Thursday, October 18, 2007

"I would just like to point out that under the Republican plan, by 2017 we probably will have killed 20,000 soldiers in Iraq, spending $200 billion....Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old, enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement....President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote to override his veto." -- Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) today on the floor of the US House of Representatives

No, this is not an excerpt from the latest Bin Laden video. This is actually a US Congressman speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I'll keep my comments brief in order to keep from being too hostile. Plus, what this useful idiot said pretty much speaks for itself. I am, however, growing a bit tired of these politicians, one after the other, defamating our troops. Whether it's John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Barak Obama or Pete Stark, the message is all the same. Then they have the sack to follow words like this with "I support the troops". Really? Stark basically just called US troops murderers, but he supports them.

I think anyone who makes statements like this should be forced to serve a month in Iraq. And I'm not talking about the Green Zone that's been secured. I'm talking about body armor, field helmet, fully armed, the whole thing. One month in the trenches. Then we'll see if they still think so poorly about the people who are dying for the people Stark & Co claim they're killing.

This is beyond disgraceful, and should be condemned by everyone, regardless of political affiliation or opinions about the war.

If you'd like to contact Congressman Stark and share your thoughts on this matter, you can click HERE to email his office.

32 comments:

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

How Many Real Democrats...

will stand proudly with California Congressman Pete Stark today, with those vile comments?

His Cracked Crystal Ball tells him that by 2017 the effort in Iraq will cost us 20,000 dead troopers! What is this looney-guy smoking?

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid should sedate this lunatic, then beg him to just quietly resign.
>>
Then they might hold a sub-rosa meeting with the rest of that goofy
fringe, and let them know that under Kennedy/Johnson we lost 58,000 in Vietnam, and another 33,000 in Korea.

The value of those two conflicts is at least debatable. This war is not.

Gen Douglas MacArthur warned us not
to get involved in a land-war in that part of the world, but today's Democratic Party is not prone to listening to sound advise from our West Pointers at any point in recent history.

The USA Has Been Involved In This War With Offensive Global Jihad since Nov 4, 1979, and since that event, we and several other free nations have also been assaulted by Iran, and their proxy Islamic terrorists around the planet. The events and dates are available to any serious student.

Insane, Insulting Jabs By Members Of One Party...that chooses to cower, whine, and ridicule, rather than join in the battle, confront this Evil Theocracy that threatens to destroy tiny Israel, plus all other free nations that insist on keeping their individual liberty, is mind-boggling! It's time for the level-headed to speak up, challenge these bellicose boobs, Support Our Beleaguered President, His Joint Chiefs Of Staff, and get this tough job done!

Labelling Our Leaders that shoulder the responsibility for protecting this nation, and its fundamental principles, is far beyond any pretense of being a 'Loyal Opposition'.

The Full-page Advertisement tagging our Field Commander as General Be-tray-us, is solid evidence of the degree of corrupt thinking by those few we must all vividly remember,

On Election Day! reb
_________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

reb and Doctor,

Gentlemen, let me put thsi interms you can readily understand. I have previously made remarks about reactionarism and your comments serve as case and point.

The congressman from CA made an intemperate remark about "killing innocents" a unavoidable and regrettable consequence of war.

Let us consider the rest of his comments.

Vetoing the S Chip bill denies needed healthcare to American children. The president did not like the bill and exercised his constitutional perogative. He misrepresented the effect of the bill along the way which may account for other of the honorable gemtleman's comments.

Yet you glide over the obvious. The congressman is certainly correct in that we will be in Iraq in 2017. He raises the question of how are we paying for this war. It is not on the budget and the firgure I have heard is operations in Iraq cost 3 billion a month.

reb, I think we have one fundamental disagreement about Iraq about which I have never received from you a satisfactory explanation.

We agree regarding the dangers posed to us by Islamic extremism whether that be characterized as Jihadism or any other name. We certainly agree that given its track record and stated intent w/ respect to its nuclear program, Iran poses the greatest danger in the region to our interests and those of our allies. We agree that a country run by priests who wish to return to the 7th century is antithetical to our system of governance.

My question has always been, what is the relationship between the former regime in Iraq and Islamic extremism? You continuously treat the invasion of Iraq as a blow against Iran and I have yet to be able to follow your line of reasoning except to agree that our continued presence in Iraq is now necessary to foil Iranian aims. This presence only became necessary after the ouster of the former Iraqi regime. Certainly, it wasn't our original intent, was it?

As for the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, I must again disagree. Whereas our presence in Vietnam is debatable, our presence beginning in 1950 on the Korean peninsula is not. Have you ever seen the photograph of the Korean Penisula taken by sattelite at night? S. Korea is lit upo like a Christmas tree. N. Korea is as dark as the inside of a closed coffin. But for the United Staes, the entire peninsula would look like N. Korea.

Regards.

BB-Idaho said...

I saw that on C-Span and was shocked..that was blog language and thinking, not congressional.
IMHO, the frustration levels are rising on all sides of the issues..

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Loop Garoo,

Your view that Rep. Pete Stark's comment was merely "an intemperate remark"
about 'killing innocents' rather than a direct and vicious verbal attack on Pres. George W. Bush is
so very sad, yet typical of the Left-Wing Apologist, when confronted with
actual quotes from Hard-core Far-Left Lunatics, indicates how very troubling and harmful these fanatics & hate-mongers have taken us out & away from our fundamental values. Pete Stark is a national disgrace!

Also, quickly switching to another boring, long-winded issue, is a smooth debate tactic, and I'll not allow it to go unnoticed; so, here's the quote once again:
>>
Oct 18, 2007, Democratic Rep. Pete Stark, Dist 13, San Francisco:

"You don't have money to fund the war or children," he said. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people, if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement".

Now that Loop Garoo has had another opporunity to re-read that vicious slander of our president, does LGK still view this sleaze-ball comment as..."INTEMPERATE" or an uncalled for Vicious And Direct Ad Hominum Attack on President George W. Bush?
>>
If it were any other area of our nation, I'd say "let the fair-minded voter take care of Pete Stark". This vile rodent deserves censure, ridicule, loss of pension, and then thrown out of
Congress on his unapologetic ear.

In Wahhabi nations he'd be stoned, hung-up like Saddam, or face a Firing Squad, for Treason.

"Intemperate" Loop? Mule-feathers!

reb
__________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

John Washburn said...

Loop, I'm not exactly sure how you expect me or Reb or any other mainstream American to respond to comments like the ones Stark made. You categorize us as reactionary as if we're making more of this than there actually is. I'm sorry, but I expect a higher standard of behavior from US Congressman, be they Democrat or Republican. Dissent is fine, but this goes well beyond dissent. This is slander. So, you may not feel the need to condemn remarks like this, but I simply will not allow anyone to engage in this sort of behavior without calling them on it. I've sent Stark an email respectfully asking for an apology and his resignation. It's time our Congressman started behaving like leaders and they won't do it if the people don't demand it.

BB, I agree that things have gotten WAY out of hand in Washington. I am honestly ashamed of how our elected representatives conduct themselves. It's flat-out embarassing, and that's why I will bring attention to this kind of behavior. It needs to stop. Nothing good is coming from it.

Reb, you summarized the fundamental attitude of the Left very well. If we lose this war against Islamofascism, it will be blood on the hands of the American Left. However, I respectfully disagree with you about Korea and Vietnam. We were fighting communist aggression in both places. We succeeded in Korea, although the victory was incomplete thanks to Chinese intervention. We failed in Vietnam, and now the entire region is being oppressed. But our failure in Vietnam was due to lack of support in the US and deliberate undermining of the war effort by the Left...hmm, sounds familiar. And how many Cambodians were butchered by the Khmer Rouge after we 'pulled the troops out' of that place?

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

Doctor,

Did we officially have troops in Cambodia?

Do not think for one minute that you are somehow mainstream America.
You are like frat boys. You hang w/ your own kind and that becomes the norm for you, but perhaps not the norm for everyone else.

Someone says something nasty about someone you admire and your shorts get twisted.

reb. I continue to wait for answers to 2 substantive questions: 1. How was (note the tense:"was" not "is" ) the invasion of Iraq related to the struggle against Islamic extremism? 2. How are we going to pay for a program that costs 3 billion dollars a month.

If asking straightfoward questions is a smooth debating tactic, I will plead guilty.

Meanwhile, whwereas most ad hominem attacks are not worthwhile, what was it some Democrat named Harry Truman said?

Reagards.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

I Wish To Propose A New Law...

For Both Legislators & Immigrants.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Before filing, they must first Sign
and Swear A Solemn Oath To Defend
& Protect, With their Lives and Their Fortunes, Against All Enemies
That Seek To Alter Our First Amendment Principles of,

Freedom of Religion...

Freedom of Speech, Press, and Thought, and Freedom to Peacefully Assemble.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If You Cannot Defend Freedom of
Religion...

(that is under direct foreign theocratic assault since 1979) then you cannot hope to understand the other freedoms that most Americans cherish.

Whether Left or Right...

If You Cannot Understand It, defend
it's fundamental principles, then you do not deserve to share in its
monumental blessings. reb
__________________________________
Rep. Pete Stark Has No Defense!
__________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

JOHN, Notice how JGK frantically
attempts to divert attention away
from Rep. Pete Stark?
>>
Loop Garoo:

I was alive from 1929 - 1941. It was The Great Depression!

When Pearl Harbor was attacked on
Dec 7th 1941, some may have asked,

Just How Are We Able To Afford To Defend Ourselves Against The Two Greatest
Military Forces In The World?!?!?!

Same Answer, Three Billion A Month?

BECAUSE WE MUST! Or, would Loop Garoo prefer the alternative?
__________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

rudy said...

Stark went after the president, not the troops. In your post you went after John Kerry; a Vietnam War veteran who IMHO deserves a hell of alot more respect than George W. Bush; a man who has never been on the front line. When Bush says we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here - he actually makes sense...of the war in Afghanistan.

Osama was not in Iraq. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, but they are now and their numbers have grown, thanks to who, the troops? No! Thanks to George W. Bush.

At least you didn't attack Michael J Fox or a 12 year old for speaking about SCHIP like Rush Limbaugh did.

If, as you said in your post, Stark should go to Iraq. Then everyone who whined about John Kerry's Purple Heart should go to war, and Rush Limbaugh should be be made comatose and go through everything Graeme Frost went through. I mean after he gets back from his month long tour of Iraq for yapping off about Kerry. Hey, instead of a month, let's give him three 12 month tours in Iraq. My son is on his third tour and my nephew is on his second while Rush Limbaugh sits back and gets fat. Fatter.

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

reb,

Again, I am compelled to comment on what I believe to be flaws in your critical thinking.

You are absolutely entitled to take offense at Rep. Stark if you wish. I respectfully suggest that you do not do so at the expense of avoiding considering the larger issues.

The industrial production that was part of the national mobilization of WW II was responsible for the economic boost that enabled this country to climb out of the Great Depression.

I believe that although there should be parallels between WW II and the current struggle against Islamic extremism, you have failed to delineate those parallels.

Is national mobilization necessary to combat Islamic extremism? I think the question is debatable. When I say national mobilization I speak of th same degree od mobilization that this country experienced during WW II.

Like it or not, b/c of the foreign policies of the Bush administration, the struggle against Islamic extremism has become confused w/ the war in Iraq, which in case you had not noticed, is incredibly unpopular.

I am not the most intelligent person nor the most obtuse. I have yet to hear or read a coherent explanation that contains any convincing argument that the war in Iraq was in any way a battle in the war against Islamic extremism. Perhaps it is now b/c in the vaccuum created by the deposition of Saddam Hussein, Islamic extremists, AQM in particular, have infested Iraq.

Therefore, your attempt to draw a parallel between the war in Iraq and WW II is simply not effective b/c there is no comparison.
But the issue of deficit spending $3 billion dollars a month on this war remains, which $3 billion dollars is not part of a budget which is already deeply in the red.

Let me state the obvious b/c you chose to ignore it. On December 7, 1941, the United States was attcked by Imperial Japan. A day later, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.

The United States invaded Iraq. Theere is no connection between the attack on the United Staes that occurred on 9/11 and the former regime in Iraq.

There is no connection between the former regime in Iraq and the threat posed by Iran to our national security and to regional security, except that it is arguable athat as vile a monster as was Saddam Hussein, he served as a foil to Iranian ambitions in the Mideast.

Yet we are devoting a disproportionate amount of our military and other national resource to the prosecution of a war that has no visible political solution and which will require a United States presence for the foreseeable future. A presence that will continue to cost us billions per month, not to mention the irreplaceable lives of our men and women in uniform, which presence has no discernible benefit to the interests of our country w/ the possible exception of that against which President Eisenhower warned--the military-industrial complex.

Once again, I challenege you to try and connect the dots for me as for the last 4 and 1/2 years,I have been unable to do so for myself.

I do not give a rat's patoot for comments by Rep. Stark; ads by moveon.org; or similar stercoraceous material produced by the political right.

I pose the questions again b/c they are real and important: 1. What was the connection between the ivasion of Iraq and the war against Islamic extremism. 2. How does this country continue to fund operations in Iraq except by charging it, as it were?

Railing against Rep. Stark; moveon.org; or that other organization w/ the acronym I cannot recall (UEFPJ?)does not answer the questions reb. At best, it is merely a smooth debating tactic to draw focus away from critical questions.

Regards.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Here We Go Again!

John, Unfortunately for the USA, the Soros Hate-Machines have marginalized us, polarized us, forced us all into hating each other, made us all into sounding like babbling idiots hanging desparately from the Tower of Babel, shooting insults and smear remarks. Ain't politics fun?

Let's all talk about side issues...

like S-Chip, Rudy liking that Phony War-Hero Kerry's Three Band-aid Purple Hearts (no visible scars) in four months! And Rudy is ready to forget all about the "We cut off heads, cut off ears, we est. free-fire zones" he made those on camera, plus several other "intemperate" remarks about our Veitnam troops before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1972. When asked if he witnessed these things, he admitted he just "heard about'em"). Plus degrading public remarks about our troopers being "Stuck In Iraq" in this one, (which cost him being among the Democratic Nominees in 2007.
Let's talk about "When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died" and Impeach Bush/Cheney bumper stickers, or Dubya's Incompetence and Nazi-like attitude, or Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi's attempt in run the War In Iraq from D.C. Did you hear about Sen Reid's comment about calling JCS Four-Star Marine Gen Peter Pace "incompetent"? Gosh & Golly!
Firey little twit, ain't he?

Let's talk about Cambodia, or what Truman said about Korea, and how we should just continue whining, instead of getting on with bloody job ahead of us? Hell no!

Let's answer again, Loop Garoo.

But first let's talk about Saddam,
Uday & Qusay, and their romp into Kuwait, or their 8-year war with Iran, with a million dead. That's always fun to chat about. Or Jimmy Carter losing our Embassy in Tehran, our doplomats held captive
444 day, an "Act of War", Nov 1979.
Or the USS Cole of Yemen, 2000. Or the Blind Sheik's Mosque, and 1993 bombing of the NY Twin Towers, or
the Marine Barracks, 241 dead, 1983. All these before Dubya! Who do we blame? Huh, What?

>>

a) We all agree that we'll have a
major military presence in the Middle East for Decades. O.K.?

b) We all agree that we shall be at war with an unyeilding Kill-culture for Decades, regardless of
who occupies the Oval Office. Right?

c) We all agree that the Suicide
Bombs will continue, and are likely
to increase regardless of what we do. We agree, innocent people will die. Correct?

d) We all agree that the Grand Ayatollahs of Iran want to bomb the capital cities of every nation on earth that dare resist this evil and ancient Offensive Jihad, and with or without Nukes, they wish to bring back the 12th Imam, est. Sharia Law, and Rule this Planet, after they Wipe Israel Off the Map.

e) We all agree, Muslims are numerically 10-fold the WWII Nazi,
at 1.2 billion, more or less.

Sorry Loop Garoo, I tend to digress. What was that question about why we are in Iraq? Would you prefer Kuwait, or maybe Jordan?
Or a Greek Island, maybe.

How about those underground labs in Iran, and the enrichment process? How's that coming along?

Could you write it in bold crayon so that this "Frat-boy" can get a firm grip on your 'substantive question'? Once I understand it,
maybe I can then explain it to
John in terms that even he can understand. John sez he just hates those twisted shorts, Loop.

Thanks for your patience with us. reb
_________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

reb,

Sorry, but your basic premise is horribly mistaken. It would seem that there are a number of sects or branches of Islam just as there are in Christianity. You choose to treat them as if they were identical. Consider it like killing all the snakes, including non venomous ones which contol vermin, instead of just the venomous ones that may pose a threat.

Your logic is faulty. Your syllogism is wrong: The WTC were destroyed by Muslim extremists (major premise); Saddam Hussein was a Muslim (minor premise); Saddam Hussein was responsible for detroying the WTC. (false conclusion).

reb, you just mix Muslims all together and that provides your justification. Iran poses a threat to world security (major premise); Saddam Hussein was the avowed enemy of Iran (minor premise--remember his words on the gallows? "Down with the Persians.") Deposing Saddam Hussein was a blow against the Mullahs in Iran (false conclusion.)

As for your points, w/ respect to a) We would have continued w/ some military presence in the Mideast, now we are committed to a major presence in a country which has zero chance of governing itself democraticly or providing its own security. I could go on but what's the point? We have committed major assets in an operation which will provide very minor returns on our investment.

b) Agreed. But that kill culture in Iraq, since GW I, was only aimed at Iraqis. Bad for them, but a strategic non event for us.

c) I agree that suicide bombings will continue, more so in Iraq and in other Muslim nations than in other nations. There will, unfortunately, be instances of WTC; London; and Madrid, although I would like to think that large scale terrorist plots like WTC are unlikely to recur.


d) Not sure on this one. I agree in part and agree to the extent that I do not trust the government in Iran any farther than I can throw a cheesecake underwater. Certainly, the theocrats are committed to the destruction of the state of Israel and the spread of radical Shi'ism.

e) I agree w/ your numbers, however, I do not agree that all Muslims are Islamic extremists.

reb, you did more than merely digress. What about Iran's nuclear program? What about the question that you have utterly failed to answer which is "What is the relationship between the ivasion of Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions?" Your position seems to be that "Well, there are Muslims is Iraq and a blow against them is the same as a blow against the Ayahtollahs."

If I have misinterpreted your position, I eagerly await being corrected. B/c if you have stated your position in terms that even I can understand, I am concerned for your rationality.

Suppose I were to accept your premise that all Muslims are Islamic extremists. Would not that militate toward adopting a policy whereby we should seek to contain those Muslims who pose the greatest threat to our security and the security of our allies? Hmmm. Let's see. In Iraq we had Saddam Hussein writing romance novels while one of his muderous son was torturing members of the Iraqi Olympic team while the other muderous son was committing murder and mayhem on other Iraqis.

In Iran, we have theocrats who are committed to building a nuclear bomb; who are committed to the destruction of the state of Israel; who are committed to the destruction of secular Lebanon; and who are committed to the Shia Jihad.

Okay. We invaded Iraq b/c that's where the greater danger lay? Oh yeah, let's not forget that the government in Iraq b/f the regime change was the sworn enemy of Iran having faught a bloody war that country. Now the Ayahtollahs are pulling the strings of the Maliki government as if operating a marionette and Iran has just been awarded a contract to build a power plant in Sadr City.

Hey reb, am I explaining this in simple enough terms? Islamic extremism and terrorism predate the Bush administration, it is true. If you wish to make the agrument that the invasion of Iraq was a blow against Islamic extremism, you need to cite more evidence and make better arguments.

Regards.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Here-We-Go, con't.

Loop Garoo, Sir:

You have an extremely difficult time understanding "my basic premise", by constantly jumping like a grass-hopper, to and fro, back & forth. A technique to avoid
the embarrassing subject, Repr. Pete Stark. O.K.,Let's move along.
>>
a-x) Saddam/OsirisReactor/1975-'81
>
a) Iran's Khomeini grabs embassy,79
b) 1980. Saddam. Enemy of my Enemy
We help a brute-8 yr war. Logical.
c) 1990 Saddam Invades Tiny Kuwait,
in prep for his major objective, Saudi Arabia Oil Fields; Desert Storm! Gen Schwarzkopf rips Saddam
Tank Divisions to shreds in a few
days; we do not pursue to Bagdad!
>>
d) U.S. State Dept & Pentagon see that this region, and IRAN, plus Regional Dictators, Ayatollahs, Tribal War-lords, plus Petroleum wealth and ambitious muslim radicals w/ their suicidal theocracy spell a gathering nightmare.

e) Our 75 carefree years of a happy business relationship w/ Saudi Royals is fast coming to an end. Authors have books predicting the inevitable changes. America sleeps.
Addicted to Game Shows, Celebrity Worship, and Pro-sports.
>>
LGK & S/H disagree on Iraq. Who cares? Iran digging underground nuke labs for 18 yrs. GWB Cares!
9/11/01. Bush sez,"Not On My Watch"
>>
2004. Kerry's Big Mouth Beats Him, Decides Election, Bush gets 2nd Term. Soros
brings money bags, Hate Campaign swings into High-Gear for a massive
Tsunami of MoveOn, Media Matters, DailyKos, Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, N.I.M.N., and Hollywood Air-heads. War Gurus, S.F. Gay Activists, Environmentalists, Latter-Day Hippys, and U.F.P.J.,
Church Prayer Vigils, Stop-the Bombs! Hiroshima Day Parades, Leno & Letterman, Keith Olberman, and
Fast-talkin' Hard(Left)Ball Chris
Matthews frown at Rush Limbaugh. He's addicted to pain pills! He's a
Vast Conspiracy Right-Winger...A
fat, hot-gas-bag!

Baby-Boomers are proud of their golf club membership, and the kids have their Rap-Crap, and Mom goes to the Mall, likes "The View" and
Rosie O'Donnell. She's "Awesome!"

A Propaganda Campaign unlike any other in American Political History...In A Time Of War!
>>
Should We Be In Iraq? Should Bush call for a pre-emptive strike on Iran before they achieve nuclear potential?

Ask my friend, Loop Garoo Kid. But be forewarned; he's not a military tactician; he's a partisan rascal...leans a bit Left of Dead Center. reb
____________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

reb,

On the way out the door. I think your accusation of me being a grasshopper is the pot calling the kettle black. (I assume we are still permitted to use that expression)

In any event I have not yet decided on the wisdom of a preemptive strike on Iran. I have no way of assessing our intelligence or our weapons systems and if we were to take thsi step there would be no room for either error or failure.

As previously stated, one consequence is that every disaffected Iranian becomes an instant patriot.

Regards.

John Washburn said...

Loop, I see you're up to your old tricks. Frat boy? Okay. Well, you're like the Hollywood elitist sophisticate who thinks you know best for everyone because you're familiar with transcendentalism, humanism and internationalism. Those represent superior thinking to you, which is why you feel it's okay to impose them on all of us silly federalist Christians. That's why you think you know what the mainstream is when, in truth, you have no clue.

"Someone says something nasty about someone you admire and your shorts get twisted." - Yeah, that's one way of saying it. The fact is, there are a lot of Vietnam vets who were called baby killers or, as John Kerry said, 'reminiscent of Genghis Khan'. I won't allow that. Our troops deserve better and I will call out anyone who makes these kinds of outrageous comments. I will not apologize for that.

And I say again, if I only surrounded myself with people of similar opinion, you wouldn't be allowed on this site.


As for your questions on Iraq...just who are we fighting there? Al Qaeda, the same folks who have declared war on us. Iraq established a battle front. The suicide bombers who had their bags packed for the States changed course and headed for Baghdad instead. Yes, our soldiers are dying. That's what they do. They die so we don't have to, and right now they're fighting the enemy and winning.

Since you want to debate 2003, here's a hypothetical: Suppose Bush never went into Iraq, and chose diplomacy or whatever. Suppose we got hit with a major WMD attack, and in the Congressional investigation we discover the weapon originated from Iraq, and we discover the intelligence that Bush and Congress had been handed and failed to act upon. Then suppose Bush stands before the investigation and is asked why he didn't act on such overwhelming intelligence. His response: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or the war on terror. What would your reaction be? I'd demand impeachment.

We've since discovered the UN would have NEVER acted. Kofi and the boys were making too much from Saddam. So what was Bush's options? He didn't have a choice. Bin Laden wanted WMDs. Hussein had them, or would have had them soon. Post-9/11, it's a dereliction of duty for any President to allow that. That's your connection.

Now, we're fighting Al Qaeda, the one's who have declared war on us, and you complain that it is costly. Of course it is. 3 billion a month is expensive, and the loss in life even more so. But how much is too much. What's your cutoff? We're directly engaged with the enemy. At what dollar amount, or casualty number do you pack up and leave?

So, with all that said, are you still going to let Pete Stark make his comments without any objection? Is 'intemperate' all you're willing to say about this man?

John Washburn said...

Reb, I'm glad you brought up Pearl Harbor. There are a lot of similarities between now and then,. The fact that the Left can't make those connections says a lot about their lack of understanding of this conflict. Kudos.

John Washburn said...

Rudy, I'm not sure what you're point is.

"blow up innocent people" is referring to the troops. Your son, and those fighting beside him, deserve better than that. You can say Stark went after Bush and not the troops, but I'm not letting him off that easy. Would it be acceptable in your mind for Trent Lott or Bill Frist to make a similar statement?

And what does John Kerry's military service have to do with this? He called our troops terrorists. Again, he was talking about your son, your nephew, and everyone else fighting over there. Is he allowed to do that because he served? I have difficulty respecting someone who sells out his war-buddies. He said they were like Genghis Khan. Does that warrant respect?

"When Bush says we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here - he actually makes sense...of the war in Afghanistan."

Rudy, are we not fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq? We fight them (who have attacked us repeatedly in the past decade) in Iraq while we fight the Taliban (who never attacked us once) in Afghanistan. Is one right and not the other?

And please tell me when Rush Limbaugh attacked a 12 year old boy. My understanding was that he condemned the Democrats for exploiting that boy and his illness. If you have anything different, I'd like to see it. And did you actually say Rush Limbaugh should be made comatose? Surely you don't actually mean that.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Loop Garoo's Major Concern:

"What is the relationship between our Invasion of Iraq...and Iran's
Nuclear Ambitions?
>>
I have sent to you, on this date, the precise answer you seek; It's Global Jihad.
__________________________________
Global Jihad. Global Jihad!__________________________________

Tap: Arabic word "jihad"
www.danielpipes.org/article/990

Read 'Saddam's Appeal' December, 2002, to Muslim's world-wide to defeat "wicked Americans". Get it?

He didn't appreciate the U.S. stopping his move on Kuwait/Saudi Oil Reserves. No Sir!
>>
There's Int. Islamic Front, Jihad
(bin Laden/Zawahiri, al Queda)
Laskar Jihad (Indonisea)
Harakat al-Jihad-i-Islami (Kashmir)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Hamas)
Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Sadat,'81)
Yemeni Islamic Jihad
Hezbollah Jihad, etc.

It's A Blood-Brotherhood.

The Snake's Head, IRAN.
Nearly 29 Years of this, Loop!
____________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If the Kill-Culture's Nuke Lab is in Libya, Yemen, Syria, etc etc whereever. No more pussyfooting.

Jacques Chirac built one So. of Bagdad, for Saddam~1975-1981. Israeli Jets Took It Out.

North Korea had one for Syria; the
courageous Israeli Took It Out on
Sept 6th, 2007, before it went on-line. That's Last Month, Loop.

For Iran, the Israeli might need
a little assistance; A tougher target. Or do we hesitate? reb
____________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

rudy said...

John, Rush mocked the little boy using a whiny voice that sounded quite natural for him. He said a 12 year old isn't smart enough to care about other kids. Obviously Rush has no children. And yes, Rush should go through the same thing that kid went through, and with the same insurance benefits that the kids family had.

Stark said in a comment directed at the president about the cost of expanding SCHIP, "...you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people..." He's talking about "shock and awe". He's talking about the war itself, not the troops. When most people think of the bombing of Hiroshima they remember Harry Truman, not Gen Paul Tibbets. No one blames the troops for following orders. What Stark said about the troops was that they were getting their heads blown off for the president's amusement. That was over the line, but he never said anything nebative about the troops.

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

Doctor,

Get the facts straight why don't you. AQM did not exist at the time of the invasion of Iraq. Let me repeat that for you: AQM did not exist at the time of the invasion of Iraq. The deposition of Saddam Hussein; the dismantling of the Iraqi army; and the porous quality of the Iraqi borders allowed AQM to take root in Iraq.

So AQM is an organic consequence of the invasion. It's iromic in a sick way that the Bush administration tried to connect Saddam Hussein and 9/11 when no such connection existed. Now there is a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, however temporary it may be.

Your hypthetical is not a good one. "Bush didn't have a choice?" I fear you are delusional. Just imagine yourself in a public forum filled w/ people who have not made up their minds about the invasion of Iraq and begin your argument of persuation by stating "Presient Bush had no choice but to invade Iraq." People will consider you barking mad. It is one thing to argue the invasion was the best choice. It is another to argue that it was the only choice.

We are nation w/ considerable resources, however, those resources are finite. I agree w/ reb to the extent western civilization is confronting a Jihad waged by Islamic extremists. I do not agree that all Muslims are extremists and Saddam Hussein, post GW I, posed little if any real threat to our national security. Given the unpopularity of the war and the president's approval rating, I suspect very strongly that if the administration had credible eveidemnce of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, the administration would sahre it w/ the American public.

reb, one call by a dictator to other Muslims is not a sufficent reason to invade a country. For sufficient reasons to invade a country, see Afghanistan. Here's my hypothetical question: Would our national interests have been better served by investing more in Afghanistan and invading the tribal regions of Pakistan, if necessary, to root out Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

No matter what promises are made by the politicos, we are in Iraq for the foreseeable future b/c the consequences of withdrawal are worse than the consequences of staying. I remain concerned that the current course places too much of a buredn on our military and on our economy. The U.N. may not be a solution but some form of international cooperation may be.

Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the surge is not sustainable past the middle of 2008. The surge was supposed to afford the Iraqi government the opportunity for national reconciliation and time for the passage of much needed legislation, first and foremost, legislation governing the sharing of oil revenues. What progress has the Iraqi government made? I think it is time to plan for the next phase b/c I I do not see the Malaki government succeeding.

Doctor, I called you a frat boy b/c like a fraternity, your views are those of people who think exactly as you do. But if you think you are mainstream I fear you are mistaken. I know some people think as you do, but I do not beleive that they are in the majority. They may be in the majority at Ft. Riley but Ft. Riley is not mainstream. It is a military community which fact tends to shape the community's public opinion. I do denigrate it, I just do not believe that a majority of Americans shares your views.

I have in past labeled you a reactionary but this is a description of your behaviour not a description of your ethos. Someone denigrates the president or General Petraeus and you react. I do not blame you for being offended although my observation is that the offensive nature of the message disuades you from looking at any the implications raised in the message.

As for your self chracterization as a "federalist Christian" that is your label. Clearly my preference is to separate church and state, and I am of the opinion that you do not share that preference. If I am wrong, let me know, not that you wouldn't. I consider religion a personal and private matter. I practice law in the shadows of the bastions of the religious right. It trends to negatively influence my thinking about the role of Evangelical Christianity in our society.

Your propensity to label is also indicative of your world view. I do not consider myself an internationalist; a humanist; or a Hollywood sophistocate. I grew up in New England and have little in common w/ the left coast. A transcendentalist? Well, I am from New England, but really Doctor. Like most trial attorneys I rely on on objective experience, to wit, evidence rather than believing a sense of knowledge is derived from intuitive sources.

reb, if I consider to be true your world view that all Muslims are waging a jihad w/the intent of enslaving all peoples w/ the intent of returning to the Caliphate, I think you need to adopt a new strategy.

Regards.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Loop Garoo Quote,

"AQM DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE INVASION OF IRAQ!" WRONG! Wrong! Wrong!

Osama bin Laden & Ayman al Zawahiri Were Enraged When American Air Power & Mechanized Divisions Were Deployed To Saudi
"Holy" Soil! (1991) Osama pleaded with the "Royals" to let his Taliban (Mujahadeen) in the rugged Mountains of Afganistan, to 'Take Care of Saddam's Fourth Largest Military In the World'. (Osama had beaten the Russian Infidel!, in 10 Years-1980-1990). This pair of Loonie-tunes are now hiding in Waziristan's Mountains. Their
Power is "symbolic", but still a problem. They recruit more idiots.

(Loops memory bank is seriously flawed).

'Disaffected Iranian Patriots' w/o
nuclear eggs to distribute to a dozen fanatical groups probably suit our tactical-think-tanks at this point in time.
>>
FOCUS IRAN/The longer is hesitate, the more costly the final victory! reb
__________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Loop,

I have 27 Posts w/comments; they are all available.

Show me, anywhere...where I said that...
'All Muslims Are Terrorists'.

Some of your remarks defy logic, and block a reasonable response. reb

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

reb,

Jesus wept. Of course Al Qaeda existed b/f the invasion of Iraq. Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (AQM) did not. So it is false logic to state anything to the effect that purpose of invasion of Iraq was to fight either Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

Look. When I ask for a connection between the struggle against Islamic extremists and the war in Iraq, as originally conceived, your responses contain all manner of references (to wit: "kill culture") that would permit a reasonably intelligent reader of your comments to conclude that you believe all Muslims are extremists and that you do not, as Daniel Pipes does, differentate between Muslims and militant Islamists.

Regards.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Loop Garoo Kid, Sir:

Daniel Pipes is a scholar, and has a right to 'differentiate' to his heart's content. I suggest you'll gain more with further reading.
>>
At a head-count of over a billion,
if you wish to catagorize 10 or 15
percent as Suicidal Terrorists, that's fine. As to the rest of them, they are the vast pool of potentials, sitting on the fence waiting to be recruited into active Shahid by the world-wide Saudi Madrassa. The teaching Imams are good at selecting the best, or "most promising students" for additional instruction in countless remote "training camps".

Your so-called "moderates" are already here in the United States!

The Leader of C.A.I.R. (Council of American Islamic Relations) Omar Ahmed boldly stated:

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to be dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the
only accepted religion on earth".
>>
Pure Offensive Jihad! Abundantly clear, for a Snake Hunter. Why you insist on picking at a steel post, searching in vain for a wooden sliver, is a mystery. reb
__________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

Yankee Doodle said...

I wrote to Pete Stark and asked him to resign.

By the way, he cried in the House after his apology.

John Washburn said...

Yank, good for you. We all need to start holding these people accountable for their words and their actions.

Loop, you cleverly dodged. You did not answer my question. Does this mean you have disengaged from the discussion? Or do you simply prefer not to tackle the subject?

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

Doctor,

You want me to answer your hypothetical? Which for the sake of any who are interested was: "Suppose Bush never went into Iraq...Suppose we were hit w/ a major WMD, and in the congressional investigation we discover the weapon originated in Iraq, and we discover the intelligence that Bush and Congress had been handed and failed to act upon. Then suppose Bush stands b/f the investigation and is asked why he did not act on such overwhelming intelligence..."

I think we have reached the crux here. My understanding of the intelligence and at the time and investigation subsequent to the invasion is that the intelligence regarding the existence of WMDs in Iraq was underwhelming not overwhelming. I am happy to review any evidence to the contrary. This is why your hypothetical made no sense to me.

Saddam Hussein was not the most rational despot nor was he entirely insane. Clearly he was concerned w/ maintaining his power although he made two critical mistakes during his tenure. He invaded Kuwait believing that there would be no consequences and he did not think George W. Biush would invade Iraq.

Consider his position in 2002. He hasd no AF although even if he had one it would have been destryed in the first 20 minutes of conflict w/ the U.S. His ground forces were terribly degraded during the 11 years between GW I and GW II. His military had been thoroughly routed in GW I. Ask yourself this question: "Why would would Saddam Hussein pick a fight w/ the U.S. in consideration of the certain consequence of absolute defeat?"

Your hypothetical presupposes overwhelming intelligence that supported not only the existence of WMDs but also the will to use them against the U.S. For a hypothetical question to be valid it must be predicated upon facts.

Regards.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Facts? In Ancient Times...

The Mythical Gods Ishtar & Sin were likely
overwhelmed by the more powerful God, Allah. These Mesopotamian gods
appeared real to the primitive inhabitants between the Tigris &
the Euphrates.

Now, if Loop Garoo can explain the
Hypothetical Connection between today's Terrorist al Queda that threatens whole continents with death, destruction, and Indescriminate Bombings, with a Valid Factual Link To These Primative Gods, I'll listen.

AQM? I assumed that Loop was trying
out a new designation, like...
al Queda 'Militia', or "Monster"
>>
There's far more rationale and evidence for the "Kill-Culture" label. reb
__________________________________

Grass-hoppers & Crickets play hippity-hop all over Dr John's serious web-log. Sorry! reb
__________________________________

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

reb,

AQM. Al Quaeda in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia, Latin from Greek Mesopotamia, "(the land) between (two) rivers." "mesos" midddle; "potamos" river. The two rivers are the Tigris and the Euphrates which makes AQM Al Qaeda in Iraq.

AQM is the successor organization to Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad which was the radical Salafi militant Sunni group founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. AQM was led by al-Zarqawi until his death in 2006 and is currently believed to be led by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir a/k/a Abu Ayyub al Masri.

On October 17, 2004, al Zarqawi declared his allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. The predecessor group was founded by al Zarqawi, a Jordanian, for the purpose of overthrowing the Hamshemite rulers of Jordan.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that there was only one meeting between represtatives of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime and representatives of al Qaeda which occurred in Sudan in 1995. There was never any operational relationship.

Psalm 137 attribured to te prophet, Jeremiah, begins: "By the waters of Babylon, there we sat doen and wept when we remembered Zion."

reb,

Gods are gods. Ishtar and Sin or Anu were not mythical, they were real gods worshipped by Babylonians and pedecessor and successor cultures. Ishtar was the daughter of Anu, the sky god. she was the goddess of fertility, sexual love, and war and was the personification of the planet Venus in the Babylonian pantheon

No connection between the cults of Ishtar and Anu and al Qaeda of which I am aware.

Regards

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Loop sez: "There was never any 'operational relationship' between Saddam and al Queda. So?

Would Loop admit that there is an
International Killer Family that
slaughters to maintain & expand its
power, and that Piety is only one
tool in their growing arsenal?

When do we shed these silly, cute, and inane "talking points" and get on with the serious business crushing the enemy?

The more we bicker and stall, the more costly the Victory! reb
_____________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

reb,

I am not a fan of Harry Reid. But have you considered for a moment that perhaps "victory" in Iraq is unattainable? I think that military conquest of AQM is attainable but if you are talking about "victory" in the sense of transforming a former dictatorship w/ no history of representative government into a functioning democracy, I'll take the under, thanks.

More sick irony" the invasion of Iraq has caused more jihadism than it cured. Withdrawal is not a consideration, but neither is relying on the Malaki government to acccomplish national reconciliation or to provide internal and external security. So what is the solution?

Heard the latest reports about Iraqi agitators paid by Iranian agents?

Regards.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Now we have identified LGK's problem!

Anyone that looks for a Solution to
a vicious global enterprise, and continues to Focus On Iraq, suffers
from myopia. The snake den burrows
are deeply underground. The Court's Jester, Harry Reid, has somehow stumbled upon a half-truth. There Is No Victory In Iraq! (It's merely a staging area).

Saudi Arabia has given birth to an
International Monster. The Head of
the Serpent is in Tehran...

Why, even old 'Dubya' knows that. Would you concede that he has some pretty good advisors? reb
_________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com