Traitors Without A Cause

Meet our new Benedict Arnolds

By haystack Posted in Comments (212) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

General Benedict Arnold

After the vote in the House today on H R 1591, the so-called "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007," we get to meet our 2 newest traitors from the GOP.

Meet Wayne Gilchrest, MD. and Walter Jones, NC.

Much like their inspiration, Benedict Arnold, they found a better offer than being loyal to those they once took an oath to serve.

The Speaker of the House, America's Mother-In-Law™, suggested AGAIN in her closing remarks before the bill passed, that:

I have said from the beginning that this war is a grotesque, grotesque mistake.

She went on to REPEAT that the war on terror is NOT in Iraq, rather it is in Afghanistan, and the sooner we redeploy our troops OUT of Iraq, the sooner we can get back to fighting the REAL war.

I would opine, m'lady, that the REAL war on terror is being fought in the House of Representatives, and you have two new recruits on board to help you lose it. Today, THEY have made a grotesque, grotesque mistake and I aim to help make them pay for it...my memory is long; my forgiveness not as much so.

More below the fold...

In this scene, Arnold and George Washington are engaged side by side, and the fight against the enemy is on. Arnold would ultimately decide his efforts and his loyalties were better appreciated by the enemy. He would eventually find his way back to England to live out his life in shame and regret for having chosen the losing side.

The Democrats' decision today to come out against our Soldiers, against the Iraqi people, and against a victory over the terrorists in their country would NOT have happened had Gilchrest and Jones had the spine to do the right thing. Instead, they chose political expediency.

Jones (representing North Carolina's 3rd District), for example, gives all the necessary window dressing at his website to impress you with his support of the Soldiers. Why, he even has a picture of himself with a Soldier in uniform!

And, to impress his quick-skimming constituents, he has links to his latest vote supporting "America's injured war fighters", and his co-sponsorship of a bill to "expedite compensation to returning Vets with service-related disabilities." He MUST support the troops, right?

Gilchrest (Maryland's 1st District), on the other hand, is a little less flashy about his OWN support of the troops. He only has "click-thrus" to OTHER organizations' websites that support the troops; America Supports You, and Veterans History Project. (this last more of a historical site than a "support" site.

More prominent than his troop support is his interview with Ted Koppel, in which they discussed "Iran at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in Washington."

Smoke and mirrors. Window dressing. Shadows and dust. And for what cause? To what end?

This bill, even if it clears the Senate, will HAVE to be vetoed by the President. Should he NOT veto it, then....well, that is for a different piece. In the meantime, what these two traitors have accomplished is to show theirs is an expediency motivation, not a "do the right thing" motivation.

The troops in theater need Congressional support, not special interest or vote-getting pandering. As members of the GOP they had a chance to show they had learned their lesson, and would no longer allow earmarks and pork to attach themselves to legislation needed for specific, narrowly focused issues.

They failed.

As Congressman Johnson said in his closing remarks:

What does throwing money at Bubba Gump, Popeye, and Mr. Peanut have to do with winning a war?

The Democrats, to their credit, have never really made it a secret that they were less concerned with this silly "victory in Iraq" thingy than they were with "victory against the Republicans."

The endless stream of hysterically funny contortions to frame that truth without actually SAYING it notwithstanding, they have at least been consistent in showing us how incompetent and inept they are at running their OWN house, let alone a war 6,000 miles away.

They have achieved their victory against the Republicans today; against a President they have successfully vilified beyond the pale. There will be high 5's aplenty amongst and in between the champagne and scotch glasses tonight, and Jones and Gilchrest will enjoy their buzz right along with their new pals.

Tomorrow, however, is only a few hours away. Their time in the spotlight has come, and they must not be allowed wallow in it with any great comfort. The temperature needs to rise until they sweat and dehydrate under the glare of it.

Add 2 more to the haystack hall of shame. They need to share Arnold's ultimate fate of shriveling and slithering home to live out their lives in well-earned shame, wishing they had decided differently today; wishing they had taken the "winning" side.

« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for CensorshipComments (5) | House Dems Scared Of MoveOn Wing. In DisarrayComments (4) »
Traitors Without A Cause 212 Comments (0 topical, 212 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

The Democrats who voted against the measure fell into one of two camps, by and large: (a) those who thought that this was detrimental to US national security (and cared about it), and (b) those who opposed it because they oppose any funding of the Iraq war, or of our troops in combat.

(A) Contained folks like GA representative Jim Marshall, and (B) was folks like Dennis Kucinich.

The mention of his name brings shame to all Tarheels.

Wlater Jones is one of the GOP members who also voted FOR the Democrat resolution AGAINST the surge too.

He and the lawn mower man to name two.

Wubbies World - The odds of hitting your target go up dramatically when you actually aim for it!

Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC3) formally announced his candidacy for the Haystack Hall of Shame™ with the introduction of H.J. RES. 14.

His induction into that “less-than-distinguished-group” is a foregone conclusion following his vote “for” H.R. 1591.

His rationalization for this despicable vote will be the inclusion of similar legislation that "would ensure troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan receive expedited compensation for their service-related disabilities."

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

in return? Some earmark? Some special little project in the district? How many pieces of silver were involved?

In Vino Veritas

I paid a brief visit to the sites for both Gilchrest and Jones... and it struck me as rather curious that Mr. Gilchrest has felt the need to post a long explanation for why he voted the way he did.

Seems to me that when someone has a clear conscience and confidence regarding a decision they have made they would not feel a frantic need to give it rapid justification.

I don't know... It just reminds me of the way a drug smuggler might over-react and draw attention to himself (and his crime) by speeding away from a simple traffic stop.

"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."

my representatives explain why they vote the way they do. Even when I don't agree with the vote itself.

that either they are in heavy 'swing' districts, and are feeling some heat, or are secure in their positions, and don't really worry. Either way, they both seem to mis-understand the concept of "Representative". They shouldn't HAVE to explain a vote to their supporters, if they were doing the will of said supporters.

There is no universal agreement about how to be a "representative." Some believe they should follow the "will of the people," and that frequently gets labeled as being ruled by the polls. Others believe they are elected based on a range of issues and positions, and they are expected to act according to their own beliefs and consciences. And there are those who believe it's a mix of the two.

There are also "representatives" who are guided by party loyalty. It's not a simple matter.

Finally, the word "supporters" can be problematic. Who are the supporters? Everyone who voted for the person, or perhaps only those who gave the most money? Are people elected to represent only their supporters or the best interests of all of the people of their districts/states? If one argues that only the supporters are represented, the waters could easily be muddied further if three or more candidates received a significant percentage of the votes. That could leave the representative "representing" only a minority of the people in the district.

In the case of President Bush, he clearly is not following the polls on Iraq. He frequently explains his policy, probably because he knows that the majority of his constituents disagree with him (at least that's what the polls seem to indicate), but forcefully argues that his job is to do what he thinks is right, not what the people want. Some hail him as resolute and courageous, while others see his attitude as stubborn and feel he is ignoring the will of the people.

Again, whether I agree or not with the policies, votes, and decisions, I think it is generally useful and appropriate for representatives, i.e., elected officials, at every level to explain their votes and positions.

But what I was trying to reference was the more than occasional MAJOR flip-flops from Reps who were elected because of their stated positions. For one minor example, a candidate promises that he's pro-2A, and understands that his constituency will include a significant number of hunters. Once in office, and faced with an anti-2A bill, whether under pressure or not, suddenly "votes his conscience". THAT form of Rep is what we seem to have far too many of, these days.
It's not just 2A; far from it. Nor is it restricted to party or stated philosophy. Certainly, one can change the mind, or heart, on a particular matter. But, signing on to a bill, just because someone nixed your idea of a new bridge, knowing that such a vote WILL tick off a very large portion of the folks who elected you? Sounds like a good way to burn your own credibility. Sadly, too many people want to hear "an explanation" that will reassure them that the Rep is still on their side. If you have to explain a backstab, it still doesn't heal the wound.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I take it, 5 means okay comment?

yea by kyle8

5 means totally agree.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Thanks. Like your tag line, too.

...the Maryland 1st District on the eastern shore and a little bit of suburban Baltimore, red-leaning, but not solidly Republican. He did win 69% of the vote in a tough year for Republicans, esp. in Maryland, so I'm not sure it's fair to deem the 1st a "swing" district.

Gilchrest is apparently, muddle-headed on the issues. His statement begins "My vote today on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill was based on two principals (sic).

First, we cannot jeopardize funding for our troops in the field in the middle of a combat mission. This funding was critical to the safety and security of our troops and I would find it unconscionable to vote against this funding.

Second, setting a timeline for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq provides a strategic advantage to the U.S...."

The first reason is pathetic. The troops *are* going to get funding one way or the other. Are all the Republicans that voted against this are against funding the troops? The second is equally laughable, a goofy regurgitation of Baker Commission talking points.

I also appreciate when my representative explains why they vote the way they do... However, my point was the "motivation" of Mr. Gilchrest's explanation (obviously drafted prior to his vote as it was posted on his site so quickly after) was clearly "guilt".
An explanation, which has been asked for, is offered to answer another's question. An explanation made ahead of time is offered to answer one's own guilty conscience.

"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."

I don't know... It just reminds me of the way a drug smuggler might over-react and draw attention to himself (and his crime) by speeding away from a simple traffic stop.

In the same way that calling him a Benedict Arnold/traitor is not over the top? Agree with him or not, he cast a legitamate vote as a duly elected representative.

It saddens me no end when I see the same type of belicose rancor towards others in this party as we get from the looney left. What's next? Excommunication? Burning effigies? Congressman(Senator) X didn't vote for (Iraq/judge/budget/defense/illegals/insert issue here), off with his head!

Calling them misguided or not placing focus on the most important facts is one thing but the trend on RS towards character assasination is disturbing.

Rant Street! www.rant.st

These are, so far as I can tell, 'Representatives' that have a pretty solid loyalty to the President, otherwise. Their previously stated positions are (again, so far as I know) diametrically opposed to this particular vote. These fellows aren't, in this case, "representing" their voting base. I get that you don't like the rhetoric you see here, but our side seems to be getting tired of taking it quietly from the opposition.
It is much easier to swallow criticism, if it is not offered by a hypocrite.

it is not over the top to call out republicans when they vote against their own party.

These two "gentlemen" are part of a party that lost its majority in part because of their bad choices when they HAD the majority. When they lost, they had a meeting of the minds, and agreed they needed to change their ways if they wanted to get the majority back. This includes pork and earmarks.

No one wants to be blamed for not funding the troops, and those that want to blackmail the President into a withdrawal from Iraq saw fit to tack on enough pork and earmarks UNRELATED to Iraq funding to garner sufficient votes to pass the bill. That these two repubs voted FOR more pork and voted against all 212 OTHER repubs who want the funding to continue but refused to abandon the promises they JUST made 3 months ago makes them traitors to the cause they promised they would pursue in the aftermath of their loss...fiscal discipline, spending restraint, no more pork and earmarks...independent of the timetable issue.

We don't need ANY republicans to continue behaving the way they did when they lost...and we don't need these 2 come '08. If it takes calling them something vitriolic enough to get them replaced by republicans that WILL get back to conservatism, I will gladly (and repeatedly) do so.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

Where did I suggest (or even imply) "Excommunication? Burning effigies? Congressman(Senator) X didn't vote for (Iraq/judge/budget/defense/illegals/insert issue here), off with his head!"?

I and (as far as I can tell) the others who have taken issue with the votes of these men are simply voicing our (extreme) disappointment.

When I hear reports of Republicans hosting "Code Pink-esque" rallies on the lawns of these representatives I will agree we have become "the looney-right". Until then, I will insist we are Americans letting our government leaders know we are paying attention and will hold them accountable for choices they make regarding things as serious as our National Security.

"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."

From tough districts. Bush got 68% in Jones's NC-3 and 62% in Gilcrest's MD-1.

These guys need serious primary opponents. Given the numbers above, I'd think defeating them in the primary is doable.

I hope they at least had a chance to date before they became ideological partners.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

For what it's worth... I fired off a little note to Mr. Wayne Arnold/Gilchrest...

Dear Mr. Benedict:

I am extremely disappointed in your cowardly vote.
You betrayed the Iraqi people, your party, your President, your constituents... your country and those fighting to protect it.
You should be ashamed… which, you apparently are.
I read your lengthy explanation as to why you cast you vote against those things you previously claimed to stand for.
Confidence and a clear conscience need no justification, sir.
However, that you felt the need to clarify yourself so quickly, your guilt speaks loud and clear… and I hope the people who voted for you… who put their faith in you to do “the right thing” will respond with equal haste.

"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."

But I doubt that he reads anything addressed to "Mr. Benedict."

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

Stay away from the champagne spritzers and you'll see that.

Oh, never mind.

im not that politically knowledgeable but did these guys vote for the war earlier and now just basically say to me "oh my bad, that entire war thing was cool a couple years ago but now my poll numbers are down and i want to give money to some peanut farmers so lets just call the entire thing off and lets everyone forget it ever happened" seriously i dont understand how anyone could do something like that and look at themselves in the mirror without puking.

Except for Dennis Kicinich, nearly everyone was aboard for the action in Iraq, until boots were actually on the ground. Prior to that, they were all screaming for Saddam's head, years before GW took office. The Newbies I can almost understand; takes a bit of getting used to, the pandering and corruption. But the Old Guard is just being obstructionist to the President (nothing new, there).

From Gilchrest's website: "My vote today on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill was based on two principals."

Pelosi was the first principal, and Murtha was the second. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

of parsing the parsley!

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

Once again, Gene Taylor (D-MS) voted against the Democratic majority. He should be commended for continuing to be one of the most conservative Dems in the House. He understand that he represents South Mississippi and not Nancy Pelosi. In this new Congress, he has voted against the non-binding measure opposing the surge, against the union bill and now against this effort to end the war.

http://majorityinms.wordpress.com

"represents South Mississippi and not Nancy Pelosi." I like how you said that; it's a simple expression which says a lot.

I wonder how many folks in Taylor's district could watch Pelosi's speech on the House floor yesterday and nod in agreement and applaud her words and sentiments.

She sounded as if she could have been addressing last weekend's A.N.S.W.E.R rally, except she would have had to have been screaming at the top of her lungs and have opened with a nifty chant.

I don't think that even most Democrats in Taylor's district would agree with Pelosi's speech. But then again, a lot of his constituents are more concerned with rebuilding after Katrina.

Taylor's entrenched in their pretty well, and no one has come close to putting up a challenge recently. The "a vote for Taylor is a vote for Pelosi" doesn't work. Taylor is a moderate-conservative (ACU lifetime rating of 68) and is a Blue Dog who acts like a Blue Dog. I'd love to see an R in this seat- which we will as soon as he retires- but give Taylor credit for his voting record.

http://majorityinms.wordpress.com

pull both of these idiots off of all committee assignments. Let 'em twist in the wind. Or become Democrats. Treason should not be tolerated.

Both of these guys make Lincoln Chafee look good.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

...if you always have to find an excuse to vote with the majority?

From the website of Charlie Melancon (D-LA): Melancon Votes for Massive Hurricane Disaster Assistance Bill (Hint: he's talking about the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill) - emphasis in original:

"Much has been made of the language in this bill setting benchmarks for the war in the Iraq. This language concerns me and I don’t support it, but I don’t believe there is anything in this bill that puts our troops in harm’s way. However, voting against this bill WILL put the people of south Louisiana in harm’s way."

Charlie, tu es pleine de merde, cher.

If we abandon Iraq to fight the "real" war on terror...what happens when we kick all the bad guys out of Afghanistan? (As if that were the only place they reside.)

Where do you think they'll head to, Madam Speaker?

Could it be to the shambles that we (or rather, you and your ilk) will have left in Iraq? Ready made for them...oil wealth (for more goodies to kill with) and all?

Nah....that makes too much sense.

The Democrats reasoning is that if we invade say, Qatar, where Al Qaeda is not operational, AQ will move foreign fighters to Qatar. But to argue that we must in that case stay in Qatar indefinitely because AQ is now there because we attracted them does not make too much sense, since it was we that provoked this incursion of terrorists. the key answer would be to set the example that you do not invade a country in which Al Qaeda was not a problem.

sweet Lord...i can't believe I just read that

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

You said basically nothing.

"the key answer would be to set the example that you do not invade a country in which Al Qaeda was not a problem."

not sure I get this....

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Iraq has attracted Al Qaeda in massive numbers into its territory.
The Washington Post quoted intelligence officials saying "the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups".

And using the Al Qaeda presence to justify staying here is a bad example to set for future wars. Under this reasoning, explaining to Americans why we invade a country will not matter as much as the fact that foreign terrorists will be attracted to the invaded nation.

anyone say that AQ is the reason(main) we are in Iraq...or using the AQ presence to justify staying...as you put it.

I kinda thought we were going with the get rid of the bad guy, help a country embrace freedom kind of thing. ....or, it oculd have been oil too...can't remember

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

constantly. It's usually just not stated explicitly, as in "To abandon Iraq would encourage terrorists, who would follow us here."

That said, I think counterterrorism is a more sensible reason for staying there than promoting freedom in Iraq. If that was our real goal, after all, there are dictatorships closer to home.

PLEASE...what the heck do you mean by your last statement? are you questioning our goals?.......

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Are you saying we should abandon Iraq to al Qaeda because they are bigger there now than they were pre-war?

Thus if we were to end the war we would be up to our ears in AQ ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I think your strange comment meant that I implied that if the 150,000 soldiers present in Iraq came back to the US, Al Qaeda would follow.

1-) You know I was speaking about invasions, not presence.
2-) I used Qatar as an example because it is a Muslim country, of course. Al Qaeda sees itself as protector of Muslim country. Remember they are extremist muslims.
3-) The US Army is already in the US. It consists of more than the 150,000+ troops now in Iraq.

bigger fight taking place in Afganistan whom we invaded first, we have fewer troops and would have been raging before the Iraq invasion.

I guess those people that got chlorine gassed weren't Muslim. Or the 1000 who got bombed on the way to a pilgrimage.

I'd tell you take a course in logic, but my fear is it would only allow you to make wrong arguments more plausible.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"US can't invade itself"

All one apparently needs is two feet. Just walk on in, 12 million or 20 million or some number are all ready here. How many are Al Queda, or Hamas, or just plain ordinary non citizen criminals,
who knows? Does anyone care? Does anyone think there is any possibility that Chavez is not giving aid to any terrorist that
can possibly aid in his desire to destroy the US? Does anyone really believe that there is not an active effort being made to get terrorists into this country? We have been and are being invaded.

anti-American would realize that there is absolutely no need to attack us with explosives and poisons. All they really have to do is support the defacto invasion currently taking place over the Mexican border. At the current rate, we should be just another bankrupt State of Mexico by the end of the 21st century. And that will just about end the battle to de-throne the United States as a world power, with Al-Quaida the unquestioned winner.

The battle for our freedom isn't only being fought in Iraq. The bigger battle is being fought in Washington, D.C., and in the offices of editors and publishers across America.

Every time you read or hear a call for a "comprehensive solution" to the iillegal immigration "problem," rather than a recognition that the first step has to be "stem the tide," you should know that the source is either ignorant or one of the enemy.

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

Perhaps it is all the obstructionist blathering done by the 'hippy-dippy' crowd, that is emboldening our adversaries. This gets said a lot, but I've not heard a decent refutation.

The use of twisted logic to justify one of the all-important cornerstones of BushLied.™

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and Saddam had no "ties" with al-Qaeda. Bush's "voluntary" war with Iraq is the only reason al-Qaeda is there now. Iraq would have no problems if not for Bush. Therefore, It's-All-Bush's-Fault.™

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

the same old crap...and so on, and so on. What do you think these people would do if we REALLY decide to rid the world of terror?...

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

If we "really" decided to rid the world of terror, the shock-wave reverberating throughout the fragilely constructed world of liberalism would drive them to withdraw completely from reality into a primordial state of existence in which fear is the dominant and acutely paralyzing factor. But, that's just my opinion.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

and I think it will happen.. We made the right call on Iraq..too bad for Iraq that now their country is taking the toll of some of the GWOT... too bad...lets get as many as we can, and if Iraq is the arena, so be it.....if we can help bring freedom to the people of Iraq, and eliminate thousands of terrorist at the same time, great. Next stop?! Shocking the rest or the world hasn't seen the reality of it.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

how long will prometheus77 last here at Red State. He is obviously totally clueless about war fighting and about international relations. He can't present a cogent argument and is setting himself up as real troll bait.

I've got Monday afternoon, Phoenix time.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

That I am clueless is a vague criticism. Your statement would have been stronger if you had explained what makes me, and not you, clueless.

I wouldn't waste my time.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Don't tell me you've fallen for the "Saddam wouldn't have worked with terrorists" meme. Surely, you are more discerning than that.

Why does that translate to you as indefinitely?

because his taxes aren't being used to fund trips to strip clubs, for hurricane survivors.

Walter B is, I think a straight shooter. He was elected in the class of 1994 and is a cross-over Democrat (like virtually every NC Republican) who ran in his legendary father's district (father Jones was a Dixiecrat). That being said, Walter B has been pretty anti-war for a long time, and consistently. I think he thinks it's a mistake and has a generally Buchananish view of foreign policy. His district has a big military presence, too. He's not pandering to any constituency.

I think he's wrong, but he didn't get promised pork for his vote. It's just his thing. Oddly enough, he was the guy that brought us "freedom fries." That came from a local restaurant in eastern NC (Cubbie's, I think the Belhaven one).

De Opresso Liber

All of the wind-blowing and gas-bagging about the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam by the white flag wavers have been little more that flatulent fantasies.

For ANYONE seeking the most prevelant yet elemental relationship between the two blood-lettings let them look no farther than the conduct of congressional Democrats, their lickspittle Republican honeybucket carriers and the ever (unsanctioned) treachery of the MSM.

I believe the 'issue' is greater, far greater, than the Iraq War. I believe these are the opening strategies to deny this nation both the will and the wherewithal to fight a war - ANY war; and to relieve this president as well as future presidents of the military methods and authorities to fight a war - ANY war.

There is much more to my list of similarities and I.D.s of domestic American deconstructionists but I don't want to hijack Haystack's excelent posting. If any reader has a difficulty with my positions as stated in the abbreviated form - let me know briefly here or at my email address found elsewhere on this sight; and I'll be happy to expand my views.

As for my views and my positions - personally - let me say that this is the second time in my short life that I have witnessed Americans (official and otherwise)cavalierly commit our nation to a war they never intended to support; and condemn our and others children and grandchildren to death in a foreign war they supported, until it became too hot.

From this old soldier's point-of-view, it is time now to:

DROP THE GAUNTLET

5 by jdub19

thanks Yahuti...I needed to read that.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

If the Iraq War is model for future wars, then we are a super power in decline. Using your words, these 'opening stages' began with this conservative administrations' pathetic excuse for a war strategy.

De Opresso Liber

Iraq is NOT the model for future American Wars; it IS a refinement of the model established during the Korean and Vietnam Years.

This administration's 'pathetic excuse for a war strategy' just happened to have won the war. Do you not recall. Admittedly it experiencing its difficulties winning and maintaining the peace in the past - what? - four years. How long is permitted to bring a nation to its senses, post-war? Is there a Users' Guide? A set of regulations? Models? Time Tables for this kind of thing? I think not.

The fruits of our CONTINUING post-WWII occupation of Europe are still in place and easy to be seen in the form of NATO elements in Afghanistan. Same thing in Japan. How do you suppose the Democrats could have fought us to a 40-odd year non negotiated stand-still in Korea unless we had Japan as a friendly base?

Let's get the troops out of Korea and redeploy (term often used by a geriatric former Marine congressman)them to the Middle East - eh?

We all need to understand that we are very much at the point where the primary function of the legislative is bull-whipping the executive. That is because the total value of most other legislative 'work' is significantly without worth to the majority of the population - and done for their own and their friends' benefit - when they are not scrabbling for,stealing, questioning, diminishing the power of the executive.

We all understand a major constitutional battle when we see one. But when the executive is attacked in his primary role as C-in-C responsible for waging an ongoing war most of his legislative detractors approved not once, nor twice - we are looking at acts of treason casually employed solely for domestic political goals.

You may have thought that I've go a bit beyond in my earlier posting - and perhaps you are right; but it is time for many more Americans to do that if they intend for their country to remain either governable, or theirs! for many more political seasons.

We ARE a nation in decline when our governmental instutions work against each other rather than for the commonweal. We ARE a nation in decline when we permit the faithless and the valueleass and the generally unschooled to indoctrinate our children and teach them to scorn the values we provided them with several generations of our blood.

We ARE a nation in decline when we are too politically feeble to militarily/politically defeat gaggles of Third World barbarians whose primary weapons are mass-murdering suididal children setting off bombs in market places, churches and mosques.

Who now will be willing to ally with us in times of danger if we cannot be trusted to stay a military course we've undertaken?

In fact, where will we find the young men and women to die for future still-born military causes? What do we suppose might be the effect upon future enlistments (in our all voluntary force) by the pronunciemento just issued by the House. How many times and in how many will America's fighting youth permit themselves to be demeaned, lied to, betrayed and abandoned in the killing fields, before they turn their backs on military service to their country.

Keep your eyes on enlistment rates if this House surrender document passes the Senate. It will not mater at that point to our fighters even if George Bush does veto that white flag. An American kid smart enough to operate and F-16, or helm a submarine, or learn artillery firing tables is smart enough to know when the fix is in. A young paratrooper with the guts to charge a machine gun will have the guts to turn his back on those who turned their backs on him.

What might become our status in the world if we are universally perceived as an overarmed, toothless has been? Want an advanced view? Look at our emerging image in South America or Iran, and elsewhere.

This is all very dreary a view, I admit. But, I have seen it before in its less virolent form. Some individuals and organizations in our country have had the benefit of more than thirty years bubbling about in ther toxic petri dishes and have mutated into extremely lethal political and social combinations; and they have already entered our national circulatory system.

They are not here to make us ill, or weaken us while strengthening themselves. They are hear to reduce this country to a catatonic state so that they man sell off our national parts to the highest bidders.

Look around. It is not difficult to see some of them. They are in our governments at all levels, in our educational institutions, our churches and deeply, deeply into our pockets.

If this all seems a bit scary, a bit paranoid - GOOD!

The ONLY people playing by the rules in this contest for national salvation - are the good guys - tomorrow's prolitarians.

If we are NOT a nation in decline, then, how do YOU diagnose the patient? And what is YOUR prognosis?

Remember. I don't claim that my view of our national decline needs necessarily to be the way things will turn out. My view of our current circumstances are, I think accurate, strongly held and derived from no little experience and study. However,the mortal wound has not yet been delivered.

I am making the assumption that Haystack and I are of similar age. We probably will not witness the practical outcome of this discussion - but our grandchildren most likely will - and yours.

We had all better wake up - the incubus is entering our national corpus - and once inside there is no antidote.

Drop The Gauntlet.
Get Busy.
Make New Rules.

and I couldn't agree more. Our side needs to start being a bit more assertive, in refuting the clueless. I'm probably a pup, compared to you and Stack, but have hung around more ready rooms than I care to admit. The sheer disgust for political chicanery is universal, from my experience. Sadly, many vets used to feel that, either their vote didn't count, or they should remain 'neutral'.

I see the Vietnam 'connection' only because after four years in, the cause and purpose of the war has changed. These Presidents did not prepare their Americans for the real war. These Commanders in Chief did not prepare their military for the real war. The fault lies these Presidents and their inability to lead the nation. Americans are wise to demand better and get out rather than demand more effort from incapable leader.

Listen, pal. I don't know where the heck you were the last 4 years, maybe it's hard to get info with your head lodged in your rectum. I do recall this president at the outset telling the American people this wasn't going to be easy, and this would take many years. I can also remember this president explaining there would be hard sacrifices in this long struggle.

See, if the leaders of your country tell you stuff like that, most that understand the mission and goals consider themselves "prepared". Your whiny, finger-pointing behavior is a joke.
Do us all a favor....leave this site. Go burn a flag, orhang out with some hippie peaceniks. Whatever it is, please, just go away.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Mission Accomplished
Greated as Liberators
WMD

Bad rhetoric for preparing the US people for hard sacrifices and a long struggle. Your angst is self inflicted.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

than merely slipping lines in a couple of speeches that it will be long and require sacrifices.(while at the same time implying that it could take "6 days...maybe 6 seeks...I doubt 6 months" as Donald Rumsfeld said)
Preparing for war means preparing for the aftermath of the initial invasion beyond having ridiculously simplistic visions of being greeted as liberators.
Preparing for war means figuring out a way to pay for the war without having to borrow huge amounts of money.
Preparing for war means getting our VA hospitals and services ready to handle the returning wounded.
Preparing for war means more than telling people vaguely about "sacrifices". It means actually having the political courage to actually spell out the sacrifices. Sacrifices might take the form of actually levying taxes to pay for this debacle. They might take the form of allowing gas prices to rise to the point where consumption/and dependence on foriegn oil is reduced.
Preparing for war means being ready to tell Americans truths about this war, instead of telling outright lies in the name of PR about tragic events like the Pat Tillman death
That is just the start of the list, but try to get this idea into your closed little mind-"preparing for war" is serious business, and involves a lot more than just covering your ass by slipping a line or two into speeches.
Grow up kid-War is serious business.

Really isn't worth a comment, but what the heck. You can take that idea and stick it.

How about we divert funds from things like the Education Dept, the Commerce Dept, the Farm Subsidy programs, the Highway Bill, funding for the Arts, etc to pay for the war.

Go drink your koolaid someplace else.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Why Mr. Becker? Because sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to hear the truth is so unpleasant? Look, I don't like the idea of raising taxes either. The ideas is unpleasant, but that is why is is called a "Sacrifice".

Why is it a sacrifice when it causes government to grow, but if you propose measures that shrink government they're inconceivable?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You must have made that little man out of straw all by yourself. Try to pay more attention to the actual argument on the page joliphant.

Related to the war ? Made out of some need to feel others pain ?

Becker Nailed you. Your reaction proves the point. You want sacrifice lets sacrifice the non profits directly funded by congress and not under executive branch control. Lets get rid of the theft by the left thats sacrifice.

What you propose is nothing more than garbage designed to undermine moral.

Becker was also right you aren't worth the effort a reply takes.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

My demand for sacrifice was a demand to recognize the reality that waging war is a huge undertaking. I have no problem with making cuts in government program, but to imply that we can find the funds for this war merely by cutting spending in other areas flies in the face of reality. Did the Republican led congress show ANY willingness to cut spending anywhere, or did they spend like drunken democrats?
Sacrifice means BOTH cutting spending and increasing taxes. That really sucks, but guess what-War really sucks.

HOw did you feel about the main point of my original post in this thread-that there is lot more to preparing for war than merely slipping in a couple of lines about how hard it will be? I guess anytime someone mentions raising taxes it is like putting a red flag in front of a bull. You just cant see anything else.

When you feel like using facts, and reason instead of talking points.

Talking points that you apparently don't understand the purpose of.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

to label inconvenient facts as "talking points"? It is as if that magic talisman somehow disproves my points. It is like when we were kids playing tag, and you were cornered, then called "Time out" instead of dealing with the fact that you were cornered.
Do you in fact think that
The US did have a well thought out strategy for the post invasion period?
The US did have a plan for paying for this other than borrowing a ton of money?
The US did have a plan for ramping up VA hospital and VA services to deal with returning wounded?
The US did have a plan to tell our citizens the truth about the war instead of endless PR games like the shameless game played with the Tillman episode?
You have not provided evidince or proof to refute any of the above. Don't feel bad-you cannot produce what does not actually exist. It would just make you more credible if you aknowleged that fact.

So now needing to plan a war better equals raising taxes. ??

Borrowing money to pay for war has been what we have done with every war we have ever fought except those too small to notice.

Somehow you feel that pointing out the other sides problems increases the validity of your argument. This is typical, when you don't have anything constructive to say lash out.

I am sorry the war hasn't gone well enough to suit you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Maybe it will help. Look again at the original post. The context of taxes was raised as one of my original points about the many ways this country failed to prepare for war. I have yet to see you offer any refutation of my points.
And by the way, YES, planning to increase revenue to pay for the increased cost of war seems to be fiscally prudent. Try not to let your knee jerk reaction to the word "Tax" blind you to facts.

Perhaps it will make you feel better about being wrong. It certainly won't help your argument, but that's hopeless anyway.

You keep repeating yourself without actually saying anything. Just why are tax increases needed ? Answer they aren't. Treasury revenue is up, the economy roared out of recession, the housing market has passed its bubble and is now perking up again.

Reality refutes you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You have insufficient credibility around here to toss shots like that. Back off, take a breath, and come back to this argument when you're convinced you can do it without personal attacks.

We can do this the soft way or the hard way. I prefer the hard way, but I'm a sadist. How about we go with the soft way?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

And read the tag line on all my posts.

Of course it would help if you actually provided a reason why anything you have suggested is needed. But then again, perhaps we should listen because its your say so. Personally, I think not.

I will leave with one parting observation. We have been at war for 5 years. During that time we have managed with tax cuts. Reality as usual puts paid to dogma.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You really haven't offered any kind of intellectually honest reaction to my points about the lack of preparation for the war. Call again when you have a coherent argument.

Sure Teemn first let me know when you are done projecting and I will be glad to discuss the topic with you.

Heck you can continue to project. Just offer one concrete reason why a tax increase is desirable.

So far you haven't. All you have offered are insults and innuendo.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You did offer a reason. Because you think it is and there are incidents in the war you didn't like.

Well hard to argue with that.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

...I think that everyone involved is done with the sneering, yes?

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

If I have gone over the line sincere apologies.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Don't know if you're still around.

Let me make a few comments, please. You say

(while at the same time implying that it could take "6 days...maybe 6 seeks...I doubt 6 months" as Donald Rumsfeld said)

Just how long did the war take, anyway?

Preparing for war means preparing for the aftermath of the initial invasion beyond having ridiculously simplistic visions of being greeted as liberators.

So, you really think that was all there was to the after-War plans?

Preparing for war means figuring out a way to pay for the war without having to borrow huge amounts of money.

Oh, your best shot! Have you noticed that tax revenues are up significantly since the war started? Do you realize the Al Gore wants us to go on a "war footing" against Global Warming, at a cost of five times the cost of the Iraq war. Every year.

Preparing for war means getting our VA hospitals and services ready to handle the returning wounded.

The VA has been a controversial can of worms for years. Didn't you see or read Born on the Fourth of July? That was written long before Bill Clinton was President. Do you think it might have been a good idea to solve that particular problem during his eight years of unparalleled peace and prosperity, when the system was not under stress? Maybe a clean-up at the VA instead of HillaryCare would have gotten some popular support.

Are you sure the system isn't ready for 99% of the wounded? Check Bob Woodruff's book about his recovery from a nearly fatal head injury. His later treatemtn may or may not have been at civilian hospitals, I don't know, but the first twenty-four hours of treatment, the treatment that saved his life, were spent at military hospitals and triage units.

Preparing for war means more than telling people vaguely about "sacrifices". It means actually having the political courage to actually spell out the sacrifices. Sacrifices might take the form of actually levying taxes to pay for this debacle. They might take the form of allowing gas prices to rise to the point where consumption/and dependence on foriegn oil is reduced. Preparing for war means being ready to tell Americans truths about this war, instead of telling outright lies in the name of PR about tragic events like the Pat Tillman death

A lot of people have sacrificed in this war and peace. Is your complaint that it's not been enough people? Or do you think that it hasn't been "us" Redstaters who have sacrificed? Perhaps you want a President who will send a letter to each citizen stating "Your sacrifice will be..." What sense does that make? You mention taxes--you seem unhappy that the economy hasn't tanked because tax rates weren't increased to "pay for the war." Instead, rates were lowered, the looming recession was averted, tax revenues increased, and the "horrendous" deficit is on its way to disappearing, in spite of the war's expenses and the hit 9/11 laid on the economy at the time.

Oh, yes, gas prices. Let's have them controlled by the government. Then movie prices. Then retail food prices. Then the wages of university professors. The wonderful contolled economy; I can't wait for it to happen.

Then again, sacrifices might take the form of us having to listen to the likes of you rant illogically about BushLied, It's all Bush's fault, the Government planned 9/11 because W wanted to avenge the plot to kill the elder Bush, there was no plane that crashed into the Pentagon, it was an Israeli plot, Bush is illegally listening in to our phone conversations, Bush didn't care about the damage done in New Orleans because most of the victims were black, and Bush was the one who ordered the Army to cover up the cause of Pat Tillman's death.

Sacrifices! You must be a masochist, who gets off on sacrificing himself and thinks everybody else should get in on the fun. The point on supporting a war isn't to see how much we can all sacrifice, it's to get the job done with as little sacrifice as possible. To look at it any other way is simply to be an anti-War zealot.

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

via institutions that reach them a lot faster than the labrynthine budget processes of Washington DC (more on that in a later post), and without the interruptions threatened by Jack Murtha and his minions.

Two examples (there are so many more):

http://www.uso.org/

http://www.woundedwarriors.org/

Another might be to avoid calling for sacrifice when the probable intent is to undermine support for the military, especially by those who see every item in the military budget as feeding the military-industrial complex, aka the Bushhitler Regime War Machine.

A third path of sacrifice is using discretion and maturity to tone down one's public emotional outbursts, which encourage the enemies of our country who read our media well and count on it to undermine support for Iraq and the GWOT in general.

First of all, the President (who I don't particularly like) NEVER said this was going to be quick or painless. He said over and over that this was going to be a "long war". Quoting Rumsfeld out of context may make you feel good and get you pats on the back at Kos, but here it's just a Democrat talking point.

Actually, in most of Iraq we were greeted as liberators. The aftermath has been handled poorly, in my opinion because the RoE were tightened up so the US media didn't get hold of reports of "civilians" being slaughtered. The biggest problem the President won't address is that the real enemies in this action are not in Iraq, they are in the editorial rooms of the NYT and are the elected members of the Democratic Party in DC.

With respect to the VA hospitals, that is a non-issue. It comes back to the media and the Democrats. Walter Reed is a problem, but in the real world, our returning vets get the best available care in the world. And just so you know, I have some experience with the VA. My son is a medically discharged US Marine with a 50% disability rating.

POTUS has done a lousy job of communicating. Mostly because I really think he thinks the people who run the major media outlets and the Democrats are people of good will. They are not. At this point there isn't much we can do about it. Specifically, with respect to the Tillman issue, the real problem is the perception (with good reason) that the Army has of the way stories will be reported. "Friendly fire" happens. It's always happened and it will happen again. The NYT, etal use an incident like that to criminalize people for an error in the heat of combat.

POTUS didn't just "slip a line or two" into a couple of speeches. He's hit the issues hard and with some, though not enough, frequency. The problem is that he gets basically no, or bad, coverage and the coverage has no legs. You likely have no clue that 85% of Iraq is more peaceful than Detroit. You probably don't know that more kids are in school in Iraq than ever before. Or that electricity is at pre-war levels and is distributed more evenly throughout the country. I don't know if you care.

With respect (and I use that term very loosely) to raising taxes to "pay" for the war, that is a load of economic crap born of ignorance of economics, hatred for Bush or plain stupidity. Pick any combination, there are no other choices. The country was in a recession when Bush took office. 911 compounded it. The tax rate cuts (not "tax cuts") have spurred the economy, generated record numbers of good jobs and brought in huge increases in receipts to the federal treasury. The "problem" we have with the budget is not revenue, it's spending and Bush is out to lunch on that account. He's every bit as bad as the Democrats, with the exception that they would raise tax rates which would lower receipts. If you actually believe that rhetoric about "raising taxes to pay for the war", you are a dumb as a box of rock. Note the singular "rock" because if there were two in the box they would be much smarter than you.

Thanks for stopping by, go flog your talking points elsewhere.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

we "take what we have coming to us" due to past bad preparation?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Gamecock, I see your point, and the situation does concern me deeply. However, I think our course in Iraq will not change the outcome. I do not have a solution, but my philosophy is prepare 100% or fight 100%, our leadership is not taking either approach.

De Opresso Liber

history book. That is if you can find one nowadays not choked with revision.

You don't see the Vietnam connection at all if the above is your stated view - and I am not in the mood to school you. Nor will I attempt to explain how a president having received three times congressional approval to fight, UN acquiescience in the fight, a number of other UN appearances and several national television appearances is not likely to have either failed to lead or misled anybody. Nor will I attempt to explain what I call congressional bushwacking of a C-in-C at war: Approving. Backing down, then attacking the C-in-C through legislative devices designed solely to cripple his management of a war they approved.

The MSM's role in all of this - I'll leave to you to decypher for your next homework assignment.

Start looking for boogeymen/women in congressional rest rooms. The really, really big ones reside there and NOT in this White House.

The only time they want to make comparisons to Vietnam, is when they think it will score rhetorical points for their side of the "debate".
My difficulty with the issue is, when the lefties constantly carp about how "we" (meaning ONLY conservatives/hawks) should have 'learned our lesson from Vietnam'. Not that they could have learned to behave any better, now.

I do struggle to see the 'connection' between Iraq and Vietnam. The later lasted the better part of a generation and three administrations. Vietnam was escalated under a president who wanted to minimize the impact of the war on his social agenda, and his unwillingness to take the war on as his primary responsibility turned the war into a political mess. The Iraq War was presented as a fight that the President would conclude in a decisive action, and he and his administration championed the cause as their most important responsibility. The President may have addressed us in a humble manner, warning us of the uncertainty of war, but his administration did not. The VP and Rumsfeld 'over sold' us on the war.

you have a problem....YES, you do struggle...with quite a bit more than you realize.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

De Opresso Liber

We've been in Iraq for four years - just as long in Afghanistan. The fight we got was the fight we were warned we would get. The job is getting done - except just not quickly enough for people like you. Let me ask this: If you and your malodious congressional likspittle were so oncerned about the war i the first place, why - during all that hair-burning discussion be approving the fight - didn't we hear a single woord about limiting the war; you know - at the beginning, rather long after the blood has been shed and the job damned near done.

I doubt you remember that this country was committing acts of war for against continental Europe for almst four years BEFORE their allies hit us at Pearl Harbor.

Go! Read a book.
I'm done having fun with you; besides I have to feed the chickens.

Thats right, we have turned the corner. The insurgency is in it's last throes. All those IED's are merely the Iraqi way of welcoming us as liberators.
The reason that there was not more discussion about limiting the war at the begining is because the democratic party has neither spine nor brain. Try not to confuse opposing the war as approval of the Democrats. I am living proof that it is quite possible to think that both parties are full of lying criminals and clowns.

De Opresso Liber

The Iraqi military was soundly defeated and destroyed.
Regime change has been achieved.

I liked your snappy referral of IEDs as Iraqi welcoming mechanisms. That was nearly as insightful as your views on what is happening now in Iraq.

IED's aren't defeating the U.S. military; they are murder weapons, explosives randomly implanted by thugs to slaughter civilians; to draw the MSM like flies to a manure pile; and to frighten congress critters and bgoost the morale of Aerica haters at home and abroad.

Congress is defeating the U.S. military after many decisive tactical victories in the field: Now THERE is a similarity to Vietnam.

Foreign (explosive) technologies are employed (often in those foreign countries) to manufacture the IED's and are carried across adjacent borders by foreigners without sanction: Now THERE is another similarity to Vietnam.

Yeah. The military has been successful in Iraq. The so-called Civil War (which now is mainly a foreign-supported and supplied insurrection) seems for some reason to be paralyzing and awful lot of formerly really brave folks here in America, and causing death and destruction mainly amongst Iraqis.

Why does this frighten you?
Are you out of stomach for the fight? When the fight is nearly over?

I have been reading your site for a few months and now decided to comment.
When I read your comments it occurs to me that many of you have some book knowledge, and may enjoy debating conservative politics over coffee late at night. It also appears to me that many of you are of age where you could do this country more good by serving in uniform than sitting in your apartments or your parent's Mcmansion basements overanalyzing every agonizing detail of the days news.
Get jobs, get in service, and get a life...and more importantly, grow up

____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

First you do not know how much more good they would do in the service because you don't know what they do now, let not ignorance impede you however.
The "get a life" refrain apart from being trite, should be avoided on grounds of pre-historic origins and hints at a limited imagination, this does not preclude the possibility of other limitations.

The "get in service", a variation on the chickenhawk theme, presents the most interesting paradox, not blunted in any way by dullness. For if it is to be taken seriously, a stretch in itself, it presumes that anybody between the ages of 18 to 35 and who supports the war loses any moral right to support it. They in effect lose the opportunity to exercise free speech, which liberals are fond of telling us is our our most precious freedom. Even as they, like you, attempt to shut it down.

Lack of military service, which BTW you have no way of knowing how many of those on Redstate have already served, didn't preclude Bill Clinton from bombing a country for 80 or so days. I take it as a given that you wrote him and patiently if not eloquently explained his deficiencies to him. As well as anyone on his staff or anyone who supported that effort on the left.

I anticipate a perky admonition that this war is bigger than the Bosnia-Kosovo caper which you hope will get you off the hook. As I said, I anticipate it.

It is possible that your observations of Redstate combined with your inactivity have led to some rustiness coupled with an eagerness to jump in and land a haymaker. Bad move.

Other users of the "chickenhawk" nonsense may find parts of this post applicable to their sorry selves. I am willing to make adjustments to both style and slurs.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

Use the contact tool if you actually care enough about engaging us in debate to be willing to return sans the abysmally ignorant arrogance displayed in your last sentence.

-The Mgmt.

and served in the Navy under Reagan. I'm too out of shape to keep up with the kids over there. Plenty of other vets here at Redstate; best choose your argument a bit more carefully.

I served in the US Air Force for 21 years and my father is a poor blue collar factory worker who is now retired without a pension. I had to pay for my college with student loans and GI benifits.

Air head idiots like you are insulting and offensive.

Go "troll" someplace else!

Wubbies World - The odds of hitting your target go up dramatically when you actually aim for it!

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Jdub19: First, if all you can do is quote someone else, well, I guess I respect that. Second, if you are 19, may I suggest you pay a visit to the local recruiting station first thing tomorrow.

Jerkoff... I get too much joy reading crap like the stuff you typed....are mommy and daddy out to dinner tonight?...babysitter watching tv?...you little twit...grow up.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

if you'd really been around for a few months, you'd know the rules. next!

can we keep Dakota around for a while?...I logged huge miles on the road the last couple days....just made a drink...want to relax...this could be fun...

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Get jobs, get in service, and get a life...and more importantly, grow up

OK---you're rude and infantile. How's that for a response?

If you think anyone here respects the opinions you've expressed so far, you're deluding yourself. If you want to engage in a debate of ideas, you're welcome here. If, however, you want to come into our house and pee on the floor, you'll be shown the door fast.

What makes you think we'd appreciate you coming on to this site and being rude? Are you that full of yourself? That self-absorbed? Apparently so.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

I have food in my refrigerator older than you...
And I am probably older than your parents

Having said that, calling someone a traitor for not "following their party" is cheap. A real patriot follows their conscience and not a "party"

or a deficient one cannot be patriotic? thanks for clearing that up, and cleanly indicting the Dems.

I am older than your parents. And, I promise you that your time here will be short. In the meantime, let me remind you that whatever your service to the country may have been (be it IN uniform or on the backs of family members in uniform) that you hold no higher position in expressing opinions than anyone else here.

Some of the people you so sophomorically chastise here HAVE worn the uniform for this country. Some have lost family members that did. As the punk you appear to WISH to portray yourself as in this thread, remember one thing-those who fight do so in order to allow those that don't to express themselves nonetheless.

You cheapen the meaning of America by the content of your inferior wisdom...you need to move on to another venue.

A real patriot supports their country once it has committed its treasure to engaging an enemy. An opportunist picks and chooses when to support those who do the heavy lifting.

I dub you the latter.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

I'd say n/t but that deserved much more. Well said and God speed.

“They chose dishonor. They will have war.” - Winston Churchill

i joined up 4 months after september 11th doesnt give me any more right than anyone else to spout there opinion, but it is annoying hearing armchair starbucks drinking idiots spout off about how we should do this thing or that thing meanwhile they do nothing. i agree with that totally. i dont understand how 75 percent of people were like yeah go in there kick some @ss, but now 5 years later want to say "my bad big mistake come home" only because they see images on tv of a car burning and some haji screaming for 15 minutes a day.

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Dead on and thank you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

been putting out some great stuff....please, keep it up.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

Benedict Arnold's treason was horrible because he was a great hero before turning traitor. How are these comparable ? I expect little from politicians and only rarely am I disappointed.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

to correct their vote.
But it should be made clear that while there will be a reward for repenting of joining the dhimmiecrats, there will also be a very high price for not returning to their senses.

Let's lean heavily on them without cutting them loose. The Democrats cut Joe loose and leaned on Hillary. We saw which action was more effective.

...and the theme of this post calls it to mind again:

Is it not possible for Americans of different temperaments and ideals to disagree about the policies and activities of their government without everyone calling each other traitors?

Many reasonable people disagree with the positions stated here on Redstate about the Iraq situation. That says nothing about their character and it certainly does not equal treason against their country.

When I moved to Chicago from Oklahoma a few years ago, windows in Rogers Park displayed signs saying, "NO IRAQ WAR." Yesterday I took a walk in Evanston, and was intrigued to see one of those old signs still fading in a house window. Did those millions of Americans who opposed a war in Iraq before there was this war in Iraq become traitors the moment our leaders made the (highly misguided, as we see it) decision to invade? Are they worse traitors simply because they still believe what they did then? Was it their duty to America to let their truth be leashed to a will that chases after war? Are we really as evil as this writer seems to think because we are doing everything in our power to accomplish a different end than he desires?

I'm not a different man than I was then when I was praying we would not invade Iraq. I still long for peace. I still think that we can all share this world even when barbaric agression threatens our safety. I think we can find new paths to peace that don't leave nations in rubble. I think wise people can even change their minds on the road to Damascus (or Baghdad) and no longer fight for gold or oil or God or tradition. I'm not so different a man. I wasn't a traitor then and I'm not a traitor now.

From the bottom of my heart I disagree with this war and with most of the Restate commentary regarding the politics involved. I'm an American--just like the increasing majority that is coming to agree with the anti-war perspective I hold. It's no shame to leave bad business behind. And it's no shame to fight against a system that pursues what I believe to be a very bad business.

to express an opposing opinion regarding the Iraq War without being labeled as a traitor. Aiding and abetting the enemy during a time of war is one threshold that must be crossed.

One will be judged by their actions and the consequences resulting from said actions, not simply the expression of one's opinion.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

There's no question (or shouldn't be) that one can honorably oppose the war, and use political office to bring it to an end. That applies equally to voters and congressman. Redstaters may think it a poor decision, but it's certainly not treachery.

But if you're convinced the war is right, and then vote against it anyway for political convenience ....

As said above, one can oppose the war with honor as many have.

However, what you imply is insulting. If you believe there is "no shame in leaving bad business behind" why don't you go apologize to the Kurds for liberating them from a tyrannical ruler? You seem to believe their liberation was "bad business", or do you believe they weren't liberated?

As for fighting for "gold or oil or God or tradition", that's the most insulting of all charges to those that have died in the cause of liberating other human beings. Again, tell it to the Kurds, as well as the others that appreciate no longer living under the boot of Saddam.

No, you're not a traitor, I don't believe you are, but you are a coward. You define peace as a lack of violence and inconvenience to your personnel comfort. You live in fear that your sheltered world may be interrupted by realities you like to pretend do not exist. May you suffer the fate of a coward before one more innocent soul suffers the tyranny you'd gladly impose on them in exchange for your "peaceful" comfort.

“They chose dishonor. They will have war.” - Winston Churchill

But don't you see? You've just done this curious thing again (and I realize it goes on in liberal and conservative circles both). You've said that though I'm not a traitor, I am a coward because I do not agree with you. I must agree with your stated assessment of the situation and walk your path or else I am a coward, worthy of contempt and the dismal fate of the ignoble. :-)

I understand your sentiments (I think) and I realize that to your way of thinking...by all your definitions...I must seem to be exactly what you think. The truth is, however, that my world view is simply nothing like yours. My assessment of the Iraq situtation and my feelings about what we have done there lead me to different conclusions than you.

It doesn't make me a coward anymore than it makes me a traitor.

My ancestors were German/Polish Mennonites. One of their primary guiding spiritual principles was pacifism. They looked at the Bible, they made their choices, and it became so important to them that they would leave their homes rather than fight back against aggression or participate in war. As I understand it, they ultimately left Russia when Catherine the Great revoked their exemption from military service. They just walked away. Even these many generations later, I'm a product of those powerful ideals. As a small boy, one of my primary fears was that I would be drafted into the army when I grew up. I worked out in my child mind that I would be willing to go as the law required...even to the front lines if necessary...but only in medical or service capacity. Nothing...no law...no expectations of peers or countrymen would make me point a gun at another human and shoot.

It was said above...the most peace-loving people would be willing to take a bullet. Absolutely! I'm more than willing to die for peace. But nothing you or anyone can do will make me kill for peace, or any other reason.

I'm a genuine American citizen. I'm very different than my neighbors here at Restate, but I (and the many millions of Americans with priciples more similar to mine than those here) are not less American or more evil for that difference.

There's nothing craven or cowardly...nothing wicked or contemptable...in such beliefs. Nor is there any insult to any nation, people or soldiers in opposing war. I understand that people suffer under tyranny. I'm not untouched by their pain. I just question whether our war has liberated anyone to anything other than more destruction. Most of the people in those regions are still oppressed by the tyranny of violence, with litle hope of freedom from it anytime soon. I believe the reasons for their enslavement to violence run very deep, and go back hundreds of years. Those causes remain untouched and unhealed by the interposition of our military activity there.

Truthfully, as Haystack said, I read more into his post than he actually wrote. The heat of rhetoric here at Restate is quite high, and I get a little lost as I read so much passion. (Nothing wrong with passion) I don't think most legislators are acting at the level of principle I'm describing, but nor do I think they become the traitors pictured here by voting against Restate ideals.

Disagreement doesn't make people villains.

I will grant you that. I will also stipulate that you are a complete fool. Tyrants just love pacifism. The only reason it's ever worked is because Gandhi used it against the British and MLK used it in the US, both being the most civilized places on earth. Try it against Stalin or Hitler. Gandhi was stupid enough to suggest that the Jews in Germany should have surrendered themselves to the Nazis and willingly died to make some point or another.

Pacifism gives tyrants the opportunity to make the most of their limited ammunition supplies. One fool, one bullet, no wasted cover fire.

Enjoy your freedom at no cost to you. My son's Marines have your back.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

He proved himself to be no coward. He discovered the best way to pursue a pacifist lifestyle was when the enemies of freedom and democracy were dead.

I'm not a fool...no more a fool for disagreeing with your principles than...

...a traitor...

...or a coward. :-)

And, I don't disrespect your son. Please don't make such emotional statements as you did. It really is unfounded and serves only to anger your own heart.

That said, and...with all due respect...no one walks with me as I come home from the train station late at night. No one stands between me and those who loiter outside the liquor store in their clouds of marijuana. No one walked with the man whose throat was slit in Wicker Park recently. These are the things that might threaten my life and peace. No American military activity is going to keep violence from coming to me if or when it comes. No military activity on the other side of the world is going to stop a bomb from being detonated on the train in Chicago if some violent man has set his heart on it. I do appreciate those who work to maintain order, but in the end, there aren't enough marines or police in the world to protect innocent people from the violence humans inflict upon each other.

My friends and I discuss these very things on a daily basis. I figure it will likely happen someday. We can talk "freedom" all we want, but my daily reality (and that of millions of Americans) is defined by concepts and events mch closer to their lives than nations warring against nations. Each of us must still find and make our own peace. Likewise, we each can try to share our peace with the world. I just think America's current military action is doing the opposite...despite the best and noble intentions of many people who believe in it.

The worldview with which you identify is still no satisfactory basis for defining those who oppose this war as anything less than legitimate Americans with valid viewpoints.

I'm not your enemy either, just don't toss "friend" around so loosely. You don't know me. I'm guessing if you did, you wouldn't likely spend much time hanging around with me.

I did not say, nor did I imply any lack of respect on your part for my son's Marines. My comment was not emotional, it was factual. The freedom we enjoy in this country was bought and paid for by the blood of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, not by people who discuss things.

Frankly, with respect to your walk home at night, I won't lose any sleep if you make it or not. Your personal self defense is on you and you, and your family, are the ones who will pay any price for your lack of willingness to defend yourself.

Your promotion of policies that will leave our country defenseless is entirely another matter. In that context, your policy preferences and your ideals are indeed foolish and completely lacking in good judgment.

You choose to ignore the reality of the world. Communism murdered more than 100 million people. Islamists will freely double that number if given the chance. Saddam was busily on his way to slaughtering the Kurds and anyone else who he thought deserved it. Africa is full of butchers who are constrained only by their lack of arms. Etc.

If you want to go be a human shield someplace, have at it. Don't suggest that it is either sane or rational that this country follow your misguided example.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Oh, my apologies for the "friend" remark. Not my intention to imply anything more than neighborly, amiable attitude toward those with whom I disagree. And, you never know. I have one or two very conservative friends. :)

And...you've reached a point, where I'm completely comfortable agreeing: my ideas...my politics may well be foolish, misguided, or faulty. I accept that. I'm just a man trying to make his way in a complicated and confusing world. To attack an idea is fine. I think that's far different than painting people with opposing viewpoints as "fools" or "traitors" or "cowards." Once we begin to label others this way, they become something less than human to us, and outside all realm of our community. We'll never make peace with them then.

In an interesting contradiction, you seem at once concerned with the lives and safety of Kurds, but express the opposite for an American citizen like me...for no other reason than we openly disagree about how to live in response to a world of violence. Am I wrong to perceive a disconnect? Surely if you are truly concerned enough about Kurds whom you probably don't know, and whose lifestyle, religion and practices you would most likely find unpalatable if you knew them...surely...you'd extend that sentiment to one much closer to your community. Perhaps you hadn't considered it that way, though.

Ultimately, whether wise or foolish, I take as my example one who did not resist when the world sought his destruction. This one stopped his friend who picked up a sword to protect him. This one did not hinder his own death, believing that it would have meaning beyond what seemed to be defeat. Gandhi shared this complicated spiritual idea with Jesus--that for the upright, their resistance to violence...even to the point of refusing to return violence when they might die...has a power and meaning that can effect the world for good.

Not everyone can follow this path. I get that. I'm learning not to condemn people who accept violence as an appropriate response to violence. Sigh... Easter is coming. But before that is a Maundy Thursday and a dark Good Friday. Still...Easter is coming.

eschewed violence, and died, of course that was his goal. Ghandi did also, as did Martin Luther King. They were more successful because they were at odds with civilized, democratic governments.
Had they tried that against Nazis, commies, or jihadies, the result would have been the same as happened to Jesus.

There is a time and a place for everything, your tactics can work sometimes, in some places, but usually they just get you a shallow grave somewhere and no one remembers you.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

He shed his innocent blood as the sacraficial Lamb of God for the sins of all mankind. Not to make a point about resistance to violence and to glorify martyrdom. He did not resist violence when it came to throwing the money lenders out of the temple.

Gandhi's political movement and Jesus's act of sacrafice are not a shared spiritual idea. Not even close.

1. Namecalling. I'm not engaging in namecalling. What I'm doing is pointing out the obvious. Pacifism works ONLY when it's used against highly civilized governments. ONLY then. If you're planning on using it against Communists, Nazis, Islamofacists or tyrants in general, you end up dead. Your cause ends up dead. Believe it or not people won't follow dead men. (We follow Jesus because He's not dead.) Nobody follows Gandhi.

Bottom line, pacifism as a national policy is a fools errand. People who promote it are fools. And should a country chose to follow that path, it won't even be a footnote in history. I have no problem calling a fool, "a fool". Especially when it is a fact and the policies being promulgated by said fool will result in the deaths of millions and the dissolution of the nation.

2. Not being concerned about you, being concerned about the Kurds. If you want to practice pacifism and you refuse to defend yourself and you end up dead, oh well. That's the price you pay for your foolishness. I won't be at your funeral. I don't attend funerals of people who kill themselves with crystal meth either. And yes, I am making a direct comparison between pacifism and hard drug use.

The butchery of the Kurds by Saddam was not a result of their pacifism, it was the direct result of the US government (Bush41) not following through on his word that we would support an overthrow of Saddam. The Kurds blood is on his (and Clinton's) hands.

Bottom line, the two situations are totally incomparable. One is a personal decision that affects you and your family. One is a decision that affects millions and the lives of nations.

3. Your comparison with Jesus is not only wrong, it's patently offensive. And very poor theology to boot. Jesus was born to give his life for us. He did just that. He also rose on the third day. If you're planning on doing that, I take back my comment about you following a fools path. If not, my comments stand.

There is no comparison between Gandhi and Jesus in any manner or means. Gandhi was a politician who was willing to sacrifice all of his followers to make a point. His murder wasn't part of his plan. Gandhi was the absolute prototype for a fool in this vein. He makes Jim Jones look good.

4. Responses to violence. With respect to a response to violence, it depends on the violence we're talking about. If you take a swing at me and I think you're just venting and I will be able to defend myself and my family without hurting you, I won't. If I perceive a bodily threat to myself or my family, you will be dead, and I won't lose one wink of sleep. On a national basis, if our national security is threatened, we should take whatever measures are necessary up to and including all out war.

I think that we have followed an appropriate policy in Iraq with military intervention, I do not think we've done the right thing with the "pacification" over the last four years. The rules of engagement have been way too restrictive and we should have been much, much more aggressive.

By the way, upthread you spoke about serving as a medic should you be drafted. I applaud that. I am OK with a CO status with service of that type.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

The antiwar Left simply does not care about the Kurds. They'll abandon them with nary a backward glance.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Don't limit your comment (with which I agree) to the Kurds. It should read, "The antiwar Left simply does not care about any people group not promoting leftist, Marxist philosophies. They never met a group of people seeking freedom who they could support. Unless, of course, they are pouring over our border illegally and would likely vote Democratic if granted amnesty...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I take deep offense, mbecker, at your comparison of Ghandi to Jim Jones. That is unbelievably unfair. Ghandi won followers by the power of his argument, and argument which, I might add, was spot-on. The proof is in the pudding, and his pacifism got things done.

In fact, your entire spiel about Ghandi reeks of misinformation and impassioned hyperbole. Whether or not Ghandi's murder was "part of his plan" is utterly irrelevant and beside the point.

As a point of fact, I agree with you 100% that war is sometimes the only moral answer...but not always, for goodness' sake! The very fact that Ghandi was able to bring about such monumental social change without war proves that there are certain times when pacifism is the appropriate response.

In sum, fire away, if you must, but don't drag one of the finest human beings of the world's history to the status of "prototypical fool" just to win a petty argument.

ahem...

Ghandi=Gandhi above, obviously.

is because he's in the Firefox spell checker... ;>)
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

to admit that Gandhi = Jones is a tad over the top, it was the best I could come up with on short notice. However, it's not that far off.

Gandhi's pacifism "worked" because he took on the Brits. The Brits, for all their faults, are (and were then) among the most civilized folk on earth. Pacifism works when you're dealing with a civilized nation. Don't try it with Nazis or Communists or Russian or with somebody like Saddam. You end up dead and your cause ends up gone.

Gandhi wasn't a fool, only because he took on the Brits. OTOH, his advice to the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto was to surrender and go quietly to their deaths. That is the advice of a first class fool. BTW, note that on the heels of a very successful victory over the most powerful colonial nation on the planet, the Indians turned away from pacifism in a big hurry when it came to dealing with a third rate (militarily) bunch of Islamists who spun off Pakistan and they've been involved in a shooting war on and off without ceasing for 60+ years. Note my earlier point about pacifism working well against "civilized" people.

Bottom line, sorry (really) if the comparison offended. However, I still think pacifism is a fools errand used against the vast majority of the governments in the world.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I agree with most of the above, but particularly don't with "it's not that far off." In fact, everything you said after that leads me to believe you think it's pretty far off too! The similarity between the two is that they both had many converts that would die for the cause...but that's where the comparison must end! If having a cause worth dying for puts you in bad company, I'm glad to have bad company in this world, and to count myself among them.

After all, Jim Jones was far from a pacifist; if only he were a pacifist, many innocent people would still be alive...

My point is this. The end result of following Jones or Gandhi is the same, in the absence of a civilized foe, and that is dead followers. I'm not making a theological point here, simply one of mortality.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Forgive me, but I still don't see the connection. Jones was a leader of a cult, an isolated community with no explicit foes at all. Unless you count the people in the US that spoke out against them, but then they were very civilized. They died not because of any characteristic of their enemies, but because of the unadulterated lunacy of their leader. That is why I take such exception to the comparison, because Gandhi was spectacular - not crazy crazy crazy - as a leader.

____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Gandhi's pacifism "worked" because he took on the Brits. The Brits, for all their faults, are (and were then) among the most civilized folk on earth. Pacifism works when you're dealing with a civilized nation

True. No argument here. We are agreed that pacifism is appropriate in some circumstances (particularly when the opponent is civilized, though still often not).

Of course, asking the Jews to appeal to Nazi sympathy is completely absurd, particularly with our 20/20 hindsight. It was very bad advice. But in defense of Gandhi, Germany was a very civilized nation, and her people really should not have been as callous as the world eventually discovered they had been.

In regards to the Moslem/Hindu struggle, I don't quite see your point. It is true everyone turned against Gandhi's doctrine of peaceful resistance, and thereafter ensued many decades of conflict...but this seems to be more a vindication of his point of view than an indictment of it. But in any case, I am persuaded that pacifism would probably be very problematic there, as I suspect you'd agree.

I'm honestly not sure what my point is. It occurred to me as I was typing the rest. I guess I would say that G's followers were smart enough to recognize the conundrum of G's pacifism and shed it in the face of an uncivilized enemy. With respect to a vindication of pacifism, I don't agree that it's vindicated in general. Pacifism is a tool that only works in a very narrow set of circumstances and should not be considered to be a "philosophy" that would meet with much success if practiced universally.

With respect to Warsaw, the Germans that the Jews were dealing with were NOT at all civilized. They had already built up a palpable history of brutality second only to Stalin. At the time G offered his "advice" to the Jews, they were surrounded and being butchered by the SS. It was so far beyond "bad" advice as to be ridiculous.

At the end of the day, I really don't have much use for Gandhi, other than as a national political figure who chased the Brits out of India. If they had not been so civilized and had simply shot him, I suspect India would still be British, Pakistan would not exist and we would not be discussing a guy no one's ever heard of.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

PnP, I'm sure you're familiar with these passages, so don't take this as a "gotcha" attempt -- I'm honestly interested, and I'm looking to debate/argue over this.

As a Christian who looks to Jesus as an example of pacifism, how do you reconcile these passages?

Matthew 10 (NIV)
34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'"

Revelation 19(NIV)
11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
17And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great."
19Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

-
NARF

to that Wicker Park attack?...I have friends there and would like to forward this info to them. Thanks

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

I'm sorry, I don't have a link. One of my co-workers brought it up a couple days ago. She said it was a friend of a friend. I don't normally think of Wicker Park as a place where that would happen, but you just never know.

and cannot be substantiated (so easy to do in the age of Google) are called Urban Legends. To use them to emotionally manipulate people strains your credibility.

and I live just north of Wicker Park in the burbs. Also, in the City a couple times a week..no news story...nothing on Google.

Hate to do this to peaceful folks, but I call bunk.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Redneck Analogy

Mr. Peace is sitting at the local bar sipping his beer. Jim and Bud are shooting pool and begin to argue. It quickly escalates into a bloody brawl that Jim is winning. Mr. Peace, seeing this begins to plead with Jim to stop. "This is senseless please stop!" Jim is distracted by this but continues the pounding. Peace pulls out his handy phone to call the cops. Jim turns his attention from Bud and slaps Peace down and takes his phone. By this time Bud has caught his breath, slips up beside Jim and with one haymaker ends the fight.

You see Peace once you get up from your seat and open your mouth you have joined the fight and all bets are off. You are open game.

So i am saying that a true pacifist stays quiet and still.
once you speak up you have chosen side and are not one.
I recognize bull____ when I see it.
You can protest all you like but don't pretend its not helping our enemy.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Your redneck analagy is flawed. Everybody who breaks up a fight in a bar is not a pacifist. If one party is merely subdued, the outcome will usually be okay. But, if emotions outweigh the issue, both parties might be ruined. One guy dies and the other is ruined for life. Nobody wins. The crucial decision is not whether, but when, you break up the fight. Somebody who doesn't like fights (the pacifist), breaks it up, right away. Somebody who thinks the fight is inevitable, breaks it up when it gets out of hand. I might want one party to win, but I don't want either party to be permanently hurt or killed.

But, once again, you are reaching flawed conclusions. For example, I don't care for violence. As stated before, nobody sane appreciates being shot at. But the Good Lord gave us a survival instinct, as well as a mind for discerning when and where to use it.
I'll give you 1/2 a rhetorical point, that too many folks (on both sides of the argument) bandy about terms that could be classified as "fightin' words". From my standpoint, you may live your life as you please, naive though I think you to be.
I like to look at 'Pacifism' as more of a goal, than an end state, or way to live. We will always struggle for peace, because we cannot always count on the brighter angels in another's soul. But those who refuse to stand up for themselves, usually wind up dead, or enslaved.
I think that what seems to always be overlooked by the anti-war and pacifist crowd is that, while you certainly have the right to speak to your conscience, against what you deem an illegal and immoral action, others also have the right to their opinion; most of the moonbat brigade chanting against the Iraq adventure, are not privy to the intel our "leaders" have available. Therefore, I am more likely to take Rummy seriously, than a Dixie Chick.
However, it goes even simpler than that; have you ever had a schoolyard bully take your lunch money? One doesn't make the bully stop very often, by trying to befriend him. One either tells the teacher (the wimpy move), or one kicks the bully where it hurts, until he stops bugging you.
In this case, the bullies are suicide bombers. How the blank do you reason with that? If someone really gets off on mass murder, it's difficult to have a reasoned debate and negotiated end to hostilities.
I have two really good friends; Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson. In a pinch, I know that they are there to help me protect my family. This does not make me a 'war-monger', any more than your pacifism makes you a traitor, or a coward. What makes one a coward, is refusing to take action in the face of trouble. What makes one a traitor, is the willful turning of one's back, on the values one has espoused in the past. I don't see that from you; you appear to be a committed pacifist, and more power to you. Hope it works out. I prefer to see the problems that exist, rather than pretend they don't. We can agree that they shouldn't, but that isn't reality.

You are operating under a misapprehension. The most vehemently anti-war folks I've ever met, are those who would take a bullet in combat to protect your views. Nobody sane wants to get shot at. Our soldiers deserve better than political opportunism.

I still long for peace. I still think that we can all share this world even when barbaric agression threatens our safety. I think we can find new paths to peace that don't leave nations in rubble. I think wise people can even change their minds on the road to Damascus (or Baghdad) and no longer fight for gold or oil or God or tradition.

Gandhi excoriated the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto who fought back against the Nazi instead of accepting their own death peacefully. He did the same for those who rebelled at Treblinka, rising up against their captors who were placing them in gas chambers.

Peace is so very easy to accomplish...all you need do is die. The Islamofascist terrorist will be happy to oblige you. some of us have other ideas.

It is your right to surrender. It is NOT your right to force the rest of us to surrender.

The fallacy of your position -- that you want peace and others want war -- is that we all want peace. The difference between us isn't that you want peace and I don't -- the difference is that (I'd guess) you think that military action never furthers the cause of peace. To you, that's a contradiction in and of itself.

Another fundamental difference -- I'd guess, again -- is that you don't see what's happening in Iraq as being fundamental to the larger struggle against militant Islamic extremism. I do -- and neither one of us is alone. I think a decent argument can be made on either side of that question -- and it certainly could've been made back in early 2003.

It's actually somewhat refreshing to hear antiwar people acknowledge that war is actually sometimes the answer. Barack Obama, to his credit, did that at a speech one time. He remarked that people in the crowd were carrying signs saying "War is Not The Answer" and pointed out that this isn't necessarily always the case...and then went on to vocalize his disagreement with the Iraq War in particular.

The unfortunate thing about pacifism-at-all-costs is that, sometimes, war chooses you. Or, at least, you're put in a situation where you either fight and win or you concede defeat and become conquered. Europe learned this lesson the hard way when it tried as hard as it could to avoid another war on its continent after the rise of the Third Reich.

Well, war has chosen us. We chose to establish a front in Iraq -- but the broader war was declared on us, not the other way around. I would argue that it was declared in 1979. Others say it was in 1983 with the Beirut attack. Still others think is the '93 WTC bombing, the 2000 Cole bombing, or 9/11.

Whenever it was, it's been doing nothing but escalating in the last few decades. The choice before us now isn't whether we do or don't fight it. The choice is whether we win it or lose it.

The choice is whether we win it or lose it."

An excellent, and pithy, observation.

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

I suppose you can rationalize allowing others to die so that the system of government that allows you to be a pacifist with no penalty can survive and continue to be a force for good.

Talk is real cheap, my man, when you know you'll never, ever be put in danger because of your beliefs. It is real cheap when you are perfectly willing to see others in bondage so long as you are safe.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I want to first say that if he even uses the term "traitor" in relation to the two CongressCritters, it isn't to indicate that they're traitors to the country, but that they're traitors to their constituents, who elected them following apparently deceptive campaigns.

The answer to your question, "Is it not possible for Americans of different temperaments and ideals to disagree about the policies and activities of their government without everyone calling each other traitors?" is of course "yes."

In fact, please show me an instance where someone has been called a traitor just for voicing a contrary opinion. Please. I'd like to find one. All I've found myself is a lot of Democrats who claim others have been so slandered, but they don't provide the details.

What doesn't seem to be possible is for Democrats to debate the facts of world politics without inserting their own myths into the discussion.

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

the term traitor is being hurled as they voted with the Democrats; traitors to the cause the Repubs vowed they would pursue anew in the aftermath of their defeat; a return to the conservatism they won with in '94 and lost because of their abandonment of same in '06...

this is not a thread regarding who IS and is NOT a patriot...though if you want, I could make it so...and the names would remain the same.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

but the republicans that voted against the measure sicken me, as it should to all other republican senators/congressmen in office today. they should resign as losers.

....fifteen British Sailors and Marines was just the tip of the iceberg, an opening act. The Iranians have correctly assumed the Brits, and the Pelosi Democrats, don't have the spine to stand up to them, whatever stunt the Iranians pull.
I remind all in the Pelosi camp that the fate that traditionally awaits all those guilty of treason and betrayal, the one that awaited Benedict Arnold should he have been apprehended, is death by hanging.
If history is any guide, this current act of September,1938 in Munich, will pretty much play out the same way as its predecessor. Chamberlain and his colleagues, if they were guilty of anything in 1938, were guilty of gross stupidity. This current crew of actors on history's stage, is guilty of gross arrogance and willful neglect. They took an oath to protect the Constitution and the people of the United States. As leaders, they should have among them more than a smattering of historical knowledge and of the historical consequences of their actions. Personal or group stupidity will not be a valid defense when the time comes to answer to the American people for their actions.

You mean we can actually LEARN from history? What a concept. :)

I remember with some discomfort how the word treason was flung to and fro when the Plame non-scandal broke, or was manufactured. The use persisted with a non-reason supporting the non-scandal. Leftist patriots applied this term on the basis that Plame was covert,images of furtive, clandestine exchanges taking place between heroic secret agents putting their selfless lives on the line for an ungrateful nation, part of which was infested with beer swilling, bible thumping, no neck ignoramuses who inevitably voted republican.

Ah, then the word was not so onerous, though the scandal was so illusory.

Now if the sober may pause and begin to make comparisons, some unpalatable, some unthinkable. Valuable to the nation's very existence as Secret Agent Plame was[ as valuable as she was to the restaurants surrounding Langley] she does not quite match a war that will last for years, one commenced with a veritable declaration of war, one that transcends both borders and time,and a war that withdrawal from Iraq won't begin to diminish.

If then we consider the actions and consequences of, putting it politely, changing horses in mid stream and ignoring the war authorization while talking of defunding as well as informing our sworn enemies of our officially expressed lack of will to carry on, then if anything the use of the word treason in wartime is more applicable then prior use by the patriotic left.

As I see it if you use the word wail not when it comes back to you under more substantial justification. Besides leftist patriotism is defined by the welfare state, they all know that's what makes us great, despite our being a racist, homophobic, unequal and undemocratic society.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

Would you call a political party that has a huge number of its members and leaders activily support and give the president authority to go to war, then the minute troops are in harms way seeks to gin up anti-war sentiment to garner votes treason? This said political party cannot see anything that happens as victory. Even if the troops killed every al quada and insurgent in the country and the iraqi's started throwing flowers at eachother in celebration this war will not be allowed to be seen as a victory. it just cannot happen to their world view.

... to pose to our Democratic Leaders: What kind of conditions in Iraq would you need to see to concede, if not victory, at least success of Bush's policies?

They have no answer. At this point, they just cannot allow success to happen, or even to acknowledge progress. The stakes are too great. They have way too much political capital invested in Bush's (America's) failure. The only outcome they can visualize is the crowded helicopter leaving the Embassy roof.

And the more they undermine the President and his policies, the more they play into our enemies' hands. On global satellite TV, no less.

to blue dog Democrats is how do you campaign against your Republican opponent for his wasteful and shameful spending, and then vote yes on a spending bill with 24 billion dollars above what is requested for peanut, spinach, shrimp, and dairy farmers? How can you campaign on the promise that your constituents deserve better than that big spender Republican, and then vote like a big spender Democrat? 36 out of 43 blue dogs voted yes on the spending bill.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

there are YouTube spots being cranked out with that very question in the forefront. See Sam Johnson's comments here for a primer.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

that Republicans can run on smaller government, and give us bigger government. Democrats are scum, but many Repubs are not much better.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

to turning Democratic congress critters out to pasture in '08 the way Republican congress critters went in '06.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

for the "out to pasture in '08"

"With our vote this week, we're helping our troops, protecting our veterans, and fighting to end the waste, fraud and abuse," said Antiwar liberal Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH), delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address."

I can not imagine that there are many troops who think they would be helped by the Democrats voting to help the enemy achieve their goal-to defeat the Americans.

As for protecting the veterans, I'm a veteran, and see nothing in that bill that helps me or any of those who qualify as veterans.

If any one can show me how, voting money for spinach growers or peanut farmers ends waste, fraud or abuse, I'd like to know
how it does these things.

The Democrat weekly radio address has turned into a weekly message of encouragement to America's enemies.

The sad thing is, there's a real possibility that these weasels actually think that they are doing the "right thing". To me, it looks like political theater, with the intent to undermine the President. But, if they really believe their own claptrap? How spooky is that concept?

of milk. Why do dairy farmers need support?

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

that's twice the going price in MI. Although, I was talking to a dairy farmer the other day. The high price of corn (due to ethanol production) has him worried. He uses a LOT of corn as feed.

I have to be honest. That was for "organic" milk. It costs a lot more when they don't put the hormones and enzymes and things into the cows.

We don't normally drink much milk (even though the inorganic stuff only costs $3.59 a gallon), what with its UN Recognized Contribution to the global warming crisis. This was for a special dessert, though, so it had to be the best.

How are things in Ann Arbor? We used to live in the little red brick house at the corner of Stadium and Ferdon.

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

that is - looking into subsidies, price support levels controlled by congress and other highly entertaining issues for a Saturday afternoon. Bottom line is there is no free market, there is instead huge cooperatives and corporations that collude together with the help of the gov to keep prices at levels that provide profitability.

Recently when the gov predicted that milk production was going to exceed demand one of the cooperatives had some type of lottery where dairy guys bid to take cows out of production in order to remove 45% of the excess capacity and keep prices up!

It's like a dairy mob or something... being disabled and having kids, paying over $4.00 for a gallon of milk has had me wondering how it got to be so pricey. Now I have an idea, I was going to do a post on it and may still do so as there has been some recent legislation proposed to hand out even more money to the dairy farms through price supports.

If you want to get really upset try looking at a Farm Bill, farmers getting paid to not plant fields! Somethings amiss and it's supported by both sides of the isle.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

I got a lot of research on my blog also about price supports, needless to say its always to the detriment of the average person. Not only that, but federal land is used by ranchers, miners, and others for tiny fees. And lets not forget the government subsidy to the post office so that they can give business almost free bulk mailing, thus inundating us with unwanted mail.

Yes, it is truly leviathan, and republicans are almost as guilty as democrats of feeding it.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

and I must strongly disagree. Concerning "almost free bulk mailing" for businesses, I'll wave the BS flag on that one but I'll qualify it because I suspect you are using "known facts" verses being informed on the issues pertaining to the industry. If you are though coming from a position that is researched and informed pick another place and I'd love to talk that one out.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

but you are wrong on the mail thing

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

I do believe some mail is subsidized, for instance hand written first class mail, yes this mail is certainly subsidized and yet it's treated like gold by the postal system. Whereas standard (bulk) mail pays for most postal operations, I can't leave out properly prepared pre-sorted first class mail from that as well, although again "first class" mail gets preferential treatment and handling, where that "bulk" mail does not.

I can assure you that being in the mail business for close to 30 years I have a broad range of knowledge concerning postal operations and know the specifics of it. If you want to talk about non-profit postal subsidies that is an entirely different issue.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

the politically correct kind o' milk. (see above)

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

This would take volumes to explain and I am no expert but the short answer is government meddling with price controls and subsidies. Its like other entitlements, it makes the farmers dependent. Same as welfare it buys votes. Most are good hard working people trying to hang on to a way of life. But
corporations are taking over many places and it is corrupt.

The ones I know have gone broke more than once. Raw milk prices are extremely volatile because they have screwed up the free market. Again no expert here.

although a true statement. But your comment was good, I agree.

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

But hey, Cowboy has got to stick up for the sod busters.

"The Farmer and the Cowman should be friends."

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

De Opresso Liber

Yes. The conduct you describe is treason; treason of the worst degree.
The traitors you identify are not just selling Top Secret documents.
They are wrapping themselves in constitutional guarantees and selling you, me, your mates, our national credibility and all the other American military people to the highest idlogical bidder - simply to retain their seats in congress, as long as there remains a congress.

I can't imagine anyone paying top dollar for that sorry bunch.

You can check all of the pics out at Powerline Forum, but for a taste of our state of readiness under Democrat leadership, check this out...


____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

if the Dems get too powerful.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service