Boneless Wonders

After reading quite a few blog sites this AM I came across one that discovered that Grandma Pelosi and her lapdog Reid have come up with another way to to speak out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. I had always thought that was a physical impossibility.
We hear every day from them that they don't support the war in Iraq and WON'T send in more troops. So when it comes right down to the part where it says in the Constitution that," Congress shall vote to fund or not, any wars",(wording is not exact, but the gist is there), they are just to GD chicken shit to actually vote for their convictions! So what do they do? They decide to introduce a NON_BINDING resolution regarding sending more troops! And this will do what? Oh yeah, if things turn out bad in Iraq in the next two years, it will perfectly position them for the '08 Prez run by saying look how GWB F***** up THAT idea of more troops on the ground. Conversely, if things turn out well, why then you will hear loud and continuous bloviating about how they NEVER did cut funding for the war and were the greatest supporters of the "absolutely needed conflict in order to establish democracy in the middle east".
You would think that their mouths as well as their brains would HURT after all the doublespeak emanating from them. Let's see, did I not hear grandma P speaking about a Congress filled with "Transparency and Bi-partisanship"? Well it sure is transparent in some respects! Bi-Partisan? It appears to be well and truly on it's way down the tubes also. Wait and see I guess! TIFN
PS Don't forget the previous post. I need lots more input of any kind! Thanks
PPS: Go over to the right side of this page and click on Michael Yon Online Mag. Then navigate around so that you read the three section,"Walking the Line" post in order. This will give you a sense of what's going on "over there"!


Sam said...

Here's a quote from the Observer, a newspaper out of England. Put this in your pipe and smoke it. /Sam

"That ratcheting up of pressure on Iran is getting more visible by the day even if the new US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, insisted to Congress last week under fierce questioning that US troops would not touch Iranian soil. That may be the case. But in February, a second US carrier strike force, accompanying the USS John C Stennis, will arrive in the Gulf to join the carrier the USS Eisenhower, and its group, in a marked new show of force. Extra US F-16 fighter planes also have reportedly flown into Turkey too, ostensibly for a joint war game. There is talk too of extra Patriot anti-missile batteries being deployed by the US in the Middle East."

Anonymous said...


If the Democrats cut funding for the operation, you would blow your top. If they supported the opporation, you would call them hypocrits. Your post sounds like an editorial for Fox news.

If I were you, I'd be upset at the Pres for telling us that everything has been going great for the past four years...only now to come to face reality.

Sam said...

I think the SWAG is that the Democrats would never cut funds for troops over in Iraq, as that is viewed as being really un-American. Even Mr. Murtha, who would love to pull back right now, would never vote to leave the forces moneyless in Iraq.

Even asking about the price tag is a wee bit of a problem, since the dead and injured are much more important than a few billion dollars - doing so you be disrespectful in the extreme.

I'll keep my opinions to myself but am alarmed at even more news that Iran is "taunting" Secretary Gates. I just don't like the looks of this one ... expanding the war would be the worst possible thing to happen.

Ex-Manissean said...

To surge or not to surge, San Fran Nan, Iran, Youran. Fuggeddaboutit for a while. How about a lighter moment of the eternal wisdom of Cliff:
One night at Cheers, Cliff Clavin explained the " Buffalo theory" to his buddy Norm:
"Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.
In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine!
That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers"

Sam said...

You're right, Ex-Man. You know, I miss those days after a wintery blow when the wind finally calms and the sun comes out. Sure, I used to visit BI in the winter when I was younger and it left a big impression on me.

It still might be cold but that darn wind stopped at least for a few hours and the whole Island just went "ahhhhh." People came out of their holes like gophers, blinking in the blinding sun. It was as if the world stopped and smiled, if just for an instant.

My favorite image was the old ferry dock when it still had some slush in spots but you could walk down and help the crew throw a line onto a piling. For one moment I was a Really Big Man. But they weren't smiling at me; it was just a beautiful winter day with a prospect of hope and happiness. /Sammie

Good Listener said...

Ex-man - so there must be something to the saying "Drinking beer must make you smart because it made Bud Wiser...." (Just a little digression from the intent of this post.)

Ex-Manissean said...

Everett, I just happened to come across the origin of the term "boneless wonder" as it pertains to politicians at least:

"I remember when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum's Circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the program which I most desired to see was the one described as 'The Boneless Wonder.' My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralizing and revolting for my youthful eye, and I have waited 50 years to see The Boneless Wonder--sitting on the Treasury Bench."

--Winston Churchill, January 28, 1931,
in the House of Commons, referring to Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald

Sam said...

Good one my friend.

How about Upton Sinclair and his book 'The Jungle,' which was all about boneless meat products? It could be that Mr. Churchill was well aware of the US meat packing industry and its increasing socialization in the 1920's and 1930's, and was making a comment about much more than a certain individual lacking some backbone.

To call an English Lord a "boneless wonder" and a common rabble socialist from Chicago must have really have a huge effect. /Sammie

Everett said...

Hi Ex-man, You must have come across the same blog that I got the term from originally. I used that term 'cause I thought it applied here. Of course in the vernacular of we US Navy types from a generation ago, it had quite a different conotation (sp) when applied to someone lacking in a supply of those items deemed necessary for propagation of the species!

Everett said...

Hi Ex-man, You must have come across the same blog that I got the term from originally. I used that term 'cause I thought it applied here. Of course in the vernacular of we US Navy types from a generation ago, it had quite a different conotation (sp) when applied to someone lacking in a supply of those items deemed necessary for propagation of the species!

Sam said...

I thought all you needed was a whole bunch of beer, Everett!