SPAGGs – The Sniveling Pansy Assed GOP GirlyMen – Caucus
(AAA’s note: This one will surely piss off people.
If you decide you cannot possibly read this through to the end because “I break the 11th Commandment”, and I know some of you are out there, well, no loss.
If you’re a Republican and think I am wrong, but willing to hear me out, please let me know how, specifically, I am wrong and Coleman is right to send a message of weakness.
If you agree with me, Hugh Hewitt, or my notion, please contact Congressional Republicans and send them a clear message that now is not the time to waiver in the war on terror and send our enemy a message that we do not have faith in the commander in chief.
If you’re a lefty, I know where you stand, blah blah, Bush lied I suck, yeah yeah, got it. Thanks, heard it all. Go find a left wing echo chamber somewhere else. )
S.P.A.G.G.s
One of the Iraq surrender monkeys (SPAGGs) who is supporting a vote against the President on Iraq is Sen. George Voinovich. In case you don’t remember who this guy is, you may want to get in your way back machines for a second. He’s the same guy who broke down into tears over John Bolton’s appointment as UN Ambassador on the floor of the US Senate.
Listen to it if you don’t believe me.
This guy is a so-called Republican.
You can find some old posts on that whole thing here. There’s reportedly 8 Republican Senators willing to vote against the president on his Iraq strategy. One of them is none other than our own Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota who is cozying up with Sen. Voinovich and the cut and run Democrats.
You can find out how to contact Coleman here (links near bottom of post) to express yourself.
I do not like the idea of supporting SPAGGs. I am sorry. I know it will piss a lot of people off, but it pisses me off that Coleman is willing to blacken the eye of the Commander in Chief at a time of war. He is making his decision, and I will not be forced to make the same. No money or personal support from me if this is the Coleman who will be on the ballot in 2008. Its not a threat. Its a statement of fact. And I can safely say that I am not alone.
The war on terror is one of the most important issue for me, and all Coleman seems to be doing is allowing himself to be used by the Democrats to drum up support for cutting and running in the central front in the war on terror. (Either that or he is calculating his current policy purely on the opinion polls with the election coming round the corner.) In either case, I expect a little more from a person with that (R) behind their name.
I am sorry, but Coleman is crossing a line with me. He’s doing exactly what the Democrats were/are regarding the war. I would feel incredibly hypocritical to attack Klobuchar, Webb, Walz, or Ellison for their opposition to the surge and the strategy in general (change the course), if I didn’t also mention Coleman and the SPAGG Republicans.
Coleman’s not a full blown Murtha-esque retreater like the Democrats, but he is playing politics at a time of war. Coleman has the ear of the President should he want to really warn the President about the Baghdad portion of the Surge. He does not need to take that to the airwaves and Senate Floor to express his concern. It appears he’s just triangulating in public view so as to stake out both sides of this critical issue during an election cycle. Not complete opposition to Bush, so he doesn’t lose his base, but still opposing the surge in Baghdad to win over some war skeptics who are beginning to believe the Democrat’s hype. I’m sorry to post this here, but that is exactly what it looks like he is doing to me.
Go read this one from Hugh and the links he gives.
The Congressional GOP has to realize it cannot have it both ways –you can’t be for victory after you were against it.
I am sorry, and I do not mean major disrespect to Sen. Coleman, but I do have a major problem with him on this major issue, and will not just sit on my hands because he happens to be a Republican. There are enough of those types running around already. He’s playing into the Democrats hands and they do not want to win in Iraq, and he is contributing to the notion that even Republicans don’t want to win in Iraq anymore.
Do you want to know why Bush’s poll numbers are so low? It’s because even his fellow Republicans refuse to stand by his side.
Whether Coleman believes he is right and Bush is wrong is irrelevant. Politics should stop at the waters edge at a time of war. Our enemy is watching every move Congress makes. Like we saw the battlefield on CNN and FOX News 3 years ago, our enemy can see every single thing that Congress is doing right now. And with Coleman’s help, they are seeing that we do not have the stomach, strength, or resolve to finish this fight. And of course they will escalate the war to further drive a wedge between the Commander in Chief and Congressional Republicans up for reelection. They know exactly how to manipulate a war when it is fought politically. Its too bad we’re not able to understand that.
A strong unified message to our enemy and resolve is what is needed. Unfortunately, the Democrats were never truly on board, and are now peeling off SPAGGs to lose us the war on terror.
Sphere: Related Content
Apparently Senator Coleman has changed his vote in committee, whether due to the outcry from “real” Republicans or that he finally came to his senses, I do not know. Thanks to those who called him, regardless.
Where I disagree is that this is some sort of test of party loyalty, patriotism or courage. It is, in some sense, and those are important things, but for me it all boils down to a test of intelligence that I hope our senior Senator can pass. It is a test of intelligence for three reasons, all painfully obvious and incontrovertible.
1. As you say, all this defeat and retreat talk is exactly what the enemy wants us to do. If you’re just going to do what your enemy wants anyway, why have a war at all? Such talk gets our soldiers killed and, if carried far enough, gets ME killed and I hate it when that happens.
2. This is a =non-binding= resolution. President Bush, our CIC, is going to “surge” the troops anyway. He is already getting ALL the blame for failure, and is trying to fix “his” problem. If you tell him not to, and he doesn’t, it’s now YOUR fault he failed. If he does it anyway and succeeds, it’s then HIS fault that we won and you get NO credit at all. (or at least that’s as it should be).
3. This resolution “advises” the President not to follow some particular (likely to succeed) tactic. It does NOT tell him what tactic he SHOULD follow in its stead. If you don’t have a better idea, why not let the guy that DOES have an idea try to win this thing?
Actually, it’s a lot simpler than most of us think. The Democrats’ position can be summed up easily as, “Quick, let’s withdraw before we accidentally win.”