Vice-President Cheney at his Best!

We have made no secret of our admiration of Vice-President Richard B. Cheney. He is the man most qualified to be President of the United States, and history will record his tremendous, unmatched contribution to the new strategy crafted to keep the United States of America safe in the wake in September 11, 2001. Cheney made another of his blunt speeches in Alabama on Monday afternoon. With plain common sense and mature perspective of American power, Cheney takes it straight to the liberals:

The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear this over and over again — not as an argument, but as an assertion meant to close off argument. Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. “The most T serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War [that is] raging in [Iraq].” He calls it “a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam.” He said, “The whole world is watching this war,” and it will end in “victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United State s. They know it is a central front in that war, and it’s where they’ve chosen to make a stand. Our Marines are fighting al Qaeda terrorists in al Anbar province. U.S. and Iraqi forces recently killed al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad responsible for numerous bomb attacks. Iraq’s relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain. Here at home, that makes one thing, above all, very clear: If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us.

The second myth is the most transparent — and that is the notion that one can support the troops without giving them the tools and the reinforcements they need to carry out their mission.

Twisted logic is not exactly a new phenomenon in Washington — but lately it’s gone to new heights. At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, when he was being confirmed to his new post, Senator John McCain put the following question to General Petraeus. “Suppose we send you over to your new job t only we tell you that a you cannot have any additional troops. Can you get your job done?” General Petraeus replied to the senator, “No, sir.” Yet within days of his confirmation by a unanimous vote in the Senate — I repeat, a unanimous vote, not one single vote against General Petraeus — a large group of senators tried to pass a resolution opposing the very reinforcements he said were necessary. And the House of Representatives, of course, did pass such a resolution. It was not a proud episode in the history of the United States Congress.

Now the Democrats in Congress are working another angle to undercut General Petraeus and the troops. The House passed an emergency war spending bill that put a long list of restrictions on our commanders, and put conditions and deadlines on Iraq’s government. And if all the conditions are not met to Congress’s satisfaction, the bill mandates a precipitous American withdrawal on a date certain In the Senate, as well, Democrats have passed another bad piece of legislation — over the strong objections, I might add, of Alabama’s two senators. Like the House, the Senate has set an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal. And like the House, the Senate Democrats have filled the bill with extra spending for special interests — spending that has nothing to do with winning the war and protecting the United States of America.

The House and Senate bills are both unacceptable, and if either version comes to the President’s desk, he will use the veto, no question about it. (Applause.)

It’s also clear that we’ve got enough supporters of the military in Congress to sustain a veto. And so it’s pointless for the Democrats to continue pursuing this legislation. Meanwhile, funding for our mission in Iraq will begin to run out the middle of this month. It’s time for Congress to stop the political theater and send the President a bill he can sign into law.

By delaying funding for the troops, the Democrats believe they can make the President accept unwise and inappropriate restrictions on our commanders. It’s nothing less than an attempt to force the President’s hand. They’re going to find out that they’ve misread George W. Bush. (Applause.)

The fact is that the United States military answers to one Commander-in-Chief in the White House, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill. We expect the House and the Senate to meet the needs of our military on time, in full, and with no strings attached.

Check out Right Wing Champ, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Birmingham Blues (for the local moonbat flavor!)