Nancy Pelosi Promises to Defund WOT in favor of WOTC

Marxed - Nancy Pelosi Promises to Defund WOT in favor of WOTC

By John Walker Goodbody
Missive News

Last updated: 1:45 PM
Tuesday, January 9, 2007


Today on Capital Hill Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has publicly promised to defund not only any possible troop surge that President Bush and his advisors might be considering dispatching to Iraq, but also has promised her local constituents that she intends to begin gradually defunding the larger War on Terror (WOT), no matter where the theatre of conflict.

“We do not believe that the so-called WOT, or War on Terror, is truly vital to American interests, either here or abroad. We believe that we can best achieve strategic national interests with a more moderate philosophy and set of governing principles,” said Speaker Pelosi while delivering a regularly scheduled noon press conference given by house Democrats to the Washington Press Corp.

“The War on Terror is not vital to American interests nor is it a particularly good idea. The WOT, of which Iraq is the most disastrous and obvious example, is really more a macho-ideal spawned in an outmoded era of masculine values and sympathies. America has moved beyond that old paradigm and into the era of the feminine mystique,” said Senator Chuck Hagel who was asked to speak at the Democratic podium by invitation of Senator Ted Kennedy, Speaker Pelosi, and Barak Obama. “This new era,” continued Senator Hagel, “will be marked by bi-partisan cooperation on the issue of Iraq and the broader War on Terror. Meaning I now finally fully agree with myself.”

Speaker Pelosi then stepped forward again to reiterate the general theme of the press conference. “The WOT is an anachronism which should have never been undertaken in the first place. You do not win wars, nobody wins in a war. People suffer and I’m definitely against that. Therefore we have decided to begin defunding the War on Terror (WOT) starting with this very session of Congress and instead will be redirecting the monies saved towards the WOTC, or War on Tax Cuts. The War on Tax Cuts is a very vital component of America’s future interests and it will take a huge amount of government resources to be able to successfully wage this important war. The monies saved by refusing to engage in a global war on terrorism can then be reallocated towards fighting a pre-emptive and decisive WOTC. In order to win this War on Tax Cuts every American will have to do their part. More will need to be paid by every individual, we will have to defund the military in order to accumulate the resources necessary to prosecute this war, and in addition every American citizen, be she legal or illegal, may have to endure Wage and Income rationing. In order to offset the heavy price that must be paid by every American in order to win this multi-generational struggle the Democrats have made the Minimum Wage Increase our most important domestic goal, along with ethics reform of committee memberships and congressional offices, and pre-impeachment investigations.”

“So that the lower and working classes can afford to pay their fair share to fund the WOTC we will increase their minimum wage so that they can now pay higher taxes to fight the War on Tax Cuts. In the long run the Democrats must do what is in the very best interest of America. The American family must be paid more so that they can pay to fund the War on Tax Cuts, which will then of course allow them to pay more. Anyone who can’t understand that must be either an idiot or a Republican, or both. In the Democratic Party we want to fight a war that we can all feel really good about not understanding. It’s sort of like getting a Public Education - We want to be providers, not devisors.”

Near the end of the press conference it looked as if some of the other assembled Democrats might step to the microphone to state their own personal opinions on the WOT and WOTC, but they were quickly silenced when Speaker Pelosi fired off a look which was both stern and startled at the same time.

Cindy Sheehan also attempted to rush the microphone after heckling the press conference with a confused rendition of, “War, what is it good for…” but she was quickly and violently beaten back by Democratic operatives who seemed unable to recognize that she was, after all, one of them.

© JWG, Jr. 2007




Save This Page

Senator Kerry and His Political Party

The Glair - Senator Kerry and His Political Party
A Psycho-Political Assessment of Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party



Every election I make a biographical and psychological study of important candidates and their backgrounds before deciding and predicting how an election will conclude prior to it actually occurring.

I have done this all the way back to Clinton, who was the first national candidate upon whom I conducted a thorough biographical and psychological study. In conducting such studies I always try to find biographers, and assessment and analysis pieces from authors who are both friendly towards and antagonistic towards a particular candidate.

I shocked my friends when GW Bush ran against Gore by proclaiming before the election had even been conducted that based upon his biographical, political, and psychological profile that Al Gore had no intention at all of being president. He only ran because his father had wanted him to become president, and he only accepted the nomination and only secured the nomination because he was owed the position, that he felt he had earned it from past loyal, party service. And because he felt a reciprocal duty towards his party and his father’s memory and past aspirations for him in becoming president. But he never internally desired to be president, or ever wanted to be president. In this sense Al Gore was very similar to George Herbert Walker Bush, who also never really wanted to be president in the same sense as his son, or felt he had a destiny to be President, as did Reagan and GW Bush. Rather, the elder Bush felt he was owed the position after Reagan’s last term, not that he was destined for it, or even really deeply desired it. Bush the Elder was a maintenance and administrative personality, not a man convinced of a momentous reform nature or a personal and private destiny to lead, as was the case with his son. (This does not mean that when push came to shove the Elder Bush was a bad leader, merely not a passionate and self-convicted leader.)

After the debacle in Florida began I also shocked many of my friends by announcing before the events were concluded that Al Gore would be the first to withdraw any claim on the office, as he had no intention of actually becoming president (he merely wanted to convince himself and the public that he had made a good try), and that furthermore he would not bother to run again in the next election cycle. Gore still had the ghost of his father to bury, and as is evident from his current stand on many national and international issues, that ghost still drives him hard.

Then came the Kerry-Bush race and after conducting a second detailed biographical and personality profile on Bush, and my first detailed study on John F. Kerry it became evident to me as well that Kerry would never become president and that he indeed had no intention of becoming president. He did not want the job. That in fact he would do everything possible to sabotage his own candidacy, whereas Bush would do everything possible to assure his own re-election. So once again I surprised and shocked my friends and family by declaring months before the election that Bush had already won and that Kerry had no intention of winning the office, that he would sabotage any chance he had of actually winning (just as I had told them that Gore was going to do before he failed his own election).

Even though these pre-election predictions seemed amazing to many of my friends (and many told me that they did not understand how I could have possibly accurately predicted what I did when I did because my predictions contradicted all pre-election polling and evidence) in truth, they were very easy predictions to make. I even told everyone on what basis I had made these predictions and what exact methods I had used in making my biographical and psychological assessments, down to citing specific biographical and personality incidents in the prior lives of each individual candidate. Men do not usually stray far from their own true natures and characters, politicians being no exception of any kind. As a matter of fact, in most cases, politicians are the types of men whose behavior is strikingly easy to analyze and predict. And predicting elections is fundamentally, all other things being even, really just a matter of predicting the behavior of the various candidates involved in that election.

Bill Clinton is the only national Democrat figure I have studied in the past twenty years or so who has convinced me that he indeed both intended and desired to win. Even though I worked to help elect Dole I knew in my heart by studying both men that Clinton intended to be re-elected, and that Dole was like the Elder Bush, he expected the nomination of his party from past loyal service, but he had no real intention of ever being president. If Dole had become president it would have been by accident, not intention.

Now we come to this election cycle and I more firmly perceive something that I have suspected (and told my friends on more than one occasion) for a long time, but could not be sure the extrapolation was a correct one, and that is, the Democratic Party as a whole (not just individual candidates) has deeply baptized itself with what I’ll call, the “Kerry Corona.” This is a normally invisible to normal sight aura of self-sabotage that demands and directs some action or series of actions by various members of the Democratic Party before important and major elections to assure a predetermined result of political failure.

They simply do not intend to win. It is not a set of coincidental blunders, or a series of seemingly unrelated events and behaviors that signify bad luck, poor management, misunderstanding, or misdirection. They simply, deep down, as an in-bred, or adopted (it doesn’t matter which, the result is the same) psychological and political impulse have no intention of succeeding. And this impulse (for which the nation can be immensely grateful for a whole host of reasons involving; security, economics, taxation, reform, international affairs, etc.) leads them to strap on the metaphorical homicide/suicide vest before each determinative election. And then explode it prematurely in the manner likely to yield the most destructive sphere of self-inflicted damage that it is possible to achieve.

After this particular election cycle is concluded, and ends in a result very different from current Democratic hopes (for indeed few of them have any real confidence that it will end as they hope, but rather as they expect) they will of course begin the common post-election autopsy examination, and process of distributing blame. And a large measure of that blame will fall to radically liberal members of the party, such as Pelosi and to the scapegoats of the perennial Democratic sin of internal sabotage, such as Kerry.

But the constant and consummate ability of the Democrats to draw fire relentlessly upon their own position, telegraph their most blatant public ideologies (when they would do far better to camouflage their public ideals behind private subterfuge) to a disbelieving and naïvely lethargic populace, and to expose their own most easily exploited vulnerabilities to rest of the world, is a congenital defect of their most inward nature. After all every organization is a result of the individuals who fill the ranks of that group, and the actions of every party depend upon the actions of those individuals who compose the corporate nature of that society of like-minded peoples. The Democrats see themselves, and have for decades, as an Army of One (unlike the military they so often criticize) bent upon a personal yet ultimately flawed campaign of individual sabotage and self-aggrandizement. And because each individual Democrat is his own worst enemy, an entire party of Democrats is a corporate and Byzantine conspiracy of both personal and collective habitual wrack and ruin. They earn, by hard labor and direct intention, the profit of their own penury. Because they have no leader, they have no leadership, because each high ranking Democrat sees himself or herself as a Law Unto Themselves, they breed no law but that of political chaos, economic catastrophe, utter taxation, and national vulnerability. And in the end, when it really counts most to them, and to the nation as a whole, they breed political suicide.

Here’s to many more decades of Democrats doing what they do best, public political failure. See you at the after-party.

© JWG, Jr. 2006