But STILL don't question their patriotism!

They really, really support the troops! Really, they do!

These idiots keep blathering on about how they don't want us to win in Iraq, and then get furious when we call them cowards, traitors, and defeatocrats (emphasis mine):

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

So basically, he is rather blatantly admitting that he doesn't want there to be positive signs of progress from Iraq because it would hurt the Dems politically.

Haven't we conservatives been saying that all along? And now, he just proved us right.

But don't question their patriotism, oh no. It's patriotic to wish for your country to fail, don't you see? It's a good thing for the terrorists who want to attack and kill us to win in Iraq. They love America SO much!

As Misha from Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler says,

Try them, convict them and execute them for treason.

Or, if that’s too rough for you, let’s just cram them into container ships and send them off to whichever totalitarian dystopia they’re worshiping at the moment, because a free country has absolutely no use for them. Whatsoever. They’d probably f*ck up the harvest if we used them as fertilizer.

Hat Tip: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

Previous:
Democrats side with terrorists
Did you get your white feathers yet?
Navy SEAL memorial dedicated over liberal protests

Did you get your white feathers yet?

You might want to start stocking up and sending them to Washington. The House just passed a measure setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq no later than April 1, 2008 - how appropriate (emphasis mine):

The Iraqi government is achieving only spotty military and political progress, the Bush administration conceded Thursday in an assessment that war critics quickly seized on as confirmation of their dire warnings. Within hours, the House voted to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

The House measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled chamber despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September.

"I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must," Bush said at a White House news conference at which he stressed the interim nature of the report.

Describing a document produced by his administration at Congress' insistence, he said there was satisfactory progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting eight of 18 so-called benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on eight more and mixed results on the rest.

To his critics — including an increasing number of Republicans — he said bluntly, "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops."

Democrats saw it differently.

A few hours after Bush's remarks, Democratic leaders engineered passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.

The vote generally followed party lines: 219 Democrats and four Republicans in favor, and 191 Republicans and 10 Democrats opposed.

"The report makes clear that not even the White House can conclude there has been significant progress," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

To Bush and others who seek more time for the administration's policy to work, she said, "We have already waited too long."

Republicans sided with Bush — at least for now. The bill "undermines Gen. Petraeus, undermines the mission he has to make America and Iraq safe," said the House GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio. "What we have here is not leadership, it's negligence."

Why do they do this? If this even passes through the Senate, all that's going to happen is that it will get vetoed. And you've just successfully accomplished a multitude of very, very bad things:

You've told our troops that they can't win in Iraq.

You've told our enemies that if they just hang on long enough, they can defeat us, turning us into the paper tiger Osama bin Laden said we were.

You've told America that you don't care about what the results will be in Iraq, because you think this would be a better move politically, evidenced by the purposeful ambiguity in the bill.

This is sickening.

Just weeks ago, Congress approved funding for the war and told General Petraus to report back in September.

Isn't it... July? Oh, yes, that's right, it is, because my birthday is in about three weeks. But I guess that's our fault for thinking that Dems would give this strategy even the smallest chance to succeed.

Nancy Pelosi blathers on about how there has been no progress and that they've waited "far too long". What would be significant progress for her? And at what point did she first start advocating for troop withdrawals? The week after the surge? The month after? Whenever it was, it wasn't enough time for it to work. But that's because Dems don't care about it working; they just want to cut-and-run, regardless of the cost.

As Van Helsing from Moonbattery puts it:

We are fighting more than one enemy in Iraq, but all of them are fighting us in the name of radical Islam. Specifically, our main enemies are the same al-Qaeda that flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and proxies of Iran, which invaded our embassy in an act of war and held Americans hostage for 444 days.

These are the people to whom Democrats would have us surrender.

The cost of surrender will be extreme. America will officially have the status of the "weak horse." Iran will be ascendant in the region. In the short term, there will be a critical threat to the energy supply that is required for our economy to run. In the long term, Iran will dominate the Middle East and metastasize into a nuclear superpower: a Soviet Union run by Islamic terrorists who don't mind dying so long as we die too.

As for Iraqis, their reward for trusting America will be genocide on a scale we haven't seen since the Democrats and their lackeys in the media forced our retreat from Southeast Asia.

Shockingly enough, CNN actually has a video of a family in Iraq saying they want US forces to stay (thanks to Beyond the News for the clip).



Dems have sent their message. They don't support our troops (but don't question their patriotism!). They don't care about national security or what the aftermath will be in Iraq (but don't question their patriotism!).

And the fact is, it is not Congress' job to tell our military how to run operations or deal with the troops. That is the President's job, which he said himself yesterday:

I don't think it makes sense [for Congress to tell] our military how to conduct operations or deal with troop strength . . . I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops.

Liberals, of course, were shocked, shocked at this display of aggression, as they put it.

And where did President Bush get that idea? Well, our Constitution -- specifically, Article II, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

And of course, don't expect Harry Reid or Pioneer Pelosi to actually, you know, answer your questions:

TAPPER: I'm sorry, if I could just follow up very quickly...Do you think the Iraqi people will be safer with U.S. troops out?

REID: It is clear that the Iraqi people don't want us there. It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq. And it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe….We can't do it. It's time the training wheels come off and they take care of their own country. We have spent billions dollars. We're now spending $12 billion a month on Iraq. That's enough. In the last six months of the surge, six months, 600 more dead Americans, $60 billion more of American taxpayers' money. We, Democrats, unitedly believe that's enough.

TAPPER: With all due respect, Senator, you didn't answer my question.

REID: OK. This is not a debate.

TAPPER: Will the Iraqis be safer?

REID: We're answering questions. (calling on someone else) Yes, young man? Anyone else have a question?

There are very specific words that we can use to describe what the Dems in Congress are pulling, or to describe them. The words "traitors" and "cowards" are somehow floating to the front of my mind...

I think it's time to break out Michelle Malkin'sWhite Feather campaign again.

Reader and Vietnam Vet Jack Haley e-mails:

The White Feather has been a symbol for cowardice. I suggest that white feathers be sent to the leaders of the Senate and House for the cowardly vote that abandons our soldiers around the world.

I was in Vietnam the day that the 101st took “Hamburger Hill” — the headline in the Stars and Stripes was Teddy Kennedy’s statement to the effect that it was all such a waste. I am sure it raised the spirits of the folks on top of the hill — I know it gave my morale a boost. Surely these leaders of our country will head out on a USO tour to encourage the troops further.

As far as I am concerned this is a Congress of Quislings.

I'm buying my white feather today. And there are 223 Congressmen/women who need one.

And hey, John, where's the Project Payback for this?

Dennis Miller rips Harry Reid a new one

Hat Tip: Right Wing News

Edwards just doesn't know when to quit

If you could see me right now, I'd be shaking my head in disgust.

From The AP:

Presidential contender John Edwards on Thursday disputed Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's claim that the U.S. is safer since Sept. 11 and contended GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani will never win if he embraces President Bush's policies.

Speaking on the New Yorkers' home turf - and not far from Ground Zero - Edwards dismissed Clinton's comments in Sunday's debate in which she said the nation is safer now that it was before the terrorist attacks. Clinton's other top rival, Sen. Barack Obama, also has challenged her claim.

"Today, as a result of what George Bush has done, we have more terrorists and fewer allies," Edwards said at a news conference. "There was no group called al-Qaida in Iraq before this president's war in Iraq."

He never mentioned Clinton by name but the subject was obvious.

Edwards also assailed the Republican candidates for their tough talk on Iraq and global terror, arguing that they were trying to be "George Bush on steroids." He singled out Giuliani, the former New York City mayor widely praised for his leadership after the attacks.

"If Mayor Giuliani believes that what the president has done is good ... and runs a campaign for the presidency saying 'I will give you four more years of what this president has done,' he's allowed to do that. He will never be elected president, but he is allowed to do that," Edwards said.

In response, Giuliani campaign spokeswoman Katie Levinson said, "John Edwards' track record of predicting election outcomes speaks for itself."

Maybe all those $400 haircuts and highlights and "services" from spas and salons have started seeping chemicals into his brain. I don't like everything George Bush is doing right now (immigration, hello), but you can't argue with the fact that he has kept this country safe in the six years since 9-11. What would John Edwards have done as president, anyways? Curled up in a fetal position underneath the desk in the Oval Office, frantically applying strawberry lip gloss as he cried? Or would he be too distracted by the many ambulance sirens? I can just imagine it: "Which one do I run after? WHICH ONE!?"

UPDATE: Cloture fails, 45-50

UPDATE: From Michelle Malkin, of course, who has been liveblogging all day:

Somber Harry Reid: "Mr. President, this has been a very difficult time...I was hoping that my friends on the other side of the aisle that a small group shouldn't dictate what happens around here."

Um, yeah.

"We're going to keep the bill off the Senate floor." Proposes having more GOP amendments. "Hopefully, we can do that in the next several weeks...One of my colleagues who has worked very hard on this came into my office and shed some tears."

Bets, anyone? Mine: Lindsay "Hissy Fit" Graham.

Reid extols the DREAM Act provision in the bill that promises illegal alien college tuition discounts not available to Americans and law-abiding immigrants--in violation of a federal ban on such special treatment.

Whines some more about lack of support for his cloture vote.

Reid vows that he will "put aside hurt feelings" and "move on with the anticipation that this bill is something that the country needs" and "hope we can figure out a way to do it."

Thank God. Reid has said that if this final cloture failed, he will drop the bill. While it can of course resurface again, this was their best chance to force it through. The closer we get to election season, the more scared Republican senators will be of alienating their base, although they have already done that anyway. Right now, I -- and a lot of other conservatives -- are breathing a huge sigh of relief.

Michelle Malkin has been liveblogging from the Senate floor:

I liveblogged the vote on the Coburn amendment earlier this morning. The roll call deserves its own separate post. Everything you need to know about your US Senators' commitment to the rule of law is right here. Note that GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain didn't bother to cast a vote:

The Coburn Amendment states:

EXISTING LAW.--The following provisions of existing law shall be fully implemented, as previously directed by the Congress, prior to the certification set forth in paragraph (1):
(A) The Department has achieved and maintained operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States as required under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367)

(B) The total miles of fence required under such Act have been constructed.

(C) All databases maintained by the Department which contain information on aliens shall be fully integrated as required by section 202 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1722).

(D) The Department shall have implemented a system to record the departure of every alien departing the United States and of matching records of departure with the records of arrivals in the United States through the US-VISIT program as required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note).

(E) The provision of law that prevents States and localities from adopting ``sanctuary'' policies or that prevents State and local employees from communicating with the Department are fully enforced as required by section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373).

(F) The Department employs fully operational equipment at each port of entry and uses such equipment in a manner that allows unique biometric identifiers to be compared and visas, travel documents, passports, and other documents authenticated in accordance with section 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1732).

(G) An alien with a border crossing card is prevented from entering the United States until the biometric identifier on the border crossing card is matched against the alien as required by section 101(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(6)).

(H) Any alien who is likely to become a public charge is denied entry into the United States pursuant to section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)).

Here are the GOP senators who opposed it (I won't list the Dems, because we all know they hate America already):

Bennett (R-UT)

Brownback (R-KS)

Collins (R-ME)

Craig (R-ID)

Domenici (R-NM)

Graham (R-SC)

Hagel (R-NE)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Kyl (R-AZ)

Lugar (R-IN)

Martinez (R-FL) -- that's me!

Murkowski (R-AK)

Specter (R-PA)

Stevens (R-AK)

Voinovich (R-OH)

Warner (R-VA)

The bill just avoided cloture with a 33-63 vote -- again -- but there is still another vote coming up at 5:00. Let's hope we can avoid that. It will help slow momentum, but it won't kill it completely. Keep the pressure on your senators. Get their phone numbers and/or e-mail addresses here, on the official Senate website.

Also, call the National Republican Senatorial Committee at (202) 675-6000, and the Republican National Committee at (202) 863-8500 (option 1). Tell them all -- politely, of course -- that you will not support any senator who lets this bill pass. Remind them that this bill would be national suicide, costing taxpayers trillions of dollars and that you don't want it passed.

If it does pass, John Hawkins of Right Wing News is ready with The Payback Project. Hopefully, he won't have to use it. Here is the plan if the bill passes:

If the amnesty bill in the Senate passes, The Payback Project is going to work through the end of the primary season to defeat any Republican senator up for reelection in 2008 who votes for it.

Some of the ways we're going to do that include,

* Googlebombing the targeted senators with negative articles (I know some people are claiming Googlebombing no longer works. They may be right. But, my expectation is that it will work fine because they were saying the exact same thing last year and it worked like a charm).

* Writing articles like this about each targeted senator, "What Republicans in South Carolina should know before they vote for Lindsey Graham."

* Making YouTube videos similar to these aimed at the targeted senators.

* Building up or acquiring in-state email lists of Republicans to use in an effort to convince as many Republicans as possible in the targeted states not to vote for the targeted senators.

* Making ourselves freely available to the local press to explain, as conservatives, why Republicans shouldn't support the targeted senators.

* Raising money for viable challengers to targeted senators.

Our goal will be to either defeat these senators in the 2008 primaries or, if that's not possible, to cause enough early damage to cost them 5k-10k votes in the general election.

The point of that will either be to put more senators willing to listen to us into office or hurt the targeted senators enough that the GOP will never go against the base again on an issue this important.

Keep the pressure on. Keep fighting. With any luck, this bill will die in the Senate.

Bloomberg: Get a Life, New Yorkers!

Did the recent JFK terror plot get ya' down? Worried about a repeat of 9-11? New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg has an answer!

"There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life," he said.

That "What, me worry?" attitude pretty much sums up Bloomberg's advice to New Yorkers on the terror plot. As far as he was concerned, the professionals were on it, so New Yorkers shouldn't let it tax their brains.

"You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist," he added.

"In terms of what you as individual on the streets should worry about is not whether the person sitting next to you on the subway is a terrorist. The likelihood of that is so small it is not something you should worry about," Bloomberg said.

New Yorkers were disinclined to agree:

New Yorkers say Bloomberg is entitled to his opinions, but not everybody agrees with him.

"I feel that he's definitely wrong about that because terrorism right now is at its all-time high since 9/11. Everybody wants to be a terrorist and blow something up," one New Yorker told CBS 2 HD.

"We're always going to be a major hit for terrorism. After 9/11, you never know," another added.

But fear not, you wimpy Americans! Bloomberg and his team of "experts" are on the case, and there is nothing that any of us need to worry about! The threat of another terrorist attack is miniscule! And if you worry about terrorism, then you need to get a life!

Except, you know, there's all those terrorist plots we keep foiling. Obviously, the terrorists aren't giving up. And I'm sure on September 10, 2001, the entire country with the exception of the Clinton administration would have listed planes flying into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field killing over 3,000 Americans as an impossible thing that could never happen.

But don't worry. Stop thinking about terrorism. It won't happen again. Right, Mayor Bloomberg?

Except as soon as we do that, that's when it'll strike again.

Al-Qaeda claims they killed the remaining two soldiers, but offer no proof

From Fox News:

An Al Qaeda-umbrella group claimed its militants killed three American soldiers after capturing them last month in Iraq, according to a new video released Monday.

"The Americans sent 4,000 soldiers looking for them and ... fearing that this will have bad repercussions, the state of Islam decided to and announced their killing making it a bitter result for the enemies of God because they were alive and then dead," said an unidentified voice on the video, which was made available to The Associated Press by the Washington-based SITE Institute.

The video does not offer any proof that the soldiers were killed and does not show the soldiers. The militants said in the video that the soldiers were buried, but again, did not offer proof. The unidentified voice blamed their deaths on: "The American army and their leaders, who do not care for the feelings of the soldiers' families."

The 10-minute, 41-second video shows black-and-white, nighttime footage of what the group said was the ambush that led to the soldiers' capture. But this footage was grainy and unclear.

Gunshots could be heard in the video, which at the end shows close-ups of two identification cards.

A U.S. official said the military ID cards appeared to be authentic, but more analysis was needed to confirm this.

Hot Air has an excerpt to the video here.

Keep praying for those soldiers and their families.

Memorial Day, Washington-Liberal Style

How do residents of Orcas Island, WA celebrate Memorial Day? By desecrating the final resting places of our fallen soldiers:

Vandals burned dozens of small American flags that decorated veterans' graves for Memorial Day and replaced many of them with hand-drawn swastikas, authorities said Monday.

Forty-six flag standards were found empty and another 33 flags were in charred tatters Sunday in the cemetery, authorities said. Swastikas drawn on paper appeared where 14 of the flags had been.

Members of the American Legion on this island off Washington's northwest coast replaced the burned flags with new ones Sunday afternoon.

The vandals struck again on Memorial Day after a guard left at dawn, the San Juan County sheriff's office said. This time, the vandals left 33 of the hand-drawn swastikas.

"This is not an act of free speech. This is a crime," Sheriff Bill Cumming said in a statement released Monday afternoon

I just have to wonder sometimes -- do these people have no sense of decency? Attacking recruiting stations, protesting at funerals, desecrating graves... and for what? What point are they trying to make... what goal can they accomplish by disrespecting our fallen soldiers? How much more despicable can you get?

Liberals will tell you that while they "don't agree", they won't speak out against these actions because the soldiers died for their right to protest. Maybe so, but just because you can do something does not, by any means, mean that you should -- or that the rest of us should condone it. Whoever did this should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and made to pay reparations to the family members of those soldiers. They should be made examples of.

What I want to know is, would this be considered a hate crime for liberals? They're introducing legislation to specify "hate crimes" against minority groups, as opposed to just regular old "mean" crimes against us normal people. Would this count as a hate crime, even though it wasn't committed against the liberals' favorite groups (i.e., gays or minorities)? Probably not.

Don't expect to see this in the mainstream media, either. I doubt this will even make a blip on the national radar.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin.