The Code Pink wackos strike again

Wherever there's a chance to attack our military, there will Code Pink be. When a new Marine center opened in Berkeley, Code Pink made sure the show them how they support our troops:

Marine Captain Richard Lund recruits college students and graduates as candidates for officer positions in the marines. But carrying out that job in Berkeley is not always an easy task.

He has listened to a variety of complaints from members of the anti-war group Code Pink in recent weeks.

"We are so shocked and horrified that the Marines have come to Berkeley to prey on our children," said Zanne Joi, a Code Pink member.

Last week, the Code Pink group protested by defacing the recruiting center and calling the recruiters liars.

In the face of all this, one might ask why would any recruiter want to come to Berkeley?

Lund says that the office is close to the UC Berkeley campus and a BART station that it is convenient for recruits.

But what about the Berkeley attitude?

"It was a little bit of a consideration," Lund said. "But this is my home. This is America. I'm from the Bay Area. I don't mind being in any city, any neighborhood. To me it's all home."

The Marines did receive a couple of visitors who approve of their presence.

"It seems to me by trying to shut down recruiting on or near college campuses, you're really violating the principles of free speech. And I find that repugnant," said Berkeley resident Nancy Klein. "But we have to be a little bit crazy here, it's kind of our persona."

Here is how they defaced the center:





And the complaints the article spoke of? Code Pink wacko Diane Budd, who apparently was one of the organizers of the attack, was rather open on their motives, and it wasn't just to complain:

Donning pink hats, T-shirts and badges, a group of 10 braved rush-hour traffic on Shattuck Avenue to protest against the recruitment office located at 64 Shattuck Square.

“If there are to be no wars, there can be no warriors,” said Dianne Budd, one of the organizers.

“We found out a few days ago and decided to make their lives miserable,” she said, pinning up “RECRUITERS LIE, CHILDREN DIE” posters on the office windows. “We want people to know that it’s here and we want to shut them down. If people had been in there we were ready to hand out information about GI rights. We just want to speak the truth.”

As Budd and her fellow organizers held a pink banner with “No military predators in our town” written on it, hundreds of cars, buses and trucks honked their support and waved.

No one came to drag the protesters away as they stood waving banners and talking for almost two hours.

“It’s my first-amendment right,” Budd said smiling. “Who’s going to stop me?”

They sure got a nice, warm welcome from the moonbats inhabiting Berkeley. And remember, don't ever, EVER, question their patriotism.

Richard Lund, the recruiter in charge of the center, is firing back though. He wrote an open letter to the Code Pink wackjobs. Unlike just about anyone in Code Pink, he was intelligent, reasonable, calm, collected, and uninsulting (and in my opinion, makes them look even stupider than they make themselves look all on their own). Here's an excerpt, but be sure to read the entire thing:

While the protest that you staged in front of my office on Wednesday, Sept. 26th, was an exercise of your constitutional rights, the messages that you left behind were insulting, untrue, and ultimately misdirected. Additionally, from the comments quoted in the Berkeley Daily Planet article, it is clear that you have no idea what it is that I do here. Given that I was unaware of your planned protest, I was unable to contest your claims in person, so I will therefore address them here.

First, a little bit about who I am: I am a Marine captain with over eight years of service as a commissioned officer. I flew transport helicopters for most of my time in the Marine Corps before requesting orders to come here. Currently, I am the officer selection officer for the northern Bay Area. My job is to recruit, interview, screen, and evaluate college students and college graduates that show an interest in becoming officers in the Marine Corps. Once they’ve committed to pursuing this program, I help them apply, and if selected, I help them prepare for the rigors of Officer Candidate School and for the challenges of life as a Marine officer. To be eligible for my programs, you have to be either a full-time college student or a college graduate. I don’t pull anyone out of school, and high school students are not eligible.

...

Next, scrawled across the doorway to my office, you wrote, “Recruiters are Traitors.” Please explain this one. How exactly am I a traitor? Was I a traitor when I joined the Marine Corps all those years ago? Is every Marine, therefore, a traitor? Was I a traitor during my two stints in Iraq? Was I a traitor when I was delivering humanitarian aid to the victims of the tsunami in Sumatra? Or do you only consider me a traitor while I am on this job? The fact is, recruitment is and always has been a part of maintaining any military organization. In fact, recruitment is a necessity of any large organization. Large corporations have employees that recruit full-time. Even you, I’m sure, must expend some effort to recruit for Code Pink. So what, exactly, is it that makes me a traitor?

The fact is this: any independent nation must maintain a military (or be allied with those who do) to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. Regardless of what your opinions are of the current administration or the current conflict in Iraq, the U.S. military will be needed again in the future. If your counter-recruitment efforts are ultimately successful, who will defend us if we are directly attacked again as we were at Pearl Harbor? Who would respond if a future terrorist attack targets the Golden Gate Bridge, the BART system, or the UC Berkeley clock tower? And, to address the most hypocritical stance that your organization takes on its website, where would the peace keeping force come from that you advocate sending to Darfur?

Finally, I believe that your efforts in protesting my office are misdirected. I agree that your stated goals of peace and social justice are worthy ones. War is a terrible thing that should only be undertaken in the most dire, extreme, and necessary of circumstances. However, war is made by politicians. The conflict in Iraq was ordered by the president and authorized by Congress. They are the ones who have the power to change the policy in Iraq, not members of the military. We execute policy to the best of our ability and to the best of our human capacity. Protesting in front of my office may be an easy way to get your organization in the headlines of local papers, but it doesn’t further any of your stated goals.

Michelle Malkin is asking for any Bay Area patriots to go to the recruitment center and show your support:

It would be nice if folks in the Bay Area could show up and counter-protest the Code Pinkos and show Capt. Lund some support. As they say: Eagles Up!

If you aren't too fond of counter-protesting, or perhaps you don't think you have the time, you can still show Capt. Lund some support. Stop by, thank him for his service. Make a phone call to the recruitment center to say thank you, let him know that what he's doing is appreciated. If you can spare an hour or two though, show the Code Pink moonbats what real patriotism is and counter-protest.

Hat Tips: Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU

Kucinich: I won't bless that occupation with my presence

Let us all hail to the almighty altar of Dennis Kucinich, Democratic presidential candidate whose presence is such a gift and blessing to us all!

Apparently, our troops in Iraq are not worthy of the wonderful and magnificent Kucinich's presence (emphasis mine):

After praising Syria following a meeting in Damascus with President Bashar Assad, Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich declared he will not visit troops in Iraq during his Middle East tour because he considers the American military presence in Iraq to be illegal.

"I feel the United States is engaging in an illegal occupation ... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," Kucinich said in Lebanon, according to the Associated Press. "I will not do it."

The Ohio congressman accused the Bush administration of destabilizing the Middle East and praised Syria for receiving Iraqi refugees.

"What most people are not aware of is that Syria has taken in more than 1.5 million Iraqi refugees," Kucinich said, according to the AP. "The Syrian government has actually shown a lot of compassion in keeping its doors open and being a host for so many refugees."

Those soldiers are just beneath him, see? Unworthy to lick his boots, let alone lay eyes on him.

Visit Iraq... sheesh. Why on Earth would a wonderful Democrat like him do that, when he can visit a terrorist state like Syria and undermine U.S. policies instead? I mean, Syria is right there with Iran in aiding terrorists in Iraq, not to mention giving all kinds of support to Hezbollah and Hamas. No wonder Kucinich loves them so much! They want to destroy the United States, too!

Again... this is what we call treason. Giving comfort and aid to enemies of the United States used to land you in front of a firing squad.

Not so in the kinder, gentler United States. Larry Craig is dangerous, and Kucinich isn't.

We should all kneel at his altar, and pray to be worthy of him blessing us with his presence immediately... or maybe we can pray at a different altar for him to come to his senses, resign, and apologize to our troops and the American people for being such a traitorous asshat.

Padilla found guilty

The jury returned a verdict today in the case against Jose Padilla and his two co-defendants.

The charges:

Count 1 - Conspiracy to Murder, Kidnap, and Maim Persons in a Foreign Country as part of a conspiracy to advance violent jihad
Count 2 - Conspiracy to Provide Material Support for Terrorists
Count 3 - Material Support for Terrorists
Counts 4 and 5 are against Hassoun for unlawful possession of a weapon and making a false statement
Counts 6 through 10 are against Hassoun for multiple charges of perjury
Count 11 is against Hassoun for obstruction

Good to hear.

From Yahoo News:

“A verdict was reached Thursday in the trial of Jose Padilla and two co-defendants charged with supporting al-Qaida and other violent Islamic extremist groups overseas. The jury verdict was scheduled to be read at 2 p.m. EDT before U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke in Miami’s downtown federal courthouse, according to an announcement from her chambers. The jury of seven men and five women deliberated for about a day and a half following a three-month trial. Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face possible life in prison if convicted of all three charges in the case.”

I'm exceedingly happy he was found guilty, but life in prison? He was tried in Miami. We still use the death penalty here in Florida, and once upon a time in the United States, we executed treasonous bastards like Padilla. Not so in the softer, fluffier America, huh?

Michelle Malkin has the timeline leading up to the scumbag's involvement with Al Qaeda and designation as an "enemy combatant" by President Bush, as well as his Al Qaeda "application form" (I never knew Al Qaeda bothered with a paper trail, but skip on over to Michelle's blog to see it for yourself):

May 1988: Padilla turns 18, released from juvenile detention in Chicago on probation until age 21.

October 1991: Padilla arrested in South Florida on gun and traffic charges. He serves 10 months in prison.

Early 1993: Padilla, while employed at Taco Bell in Davie, FL, inquires about converting to Islam.

1994: Padilla begins using the name Ibrahim.

1998: Padilla leaves U.S. to study Arabic abroad.

1999: Padilla travels to Afghanistan.

2001: Padilla meets with Abu Zubaydah. Padilla and an unnamed associate receive explosives training in Pakistan.

Early 2002: Padilla meets with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and is ordered to return to the U.S. for reasons still unclear.

May 2002: Padilla arrested on a material witness warrant related to September 11, at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport.

June 2002:Padilla designated “enemy combatant” by the president and moved to military custody in South Carolina.

And of course, HuffPo isn't disappointing. They're positively howling over this "outrage".

Didn't you see the movie "Judgement at Nuremburg"
Judge Ernst Janning, played by Burt Reynolds, gave Jews their day in court and convicted them of being Jews. Padilla has been convicted of being a member of a Muslim sect.

It is the saddest story, these times have ever seen.

They're hangin' men and women for the wearing of the green.

Apparently you have missed the most significant aspect of this situation: The man suffered incomprehensible torture, for years, at the hands of the American military. He was tortured to the degree of having irreversible brain damage -- which has been proved. He confessed at the hands of his TORTURERS. Perhaps the smile you see on his face is the same smile that would register on the face of a mentally retarded individual. His brain is fried.

Idiots like you, and the people who voted for Bush and his fascist fanatical party, who tortued and convicted this man shame this country.

And on HuffPo...

The Day of Rage begins.

He was convicted B/4 he even went to trial.

That "evidence" is enough to put someone away for life? A document with his fingerprints on it? Give me a break!
All I can say is the next time you're handed a document be sure you are wearing gloves.

Typical rightwing spin....Defend truth and honor and be labeled a traitor.

When due process is carried out by fascists, it's no longer due process, it's fascism.
This trial looks awfully similar to what was going on under Hitler's regime. Anyone who dared to say something against him was a "terrorist." Anyone who dared to question the courts was immediately transferred to a Lager. Time have changed, fascism has evolved, Lagers would be too expensive today, destroying the lives of dissidents by just spying on them and then charging them with phoney BS is a lot easier...

And so on and so forth. There's even a comment about how "songs will be sung" about Padilla, because he's a martyr or some crap (someone gag me).

Moonbats crack me up. They complain non-stop about Gitmo and how we are convicting terrorists without sending them to trial, and letting them be judged by a jury of their peers. We then do that, and a wanna-be terrorist asshole is convicted, and they're still upset.

Just not happy until we let Al-Qaeda do as they please, eh? Don't question their patriotism though, not even when they're standing with terrorists and Al-Qaeda wanna-bes, rather than Americans.

Anyways, if I had my way, this guy would be having his final meal tonight before he gets hanged tomorrow rather than having the pleasure of growing old in jail on my dime.

But I'm a heartless conservative bigot, so what do I know, right?

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

Sherry Glaser terrifies Clinton supporters

Zombie is reporting that moonbats from CODEPINK and Breasts not Bombs infiltrated Shrillary's campaign headquarters for a debate-watching party (visit the link for uncensored, NSFW pics if you so dare). They gleefully paraded around the party topless, as Shrillary supporters chanted her name like a bunch of zombies.

Sherry Glaser was, of course, in attendance.

This woman just creeps me out. Seriously, there seems to be something wrong with her. I visited her website and found a rather interesting blog entry, written November 20 of last year, in which she storms into a military recruiter's office and demands him to make the troops stop raping and murdering innocent people (emphasis mine):

A couple of weeks ago Breasts Not Bombs staged a demonstration outside the Military recruitment center in Ukiah, California because we feel that office is the first introduction to our young men and women as to what it means to be a soldier. We felt the need to find the root and address the aberrant and excessive violence that has led our military to commit war crimes like rape and murder. Though there were ten of us on the street that day, we opted not to take our shirts off. We blamed it on the weather and well, it was a major street and we had concern about traffic. But the truth is I was afraid. Afraid to bare my breasts to again be subject to judgement and ridicule for my outrageous behavior and my bountiful bosom. Although it was a spirited and well supported action, It felt disappointing. We even took the opportunity to go into the recruitment office and converse with the Sergeant in charge. Although he could not take responsibility for the troops run amok or even point me in the direction of those who might be, besides a "few bad apples." It felt like we built a bridge. He could see our humanity and we could see his. We were civil, kind and very calm. But, inside I'm bursting with terrible rage and sorrow. It's so strong that I'm compelled to tear off my shirt, pull out my hair and weep. Yes, it's dramatic, but it feels like this really is an emergency. I mean why is so unacceptable to bare my breasts. Why does the public at large have such a definitive and immediate reaction to my flesh, but the death of 2,900 American Soldiers and upwards of 200,000 Iraqi's elicits little response. Every day that our government debates and hem and haws there are REAL PEOPLE being violently killed.

What keeps me under wraps is also the simple size of my breasts, how they look. They are enormous, yes. It feels like I am carrying the sorrow of the world right under my nose. I wonder if so much of the breast cancer we are seeing is the unexpressed grief of this world. I dream of weeping, bare breasted with a million other women on the White House Lawn. I long for a world wide weep. Why are women kept in such restraint. What is so scary about our breasts.

This woman is so severely unhinged!

Look, lady, it isn't like Anna Kournikova or Jessica Alba is standing there with their tops off. No offense, but there is no one that wants to see your breasts! No one! You aren't a spring chicken anymore. It isn't all women's breasts that are scary, just yours.

And of course, there's the standard liberal line about how our troops are rapists and murderers. I would love it if she said that to me. Love it.

Her entire rambling post just goes to show how moonbats work and think. Not to mention, I don't think she could go a single sentence without butchering it grammatically.

I just don't get it, what is it that makes people take her seriously?! And she cries about how terrified she is of baring her gigantic, droopy breasts, but she does it... all the time. Whenever she has the opportunity to, actually. Yeah, she's terrified, all right.

And on top of the craziness, she thinks Shrillary is not far left enough? My God. I'd hate to think of what her ideal candidate would be like.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery, who so graciously added red bars to the picture below.

It's easy to commit treason when you have politicians to help

trea·son (trē'zən)
n.

Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Would giving money to terrorists in Iraq today constitute treason? I don't think the Greatest Generation would have stood for this, but we just roll over and take it, because after all, the groups in question are acting for "peace".

Misha from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler has the story of how two American "anti-war groups" gave $600,000 in cash and supplies to terrorists in Iraq:

A New York Times best-selling author says members of the supposed "peace movement" delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and supplies to terrorists engaged in a bloody street battle against United States Marines in Iraq.

The latest book by Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson (U.S. Air Force-Ret.) is called War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror. In the book, he claims that two anti-war groups -- "United for Peace & Justice" and "CODEPINK: Women for Peace" -- literally gave aid and comfort to terrorists when they delivered $600,000 in cash and supplies they claim was humanitarian aid to civilians.

According to Patterson, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-California) facilitated the transaction for CODEPINK by signing a letter allowing them to get the cash and supplies into Fallujah.

"Here is an American Congressman .... Here are American citizens who belong to these organizations," says Patterson. "They travel to Iraq and they are materially supporting, they are aiding and abetting the enemy that is killing American Marines. If that's not treason, nothing is."

Patterson says that is not the only treacherous thing these groups have done. "When the Iraq war first started, CODEPINK and Medea Benjamin went to Baghdad and opened an office designed to try to encourage American soldiers to desert, go AWOL, and not fight the war," he explains. "Again, that's aiding and abetting the enemy."

The author laments that the story has received virtually no coverage by the U.S. media.

Misha responds:

Assuming for the moment, since that’s all one can responsibly do until some evidence is produced, that he’s got the goods and that his “i”s are dotted and his “t”s crossed, CODEPINK, in association with a U.S. Congressman, conspired to and succeeded in funding the terrorist scum that we’re at war with, the swine killing our servicemen and -women, and we all know that those cavedwelling apes don’t use their funds to buy apple pies and band aids with.

Do you have a relative or loved one over in the sand box right now? In that case, he or she may, at this very moment, be fired upon with weapons bought and paid for by CODEPINK, in association with Henry Waxman (D-al Qaeda).

I have a loved one in the sandbox right now. I have friends there. How about you?

It doesn't surprise me in the least that CODEPINK would do something like this. However, it is absolutely infuriating that a United States Congressman would facilitate the transaction.

There should be a full investigation put forth to investigate this, and if it is true, then every last person involved should be executed for treason. PERIOD.


CODEPINK: The new face of treason

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?