It’s unfortunate that the media has created the impression that a lot of Americans have no respect for the military.

It’s not the case. It just isn’t the case.

It’s just that those who are out there trumpeting their dislike or disrespect for the military happened to have their voices amplified by a sympathetic media.

Then, when you have elected Democrats saying what Dick Durbin said about prison guards at Abu Ghraib and Club Gitmo, when you have John Kerry referring to US troops in Afghanistan, engaging in terrorism, storming into the homes of Iraqi citizens at night, when you have Murtha, before questioning the evidence, even waiting for the evidence to be presented and judged, concluding that we have murderers, and then he couches it with “they’re overworked; there’s not enough of them over there; there’s too much pressure on them, being driven nuts, they’re murderers,” and this has to affect them.

And, of course, the impression is that that represents a majority of thinking in this country.

It doesn’t, and if it did, we wouldn’t be there.

If all of these things, all these polls, people want us out of Iraq, if they were really accurate, then the Democrats would have the political guts to go ahead and vote to de-fund it.

The reason they don’t is because they know that the majority of the American people do not want to lose; do not want to demoralize the American military; do not want them to come home after waving a white flag.

Be confident about that, because I’m certain of it.

STARK: They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where you gonna get that money? You gonna 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 could get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.

They have lost it. If there is any doubt, they have totally lost it. This is probably — I don’t know for sure, I’m going to speculate, since he brought children into this — that this is some debate, the speeches prior to the override vote on the SCHIP bill. Because he said, “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…” meaning to hit 18, because they’re going to die because we’re not going to pass the SCHIP program, is the implication. “…for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.” Since he didn’t single out any particular Republican by name, the remarks were not taken down. But he was talking about the Republicans.

The National Republican Congressional Committee declared that he had trampled on the sacrifice of our troops with this comment. This guy — look, he’s long been a nutcase. He’s from the Bay Area, long been a full-fledged, certifiable nutcase. This is who they are, folks. Now, I know a lot of people say, “This is not all Democrats. You can’t generalize like that.” He is much closer to them than you might want to admit, much closer to them than you realize. He’s certainly a dead ringer for the people on their blogs out there that are yanking the chains, the kind of anti-war activists that Sen. Harry goes to see on a Monday night that nobody knows about ’til afterwards, that’s the way they think.

Those are the people telling Sen. Harry what they’re unhappy about, and these are the kind of people Sen. Harry has to try to keep happy. Same with Pelosi. Her complaining and whining the other day about all these protesters polluting her yard and her garden by hanging out there, she couldn’t get rid of them because they had “impeach Bush” T-shirts on, which meant it was a free speech issue. Fortney “Pete” Stark is one of those guys. I mean, he’s not out there on her lawn, but the way they think. This is Battered Liberal Syndrome.

Here’s the dirty little secret. This guy is from San Francisco. He’s from the Bay Area. This reflects a lot of the thinking in that part of the country. He meant to say this. He is famous for going overboard on any number of subjects in the number of years that I have been familiar with Fortney “Pete” Stark. But I’m going to tell you something, he meant to say this, he was proud that he said it, I’m sure. He may end up apologizing, but if he does, that’s what’s going to be phony. I think he’ll come back with another attack: “They’re trying to shut me up or make me apologize and so forth.

He holds the US military, and the president, and everybody that he referred to in that speech in total contempt.

60 Minutes is doing a big profile over the weekend. They are pushing the hell out of Valerie Plame’s book, all over the news media.

She’s number 509 on Amazon, number 509 and they’re still pushing it, and because this takes ’em back to Bush. It takes ’em back to the template that they really love.

It’s as surreal as what happened to Scooter Libby. She was not outed by Bush administration people.

Well, Richard Armitage is in the Bush administration, but he’s not sympathetic to the Bush administration when it came to the Iraq war.

Richard Armitage was the one that leaked to Novak. He knew throughout the investigation that he was the leaker, and yet he didn’t come forward, and Scooter Libby is convicted on a process crime.

The whole thing was surreal.

The whole thing was based on lies.

Joe Wilson is a liar!

Joe Wilson came back from Niger and told a story about what he found there, that the CIA and the Senate committee both said, “Hey, this kind of confirms what we thought about Iraq trying to get uranium from Niger.” The Senate intelligence committee labeled him… Well, they didn’t call him a liar. They just found that his report, his testimony was labeled in an op-ed piece that he wrote in the New York Times was just riddled with falsehoods.

It’s a harsh thing to say.

I understand that this is a harsh thing to say.

I don’t know how to say it any other way:

liberals lie.

They have to have a monopoly in order to flourish because in a monopoly, the lies never get challenged.

Democrat Congress Fail on Every Issue… Lame duck Congress

Here’s a story:

“Democrats Look Ahead as Veto Override Falters — With little expectation of overriding President Bush’s veto, Democrats in Congress said Wednesday that they would pass a new bill to provide health insurance for 10 million children, but were willing to tweak it to address some White House concerns.”

What do you mean, they’re “willing to tweak it“? They lost this.

The president has vetoed their bill, and they don’t have the votes to override it. “Many Republicans argue that the vetoed bill would allow coverage of children from middle- and upper-income families and of adults and some illegal immigrants. Democrats reject such criticism, but say they will consider revising the bill to make its restrictions and prohibitions clearer.”

Really? They have no choice, ladies and gentlemen, if they want the bill. They’ve just been told that their way is not going to happen.

The Republicans are holding on this. They’re going to make it a little clearer that this will not apply to middle-class and upper-class children. In fact, there’s a great quote here from Sen. Harry himself. In the Senate, “he might be willing to ‘tweak something’ in the bill to help the president ‘save face.’“

Now, that is just laughable. That’s hilarious. Save face? Save face? Senator Reid, do you understand, it is you who needs to come up with something fast to save face. The president has just skunked you again, and the Republicans have just beaten you back again.

“We’re going to help the president save face on this.” They’re really concerned here that the president’s going to look bad in the eyes of parents who have children who may not be covered by this, and so the Democrats want to make sure the president saves face — and, of course, the Media report this without even one tinge of incredulity.

Oh, by the way, latest CBS News poll released yesterday found overwhelming support for expansion of the program to include some middle-class, uninsured children. This flies in the face of the USA Today/Gallup poll we had earlier in the week which says just the opposite.

Now, which poll are we gonna believe? You know these elected officials run and rule their lives with polls. If this CBS poll were accurate, the president’s veto would be overridden, because they would interpret the poll as meaning that’s what the American people want. They could throw this poll out.

This is the Los Angeles Times: “Democrats Put Heat on Pelosi Over Genocide Bill.“ A supreme failure of congressional leadership. Jack Murtha says to Pelosi, “You’ve miscalculated your support on this,” and the Democrats are clueless on the merits of it when they signed it.
To continue “top Democrats are leaning on Pelosi.” Murtha “said party leaders miscalculated support for the measure.”

Of course, they did! They hold average people in contempt. They do not yet understand that most Americans don’t want to lose the war in Iraq. When Americans found out that this genocide resolution against Turkey was going to have a negative impact on US military personnel in combat, they let Washington know about it. That’s what Murtha’s talking about: “We miscalculated this.”

Murtha said that a number of lawmakers who signed on as cosponsors “didn’t have a clue what it was all about.“

Then yesterday in his press conference, the president accused the Democrats of achieving little on Capitol Hill. He threw down the gauntlet to Pelosi and Reid. Remember, this guy is the lame duck.

He said, “You haven’t done squat.” He didn’t use those words. He said, “You haven’t done squat,” and, you know, Pelosi is just livid about this. She claims the president’s being “partisan,” and just making all kinds of mistakes on this.

The LA Times: “Chill Cast on US-Russia Relations.“ Once again, Bush rubbed the Democrats’ noses in the Iraq war debate that they lost recently. He said, “Well, we’ve found some common ground,” and Pelosi seethed! You know, Bush is throwing out this olive branch, and Pelosi seethes over the notion that they’ve found common ground. She “called Bush’s attack ‘partisan.’ This is an example of the president claiming to seek common ground at the same time he’s bitterly attacking Congress.'”

This is surreal.

The Washington Post:“Senate and Bush Agree on Terms of Spying Bill.“

The Democrats have totally collapsed on the FISA Bill. The ACLU, on page three, is calling what happened to the Democrats “a total meltdown. … The collapse marked the first time since Democrats took control of the chamber that a major bill was withdrawn from consideration before a scheduled vote. It was a victory for President Bush, whose aides lobbied heavily against the Democrats’ bill and an embarrassment for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had pushed the measure’s passage.“

Everything they are trying is falling apart. Everything. They have done nothing. It is they who need to “save face.“

And look at the Media – they are just beside themselves over the Democrats’ inability to get anything done.

ROBACH: It happened with war legislation, and now it looks like it will happen again with children’s health care. The president takes a stand, the Democrats promise a fight, but in the end, the president comes out on top.

FOREMAN: Democrats at several levels of government are stumbling.

CUOMO: Democrats appear headed for defeat in the battle over expanding children’s health insurance.

HUME: This looks like kind of an embarrassing defeat for the leadership

BLITZER: House Democrats may be losing yet another battle, this one over domestic spying.

YELLIN: Republicans are crowing and Democrats are trying to figure out what to do next.

BASH: A rebellion among Pelosi’s own Democrats…

FRANKEN: Such a political debacle for the Democrats…

COURIC: Why aren’t these things getting done?

CAFFERTY: You know, Ray Charles could have seen that was a stupid idea from the beginning. You’re just doing a great job, Pelosi. Terrific.

The fact that they can’t get anything done is not a reflection on Bush, as far as the Media is concerned. It’s not a reflection on the House or Senate Republicans. It’s a reflection on the Democrats.

“Why can’t they get anything done?” When the Democrats lose elections, for the next two years all we hear about in the Media is, “What do the Democrats have to do to get control of the House back? What do they have to do to win the White House?” As though the norm, the standard operating procedure, is Democrats running everything.

It’s hilarious to watch this.

They literally are focused on destroying Bush, and the Democrats in Washington are the same way. Now, here’s Murtha. We continue on with the theme of Democrats in disarray. Yesterday at a Capitol Hill press conference, he just cuts the legs out of Pelosi.

MURTHA: I must have had 25, 30 members, Democrats, come to me yesterday and say, you know…very agitated about this coming to the floor right now, they — they have gotten the message. So I would say if we were to run today, wouldn’t pass. She feels morally committed to this issue. It’s just that, uh, uh, uh, it’s impractical at this point to — to go forward with it.

Why is that, Congressman Murtha?

Why is it “impractical…to go forward“?

Is it just because it can’t pass, or is it because some of you Democrats finally figured out exactly what this bill was, or was it because you got bombarded with phone calls and e-mails again from people who saw what you were trying to do — and that is, undercut victory in the Iraq war?

Murtha then continued.

MURTHA: We need every ally we can get. They’re important to on our effort in Iraq. We got 160,000 troops in Iraq. This is important to the US effort in Iraq. Period.

Well, hallelujah! We finally got a little truth here.

Murtha says, “We got 160,000 troops there. We need every ally we can get.” We don’t need to go running them off. That’s exactly what the Democrats wanted to do. Now, I made the statement the other day that there had to be some adults in there somewhere that realized this was going to destroy them even more than they already are destroyed, or damage them even more than they’re damaged — and Murtha’s comment here tends to indicate that.

Here’s Pelosi. This is what she said yesterday after it became clear that the Turkey-Armenia resolution had fallen short.

PELOSI: Whether it will come up or not or, what the reaction will be, remains to be seen.

Right. Well, just three days before that she was on Stephanopoulos‘ show and said this.

PELOSI: I said if the — if it passed the committee, that we would bring it to the floor.

Yeah. Well, it passed the committee, and you didn’t get it to the floor, and everything that they have tried has just been an abysmal failure.

So they are in disarray, and we all know why they’re in disarray, because the things that they’re attempting to do are not right. Just in a decent world sense, right versus wrong, the things they’re trying to do are wrong. They are harmful if they were to pass, damaging and harmful to this country’s national security.

I am DONE with the argument :
The War in Iraq is Unconstitutional…

For all those that stick to this absurd assertion, please review the following Resolution.

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 – [H.J. Res. 114]

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations” and urged the President “to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations”;

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
`to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677”;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
“supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that
Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688”;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to “work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge” posed by Iraq and to “work for the necessary
resolutions,” while also making clear that “the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable”;

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note. assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to–
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.–The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.–In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that–
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.–
(1) Specific statutory authorization.–Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.–Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) NOTE: President. Reports. The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

[[Page 116 STAT. 1502]]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.–To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.–To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY–H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
—————————————————————————

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statements