Choice Democrats - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Choice Democrats

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.

Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!