SubscribeSchumer Deletes US Troop Slur From Speech
As proudly displayed on Senator Chuck Schumer’s own taxpayer provided website:
REMARKS BY SENATOR CHARLES E. SCHUMER
September 5, 2007
Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture and cling to straws when the situation on the ground and common sense suggest just the opposite.
Now, some have argued that the surge in Iraq is working. But, Mr. President, all you have to do is look at the facts to know that that is not the case. The President went to Anbar Province, which at the moment he is touting as a place of success, but we all know what’s happening in Iraq. Many other provinces are in terrible shape. In Iraq you get the certain sense that when you push on one end of the balloon and make things a little better, something pops out at another end.
And the fallacy of the President’s new policy is just amazing. Are we placing our faith in the future of Iraq in the hands of some tribal leaders who at the moment dislike al Qaeda more than they dislike us? Make no mistake about it. They’re no friends of Americans.
Is this the vaunted, clarion cry for democracy in the Middle East that the President announced when he started the build-up in Iraq? Obviously not.
This is a policy of last resort. This is a policy of desperation.
To say at the moment that some warlords in one province in Iraq happen to be shooting at al Qaeda when months from now they could easily turn around and resume shooting at Americans—which they did in the past—that’s nothing to base a policy on. What kind of policy is it? What are the odds that six months from now the fragile and perilous situation in Anbar will reverse itself and collapse?
We’ve heard of success stories every six or eight months. This province, this town, this city. “They’re cleared, they’re safe.” And then because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation. And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.
The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.” It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.
And as I said, Mr. President, we’ve heard about successes in the past. They’re temporary. They’re not based on any permanent structural change or any permanent change in the views of Iraqi citizens. We’ve heard about success in Baghdad and we’ve heard about success in Fallujah and they vanish like the wind.
So now, at a time when the American people are crying out for a change in course, some are pointing to a temporary situation in one province – Anbar – based on a few warlords, who don’t believe in democracy and who don’t like America, as a way to continue the present misguided policy? It makes no sense. It makes no sense because the fundamentals in Iraq stay the same. There is no central government that has any viability. The Shiites, the Kurds and the Sunnis dislike one another far more than they like or want any central government, and these two facts doom the administration policy for failure.
Just seven or eight months ago when the President began the surge, he said it was to give the present government breathing room, to strengthen the Maliki government. Today we have more troops, more military patrols, more death, and the Iraqi government grows weaker. How can we regard the Bush-Petraeus surge as a success when its central goal, to strengthen the government, has failed?
Again, more troops, more American deaths this summer than any other, and yet the government is weaker, when the very purpose of the surge was to strengthen the government. In the President’s words, “to give it breathing room.” By the President’s own words, the government is suffocating while the surge goes on. It doesn’t have breathing room.
Why isn’t it apparent to the President? Why isn’t it apparent to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the stated goal of the surge is failing? Strengthening the central government is not happening. As the surge and number of troops goes up, the strength of the central government goes down. That equation says failure in the Bush-Petraeus surge. The goal is not a military goal. In the president’s own words, it is to give the government of Iraq greater stability, greater breathing room and that government, by just about every standard, is worse off than before. And again, because a few warlords and tribal leaders are now temporarily on our side for the moment—even though they are not loyal to us, they don’t like us and they dislike the central government—that is why we should continue the present course in Iraq? It makes no sense.
Now then, those on the other side and the president say, “Give us a chance. You’re already declaring defeat.” If this were 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or maybe even 2006, those words would have some resonance with the American people. But there’s been new plan after new plan, new hope after new hope, and they all are dashed within months. Why? Why? Again, because the fundamentals on the ground don’t change. The Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis dislike one another more than they like any central government.
If you look at the benchmarks, they show that. The independent GAO report showed little progress being made in meeting the 18 military and political benchmarks set out by Congress. The draft report from last week showed that only three of the benchmarks had been met. However, over the weekend, the Pentagon revised the report, and now miraculously an additional four benchmarks were “partially met.” Despite the apparent efforts by the Pentagon to edit this independent report, it will, sadly, take much more than a red pen to correct the failures of the President’s Iraq policy.
So the surge—by the President’s own stated goal—is failing. The central government is weaker. The fundamentals on the ground continue to deteriorate. There continues to be no loyalty to a central government in Iraq and no loyalty to Maliki, who seems to almost revel in his incompetence. The bottom line is very simple. We are worse off, not better off. We’re not even in the same place in Iraq today than we were six months ago.
The position of America, the position of democracy, the position of stability all continue to erode. If there was ever a need for a change of course in Iraq, it is now. I plead with my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, you know that we have to change course.
Of coure the Senator is a liar. These local ”warlords,” as he calls them, are working with the US forces. They are not fighting Al Qaeda and the other militias on their own.
If the locals thought the US troops were incompetent they wouldn’t bother. However the opposite is true. And it is born out in every news report on the situation on the ground.
But Mr. Schumer will say anything to try to bring about America’s defeat in Iraq and in the war on terror in general. For the Senator is also a traitor.
But, it turns out, Chuck Schumer is not only a liar and a traitor, he is a coward as well.
According to what he posted on his site (which I have preserved with a screen grab) he said:
[T]he violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.”
But according to the video of his remarks on the Senate floor Mr. Schumer said this:
[T]he violence in Anbar has gone down despite the Surge, not because of the Surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.”
But who are you going to believe?
The honorable Mr. Schumer or your lying eyes?
Related Articles:
- Questions About The Clintons' Indian Money Man
- NYT Exaggerates NIE Report - To Get Maliki
- Reuters: Democrats Better Back Off On Iraq
- Democrats Threaten To "Defund" Vice Presidency
- The AP Is Outraged: AG Okayed Attorney Firings
- Senate Dems Begin Process For Iraq Defeat
- Nancy Pelosi Announces: "Defeat Is At Hand"
- Dems Send Out First Subpoenas For Show Trials
25 Responses to “Schumer Deletes US Troop Slur From Speech”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Why do we act so surprised? Chuckie is a despicable America hating scumbag. What else is new.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I just shot Senator Schumer an email requesting a public apology to the US Armed Forces since he all but came out and said that they are incompetent and worthless. . . Now I just heard that he is ‘backtracking’ his statement of yesterday. I guess the Democrats usual ‘I was misunderstood’ and ‘I meant to say’ are just getting to be absolutely WORTHLESS - much like the people who continue use them.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
He is without a doubt the biggest lump-of-shit in the U.S. Senate,and that takes some doing to be numero uno with those nitwits!!!
*** Ted Kennedy was a close second in unofficial balloting ***
September 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
The timing for the “Fight for Victory” caravan tour is perfect! We’re coming to Washington to see ya’ Chuckie…….http://www.moveamericaforward.org/
Maybe then, on Sept. 15th, the Liberals in Congress will understand that a lot of Americans don’t have the lying, defeatist, lack of respect and support for the Troops, ignorant to the threat of islamic terrorists to the world, attitudes that they hold!
September 6th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
The amazing thing about this is that except for right wing media (Rush, here) no one else in the country even seems to feel slighted by Chuckie’s “The Military can’t do anything” attitude.
September 6th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Rush called it right when he said Schumer is nothing less than a traitor.
FINALLY!!! SOMEONE with an audience is calling the Traitors what they are! Also, the Traitor Party song, We Hate the USA, was played on Limbaugh’s show today…perhaps…JUST PERHAPS…people are beginning to see the truth about Schumer and the rest: THAT THEY ADHERE TO THE ENEMY AND ARE UNFIT TO HOLD ANY OFFICE IN THIS COUNTRY!!!
September 6th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
So how about a citizen’s arrest for treason?!
September 6th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Grant had it right…..Why is everyone so surprised at anything Chuckie (I never saw a microphone/camera I could ignore) the ratface says or does. He’s just a blowhard NY’er who doesn’t know when to shut up. Maybe he’s feeling the heat from his constituents if in fact he’s backtracking. All you need to know about him to understand just what kind of a whimp he is…..as soon as the shill won her senate seat, he capitulated his seniority to her. He’s a “crapweasel”.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
The is vintage Schumer. A vile and disgusting coward. This was an evil, deliberate attempt to trash our efforts while at war and is indistinguishable from outright treason.
The real outrage is that I’ve not heard of even a few Republican Senators and Congressmen stepping up and publicly calling him the traitor that he is.
“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.” - Abraham Lincoln
September 6th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Great photo choice. Senator Schumer has perfected the idiotic rubber-lipped daffy duck sneer.
My brave dedicated mil-son just returned stateside from a year’s tour in iraq, and his most recent e-mail right before leaving the sandbox is so positive and optimistic about the great social-political-stabilization progress being made over there that i wonder what the crazed Chuckie Donk Doll was smoking when he smeared our Operation Iraqi Freedom efforts today? Schumer is so obsessed with destroying Dubya and Republicans that he is perfectly happy to sabotage our troops in Iraq and the civilian contractors building roads, schools and hospitals over there. What a lousy spiteful hateful schmuck duck.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
The daffy duck sneer is a perfect description eagle man.
I just heard his “backtrack” and it really isn’t that at all. Yes he was trying to soften what he said yesterday by heaping praise on the troops in Anbar Province, but never saying that he didn’t mean what he said yesterday. He really is a vile evil “rubber duck”.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
WI, you nailed it. BTW, check out Chuckie’s record on our Second Amendment rights. He is all for disarming the populace to make New York and America a “safer place”, but also made sure he has this concealed carry anywhere gun permit he wants denied to everyone else. Mr. dangerous elitist Schumer.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Well to make you all jealous and also goes to eagle man’s last point - I just came from an evening with Ann Coulter - other than lousy seats, it was a great evening. All the liberal blowhard crap was just that - they may have raised $5.00 on her coming here to speak - but they sure as heck were too chicken to make an appearance at the evening [the blters were suppose to protest her - for some unknowned reason - something about OH being so anti-blters or gtblers or whatever the heck they are calling themselves this week]. So much for putting your money where your mouth is (but we all know that to be true about liberals).
Ann started out with the hysteria re: Senator Larry Craig and of course the new liberal buzz word for this non-event - hypocrisy. When their party is just the bastion of hypocrisy and hypocrites (John ‘twoAmericas’ Edward, Al’globalwarmingismanmade’Gore, Hillary’Ididn’t know a thing’Clinton). And yes, eagle man the very people who want to take away probably the most important Constitutional right for average Americans are the ones who vote for gun bans and then casually write in a loophole on the next agricultural bill so that their concealed carry rights are forever protected. They should all be booted out of Congress, tried and have every cent they beg, borrowed or stole put back into the treasury - I bet the rest of wouldn’t have to pay taxes for a decade!
September 7th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalite.
We need rope…lots of rope….and some strong tree branches….
September 7th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Schumbag Schumer is out of his f***in’ mind! The tribal leaders in Anbar approached US to help them fight Al-Qaeda. They wouldn’t have done this if they thought our troops incompetent. He can’t even get the basic facts correct while trying to s*** on our troops. I am getting f’in fed up with these traitorous bastards and wish we had a president with some g**damned balls to do something about it.
September 7th, 2007 at 2:54 am
We can all agree that “rubber duck” Schumer is a traitorous SOB but what truly p*sses me off is not one Repub Senator stood up to this POS and called him to the carpet on his seditious diatribe..!!!
WTF is wrong with Senate Republicans..!! If I was on the floor of the Senate when Chucky let loose this attack on our military, this clown would have heard my direct and uncensored opinion concerning his cowardly and traitorous political hack job on our nation’s finest. Forty plus Repub Senators sat there with their thumbs up their collective arse’s and let this Kerry-J. Fonda clone off the hook with nary a remark about Schumer’s line of complete and utter BS…!!
For the love of ——-, I better bite my keyboard before I get banned for untoward obscenities..!!!
September 7th, 2007 at 4:19 am
“I just shot Senator Schumer…” now THAT’S what they call a “wow lead” in journalism school. Definitely got my attention but it was just an email. Whew.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:11 am
What a despicable thing Schumer is. Trying to make political capital by making a “strong” statement, then not even having the guts to stand by his own words.
First he slanders American troops, then he tries to weasel out of it by ‘disappearing’ the slanderous statement on his web site.
If he really felt what he said was wrong, why not apologize to the troops? No, instead he kicks sand over it like a dog to hide it’s smell.
And what about this Stalinist airbrushing of history? He might argue that it’s a small thing: one comment, but where does it end? The two senators from NY certainly have that technique in common. If they’ll lie about small things they’ll lie about big ones.
(Nothing in this comment was meant to show disrespect to dogs)
September 7th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Yeah, but Schumer’s been displaying this attitude for years now.
His supporters agree with him, and those who don’t don’t have enough of a voice to accomplish anything.
Sad, but true.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Liberals Make great Speedbumps? ROFLMAO! I want one for my car!!!
September 7th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
The Headline from Mr. Schumer’s speech on the floor is page one and in large bold type. The redaction will not becovered, except by blogs such as this. Who’s side are these peopel on?
September 7th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
The time has long since past regarding Iraq specifically and the fight against radical Islam in general, that we start using the word “traitor” again. It is certainly not traitorous to speak a different opinion during a time of war, but Mr. Schumer’s comments provide aid and comfort to the enemy. So too are actions by the left-liberal media when they print intelligence secrets leaked to them by traitors within the government. I am old enough to know and remember that by and large, the US government, both Republican and Democrats were largely united against the communist block from the end of WWII until the fall of the Soviet Union. Many of the actions by Democrats, the leftist press and media are clearly providing aid an comfort to the enemy and THAT is the definition of treason.
September 7th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
“the US government, both Republican and Democrats were largely united against the communist block from the end of WWII until the fall of the Soviet Union.”
Some of those who were not against the Communist Block can be found in this article and some of the Footnotes
“”In May 1983, the KGB again reported to their bosses on a discussion in Moscow with former Sen. John Tunney. Kennedy had instructed Tunney, according to the KGB, to carry a message to Yuri Andropov, the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, expressing Kennedy’s concern about the anti-Soviet activities of President Ronald Reagan.”
No one should ever underestimate the desire of the Democrats to defeat the United
States.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:22 am
Mr. Lincoln had it right . A house divided will not stand . The ” chucker ” needs to meet the door . I would love to be the first one in line on the other side . Verbal abuse is just an appetizer , of course I wish no ill against said traitor . I’ll finish the thought when I calm down .
September 8th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Another example of how easy it would be for the republicans to simply use the opposition’s words against them in a presidential campaign.
Place this Schumer gem alongside Murtha’s “the army is broken”, Kerry’s “troops terrorizing women and children”, Durbin’s “what our soldiers are doing is comparable to nazis and Pol Pot”, Howard Dean’s “The idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong,” ,B. Hussein Obama’s “(the US military is just) air-raiding villages and killing civillians”, Edward’s “war on terror is a bumper sticker”. The list (sadly) goes on and on. Democrats, for the most part, despise the military. It would be very easy for the GOP to show this and demand that the dems prove otherwise if they can.
Republicans and the party officials have all the ammo they need to defeat the socialist America haters in 2008. They just have to have the desire to win by being conservatives again. AMERICA ELECTS CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENTS! Could that be any more plain?