Saturday, November 19, 2005

THIS is what you call STRONG BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT???

"For the second time this week, Congress in strong, bipartisan fashion rejected the call to cut and run," McClellan said. "The best strategy to keep America safe is to continue taking the fight to the terrorists, not to retreat in the face of the despicable attacks of a determined enemy."

Holy Crap!

They think what happened yesterday in Congress was STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT????

Well, then, it's no damned wonder they thought the forged yellow cake documents were real, that Saddam was leading Al Qaida, that their pal Chalaibi was trustworthy, that they won both their elections without fraud or dirty tricks, that the majority of Americans approve of them, that nobody cares that they still haven't caught bin Laden or the Anthrax mailer, that we all trust these people to keep us safe, to protect democracy and the US Constitution, as well as spread our spectacular brand of freedom and liberty to the rest of the world--who are just waiting for the chance to throw flowers on our heads and give us their natural resources.

In short...they are insane.

You are probably all aware of the recent flap over Murtha's proposal to have an immediate withdrawal from Iraq by our troops, in which he gave a compelling argument that the President declared "Mission Accomplished" years ago, the justifications for the invasion have been proven to not exist, and that we are destabilizing the region. 63% of Americans believe that the war is a mistake and disapprove of Bush's handling of it.

In an unprecedented political stunt, the Republicans rushed a measure for a vote which called for an immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq fully intending to vote it down themselves and expecting the majority of Democrats to also vote against it because only a small minority of them advocate immediate withdrawal. The majority of Democrats want a clear statement of what the objectives are, a plan for how to achieve them, and a timetable (based on meeting the objectives in stages) for eventual withdrawal. The exact same things that Republicans demanded from Clinton when he engaged our troops in combat.

By rushing this vote, there was no time for debate of the serious issues raised by Murtha, and now the Ditto-Head contingent of our nation are crowing hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats and actually have the unmitigated gall to call this vote "strong bi-partisan support" for the war.

Do they think we are all idiots? Is this what you call honesty, integrity, and true democracy? Is this the model for the democratic reforms we are forcing down the throats of the people we're liberating?

As part of what passed for "debate" in this national embarrassment, Jean Schmidt used the People's House to accuse Murtha (a decorated combat veteran and long time member of Congress) of being a coward and unfit to call himself a marine. Well, to be fair, she didn't accuse him personally, she "delivered" the message from an Ohio State Representative who is in the Marine reserves.

Now, the top US commander in Iraq has submitted a plan for withdrawal from Iraq to Donald Rumsfeld. Will the good representatives from Ohio also accuse this man of cowardice? Does the President wish us to maintain an indefinite presence in Iraq?

It's up to you, America. Are you one of the small percentage of lunatics happily running off the rails on this crazy train, or are you going to help us take the asylum back from the inmates?


Sources:

14 Comments:

Blogger shiftertongue said...

y'know, my online political life is pretty much restricted to following a thread on a, um, Beach Boys message board (a couple vocal Republicans, 3 democrats, 2 Ohio Populists and the stray Brit). here's one of my less conciliatory moments:

the Age of the "Sensitive Republican"
stealing a page from Bush 41's playbook, "support the troops!" has once again become conflated with "support the president!" Chickenhawk Cheney tosses our armed forces into a volcano on the other side of the world (based on intelligence that the "volcano" was going to sprout wings and spew brimstone and entrails over Philly, DC and Des Moines) and, when criticized, cries, "you should be more supportive!" does anyone believe the Republicans would've kept their mouths shut if Clinton had launched a military enterprise one-tenth as ambitious as Gulf War 2? "how dare this, this ... draft dodger!" yes, in today's "Savage Nation"/Fox News/Limbaughfied environment, it's open season on Clinton (and most recently Carter) for the rest of eternity. but criticize the sitting President of the United States for current policies and you're shouted down as "unpatriotic"...

http://www.livejournal.com/users/tdaschel/

7:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's open season on Clinton because it's open season on Bush. Yes you have to backtrack to the Clinton Administration because that's where alot of this started.
It seems like you supported Clinton no matter what he did,so why not now? Is it strictly based on being Repulican? The "Mission Accomplished" statement has been worn out to the point of ridiculousness. It meant that Saddam was taken out,and that's all.
Can we not understand that the insurgency to follow was not predictable?
VET

7:17 AM  
Blogger Archie Levine said...

VET, can you at least admit that every time Clinton tried to take action against bin Laden and Afghanistan you all claimed he was "Wagging the Dog" to distract us from Monica? Your crowd severly limited his ability to take the action you now claim he should have taken.

Also, just to inform you, I did not support Clinton blindly. I was against many of the things he did, including using faulty intelligence to blow up the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.

Something he made a public apology for. Why can't THIS president recognize when he makes a mistake and take action to correct it instead of continuing to make the same mistake over and over and call it success?

Nothing, from my point of view, is strictly Republican or Democrat...it is a matter of morality, justice, and wisdom. It just so happens that the Republicans tend to evidence the least of those qualities as a matter of pride.


And as to wearing out the Mission Accomplished statement...I don't see how you can blame the nation for thinking that Mission meant the war, and Accomplished meant...uh, finished. Maybe Bush should distrubute disclaimers and footnotes with all his speeches, it would save us some time, or maybe he should just issue a blanket statement telling us not to take him seriously no matter what he says. Oh, I guess only people like you need that sort of thing. The rest of us already know he's a liar.

And now, to address your last point about nobody expecting the insurgency. I'd like to remind you that plenty of people warned about exactly that, including cabinet members like Colin Powell.

Let's ask you, VET. Suppose, and I realize empathy or imagination might be beyond your scope, but try anyway...imagine you are an Iraqi and someone has accused you of something which was not true. Then they threatened to invade your nation, bomb your cities into dust, kill or imprison all your leaders if you didn't prove that you didn't have what didn't exist.

When you couldn't, they did what they threatened to do, and discovered that you were telling the truth all along.

Instead of apologizing, they called you ungrateful for not celebrating the "liberation" they brought to your country in the the form of bombs, chemical weapons, and armed occupation.

Do you honestly think nobody could have predicted there might be a few Iraqis who were unenthusiastic about all that to the point of wanting exactly the same kind of revenge you people want for September 11th? Which, by the way, these Iraqis also had absolutely nothing to do with.

Grow up, you big bully, and take some responsibliity for the enourmous mistake you and Our President have made.

Stop making it worse and start making it better...and just killing every muslim in the world isn't what I'm talking about, in case you were listening with your Republican Ears.

7:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We are fighting Iraqis,we just took out their brutal leader who was a threat to us and neighboring nations as quoted by Bill Clinton,John Kerry,Sandy Berger and co. Who doesn't want us there? The Sunnis? Gee I wonder why. Why do you keep saying Bush lied? Did the rest of the world like too? Even France said the guy was dangerous.Maybe we should have had a pow wow with him instead.
VET

10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction-We are "not" fighting the Iraqis. From the first sentence.
VET

10:43 AM  
Blogger Archie Levine said...

Vet, I hate to break it to you, but the Sunni's are, in fact, Iraqis.

As to why I keep thinking George is lying...he keeps moving his mouth.

Why don't you think he's lying? Because Rush told you so?

11:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well you think he's lying because they didn't find WMD's yet,so they harp on the lying thing. I guess they all lied then. Did you not hear any of the claims made by the Clinton Admin. on how he had WMD's and he will use them? Or are you just ignoring those accusations?
VET

12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There you go again, the Sunnis are a minority in Iraq and Saddam's henchman.
VET
Again the plan was not to go to war with the Iraqis but to take down Saddam like alot of people wanted. You know what, alot of the reasons for terrorism is because the repression in the Middle East that causes people to turn to terrorism.Baby steps Archie. No we can't change the world but I am hoping we can start before we get hit with a nuke. And then who will you blame for that one?
VET

12:29 PM  
Blogger Archie Levine said...

VET,

Let me get this straight. First, if you are a minority you are not part of the nation in which you were born. Ok, you're helping me understand Republicans more each time you post.

Every Sunni arab is a henchman of Saddam. So, even though Iran desperately wants a Shia theocratic state to emerge out of empowering them as the majority within a democracy, which will increase the power of Iran in the Middle East, that's a good thing.

Even though under Saddam, an admittedly bad man--but one we helped arm and whom we supported--there was a secular government with out fundamentalist restrictions on gender and religous worship (Tariq Aziz was Catholic, you probably don't remember)...and even though bin Laden and Zarqawi BOTH wanted Saddam removed from power but were completely unable to do so without our help...we're actually restricting rather than advancing terrorism.

I hate to harp on the lying thing, you know, those WMD's but that was the justification for the war. Bush and Cheney convinced congress we were going to have American cities going up in mushroom clouds and UAV's were going to spray anthrax all over the East Coast if we didn't invade.

It is worth harping on...and maybe we keep believing we were lied to because the idea that our Government with all it spends on intelligence could be so wrong is an even more horrible idea to stomach.

And lastly, as I've said before, Clinton kept the sanctions in place (which I mostly opposed) and I was really pissed off at Clinton when it was proven that we actually were using the weapons inspectors as spies. (see Washington Post 1/8/99).

I'm not a Clinton-ite. He was too damned conservative for me. I hated NAFTA. I hated a lot that he did and I complained about it. When someone does something I like, I praise them, when they do something I don't, I criticize them...Just like Cheney said was the bedrock of our democracy.

The problem is that Bush hasn't given me anything to praise yet...except his eulogy after September 11th...wish I knew who wrote that for him.

I say again, pally, trying to find reasons for them to like us instead of kill us isn't appeasement or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It is simply the wise and moral course of action.

If you're a Christian at all, consider why Jesus didn't fight his way out of the Garden or blast Rome with a divine shock and awe campaign.

It is because he knew that the longest lasting peace is one which comes from winning a heart over with love and foriveness, not by silencing that heart with a sword.

Sometimes I think the biggest difference between Christian Liberals and Christian Conservatives is that for the Christian Conservative religion is driven by their politics and for the Christian Liberal our politics are driven by our religion.

We seek to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give to the poor, heal the sick, avoid judgement, and strive to forgive while rejecting vengenance.

You turn a deaf ear to misery, lay up riches, rebuke those who seek your help, tell the suffering they suffer as a result of either thier own failings or divine judgement, and claim the right of vengeance on any who offend you.

I'm praying for you, VET, and for your sake I hope God has as much capacity for forgiveness as I've been taught, and not as little as the members of your ilk.

1:04 PM  
Blogger Archie Levine said...

Oh, and I forgot two more points you bring up.

First, "baby steps". This is what you call abu grahib and White Phosperous on civilians?

We're "weaning them off" the torture and chemical weapons they were used to?

And as for the "we're preventing a nuke" theory...since Saddam didn't have one...don't you think the lesson most countries have learned is that if you're on the US shit list you better develope a nuke as fast as you can because they're going to invade you whether you have one or not?

And since you and our Government are making so forcefully the argument for "pre-emption" don't you think all we did was make the case for those countries to do whatever they can to "pre-empt" our "pre-emption"?

Bush is a cowboy and he's trying to turn the whole Mid-East into the Wild West from the comic books Condi reads to him before bed.

Don't know about you, but it don't make me feel safer. At all.

Of course, you feel safer, because Bush tells you that you are and I'm the one who thinks he's a liar.

Well, we'll see who is right....but I don't think anyone is going to like how we end up finding out. Not even me.

1:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you can't even praise the higher 401k limits,lower tax brackets and lower capital gain and dividend rates? Or a srtonger economy. Did I miss something? Are these such bad things?
VET

1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I make more money than I ever did and I'm in sales. Plus my healthcare is less than it was under Clinton,but that's just me.
Now how could I hate you,we're having too much fun.
VET

2:19 PM  
Blogger Archie Levine said...

Well, VET, I don't make enough at my job to have any postive impact from a higher 401K limit. I have to buy groceries and gass and can't afford to save for retirement...which is something I am not really anticipating doing anyway...I'll be a Wal-mart greeter or dead from lack of medicaid or national health care before I retire.

Nor am I convinced that the economy is stronger. I know it is better for a lot of CEOs, especially the ones who can outsource to other countries with lower wages and fewer environmental regulations, but for me and a lot of American wage earners...not so much really.

And let's see how strong the economy remains if we keep spending on the war the way we are. And how strong the dollar stays if all the foreign nations Bush has borrowed from (on track to be more than $6.5 trillion by 2011) call in their note...or what happens to the robust economy when all those middle class people up to their eyeballs in credit card debt discover their minimum payments are doubling, they can't file for bankruptcy, and something bad happens...like a catastrophic illness or a lay off....like the ones at GM today.

And I'm glad you asked about missing something, because I think you have.

You've missed the fact that there has been lack of job growth and a decline in wages under Bush. Also a decline in health benefits all while CEO wages and benifits increase.

You've missed how he consistently favors business concerns over consumer and environmental protections, eventually leading to higher medical costs and costly clean ups.

You've missed his efforts to slashes Education, Veterans' Health Care, Law Enforcement, and Environmental Protections.

And as for his facility the "not truths", maybe you remmeber how he wanted to reclassify fast-food jobs as "manufacturing" to give the impression that he was creating "manufacturing" jobs.

You might want to have a peek at some of the links on this page:

http://bushwatch.org/economy.htm

But, then, you'll just call it liberal propaganda and protect yourself from thinking, so this link is just one more pearl before swine...but I gotta preach what I believe...Do you now hate me because I have told to you the truth?

2:20 PM  
Blogger Archie Levine said...

Thanks, VET, I'm glad we don't hate each other.

and you must have my blog on auto reload, because you got your comment up there before I could repost the correction from 2001 to 2011.

Dang!

:)

2:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home