Ted Nugent wrote this? Good for him!
WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.
Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it.
Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.
A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.
At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.
More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.
My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden "feel good" politics.
She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.
No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a "cult of agriculture fertilizer" following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh's heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted "steak knife control" as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.
Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.
Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.
Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in illegal possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun law. Feel better yet? Didn't think so.
Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?
I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.
Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children's school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/com...ent/index.html
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The Virginia Tech tragedy
This is hard...I did not know any of those kids, but you have to have empathy for ALL those folks who were involved...the town, the school, the kids, the families...as each day passes this story gets a little stranger, making it harder I would expect for people to grieve and get on with their lives in whatever way they can...for now I have only one question: Why is it that this kid was diagnosed with a mental disorder of some sort two years ago and then not followed up on? How does something like this slip thru the cracks when you have documented evidence by both mental health professionals and the school...and yet he was allowed to carry on as if there was nothing wrong??? Have we gotten so PC that we allow this sort of thing to go unnoticed because we are afraid to hurt another's sensibilities?
I am sure the answers to these questions will be answered in time, maybe, but that will do nothing to ease the pain of all those who suffered loss in the meantime...the loss of life here is not only tragic, but seems to have been preventable to some degree...if the spin is correct...and thats a mighty damn big "IF"...
This is hard...I did not know any of those kids, but you have to have empathy for ALL those folks who were involved...the town, the school, the kids, the families...as each day passes this story gets a little stranger, making it harder I would expect for people to grieve and get on with their lives in whatever way they can...for now I have only one question: Why is it that this kid was diagnosed with a mental disorder of some sort two years ago and then not followed up on? How does something like this slip thru the cracks when you have documented evidence by both mental health professionals and the school...and yet he was allowed to carry on as if there was nothing wrong??? Have we gotten so PC that we allow this sort of thing to go unnoticed because we are afraid to hurt another's sensibilities?
I am sure the answers to these questions will be answered in time, maybe, but that will do nothing to ease the pain of all those who suffered loss in the meantime...the loss of life here is not only tragic, but seems to have been preventable to some degree...if the spin is correct...and thats a mighty damn big "IF"...
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Art Exhibit – “Inside Looking Out” at Carrie Garner’s
Galleria d’Arte April 14, 2007
Galleria d’Arte April 14, 2007
Justin Hunt, one of Galleria d’Arte’s most successful and popular artists, debuts his newest paintings at a gallery reception on Saturday, April 14, from 7pm to 10pm. “Inside Looking Out” will feature the largest exhibit of Hunt’s newest glass paintings. The exhibit will be on display through May 8, 2007.
Hunt, a multi-talented artist, is primarily focused on glass paintings. Using the ancient technique known as reverse glass painting, Hunt uses old windows and glass panel doors in their original framework for his canvases. Painting on the back side of the glass, Hunt must paint the image in reverse for the observer to perceive the image correctly. In essence, Hunt paints inside out and backwards!
The artist believes glass is not only a beautiful medium but also allows the observer to view art in a more untraditional manner. Many of Hunt’s subjects convey a bit of a dark tone with an underlying sense of hope and faith. “They function, in part, to counter the prevailing images forced upon us by the media and the entertainment industry. My mission is to convey a story with every figure I paint and having that story change with each individual observer,” says Hunt.
Hunt’s first exhibit was a resounding success, and as a result, he was invited to become a permanent, resident artist at Carrie Garner’s Galleria d’Arte. As a McKinney McKinney
Hunt’s work has made first-time art collectors of many gallery visitors, as the variety and breadth of Hunt’s subjects appeal to a wide audience. His portraits are studies of human emotion and expression, exquisitely painted with passion and feeling. Whatever the subject, Hunt’s style and individualism are strong qualities that are immediately evident in each of his creations.
Live entertainment by The Quentin Hope Trio, wine, and finger-foods await gallery guests and always assure a wonderful celebration of community and the arts. Co-sponsors of the reception are: A Twist of Lime, Alternative Furnishings, BLING!, Cadillac Pizza Pub, Main Street McKinney Market Square Market Street
For further information, contact Carrie Garner’s Galleria d’Arte at 469-742-9509 or visit us online at www.carriegarner.com.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Sheesh... these people don't have a friggin clue!
FIRST, they haven't a clue as to ANY connection between tittie bars n rape so the base premise is false.
SECOND, they are stealing 80% of the tax.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'Stripper Fee' Would Benefit Sexual Assault Services
It is a problem most people don't want to talk about: Rape. Many victims of sexual assault never report the crime and don't get help. Now one group wants to make sure every victim of rape becomes a survivor. And it is calling on strip clubs to help.
"This is my first time ever speaking out." Lillian Moore's life spiraled out of control after years of abuse. "I was very self-destructive. I got into drugs. I got into bad relationships. I'm on a better path now."
She calls herself a sexual assault survivor, not a victim. She credits the Comal County Rape Crisis Center with helping her heal.
"The counseling I have received at this center has been a God-send."
To make sure all rape victims get the help Lillian did, a Houston lawmaker has filed a new bill that would require adult entertainment businesses, like strip clubs, to charge an extra $5 cover charge.
If it passes, the bill would generate more than $87 million dollars every two years in Texas. About $16 million would be set aside to fight sexual assault.
"This is a really great way to not tax people, because we're already over-burdened with taxes and fees."
Lynn Blanco, with the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault (TAASA), says the extra $5 cover charge is a way to address a problem most people are ashamed to talk about and turn more victims into survivors, like Lillian.
"I have more stability. I'm more stable. I am able to stand up more for myself."
If the bill passes, the extra $5 cover charge would go into effect in September. Rape Crisis Centers all over the state, including here in San Antonio, would benefit.
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=99deab6f-b680-44ac-9a98-9d71c19b48b9
FIRST, they haven't a clue as to ANY connection between tittie bars n rape so the base premise is false.
SECOND, they are stealing 80% of the tax.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'Stripper Fee' Would Benefit Sexual Assault Services
It is a problem most people don't want to talk about: Rape. Many victims of sexual assault never report the crime and don't get help. Now one group wants to make sure every victim of rape becomes a survivor. And it is calling on strip clubs to help.
"This is my first time ever speaking out." Lillian Moore's life spiraled out of control after years of abuse. "I was very self-destructive. I got into drugs. I got into bad relationships. I'm on a better path now."
She calls herself a sexual assault survivor, not a victim. She credits the Comal County Rape Crisis Center with helping her heal.
"The counseling I have received at this center has been a God-send."
To make sure all rape victims get the help Lillian did, a Houston lawmaker has filed a new bill that would require adult entertainment businesses, like strip clubs, to charge an extra $5 cover charge.
If it passes, the bill would generate more than $87 million dollars every two years in Texas. About $16 million would be set aside to fight sexual assault.
"This is a really great way to not tax people, because we're already over-burdened with taxes and fees."
Lynn Blanco, with the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault (TAASA), says the extra $5 cover charge is a way to address a problem most people are ashamed to talk about and turn more victims into survivors, like Lillian.
"I have more stability. I'm more stable. I am able to stand up more for myself."
If the bill passes, the extra $5 cover charge would go into effect in September. Rape Crisis Centers all over the state, including here in San Antonio, would benefit.
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=99deab6f-b680-44ac-9a98-9d71c19b48b9
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Art Exhibit – “Buy War Bonds” at Carrie Garner’s
Galleria d’Arte March 10, 2007
Galleria d’Arte March 10, 2007
Following his triumphant exhibit in August, 2006, Carrie Garner’s Galleria d’Arte proudly welcomes back Jonathon Kimbrell, owner of Napkin Art Studios, at an art reception on Saturday, March 10, 2007 from 7pm to 10pm.
Kimbrell salutes “the greatest generation” with his newest works from his “Buy War Bonds” series. Kimbrell’s works grab your attention with his use of bright, bold colors. A master of mixed media techniques, Kimbrell’s talent is showcased by his artistic interpretations of nostalgic personalities like Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe, and iconic symbols like the old Phillips 66 and Gulf company logos. Through his coupling of sentimental images and cutting-edge artistic techniques, Kimbrell’s “Buy War Bonds” series is guaranteed to pique the interests of multiple generations of art lovers.
2006 was a breakout year for this young and ultra-talented artist, with numerous exhibits throughout Texas , Nashville , Tennessee , and Washington DC
Born in Houston , Kimbrell now resides in Mesquite
Graduating in 2004 from McMurry University with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree, specializing in painting, photography, and graphic design, Kimbrell was named outstanding artist of McMurry Univerisity’s Art Department
Join us for a fun-filled evening celebrating community and the arts. As always, music, wine, and finger-foods await gallery guests. Co-sponsors of the reception are: A Twist of Lime, Alternative Furnishings, BLING!, Cadillac Pizza Pub, Main Street McKinney Market Square Market Street
For further information, contact Carrie Garner’s Galleria d’Arte at 469-742-9509 or visit us online at www.carriegarner.com. For more information about Kimbrell, visit www.jonathonkimbrell.com.
Background: Carrie Garner’s Galleria d’Arte, located in historic downtown McKinney
Galleria d’Arte hours are Tuesday thru Friday: 11am – 5pm; Saturday: 10am – 5pm; by appointment only on Sunday and Monday. To schedule an appointment, please call 469-742-9509.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
http://www.pandemicflu.gov/plan/individual/index.html
Read it, and then re-read it...ingest it, study it, and then make up yer own mind!
Read it, and then re-read it...ingest it, study it, and then make up yer own mind!
Friday, February 16, 2007
This is nothing short of a crying shame!...Whether its "binding" or "non binding" is of no consequence...its OK to oppose administration policy per se, in fact its our responsibility to question policy sometimes...but not OK to oppose the troops who do nothing more than follow orders from above! This will be highly demoralizing to those in the battlefield...for me personally, and for many other Americans, this sends the wrong message to the troops!!...This same ideology reared its ugly head in the Viet Nam era under a different disguise...Waiting now for Murtha's "slow bleed" bill to now hit the floor...
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
-- Douglas Adams
House Passes Resolution Opposing Bush's Plan to Send More Troops to Iraq
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
-- Douglas Adams
House Passes Resolution Opposing Bush's Plan to Send More Troops to Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252382,00.html
House Passes Resolution Opposing Bush's Plan to Send More Troops to Iraq
Friday , February 16, 2007
WASHINGTON —
House Democrats on Friday sent the Bush administration the clearest message to date on Iraq by passing a resolution that opposes the president's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to the war-torn country.
"The bipartisan resolution today may be nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the president: we here in Congress are committed and supporting our troops,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the House floor. “The passage of this legislation will signal change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon.”
House lawmakers wrapped up a four-day marathon debate leading up to the vote Friday. The Senate is expected to take up the debate for a test vote on Saturday. The resolution vote, however, won't alter Bush's policy in Iraq or stop the surge of troops into Baghdad.
Bush pitched his plan last month to send an additional U.S. forces into Iraq to quell sectarian violence there, igniting opposition from Democratic leaders and some Republicans.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., called Iraq a "defeat."
"What we now have in Iraq is a defeat. We cannot achieve the illusions of the Bush administration that we will be able to create a stable unified liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American," Waxman said on the House floor. "Instead, we have sectarian fighting, death squads and a disabled Middle East that threatens to be engulfed by the nightmare that we have unleashed."
Republicans warn the vote will embolden terrorists and insurgents, and send the wrong message to the troops on the ground, while Democrats argue that the troop surge will risk more American lives.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., asked fellow lawmakers to vote against the resolution, calling it "misguided and dangerous."
“You cannot support the troops if you are undermining their mission and challenging their commander in the field,” King said on the House floor. “By opposing this new policy, the supporters of the resolution are clearly undermining our new commander in Iraq at such a vital time at the conduct of this war.”
• Click here to read about Republicans' reaction to Democratic proposals to limit Iraq war funding.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who chairs the House panel that oversees military spending, said he plans to introduce legislation that would end Bush's plan by setting limits on which troops can be sent and would prevent them from being sent back too soon or too poorly equipped. Troops going overseas for another tour would have to stay in the United States at least one year before being redeployed.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told FOX News that Democratic attempts to cut off funding would put the nation at risk.
"It's going to make us more vulnerable. Democrats cannot walk away from this threat," Hoekstra said. "They cannot cut off funding on a larger scale because it will make us more vulnerable but I think that's exactly what they are doing. They are going to slowly squeeze this funding and limit the president's options."
Bush said Thursday he hopes Congress supports the troops.
"We have a responsibility. Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need to do their job and the flexibility they need to prevail," Bush said.
Republican military veteran lawmakers spoke in opposition to the resolution on Thursday.
"The enemy wants our men and women in uniform to think their Congress doesn't care about them," said Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war during Vietnam. "We must learn from our mistakes. We cannot leave a job undone like we left in Korea, like we left in Vietnam, like we left in Somalia."
Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., who plans to vote for the resolution, said the goal in Iraq is undefined.
"The American troops are over there fighting so that we can exercise our constitutional rights and obligation to debate these issues and have an opinion on them," Tierney said. "If you listen to the troops when they come home or read their letters or the letters of their parents, they don't understand what the mission is anymore, the goal is undefined."
On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada announced that he would keep the Senate in session this weekend to force debate on the House-drafted resolution.
The decision means a delay in the scheduled President's Day recess, and will force Republicans to confront a "yes" or "no" vote on the president's new Iraq security strategy.
"It's a vote on whether or not Republicans support the surge," Reid said.
Reid said the Senate will consider the House resolution and no other alternatives dealing with Iraq. Reid has even given up on a resolution by Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., that he championed two weeks ago. At that time, Republicans tied the Senate in procedural knots demanding debate and votes on a separate measure prohibiting Congress from cutting off funds for ongoing military operations in Iraq.
FOX News' Major Garrett and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
House Passes Resolution Opposing Bush's Plan to Send More Troops to Iraq
Friday , February 16, 2007
WASHINGTON —
House Democrats on Friday sent the Bush administration the clearest message to date on Iraq by passing a resolution that opposes the president's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to the war-torn country.
"The bipartisan resolution today may be nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the president: we here in Congress are committed and supporting our troops,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the House floor. “The passage of this legislation will signal change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon.”
House lawmakers wrapped up a four-day marathon debate leading up to the vote Friday. The Senate is expected to take up the debate for a test vote on Saturday. The resolution vote, however, won't alter Bush's policy in Iraq or stop the surge of troops into Baghdad.
Bush pitched his plan last month to send an additional U.S. forces into Iraq to quell sectarian violence there, igniting opposition from Democratic leaders and some Republicans.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., called Iraq a "defeat."
"What we now have in Iraq is a defeat. We cannot achieve the illusions of the Bush administration that we will be able to create a stable unified liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American," Waxman said on the House floor. "Instead, we have sectarian fighting, death squads and a disabled Middle East that threatens to be engulfed by the nightmare that we have unleashed."
Republicans warn the vote will embolden terrorists and insurgents, and send the wrong message to the troops on the ground, while Democrats argue that the troop surge will risk more American lives.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., asked fellow lawmakers to vote against the resolution, calling it "misguided and dangerous."
“You cannot support the troops if you are undermining their mission and challenging their commander in the field,” King said on the House floor. “By opposing this new policy, the supporters of the resolution are clearly undermining our new commander in Iraq at such a vital time at the conduct of this war.”
• Click here to read about Republicans' reaction to Democratic proposals to limit Iraq war funding.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who chairs the House panel that oversees military spending, said he plans to introduce legislation that would end Bush's plan by setting limits on which troops can be sent and would prevent them from being sent back too soon or too poorly equipped. Troops going overseas for another tour would have to stay in the United States at least one year before being redeployed.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told FOX News that Democratic attempts to cut off funding would put the nation at risk.
"It's going to make us more vulnerable. Democrats cannot walk away from this threat," Hoekstra said. "They cannot cut off funding on a larger scale because it will make us more vulnerable but I think that's exactly what they are doing. They are going to slowly squeeze this funding and limit the president's options."
Bush said Thursday he hopes Congress supports the troops.
"We have a responsibility. Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need to do their job and the flexibility they need to prevail," Bush said.
Republican military veteran lawmakers spoke in opposition to the resolution on Thursday.
"The enemy wants our men and women in uniform to think their Congress doesn't care about them," said Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war during Vietnam. "We must learn from our mistakes. We cannot leave a job undone like we left in Korea, like we left in Vietnam, like we left in Somalia."
Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., who plans to vote for the resolution, said the goal in Iraq is undefined.
"The American troops are over there fighting so that we can exercise our constitutional rights and obligation to debate these issues and have an opinion on them," Tierney said. "If you listen to the troops when they come home or read their letters or the letters of their parents, they don't understand what the mission is anymore, the goal is undefined."
On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada announced that he would keep the Senate in session this weekend to force debate on the House-drafted resolution.
The decision means a delay in the scheduled President's Day recess, and will force Republicans to confront a "yes" or "no" vote on the president's new Iraq security strategy.
"It's a vote on whether or not Republicans support the surge," Reid said.
Reid said the Senate will consider the House resolution and no other alternatives dealing with Iraq. Reid has even given up on a resolution by Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., that he championed two weeks ago. At that time, Republicans tied the Senate in procedural knots demanding debate and votes on a separate measure prohibiting Congress from cutting off funds for ongoing military operations in Iraq.
FOX News' Major Garrett and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
CELEBRATE FAT TUESDAY IN DOWNTOWN MCKINNEY
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Grab your Mardi Gras beads and head to downtown
“Fat Tuesday – Nawlins Party” celebration! The fun begins at 5pm on Tuesday,
February 20.
Cadillac Pizza Pub (
Each of these three participating restaurants will feature live blues bands and drink specials that are guaranteed to get your party started. Join in on the fun of a crawfish boil at Poppy’s Garden Café or Cadillac Pizza Pub (reservations encouraged) or have a casual bite to eat at Aparicio’s and then stroll the beautiful streets of historic, downtown McKinney, Nawlins’ style!
For further information, please call either:
Aparicio’s 214-733-8600
Cadillac Pizza Pub 972-547-DUDE (3833)
Poppy’s Garden Café 972-562-8386
The following editorial appears in the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009668
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Awaiting the Dishonor Roll
Congress "supports the troops" while emboldening the enemy.
Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral courage. But even grading on a curve, we can only describe this week's House debate on a vote of no-confidence in the mission in Iraq as one of the most shameful moments in the institution's history.
On present course, the Members will vote on Friday to approve a resolution that does nothing to remove American troops from harm's way in Iraq but that will do substantial damage to their morale and that of their Iraqi allies while emboldening the enemy. The only real question is how many Republicans will also participate in this disgrace in the mistaken belief that their votes will put some distance between themselves and the war most of them voted to authorize in 2002.
The motion at issue is plainly dishonest, in that exquisitely Congressional way of trying to have it both ways. (We reprint the text nearby.) The resolution purports to "support" the troops even as it disapproves of their mission. It praises their "bravery," while opposing the additional forces that both President Bush and General David Petreaus, the new commanding general in Iraq, say are vital to accomplishing that mission. And it claims to want to "protect" the troops even as its practical impact will be to encourage Iraqi insurgents to believe that every roadside bomb brings them closer to their goal.
As for how "the troops" themselves feel, we refer readers to Richard Engel's recent story on NBC News quoting Specialist Tyler Johnson in Iraq: "People are dying here. You know what I'm saying . . . You may [say] 'oh we support the troops.' So you're not supporting what they do. What they's [sic] here to sweat for, what we bleed for and we die for." Added another soldier: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything we've done here is all in vain." In other words, the troops themselves realize that the first part of the resolution is empty posturing, while the second is deeply immoral.
All the more so because if Congress feels so strongly about the troops, it arguably has the power to start removing them from harm's way by voting to cut off the funds they need to operate in Iraq. But that would make Congress responsible for what followed--whether those consequences are Americans killed in retreat, or ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, or the toppling of the elected Maliki government by radical Shiite or military forces. The one result Congress fears above all is being accountable.
We aren't prone to quoting the young John Kerry, but this week's vote reminds us of the comment the antiwar veteran told another cut-and-run Congress in the early 1970s: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" The difference this time is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha expect men and women to keep dying for something they say is a mistake but also don't have the political courage to help end.
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Instead, they'll pass this "non-binding resolution," to be followed soon by attempts at micromanagement that would make the war all but impossible to prosecute--and once again without taking responsibility. Mr. Murtha is already broadcasting his strategy, which the new Politico Web site described yesterday as "a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options."
In concert with antiwar groups, the story reported, Mr. Murtha's "goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the antiwar movement--the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field." So instead of cutting off funds, Mr. Murtha will "slow-bleed" the troops with "readiness" restrictions or limits on National Guard forces that will make them all but impossible to deploy. These will be attached to appropriations bills that will also purport to "support the troops."
"There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget,'' Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D., Hawaii) told the Web site. He must mean D-Day as in Dunkirk.
All of this is something that House Republicans should keep in mind as they consider whether to follow this retreat. The GOP leadership has been stalwart, even eloquent, this week in opposing the resolution. But some Republicans figure they can use this vote to distance themselves from Mr. Bush and the war while not doing any real harm. They should understand that the Democratic willingness to follow the Murtha "slow-bleed" strategy will depend in part on how many Republicans follow them in this vote. The Democrats are themselves divided on how to proceed, and they want a big GOP vote to give them political cover. However "non-binding," this is a vote that Republican partisans will long remember.
History is likely to remember the roll as well. A newly confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, risking their lives for their country. And the message their elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009668
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Awaiting the Dishonor Roll
Congress "supports the troops" while emboldening the enemy.
Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral courage. But even grading on a curve, we can only describe this week's House debate on a vote of no-confidence in the mission in Iraq as one of the most shameful moments in the institution's history.
On present course, the Members will vote on Friday to approve a resolution that does nothing to remove American troops from harm's way in Iraq but that will do substantial damage to their morale and that of their Iraqi allies while emboldening the enemy. The only real question is how many Republicans will also participate in this disgrace in the mistaken belief that their votes will put some distance between themselves and the war most of them voted to authorize in 2002.
The motion at issue is plainly dishonest, in that exquisitely Congressional way of trying to have it both ways. (We reprint the text nearby.) The resolution purports to "support" the troops even as it disapproves of their mission. It praises their "bravery," while opposing the additional forces that both President Bush and General David Petreaus, the new commanding general in Iraq, say are vital to accomplishing that mission. And it claims to want to "protect" the troops even as its practical impact will be to encourage Iraqi insurgents to believe that every roadside bomb brings them closer to their goal.
As for how "the troops" themselves feel, we refer readers to Richard Engel's recent story on NBC News quoting Specialist Tyler Johnson in Iraq: "People are dying here. You know what I'm saying . . . You may [say] 'oh we support the troops.' So you're not supporting what they do. What they's [sic] here to sweat for, what we bleed for and we die for." Added another soldier: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything we've done here is all in vain." In other words, the troops themselves realize that the first part of the resolution is empty posturing, while the second is deeply immoral.
All the more so because if Congress feels so strongly about the troops, it arguably has the power to start removing them from harm's way by voting to cut off the funds they need to operate in Iraq. But that would make Congress responsible for what followed--whether those consequences are Americans killed in retreat, or ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, or the toppling of the elected Maliki government by radical Shiite or military forces. The one result Congress fears above all is being accountable.
We aren't prone to quoting the young John Kerry, but this week's vote reminds us of the comment the antiwar veteran told another cut-and-run Congress in the early 1970s: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" The difference this time is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha expect men and women to keep dying for something they say is a mistake but also don't have the political courage to help end.
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Instead, they'll pass this "non-binding resolution," to be followed soon by attempts at micromanagement that would make the war all but impossible to prosecute--and once again without taking responsibility. Mr. Murtha is already broadcasting his strategy, which the new Politico Web site described yesterday as "a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options."
In concert with antiwar groups, the story reported, Mr. Murtha's "goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the antiwar movement--the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field." So instead of cutting off funds, Mr. Murtha will "slow-bleed" the troops with "readiness" restrictions or limits on National Guard forces that will make them all but impossible to deploy. These will be attached to appropriations bills that will also purport to "support the troops."
"There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget,'' Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D., Hawaii) told the Web site. He must mean D-Day as in Dunkirk.
All of this is something that House Republicans should keep in mind as they consider whether to follow this retreat. The GOP leadership has been stalwart, even eloquent, this week in opposing the resolution. But some Republicans figure they can use this vote to distance themselves from Mr. Bush and the war while not doing any real harm. They should understand that the Democratic willingness to follow the Murtha "slow-bleed" strategy will depend in part on how many Republicans follow them in this vote. The Democrats are themselves divided on how to proceed, and they want a big GOP vote to give them political cover. However "non-binding," this is a vote that Republican partisans will long remember.
History is likely to remember the roll as well. A newly confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, risking their lives for their country. And the message their elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
