What Fresh Hell Is This?

September 24, 2007


From a recent NYTimes editorial:
If you were one of the Americans waiting for Congress, under Democratic control, to show leadership on the war in Iraq, the message from the Senate is clear: “Nevermind.” The same goes for those waiting for lawmakers to fix the damage done to civil liberties by six years of President Bush and a rubber-stamp Republican Congress.
On the Senate filibuster:
We support the filibuster as the only way to ensure a minority in the Senate can be heard. When the cloture votes failed this week, the Democrats should have let the Republicans filibuster. Democratic leaders think that’s too risky, since Congress could look like it’s not doing anything. But it’s not doing a lot now.
And on Republican hypocrisy regarding said filibuster:

The current Republican leadership, now in the minority, has organized its entire agenda around the filibuster. In July, the McClatchy newspaper group reported that Republicans were using the threat of filibuster more than at any other time in the nation’s history.

Remember, this is the same batch of Republican senators who denounced Democrats as obstructionist and even un-American and threatened to change the Senate’s rules when Democrats threatened filibusters in 2005 over a few badly chosen judicial nominees. Now Republicans are using it to prevent consideration of an entire war.

Reminded me of something I read at Huffingtonpost:
If Democrats really want to end the war, and to carry out the job the people sent them to do in November of last year, they need to tell the kinds of stories I'm hearing when I talk to servicemen and women every time I go to the airport, like the 23-year old mother of two who just got sent back for her second tour of duty, who had tears in her eyes as she described what it's like to abandon her three-month old baby and how her older child didn't recognize her when she returned home from her last deployment. If they want to end the war, they should put forward the most responsible bill they can propose, with whatever guidelines or timetables they believe are truly in the best interest of our nation and our soldiers, and if the Republicans filibuster, let them filibuster, and attach the names and faces of every soldier killed or maimed in the meantime to those who are obstructing the will of the people. That's supporting our troops, and that's what will bring this terrible chapter in American history to a close, as Americans start to see on television, live and on camera, who is supporting our troops and who is sending them to their graves while happily spending time with their own families or planning lavish White House weddings for their own children when we are allegedly engaged in a battle for our freedom and civilization. [emphasis added]
Let them filibuster, then glue it to them forever. How difficult is that?


Anonymous said...

John K. says: I sometimes wonder just what the left thinks is the purpose of the military. I think the left wing kooks thinks it is slave labor. Trained and disciplined people to provide meals on wheels and forest fighting capabalities, etc. Free of charge to the local community of course. These folks in the military are first and foremost volunteers. And they are smart enough to know what is going on. Besides, if you don't fit, they weed you out in recruit training and send you home to mother. But I wonder what the left thinks the purpose of the military is?

Whigsboy said...

To answer your question, John Koward: The purpose of the military, first and foremost, is to protect the homeland.

That said, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with protecting the homeland. In fact, according to every study that's been conducted, inclding those by the government, it's made it less safe. Border security still sucks. Port security still sucks. Iraq is now a recruiting video for al qaeda. Our volunteer military is now broken because we have to send young mothers and fathers on 2 and 3 and 4 tours of duty. Families are being torn apart. Suicide rates among soldiers at are at all time high.

But, as usual, you don't really care. You get outraged over motherfucking newspaper ads about generals who twist and distort facts to suit their political agenda, but not over some young mother/soldier whose already done a few tours whose 3-month-old doesn't know her and who may never know her at the rate things are going.

Thank you once again for proving the hypocrisy of the right. Not pro-life, not pro-family, don't give a shit about taxpayers money, and don't believe for a second about individual responsibility. Those are just convenient catch phrases.

I answered your question. Now you answer mine: Why haven't you signed up for military duty again? Did they "send you home to mother"?

jaywillie said...

John, I suppose we could ask you the same question, huh?

Apparently, for you and your ilk, the military is for fighting intractable conflicts with no military victory possible. It's for extended tours that put enormous strain on the morale of our Armed Forces and their families. It's about not providing them with the armor they need. It's about cutting their Veteran's benefits or housing them in privately run shitholes like we all witnessed at Walter Reed, once one of the finest miilitary hospitals until Republicans turned part of it over to a private company, more concerned about profit than care.

Who's really treating our Armed Forces as expendable, slave labor, John?

And yes, John, they are smart enough to know what's going on, which is why many of them - more than you'll ever admit - are just as fed up with this stupid war as the American people are.

The military, John, is for defending our country, not launching pre-emptive wars.

As President Eisenhower said, "Preventive war is an invetion of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously who came and talked about such a thing."

So, I ask you, John, who doesn't understand what the military is for - liberals, who under the leadership of FDR, liberated Europe, the Pacific, Asia and Northern Africa in less than 5 years, or conservatives, who under W, went in without the right equipment, without the right force numbers and have left our men and women stranded in the middle of a Civl War to play referee?

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Therein lies the problem. You folks think al queda is an organization you can negotiate with. Our military is protecting the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Better to fight the war there than here. And make no bones about it, they will bring it here. Or did 9-11 completely pass you by.
But I do get a kick out of you lefties and your fake concern to bring the troops home. Like you care LOL. A troops fighting a fire in Montana or restoring order in New Orleans is still not home. So forget that argument about bringing troops home. You only care that they are in Iraq and away from their family. Being in Kosovo or Bosnia does not bother you a bit. I also find amusing the FDR analogy. Now that one is totally false. 20 - 20 hindsight is always perfect.

jaywillie said...

The FDR analoby is totally false? Seems like me they knew what they were doing. And remember it was you're party that wants this to be a World War, that compared the War on Terror to WWII in the first place.

Every study has shown - even those produced by our own military - that we are not effecting Al Queda. As far as I know, you guys let the bastard responsible for killing 3,000 of our citizens walk away.

As for Afghanistan, you obviously don't pay attention, as the Taliban is resurgent. Withdrawing equipment and troops from that conflict to fight in Iraq has undermined our effort there and instead of a stable democracy, we've created a Narco-State.

And how dare you suggest anyone has forgotten about 9/11. Or did you forget about our President receiving consistent warnings that an attack was coming, a President who did nothing when told that Bin Laden was determined to strike within the United States?

As for using the military to fight terrorists, well, why don't you refer to some countries that have alot more experience dealing with terrorists than us, like Britain. You don't see them freaking out, invading countries and feeding the very fire they're trying to put out.

As for our National Guard and Reserves, most states do depend on them very much to deal with disasters. See, that's part of defending the country, protecting the citizens. Or we could use them to secure our ports, important high security installations, etc. But since they're overseas...

And how daft are you to actually believe that we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here? What a tired line that is.

And when have you heard any liberal suggest negotiating with Al Queda? When? Name one example. Just one.

Anonymous said...

Yep, we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. That is a fact. Question for the left: We been hit on US soil since 9-11 how many times again? I rest my case.
Right jaywillie. You made my point. You think the purpose of the National Guard is to clean up Girty's run. Free of charge of course. And why should you care if this slave labor is taking these soldiers away from their families. You actually don't, so don't lay a bunch of tears on me.
We have to remind you lefties of 9-11 every day. After all, half of you believe it was Bush who did it. "Never in the history of the world has fire melted steel." I stil enjoy laughing at you lefties and that line.
Yah Taliban is resurging again. Been listening to Olbermouth again I see. So take your indignation somewhere else. It doesn't play with me. I will believe you left wing kooks actually care somewhat about the military when you view military recruiters and the programs they offer as legitimate. Until then Bawaaaaaa. LOL

Anonymous said...

Yea, the Klingons haven't attacked the Federation since 9/11, either.

Does Bush get credit for that, too?

jaywillie said...

Wow. You might possibly be the dumbest person I've encountered here.

Free of charge? Really? They don't get paid, huh? That's slave labor, huh?

And call a fucking Governor. Look back at the history of the National Guard and the Reserves. They do the jobs that local entities can't handle by themselves. That is also service to your country.

Look at Kansas when the tornadoes struck not so long ago. Even the head of the Guard there said we can't respond to a disaster because all the personnel and equipment are in Iraq.

But, typical conservative, let the country rot while continuing to delude yourselves that the Iraq war has made this country safer, a claim dismissed by numerous individuals in the military, including the Army War college.

And I actually don't get MSNBC, so I can't watch Keith...unfortunately. But why don't you do yourself a favor and actually check up on this shit your going to argue about, k?

And why you all assume we're 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I don't have a fucking clue. I know perfectly well who attacked us that day - Osama bin Laden.

Not Saddam Hussein.

But Saddam's dead and the guy who killed 3,000 Americans lives. And, yes, that's Bush's fault. Just like a Republican, when American soldiers were in position to finish it, he outsourced the job and bin Laden walked away.

And, yes, Bush is responsible for failing to marshall the government and respond to REPEATED warnings in the summer of 2001. They did jack shit and 3,000 people died.

But it all just boils down to this petty argument that people like you are the "real" patriots. You're not.

Supporting a stupid policy is not supporting the troops. It's the exact opposite.

Keeping them stranded in a civil war, extending their tours without a proportionate amount of leave, cutting their benefits when they get home, not providing them with the proper equipment IS NOT supporting the troops.

Bush and the Republicans have wreaked more abuse on our armed forces than any of these phantom liberals you speak of.

And we didn't have a terrorist attack between '93 and '01, so I guess what Clinton did worked too, huh?

You remind us of 9/11 because you use it for fear and propaganda; that's the only reason you folks trot it out.

Not only do you lack any understanding of terrorism and the specific aims of Al Queda, you don't even know what's going on in the world.

Crawl back in your cave and wait for the black helicopters and secretly trained UN army that's coming to take us over.

And if there are already cells in the US, like Chertof, has said, how exactly does having troops in Iraq stop them? It certainly hasn't stopped them from attacks in Madrid, London, Northern Africa.

Everyone else pays the price for these stupid policies except for the batshit crazy wingers who enact and support them. But ain't that just the way it goes for conservatives - everyone else pays the price.

Anonymous said...

No, the Klingons haven't invaded since 9/11 but Sidious did manage to turn Anakin to the Dark Side, thus demolishing the whole "no one under 30 is a Republican" myth. ;)


Wavy Gravy said...

Anon 621,
You fascist pigs simply amaze me. We haven't been attacked since 9/11 because we're fighting them over there bla bla bla. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded and occuppied it. Wake up fascist pigs Bush was President when 9/11 happened check the calendar. Repeat after me Bush was President, keep repeating till you understand the truth fascist pigs. Bush was warned this was going to happen, he decided to chop wood instead. His appointed Nat'l Sec Adv. Rice said who could imagine this happening. DUH And dear Whigsboy please call it the United States not the homeland. The last person that used homeland a lot was Hitler, another fascist pig.

RRL said...

Holy crap John K. If you insist on trotting out these ridiculous baseless arguments (fight them there so we don't fight them in der homeland), then for crying out loud, stop typing "John K says" and just hit the 'other' button below and type in John K in the name bar. I guess in the 1997 copy of "Internet for dummies" where you get all of your eighth grade acronyms left that one instruction out. Say it with me, GWB let bin laden get away. Why aren't you outraged with the rest of us? -TTYL JA

Anonymous said...

John K. says: George Bush did not let Bin Laden get away, Clinton did. Don't you lefties get it? This whole war on terror could have been stopped if Clinton would have killed Bin Laden when he had the chance.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Your arguments would make sense except that Sen. Durbin refers to the troops as Nazis and Sen. Kerry calls them terrorists and Sen. Schumer calls them incompetent and, well you know the rest. So on a day when Ahmadenajad is speaking his propaganda at a liberal university, Olbermouth calls Limbaugh the worst person in America. And you lefties wonder why we have to remind you of 9-11 every day.
And yes, fight them on their turf, not ours. And by the way, we have them on the run.

Wavy Gravy said...

Fred Fascist I mean John K. Remember these dates Jan. 2001 Bush takes office, ignores numerous warnings,9/11/2001 Bush goes to Florida to brush up on his reading, the rest is history. I don't know what kind of job you have or had Fred F. But I do know one thing if one had a job and screwed it up like Bush the company wouldn't buy no lame ass excuse as blaming his predecesser they would have kicked me out the door. Don't you fascists ever get tired of wah wah wah Clinton this, or wah wah wah Clinton that wah wah wah all the way home. None of you fascists can take responsibility for anything. The level of hypocricy is also stunning, Sen. Craig gets caught trying to score, wah wah entrapment, Sen. Vitter paying for sex, tries to cover it up by paying off religious org. wah wah I didn't mean it, ex Sen. Santorum after his wife sues a chiropractor then he tries to push an amendment limiting amount of money people sue for. wah wah wah nobodys getting more we do wah wah. By the way Bin Laden was in Tora Bora which if we would have went after him instead of invading Iraq Bin Laden would be dead or in prison now. Now repeat after me Fred F. Bush was President when Bin Laden was trapped in Tora Bora. Bush decided to let him escape instead.