Democrat Posturing = Paralysis

From Neal Boortz:
ANOTHER WORTHLESS RESOLUTION

The Senate is debating another non-binding resolution on the war in Iraq. Really...don't these people actually have something else to do? What about the first 100 hours of Democratic rule? Oh, that only applied to the House. So the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution yesterday saying President Bush's troop surge was not in the national interest.

Actually, it's not correct to say that this resolution is worthless. It is actually quite valuable. Not to us, but to the Islamic fascists. This resolution can be used as a rallying point for their recruitment of new followers. "See! We're winning! We have the unbelievers on the run! Join us in the Jihad! Victory is at hand!" [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Boortz goes on to say how they are going to waste time debating it, filibustering it and holding hearings in committee. All over a non-binding resolution that won't do anything but weaken the moral of our troops and encourage our enemies. Is this what we use our tax dollars to pay them for?

If the Democrats really wanted to DO something, they could cut funding for the surge. But they won't do that, because they would then have to take responsibility for the carnage and everything else that would follow.

The Democrats are doing what they do best; posturing. Taking a position against something, without offering any plan or contributing real help to solving the problem. It's precisely that refusal to do anything, that resulted in 9-11. How many more 9-11s will we need to experience, before they stop their paralysing posturing?


It seems that the only enemy the Democrats see are the Republican Party, and Walmart. They don't seem to realise that we dare not turn our backs on what is happening in the Middle East, and go about our business as if it doesn't affect us. We've done that before, and the result was 9-11, with the promise of worse to come.

Here's a good example of "worse to come", from Maynard at Tammy Bruce's blog:
Newt Warns of Iran's Nuclear Holocaust
He quotes a portion of a recent speech by Newt Gingrich:

Three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust," Gingrich declared, adding: "People are greatly underestimating how dangerous the world is becoming. I'll repeat it, three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust. Our enemies are quite explicit in their desire to destroy us. They say it publicly. We are sleepwalking through this process as though it's only a problem of communication."

"Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany, and more determined that the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get. There is no rational ability to deny that fact. It's very clear that the problems are larger and more immediate than the political systems in Israel or the US are currently capable of dealing with," said Gingrich.

(bold emphasis mine) Too many Democrats seem to think that Iran has nothing to do with events in Iraq; they fail to see that we are dealing with a trans-national movement, of which Iraq is only one front. If we fail or walk away from this, it will surely follow us, our enemies more resolved than ever.

I'm sick of the Democrats useless posturing and posing. Is it too much to ask for some BI-PARTISAN cooperation in actually DEALING with this?

More from Neal Boortz:
DICK CHENEY UNLOADS ON IRAQ

Dick Cheney blew his stack in an interview with Wolf Blitzer [video] and finally fought back on Iraq... and he was mostly right. Despite the problems in Iraq, there really are some things that have gone right. [...]

[...] It also is somewhat amazing how we have forgotten that the Democrats were solidly for removing Saddam from power. The invasion had widespread Democrat support on Capitol Hill. When things started to get a bit rough, tough, the Democrats turned. They saw a worsening situation in Iraq as an opportunity to demonize their true enemy .. George Bush. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) It's too true. Where is the Bipartisan leadership we need?