Like a baby's dirty diaper, hypocrisy and duplicity soils the
Democratic majority in Congress, and like the diaper, the closer
you get to it, the worse it smells. Despite voting for the
non-binding resolution to oppose President Bush's request for a
troop surge in Iran, the overwhelming majority of Democrats -- both
in the House and the Senate -- has voted time and again to fund the
war in Iraq. Imagine if you opened a restaurant and had the group
of financial backers who enabled you to open the restaurant blame
you for opening the business in the first place! Or imagine if
someone bought the gas for your car and then they blamed you for
trying to drive someplace in the car! The Democrats were Bush's
partners in this war from the very beginning, and yet now blame him
for the results of the war. Why doesn't Bush blame them for funding
the war?
The Democrats have no conscience or moral purpose whatsoever.
They are worse than mere hypocrites. They are accessories to the
murder of American troops. By not approving of a mission that they
have funded all along, they are revealed for what they really are
-- a group of cowards whose actions are demoralizing the troops and
encouraging our enemies to kill more American soldiers. The fact
that they are harming our troops' morale by playing into the hands
of the enemy means nothing to these Democrats. The Democrats simply
don't have the guts to vote to cut off the funding for the war, so
they came up with this absurd resolution simply to humiliate George
Bush.
It is as if someone wants to kill himself and a fellow on the
other side of town pays for the gun and the bullets -- and then
says it's someone else's fault the guy committed suicide.
The Democrats are more concerned with their political futures
than anything else. They are emboldening the enemy by saying this
is a worthless war. In effect, their actions will only result in
the loss of more of our troops.
Let's consider the Congressional hearings confirming General
David Petraeus as the top American ground commander in Iraq.
Petraeus argued vehemently for the troop surge that the Democrats
oppose, and yet the Democrats all voted for him anyway and wished
him the best of luck and success in his mission.
What success do they wish Petraeus? If they think the mission is
stupid, why do they need a brilliant man? Why do they want to watch
something flop successfully? Why do they need a great general at
all -- why do they need the best man, if he will serve no purpose?
Why should a man get paid for nothing? If the Democrats approve
sending him on a worthless mission, then they are complicit in
planning the murder of innocent people. If they had the courage of
their convictions, they would have canceled the mission. Why
approve Petraeus in the first place?
Then there's the "Botox Babe" Nancy Pelosi's need for big
airplanes. She claimed that it was "security people" who encouraged
her to request a much larger airplane than the one used by her
predecessor Denny Hastert. She couldn't identify the high level
security people because it would endanger their own security. Maybe
she asked her plastic surgeon who told her bigger is better. The
truth is, size doesn't matter -- at least that's what my
brother-in-law says.
Then she said she needed the much larger plane because this
country has a lot of enemies. But with her opposition to the war,
what enemies is she afraid of? Given her stance on the war, our
enemies are much more likely to send an army to protect her! Next
she said she needed the larger plane because she is third in line
for the Presidency. Didn't Denny Hastert know about this provision
in the Constitution, or was there a new Constitution written just
for Nancy Pelosi? If Pelosi were alive when the Constitution was
written over 220 years ago, she probably would have asked for a
bigger horse to drive her covered wagon across the country. Then
Pelosi said she needed the bigger plane because she would not have
to waste time by stopping for refueling. But if she cared about not
wasting time, she wouldn't have run for Congress in the first
place.
Finally, the very people who she said she required the bigger
plane ultimately refused to approve the jumbo jet. What's going on
here? Not to mention the fact that the bigger plane would have cost
the taxpayers $300,000 for each trip from D.C. to San
Francisco. Using the Internet and a little advance planning, 1,000
college kids could fly from the nation's capital to San Francisco
with the money that Nancy Pelosi would have spent on one trip on
that big plane.
However, Nancy Pelosi is not so upset. She discovered a great
plastic surgeon in Chicago, so it's not a wasted trip. Nancy Pelosi
gets younger and younger. After looking 65 years old five years
ago, after a few visits to the plastic doctor, she looked 38 years
old. Now she looks about 17. She is the only person whose aging
process goes in reverse. Things are moving around her face like the
dancers in one of Prince's videos. Pretty soon there will be no
neck left. Her eyes are moving in different directions. First she
was looking younger than her daughter. Now she looks younger than
her granddaughter. She won't be happy until she looks like an
embryo! It almost makes us want to become pro-choice.
topics:
Nancy Pelosi, Business, Constitution, Law, Iraq, Iran, Oil
