It's About Time

Finally, there is some plain talk on Capitol Hill.

Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) finally told the nation what Democrats really think of President Bush.

Apparently, Stark got a little steamed with Republicans, who weren't willing to fall for the Democrats' next step toward socialism: the expansion of the SCHIP program.

From Stark:

"I'm just amazed that they can't figure out -- the Republicans are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq."

"Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

So, according to Representative Stark, we're only in Iraq so that President Bush can get his jollies watching US troops "get their heads blown off?"

In the height of irony, there hasn't been much of any condemnation for Stark's comments from the Left. Thankfully, however, Republican leader John Boehner called Stark on it:

"Our troops in Iraq are fighting against al-Qaeda and other radical jihadists hellbent on killing the people we are sent here to represent. Congressman Stark's statement dishonors not only the Commander-in-Chief, but the thousands of courageous men and women of America's armed forces who believe in their mission and are putting their lives on the line for our freedom and security. Congressman Stark should retract his statement and apologize to the House, our Commander-in-Chief, and the families of our soldiers and commanders fighting terror overseas."

There's only one point that I disagree with Congressman Boehner on: after the shameful example that Pete Stark has made of himself, I think some form of seppuku (aka hari kari) would be much more appropriate.

Seriously, though, I think that more Democrats should stand up like Pete Stark, speak their minds and tell the people of America how they really feel; if Americans knew what most Democrat leaders truly believed, the only constituency left to vote for them would be the hate-filled anti-war commie wackos in Code Pink & International ANSWER (in other words, nine-tenths of the population of the San Francisco Bay area).

UPDATE***
Liberal wackos come to Stark's aid.

This is how liberals are: if conservatives either (1) makes the slightest misstep or (2) defends America's sovereignty and/or national security, they should be made to apologize (or thrown in jail, depending on the vitriol of the issue), but liberals can get away with saying whatever they want.

I'd bet good money that the same liberals who are defending Pete Stark are the ones who think Ann Coulter should be censored.

***UPDATE***

While it's pretty much impossible to get complete common sense out of a liberal, at least Nanci Pelosi has done something slightly encouraging by rebuking Pete Stark...it seems that her main concern was not the outrageousness of his statement, but the fact that it "distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand—providing health care for America's children."

Now if we could just get her to come to her senses on the whole socialism thing...

Will they ever get it right?

The Democrats have yet to begin drafting a new bill to give US troops in Iraq the funding they need. As a result, the Army has had to slow down on needed repairs until they can be assured that they will get the money necessary for their continued campaign.

It seems to me that the Democrats in Congress are doing just what they accused President Bush of doing early on in the war, when they accused him of not giving the troops the supplies that they needed. They accused the President of not providing needed body armor or armor for vehicles. Now, without the funding that they need, the Army cannot complete the repairs they need. How does this make the Democrats any better than the villian they daily accuse President Bush of being?

These Congressmen, who from the beginning have claimed to "support the troops without supporting the war" are now supporting neither. Their pork-laden war funding bill, replete with conditions requiring troop withdraw, was tantamount to begging for a Presidential veto, and it was all done for political reasons, so that they could then blame the President for the lack of war funding.

The Democrats have also claimed from the beginning that the war in Iraq is "another Vietnam," and now they are truly trying to make it so. The aftermath of the US withdraw from Vietnam was a slaughter: the killing fields in Cambodia, Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge - hundreds of thousands of people dead who didn't have to die. Now, the Democrats want to pull our troops out of Iraq, the foreseeable results of which will be the deaths of millions. The possibility of a greater war and ethnic cleansing throughout the Middle East would be a major threat - almost an inevitability. If the Democrats can accomplish that, then all of their dire predictions and comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam will finally come true.

Millions will die, but at least the Democrats will have been right.