.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

A Historic State Of The Union Address

There's nothing that President Bush said last night in his State of The Union Address, and nothing that he's done to combat the War on Terrorism that - if he were Bill Clinton or a Democrat - the Left wouldn't think was the greatest thing since indoor plumbing.

While the President was talking about succeeding in Iraq and the Middle East, the Democrats sat on their hands. I didn't think it possible to express a more sour and dour facial disposition than any given random image of Hillary Clinton
MrsSatan ... until I watched Nanny Pelosi. What a glum and unhappy woman she was, sitting there, afraid to applaud, afraid to show any support for the War on Terrorism, afraid to project any genuine manifestation of working beyond partisan politics and afraid to register any outward appearance of supporting our Troops.

Did you notice Pelosi's mouth, chewing and churning away? Were her dentures slipping or was she chewing cud? And whoa...did she look old, or what? I guess the botox injections she had after the November election - that period of time when she went into hiding - didn't last, did it?

It is so clear - so very, very clear - for nothing other than their own political gain that the Democrats want the war in Iraq and the War on Terrorism to fail.

Democrats are mired in a September 10, 2001 mentality and will never move past it. The allegation from Jim Webb's rebuttal is that the President took us into this war recklessly. Really? If that's so, wouldn't the same apply to all of the Democrats who voted FOR the War?

We do need a different direction in Iraq and we have one with an increase in the Troops. The question is, Jimbo, will you and your fellow Democrats support it and give it time to work, or will you do your best to subvert the effort?

Last night President Bush said, "You did not vote for failure." Well, the Dems don't see it that way, again based on nothing other than what is advantageous for them politically.

Not too long ago Nevada Senator Harry Reid said he was for increasing the Troop level in Iraq. Then he flip-flopped and said he is against it. Why did he flip-flop? The answer: partisan politics.


Democrats like Joe Biden and others push and advance a non-binding and symbolic resolution disapproving the plan to increase the Troop levels. Maneuvers such as this show the Dems for who they really are, a group of politicians who have no substance, no core and no essence of standards, values or sound objectives. They are a group devoid of all ideas, grasping at straws for their own political sine qua non. Desperate to never again be in the minority and to regain the White House in 2008, the Democrats will go out of their way to fulfill their political coup de grace, even if it means experiencing another domestic terrorist attack. Anything - any cost, any price - anything for them to maintain their power.

Democrats will abandon and discard anyone and any thing to advance the cause of Liberalism. They proved this true when tossing Zell Miller aside. They proved it again when they tossed Joe Lieberman overboard. They prove it every time one of their own members flip-flops on an issue such as John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it."

Oh yes, the Libs can have their Zell Millers and their Joe Liebermans to throw under the bus, but the Right can't have their Chuck "Turncoat" Hagels. Heh, the hypocrisy from the Left never stops, does it?

If the Dems believe so fervently in their own words of defunding the war then they should have the guts to back it up with their actions and cut the funding rather than offering their impotent and feeble "symbolic" resolution. The Dems are no different than the Alien Reptiles in "V" whose fake facade of human skin is removed to reveal their true alien identities. This really is no surprise because the Dems are, and always have been, nothing more than an artificial and contrived political party who stand for nothing.


Jim Webb

The first thing I noticed about Jim Webb's appearance is that his legs were crossed and he was wearing black dress shoes. I guess he decided not to exploit and sensationalize wearing his son's combat boots for his SOTU rebuttal.

I did count that Webb twice mentioned "sharing [our] economy". My, how better to define Socialism! This goes hand in hand with Hillary Clinton's famous statement of "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Even Barbara Walters, this morning on "The View", said of Webb's rebuttal that she didn't hear from him any plan to make Iraq a successful venture.

You did notice, didn't you, that Webb said, "we want to bring [Iraq] to its proper conclusion." Not to a "victory" mind you, but to its "proper conclusion". "Proper conclusion" is the latest argot of "Cut and Run."

General Jack Keane , Retired, on ABC with Charlie Gibson last night after the SOTU Address said that the U.S. made a conscious decision to not corral the Iraq general population as part of our war strategy in 2004. Perhaps we should have back then, but one can only imagine the outcry and catcalls from the Left directed at the Right had we done so.

There is no winning anything with Democrats. The moment you do what they say you should do, they change their modus operandi and adopt the opposing conviction. Then, when you do that, they flip the argument or principle to something else. It's easy for them to do this because they have no solid core standards or values that guides them - well, other than whatever Conservatives want the Dems want the opposite.

The President's SOTU Address last night trumped any SOTU Address delivered by Bill Clinton. The fact that the Dems have not yet recovered from losing the White House in 2000 and 2004 is the feeding tube of their hatred. You'd think the Dems would be - and should be - happy that they are now the majority party, but today their bitterness is more palpable than anytime in the past.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams, 1770.


I remember a South Park episode where John Edwards (the psychic not the tax and sue senator) was given the title of the 'Biggest Douche in the Universe'. He even beat out Ursala, the giant douche from the planet Douche. That's quite an accomplishment. However, I now think it is safe to say that without a doubt Jim Web is the 'Biggest Douche in the Universe'. I can't wait for tthe award ceremony.
Did you notice Pelosi's mouth, chewing and churning away?

I thought that was odd. You would think her advisors would tell her not to chew gum or suck on her tongue or something... sheeesh. I watched with little outbursts once in a while. Did you notice how Hilary had her smirk on full power?

And you can definately tell which subjects are equally approved by who applauds and who sits with a grim face. Pelosi did burst into applause once in a while... but I made note of which subject she favored.

Molson - yeah, I've seen that "SP" episode, it's a riot! I like how Stan proves that Edwards is no psychic! Thanks for stopping by and your comments!


Bug, I did indeed notice Peloshit (oh, my so bad....) chewing...I think her dentures were loose. Or maybe the botox was seeping from her cheekbones into her mouth?!?

And you are so right, she did stand and applaud on issues that - as far as I'm concerned - were only of importance of furthering a liberal agenda. So much for the Dems and their promise of bi-partisanship, eh?

Thanks Bug for your insightful comments, as always.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker

Web Site Traffic Counters
Alabama Internet

Listed on BlogShares

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site uses photographs and material from other sources in strict
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.

Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.