BlackFive

If you get that I am angry, well, you guessed it.  I am because I found this today.

This is the last piece of her invective, and it is indicative of her character and her willingness to support her country.

The Iraqi government is not worthy of the sacrifice of our troops or the cost that the war is having on our readiness and our economy. We need a New Direction in Iraq, but what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker offered today was many more years of the same.

What direction is that exactly Nancy?  The one where you demanded more troops and then when we did just that you caterwaul and wail about how that won't work either.  Or maybe we should hold a gun to the head of Al-Maliki and demand that he start getting it right?

I have a degree in International Relations and actual experience in walking the mean streets of a war zone; fighting and winning the counter-insurgency fight, as well as putting comrades in a helicopter for their final journey home; so I happen to know a thing or two about worthy sacrifices.

But on my way to that knowledge and experience, I had to learn this;

In September 1786, commissioners from five states met in the Annapolis Convention to discuss adjustments to the Articles of Confederation that would improve commerce. They invited state representatives to convene in Philadelphia to discuss improvements to the federal government. After debate, the Congress of the Confederation endorsed the plan to revise the Articles of Confederation on February 21, 1787.  Twelve states, Rhode Island being the only exception, accepted this invitation and sent delegates to convene in May 1787.  The resolution calling the Convention specified that its purpose was to propose amendments to the Articles, but the Convention decided to propose a rewritten Constitution.  The Philadelphia Convention voted to keep the debates secret, so that the delegates could speak freely. They also decided to draft a new fundamental government design, which eventually stipulated that only nine of the thirteen states would have to ratify for the new government to go into effect (for the participating states).

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was completed in Philadelphia at the Federal Convention, followed by a speech given by Benjamin Franklin who urged unanimity, although they decided they only needed nine states to ratify the constitution for it to go into effect. The Convention submitted the Constitution to the Congress of the Confederation, where it received approval according to Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation, but the resolution of the Congress submitting the Constitution to the states for ratification and agreeing with its provision for implementation upon ratification by nine states is contrary to Article 13, though eventually all thirteen states did ratify the Constitution, albeit after it took effect.

Once the Congress of the Confederation received word of New Hampshire's ratification, it set a timetable for the start of operations under the Constitution, and on March 4, 1789, the government under the Constitution began operations.

For those that were in Civics class and not in Study Hall, you may remember that starting long about 1775, we declared our independence, fought a war, won it, and still had to form a government afterward.  The fact that Nancy can pay zero attention to even our own history and can run her neck on and on about how the consecrated, hallowed ground in Iraq is unworthy of our sacrifice in the name of the freedom of others (something I thought the Dems were for) and not be dragged into the street and beaten is beyond me.

OK, minus the history lesson, the reason I am so pissed is because I was able to find Speaker Pelosi's traitorous remarks without any real effort, but I had to work hard to find any good stories about General Petraeus and his testimony, or any story about Mike Monsoor today.  Two men whose stories deserve to be seen and heard by as many Americans as possible.

Things can only stay out of balance so long....