Congress

Locked
Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Congress

Post by Barry » Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:56 am

I watched the House on C-Span for a while last night. Some time between 9 and 10 I think it was, some Democratic Congresswoman from Florida made a speech that would have been funny if it wasn't so sad that someone like her actually represents millions of people.
I forget her name, but she gets up and starts wiggling and pointing her finger as she said Bush and his people would "stop at nothing" to reach their goals and that they shouldn't be listened to with regard to Iran. She's seen no evidence that Iran is up to no good it seems. Those are just a couple excerpts from what could have been a propoganda speech by an Iranian Mullah or an Al Quaeda official. Basically, in so many words, she defended the Iranians, while calling our President evil.

Oh, and of course, she started off by stressing how much she supports the troops :roll: :roll: :roll:

She was the worst among the Democrats that I saw, but a few others weren't a whole lot better. The enemy to them is not Islamic radicals. It's George W. Bush.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: Congress

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:42 pm

Barry Z wrote:She was the worst among the Democrats that I saw, but a few others weren't a whole lot better. The enemy to them is not Islamic radicals. It's George W. Bush.
It's a pathology. They can't help themselves. Trends might be cyclical in politics but the perpetual juveniles that inhabit the Democratic party have been on 40-year skid, not substantially interrupted by Carter and Clinton. They know only one enemy: Republicans. They have only one idea: the getting and keeping of power. They have only one tool: ballooning of statist policies and workforce and the taxes and regulations necessary to support their bloated state-owned and operated Utopia.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Teresa B
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 11:04 am
Location: Tampa, Florida

Post by Teresa B » Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:12 pm

It sounds like the Florida Congresswoman, however inept she may have been, was expressing skepticism about the meaning of the evidence for the Iranian weapons. But that doesn't necessarily mean she was defending Iranians, and--oh, by extrapolation, essentially giving a propaganda message that's equivalent to an Al Qaeda speech.

Barry, this is the same tactic as the Prime Minister of Australia making that absurd statement about Obama being Al Qaeda's dream candidate. When I hear evidence that Obama is supporting Al Qaeda or Islamic radicals then I'll take that seriously.

But come on, associating people who are critical of US policy with Mullahs and especially Al Qaeda is setting up the proverbial straw man. If there were no ability to criticize of the government we would be in a fascist state now.

And I wouldn't deny the power thing is a Democratic Party goal. Sorry, Corlyss, but I had to laugh at the implication that Republicans are not into the getting and keeping of power!

As far as I'm concerned the whole sorry lot of them can go soak their heads. I'm as sick of "PC" as I am of those who shout "PC". I want to see somebody in office, whatever party, who has honest convictions, is open to debate, and makes informed decisions for his/her constituents without pandering.

So there. 8)
Teresa
"We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad." ~ The Cheshire Cat

Author of the novel "Creating Will"

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:27 pm

Teresa,
I singled this woman out because she was so over the top, both in her language and mannerisms. The woman was dripping with venom while talking about the administration (her facial expressions and body language literally changed dramatically whenever she mentioned Bush), then took a defensive tone when she discussed the Iranians.

I took a shot in the dark to see if I could find it on Youtube, but I couldn't. I'm sorry, but after watching and listening to her, I've got no difficulty whatsoever believing that she views Bush as more evil and more of an enemy to the American people and the west generally than the Iranian mullahs and president. And I think it's a sad commentary that someone that naive and whose moral compass is so far astray is in a position of leadership.

I have no doubt that most Democrats in Congress wouldn't stoop quite to her level, but many come too close for my comfort.

I'm about 80 percent sure it was Representative Corrine Brown of Florida.

And I'll add that ANY candidate for the presidency who advocates a withdraw from Iraq would be most welcome by Al Quaeda.
Last edited by Barry on Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:30 pm

Teresa B wrote:Barry, this is the same tactic as the Prime Minister of Australia making that absurd statement about Obama being Al Qaeda's dream candidate. When I hear evidence that Obama is supporting Al Qaeda or Islamic radicals then I'll take that seriously.
So what pray was that message UBL taped for the US just before the 04 election? You want proof suitable for presentation in a court of law? Liberals think that because they know that such evidence will never be found our enemies have no credible or realistic influence over the process. That's a fatuous conclusion that belies their constant efforts which have yielded patent results. Why do you think so many Americans wring their hands over the state of our reputation abroad? How do you think those Americans for whom our reputation is more important that protecting American intersts voted in 06? How do you think they know America's reputation is poor? When liberals complain on the one hand that our enemies cannot influence US politicians, but on the other Israel controls American foreign policy, their arguments are factless, baseless, and hypocritical.
But come on, associating people who are critical of US policy with Mullahs and especially Al Qaeda is setting up the proverbial straw man. If there were no ability to criticize of the government we would be in a fascist state now.
Criticism by impotent citizens is fine by me. Criticism by members of the government is a freakin' disgrace to them and their constituencies.
And I wouldn't deny the power thing is a Democratic Party goal. Sorry, Corlyss, but I had to laugh at the implication that Republicans are not into the getting and keeping of power!
When that is all you stand for, it's a disgrace. The point isn't that the Republicans don't strive for power too; the point is what they do with it when they get it. Look at the difference between what the Democrats do with power (expand government programs, raise taxes and regulations on businesses, whore after victim classes in order to maximize the classes' sense of victimhood, destroy inner city blacks to keep them on the Democratic plantation) and what the Republicans have done with it (promote invidual freedom and personal responsibility, liberate the economic engine from burdensome taxes and regulations, promote free trade world wide).
As far as I'm concerned the whole sorry lot of them can go soak their heads. I'm as sick of "PC" as I am of those who shout "PC". I want to see somebody in office, whatever party, who has honest convictions, is open to debate, and makes informed decisions for his/her constituents without pandering.
You left out "refuses to make short-term personal and party political hay at the expense of long term national interests."
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:51 pm

Add from the unhinged at Moveon.org
Coming Tomorrow!!

CHAIRMAN JACK MURTHA TO OUTLINE COMMITTEE STRATEGY ON BUSH’S IRAQ FUNDING REQUEST THURSDAY MORNING AT 11:00 AM EST ON MOVECONGRESS.ORG

Join Us!

Join us tomorrow at 11:00 AM EST when Congressman Jack Murtha will outline new details of a strategy to use his Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense to oppose the Bush war in Iraq. Congressman Jim Moran, another Committee member, predicts the Committee action will be the “bite” that follows this week’s Congressional “bark” – the three-day debate on a non-binding Congressional resolution.

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense has begun consideration of the president’s $93 billion supplemental appropriations request for Iraq. Action on the request will be the first opportunity for the new Congress to exercise its “power-of-the-purse” over the Iraq war.

Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy. Chairman Murtha discusses these steps in a videotaped conversation with former Congressman Tom Andrews (D-ME), the National Director of the Win Without War coalition, sponsor of MoveCongress.org.
Join us here tomorrow for this exclusive interview.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Werner
CMG's Elder Statesman
Posts: 4223
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: Irvington, NY

Post by Werner » Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:52 pm

Corlyss, what's the point of repeating all the old worn-out stereotye nonsense about the great Republicans and their pitiful enemies? We've heard this without letup from the Forties on. It's really time for some of you guys to wake up from your intemperate dreams.

In the meanwhile, do try to keep pushing the great good done by the neocon Amateur Hour. Nero fiddling while Rome burns has nothing on you.
Werner Isler

Teresa B
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 11:04 am
Location: Tampa, Florida

Post by Teresa B » Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:32 pm

Barry, I'll take your word for it, I didn't see her. Believe me, I don't care for bombast for the sake of bombast no matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican.

I still feel that bringing in the name of a terrorist and associating it with a candidate for office is the nastiest, most baseless way of discrediting someone. Just because a candidate may be for getting troops out of Iraq does not mean he is Al Qaeda's "dream candidate." I don't buy it.

The same thing happened to an excellent candidate for US Senate from Florida, Betty Castor. Mel Martinez got elected by discrediting her in an ad in which they placed her photo next to UBL's. She was president of USF in Tampa when Sami al Arian was under investigation for supporting Islamic Jihad. She didn't immediately fire him because they didn't have evidence for her to do so at the time. For this reason Martinez implied that she was somehow linked with terrorists.

So obviously linking someone's face with UBL's is all it took. All this ridiculous over-the-top rhetoric is harmful no matter which side it comes from.

Teresa
"We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad." ~ The Cheshire Cat

Author of the novel "Creating Will"

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:50 pm

Werner wrote:Corlyss, what's the point of repeating all the old worn-out stereotye nonsense about the great Republicans and their pitiful enemies? We've heard this without letup from the Forties on. It's really time for some of you guys to wake up from your intemperate dreams.

In the meanwhile, do try to keep pushing the great good done by the neocon Amateur Hour. Nero fiddling while Rome burns has nothing on you.
*****

Because that's about all she's got.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Ted

Post by Ted » Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:53 pm

Barry Writes:
I watched the House on C-Span for a while last night. Some time between 9 and 10 I think it was, some Democratic Congresswoman from Florida made a speech that would have been funny if it wasn't so sad that someone like her actually represents millions of people.
And this from the "Least Partisan Person” on the board

Having said that, if you don’t want to see kooks why are you watching C-SPAN? :roll:

Alban Berg

Post by Alban Berg » Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:50 pm

[quote=]what's the point of repeating all the old worn-out stereotye nonsense about the great Republicans and their pitiful enemies?
...
Having said that, if you don’t want to see kooks why are you watching C-SPAN?[/quote]


Because for some the real enemy is not Al-Qaeda.

Ted

Post by Ted » Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:09 pm

Hi Larry--good to see ya

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:48 pm

We just had another Congresswoman speaking with a big poster with photos of soldiers who were killed in Iraq just behind her.

From Kaplan's Imperial Grunts:

<<< ... It had occurred to me [while] in Afghanistan that Americans were actually no more casualty averse than the citizens of other nations. The working class's attitude to casualties was fairly tough, to judge by the soldiers I had met in Gardez and Kandahar. It was the elites that had a more difficult time with the deaths of soldiers and marines.

Many of the people I knew at home were well-off New Yorkers who had moved out of Manhattan; the people I knew at military bases in North Carolina, Tidewarter, Virginia, and other parts of the south were of working-class origin, with modest military salaries. The latter group had friends and family members, many of them deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. For them, casualties were not a symbolic issue to be discussed at seminars and dinner parties; they were intensely personal business.

While people where I lived [in Mass.] were aghast that the White House had barred photos of the coffins of dead soliders arriving back in the U.S. -- a decision they believed reeked of callousness and political calculation -- people I knew in North Carolina said they understood the White House action. They believed it saved lives.

Their logic went like this: In small, unconventional wars, especially in an age of global media and battles televised in real time, the home front was even more important than in previous conflicts. The number of American troops killed by insurgents and suicide bombers in postwar Iraq may have been strategically and tactically insignificant, but the casualties mattered politically, because the steady accumulation of KIAs demoralized the home front. Thus, the greater the impact that these deaths appeared to have on the American public, and especially on the White House, the greater the incentive of the insurgents to keep on killing them, and the more likely that the insurgents' ranks would swell. As one Green Beret in Afghanistan, a southerner, had put it to me after Sgt. Sweeney was killed: "The less emotion the President displays over our deaths, the better for us, here and in Iraq."

Or as some Marine officers simply put it: "We grieve in private." ... >>>
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

burnitdown
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:15 am
Contact:

Re: Congress

Post by burnitdown » Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:21 am

Barry Z wrote:I watched the House on C-Span for a while last night. Some time between 9 and 10 I think it was, some Democratic Congresswoman from Florida made a speech that would have been funny if it wasn't so sad that someone like her actually represents millions of people.
Didn't the Romans and Greeks die out after their Democracies got just about as cool as ours?

Either there's a lot of horrible tragedy in that, OR there's a pattern! LOL

Teresa B
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 11:04 am
Location: Tampa, Florida

Post by Teresa B » Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:19 am

Barry Z wrote: While people where I lived [in Mass.] were aghast that the White House had barred photos of the coffins of dead soliders arriving back in the U.S. -- a decision they believed reeked of callousness and political calculation -- people I knew in North Carolina said they understood the White House action. They believed it saved lives.

Their logic went like this: In small, unconventional wars, especially in an age of global media and battles televised in real time, the home front was even more important than in previous conflicts. The number of American troops killed by insurgents and suicide bombers in postwar Iraq may have been strategically and tactically insignificant, but the casualties mattered politically, because the steady accumulation of KIAs demoralized the home front. Thus, the greater the impact that these deaths appeared to have on the American public, and especially on the White House, the greater the incentive of the insurgents to keep on killing them, and the more likely that the insurgents' ranks would swell. As one Green Beret in Afghanistan, a southerner, had put it to me after Sgt. Sweeney was killed: "The less emotion the President displays over our deaths, the better for us, here and in Iraq."

Or as some Marine officers simply put it: "We grieve in private." ... >>>
If this is true, it says something sad and chilling about human nature.

Teresa
"We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad." ~ The Cheshire Cat

Author of the novel "Creating Will"

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:18 am

Teresa B wrote: If this is true, it says something sad and chilling about human nature.

Teresa
But IT IS human nature, Teresa. And that's what I think the left consistantly fails to get. They want our leaders to follow policies that are based on false assumptions of human nature.
It seems pretty obvious to me that if the insurgents know they can weaken our will on the home front by giving the media some mayhem to report on, by God, they're going to make sure it happens. But if we don't repeatedly dance to their tune, it's their will that could be broken and their recruiting that could be hurt. It's a battle of wills as much as anything, and right now, we're losing that battle. And all you have to do to know that is put on C-Span.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:28 am

Barry Z wrote:
Teresa B wrote: If this is true, it says something sad and chilling about human nature.

Teresa
But IT IS human nature, Teresa. And that's what I think the left consistantly fails to get. They want our leaders to follow policies that are based on false assumptions of human nature.
It seems pretty obvious to me that if the insurgents know they can weaken our will on the home front by giving the media some mayhem to report on, by God, they're going to make sure it happens. But if we don't repeatedly dance to their tune, it's their will that could be broken and their recruiting that could be hurt. It's a battle of wills as much as anything, and right now, we're losing that battle. And all you have to do to know that is put on C-Span.
*****

Barry makes the mistake of applying our paradigms to our foes and assuming they will respond as we would under similar circumstances. Iraq is a civil war and a festering, ages-old religious schism. They will continue to kill each other no matter what C-SPAN reports or American polls reflect.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:34 am

Ralph wrote:
Barry makes the mistake of applying our paradigms to our foes and assuming they will respond as we would under similar circumstances. Iraq is a civil war and a festering, ages-old religious schism. They will continue to kill each other no matter what C-SPAN reports or American polls reflect.
That's besides the point I made, Ralph. My above post was dealing with the desire of factions within Iraq for us to leave. Whether it's Sadr's militia or Al Quaeda (there are multiple wars going on in Iraq......the civil war between Sunnis and Shiites that you refered to isn't the only one), they know that the more we fight about this and the more attention that is paid to each casualty on our home front, the better their chances of forcing us out of there. It's a battle of wills and we're losing with the help of the media.
And if you think there is a lot of killing going on between the various factions in Iraq now, just wait until we leave.......that is if we dont' have the will to see the mission through.

And, by the way, the writer I quoted probably immerses himself in the culture of the places he reports on to a greater extent than just about anyone out there who is writing the world's various hot spots.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:36 pm

Inherit The Wind
What if it takes a Democrat?
By Jonah Goldberg

There is an idea out there. Perhaps not a fully formed one. Perhaps more like the whisper of one gusting like a sudden draft through the rafters of the conservative house, causing some to look toward the attic and ask fearfully, "What was that?"

This wisp of a notion is simply this: Maybe a Democrat should win in 2008.

Personally, I don’t believe in this poltergeist, at least not yet. But every now and then, I must confess, I do shiver from its touch.

The idea goes something like this: If you believe that the war on terror is real — really real — then you think it is inevitable that more and bloodier conflicts with radical Islam are on the way, regardless of who is in the White House. If the clash of civilizations is afoot, then the issues separating Democrats and Republicans are as pressing as whether the captain of the Titanic is going to have fish or chicken for dinner. There’s a showdown coming. Period. Full stop. My task isn’t to convince you that this view is correct (though I basically believe it is), but merely that it is honestly and firmly held by many on the right and by a comparative handful on the left.

And that’s the problem: Only a handful of people on the Left — and far too few liberals — see radical Islamists as a bigger threat than George W. Bush. Which is why if you really think that we are in an existential conflict with a deadly enemy, there’s a good case for the Democrats to take the reins. Not because Democrats are better, wiser or more responsible about foreign policy. That’s a case for Democrats to make about themselves and certainly not one many on the right believe. No, the argument, felt in places we don’t talk about at cocktail parties (vide A Few Good Men), is that the Democrats have been such irresponsible backseat drivers that they have to be forced to take the wheel to grasp how treacherous the road ahead is.

The current spectacle in Congress has made it clear that the Democrats don’t believe that the war in Iraq is America’s war. They think it’s Bush’s vanity project turned albatross, but they won’t take responsibility for their convictions. They fawned on Gen. David Petraeus like schoolgirls, confirming him as commander of U.S. forces in Iraq almost instantly, but they denounce the escalation he helped design and is tasked with implementing. And on the floor of the House this week, they bared their teeth to Bush while bragging about how their resolution is toothless.

It was always a bit of a myth that partisanship ended at the water’s edge. But Democrats have debunked, exposed and parodied that myth. Of course, they claim that the president started it by running foreign policy as a partisan enterprise. Fine, there’s obviously some truth there. But when the likes of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Jay Rockefeller whine that they were misled into war, they’re declaring that they never took their responsibilities seriously in the first place. Indeed, as Christopher Hitchens recently illustrated in Slate, Clinton wasn’t tricked by Bush; she supported the war because of what she deduced on her own, both as a senator and as presidential trainee in Bill Clinton’s White House when it bombed Iraq and adopted regime change as U.S. policy.

Pro-war Democrats (Sen. Joe Lieberman and a few others excluded) simply hopped on the bandwagon, figuring it would be a political free ride. When it went south, they hopped off and claimed that the driver lied to them. Of course, many Democrats sincerely believe that the war on terror is real and that Iraq is a dangerous distraction from it. But that’s not the issue. Terror hawks think you can’t both believe the war on terror is real and argue for handing Iraq over to the enemy — even if we shouldn’t have invaded in the first place.

If the war on terror really isn’t that big a deal, hurray. Then Democrats can’t do that much damage, and we can all argue about the minimum wage and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s plane. If it is a big deal, Democrats need to be slapped out of their anti-Bush hysteria by real life. Australian Prime Minister John Howard — a Churchillian figure to hawks — said this week that al Qaeda is "praying" for a Democratic victory in 2008. It may be. But what happens when a President Clinton or Obama has a 9/11 — or worse — on her or his watch? Or is faced by the prospect of an Iraq run by terrorists? I’d like to hope that president would rise to the occasion, out of conviction or political self-interest.

For hawks who believe that the Bush White House either hasn’t been hawkish enough or has done a much better job than the conventional wisdom holds (remember, no terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11), counting on Democrats to learn on the job is a chilling thought. Which is why it remains a whisper, for now.


— Jonah Goldberg is Editor-at-Large of National Review Online.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Ted

Post by Ted » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:20 pm

But if we don't repeatedly dance to their tune, it's their will that could be broken and their recruiting that could be hurt. It's a battle of wills as much as anything, and right now, we're losing that battle. And all you have to do to know that is put on C-Span.
Barry. Jump into a time machine get that resume of yours off to Pravda
_________________

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:58 pm

When you come back from 1969, Ted.

Of course, we spent a good decade dancing to the tune of the bosses of those who wrote Pravda until RR came along and finally spoke the truth about that regime and followed through on his words, only to be called a war mongering moron by most Democrats.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Ted

Post by Ted » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:17 pm

When you come back from 1969, Ted.
Good one Barry

BTW And please lock and load on this—You keep harping on my calling Bush a Moron when he sent the carrier group to Iran—First of all this was right in the middle of the most violent period in Baghdad with both Repubs and Dems up in arms (Oops)
over Bush’s “Plan” or lack of one (Since then Bush has had to back off the slightest scintilla of potential for military action there)-- which by the way negates the presence of the Navy

I still maintain that we need to talk to the Iranians not bully them (Rice has recently said they were willing to talk about recognizing Israel a while back—Check that out

Now, having said all that….even admitting that military threats or force is often the only option left for the Commander in Chief—Let me assure you that Bush is still a Moron

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:56 pm

Ted wrote: BTW And please lock and load on this—You keep harping on my calling Bush a Moron when he sent the carrier group to Iran—First of all this was right in the middle of the most violent period in Baghdad with both Repubs and Dems up in arms (Oops) over Bush’s “Plan” or lack of one (Since then Bush has had to back off the slightest scintilla of potential for military action there)-- which by the way negates the presence of the Navy
As if there was a chance in hell that virtually all of the Dems and those few GOPers would have supported any plan of Bush's that didn't call for cutting and running (which they're demonstrating right now).

The pathetic thing about it, probably even more so than the specific point of the carrier group, was what it showed. As with the Dems in Congress, there is nothing Bush can propose that would illicit a positive response from you because he's proposing it. That's a pretty sad commentary when we're at war.

And, btw, you still don't get the point of sending the carrier group. Bush's subsequent remarks in no way diminish the presence of the navy. He was merely trying to calm down those who are starting to scream about a potential attack of Iran. The last thing he and the war effort need is another firestorm in the press and Congress. But he's made it clear that our military will defend themselves and respond to hostile Iranian actions. He didn't give Iran a free pass to do what they like in any way. And you better damn well believe that they are more than aware that if they go too far, we're in a position to respond quickly; at least partially with that carrier group.
There are undoubtedly various military plans for dealing with Iran. My guess is that the President hasn't decided at this point whether any of them will be used before he leaves office. As usual, there are legitimate arguments both pro and con. And if we don't attack them, there is a good chance Israel will, and we may very well be drawn into that conflict.

I don't oppose diplomacy in principle, but only if we are bargaining from a strong position. There are those who have put forth credible arguments that the current push by the U.S. and Iraqi military is an effort to improve that bargaining position for eventual negotiations with Iran. We'll see.

In some ways, Bush is in a can't win situation with Iran from a historical perspective. If he attacks and severely damages their nuke program, he'll, as usual, be called a war mongerer who unnecessarily attached another country who we had no proof was preparing to attack us. But if he doesn't take strong action before he leaves office, and there IS some sort of major attack by Iran against us or our interests or they lob a nuke at Israel (call it Holocaust, part II), he'll be criticized for not doing something to stop it when he had the chance.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

burnitdown
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:15 am
Contact:

Post by burnitdown » Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:45 pm

The Republicans used to be straightforward at least.

But we all know what happens to late stage democracies. I mean, you did read Plato, didn't you?

Am I the only realist here?

piston
Posts: 10767
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:50 am

Post by piston » Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:13 pm

burnitdown wrote:The Republicans used to be straightforward at least.

But we all know what happens to late stage democracies. I mean, you did read Plato, didn't you?

Am I the only realist here?
Reject bigotry.
In the eyes of those lovers of perfection, a work is never finished—a word that for them has no sense—but abandoned....(Paul Valéry)

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests