within we live?

Gilchrest Statement on his vote Friday on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill

“My vote today on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill was based on two principals.

First, we cannot jeopardize funding for our troops in the field in the middle of a combat mission. This funding was critical to the safety and security of our troops and I would find it unconscionable to vote against this funding.

I bet the 20Billion plus pork didn’t influence you either.

Second, setting a timeline for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq provides a strategic advantage to the U.S. in the Middle East where our troops are currently caught in the crossfire of a civil war between an Iranian-backed Shiite government and the Saudi/Syrian-supported insurgency that are using the U.S. presence there to promote terror and instability in Iraq.

The bill establishes a series of benchmarks— proposed in January by President Bush — that Iraqi leaders would have to meet for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq. However, after August 2008, the bill’s provisions still allow U.S. forces to remain in Iraq if their mission is limited to protecting U.S. diplomatic facilities, U.S. citizens, or other U.S. troops; if they are engaged in targeted operations limited to killing or capturing members of al Qaeda or other global terrorist organizations; or if they are engaged in training Iraqi security forces.

In the end, this was a very difficult decision and I am far from satisfied by all the provisions in this bill. But this vote sends a message to our troops that we will never jeopardize the funding that they need in the middle of a combat zone, and it sends an important message to the region that the United States will not be a permanent occupying force in Iraq. Most importantly, it sends a message to the Malliki Government and the Iraqi people that the onus is shifting to them.

I will continue to closely follow this bill as it moves on to the Senate and back to the House for final passage.”

What an asshole.

The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.

As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today’s action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops. A narrow majority has decided to take this course, just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city.

Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we’re beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.

Where were those 2 pictures of the protesters taken? I am curious.