House Passes a Binding Resolution on Iraq
For all of those people that have been yelping that the Dems have done nothing about the war, you may now sit down and shut up. While it has very little chance to actually be enacted, we have done something. We have put a stake in the ground to tell the American people that we hear them and we are going to do whatever is in our power to do. Now, the Senate will have a hard time getting this passed, but perhaps we should really start playing the game that the right has been playing. “If you support the troops, you must pass this legislation that ties funding to withdrawal.” Perhaps we should question their patriotism. Perhaps we should accuse them of being obstructionist. Either way, thank you Nancy. You have gotten this ball rolling and moving in the right direction.
Tags: Bush's FUBAR War
The Republicans are the party of war without end. I think this makes that fact very clear.
passed 218 to 212
More proof that Mike Castle hates the troops. He voted with the Republican minority to continue Bush’s open ended war and send the troops into harms war without proper rest and equipment.
Why is this man representing Delaware?
Saying that he hates the troops is not entirely accurate. His statement (Link) makes it clear that the troops are a distant afterthought. His vote seems to be more motivated by a quivering fear of President Bush.
President Bush has issued a veto threat as a result of the inclusion of non-emergency spending and policy proposals. (snip) setting an arbitrary timeline for withdrawal would assuredly lead to an impasse with the White House,
In other words, I have to vote for continuing this war on George Bush’s terms because Bush might get mad if I don’t.
Dems vote for surrender.
In other words, I have to vote for continuing this war on George Bush’s terms because Bush might get mad if I don’t.
*
Apt summary
Adm. Sestak has voted for the bill in the House that declares the end of the war in Iraq, encouraging our enemies abroad. Al Qaeda’s number one, oft stated goal is to defeat America in Iraq, and Adm. Sestak voted to help them achieve their victory. At the same time, Adm. Sestak is planning to speak at a fundraiser for a terrorist supporting group called the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He hired CAIR’s only employee in Philadelphia to be his staffer and he claims she accepted this invitation for him. She happens to be the daughter of a CAIR board member. In his bio, Sestak is noted as heading up “Deep Blue” which was the Navy’s counter-terrorism project after 9/11. It strains the imagination to see how he could be ignorant of CAIR and their history of support for terrorist organizations.
It is not too much to ask the Democrats what expect to be the outcome of our withdrawal in face of our enemies in Iraq. There must be some precedent for such a move, they can’t be just turning their backs on our allies and walking away from our enemies. The only precedent that comes to mind is the Democratic Congress doing this same thing in Vietnam. There the consequences included millions killed in Southeast Asia, and over a million of our former allies fleeing their homeland and becoming “Boat People.” The consequences reached far beyond Vietnam, and encouraged our enemies worldwide. The mullahs overthrew our ally in Iran, a consequence we suffer to this day. The Soviets sent tens of thousands of Cuban troops to fight our allies in South Africa, and the Communists took over Angola after Carter turned his back on our allies there. The Soviets invaded and occupied Afghanistan, and supported Communist insurgencies openly in Central America. This is the historic precedent for the last time a Democratic Congress surrendered in a fifteen year war.
If Democrats so fervently believe in this path, surely they owe us an explanation of why they think weakness will serve our responsibilities in this global battle against Islamist aggressors who have declared war on not only the US, but the entire non-Muslim world. Are we supposed to believe that surrender is a brand new concept that has recently popped into existence, like cold fusion or carbon offsets?
Just as the Democrats rallied around the “war hero” Kerry who achieved fame for calling his fellow troops “war criminals,” my fellow Americans in the 7th Congressional District of PA have elected another military man who is truly a sheep in wolf’s clothing.
Wow. We’ve got some dumb fucking wingnuts around here.
Hey, Steamboat. What ever you do DON’T wash my car for me! You hear me! If you fail to wash my car, I own your ass. You hear me dipshit! You better NOT wash my car!
Hey everyone – Steamboat is my bitch. He is not washing my car, just like I told him.
Good boy Happycon. Continue NOT washing my car and I’ll go easy on you.
Steamboat –
Your comparison of Viet Nam to Iraq is apt in ways you failed to mention. The decision to wage war, in both cases, was a blunder. Both blunders turned on a miscalculation of the reaction of the people who live(d) there to a foreign military invasion. This reaction is always crucial in a war since these are (were)the folks we were trying to rescue from our enemies.
The fact that in both cases, we could not successfully convey to them that our enemies were also THEIR enemies made both wars, tragically, pointless. That is to say, they were not really winnable, no matter how many people we killed, as too many of those left alive still hated us, ever more deeply.
The dynamics were somewhat different. Viet Nam, was in the throes of a nationalist movement, having been subjugated by the Chinese and French for a couple of centuries. The Iraqis, on the other hand, had already gained their autonomy, but had fallen into the hands of terrible dictator. Our naivete, however, our American sense others must see the world as we see it, and our confidence that violence on a large enough scale could bring a nation to peace, lead to both disasters.
Fights that can’t be won should be avoided. When accidentally undertaken, they should be quit with as much dignity and decency as can be found. Fighting stupid fights doesn’t make anyone stronger. It only exhausts them for the fights that make sense and can be won.
The camparison of Viet Nam to Iraq always reminds me of that proverbial definition of insanity – doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Now, for all the bullshit crowed by neocons about how victory in Iraq could cure us of the ‘Viet Nam complex,’ I have a message: Viet Nam isn’t a complex, it’s a LESSON that was unfortunately wasted on quite a few boneheads (like our semi-literate, Viet Nam draft dodging president).
Now, I”ll try to articulate exactly what the lesson was: Killing the “bad” people in a foreign country to help the “good” people (while we help ourselves) tends to backfire lots a times, and generate MORE hostility, not less.
By the way, are you seriously suggesting that the killing fields were the result of our LEAVING Viet Nam? Do you even wonder if this obsenity had anything to do with the napalm and the megatons of ordnance we dropped on these feudal people for a decade?
Back to your comment, I don’t know what historian has encouraged you to adopt this domino effect view of history – that all the bad things in this era occurred because Nixon and the Democratic congress decided Viet Nam was a pooch screw (which it was).
Nor, as I’ve explained, can I understand how fighting a war we cannot win can weaken our enemies, even if we’d like to believe it could.
Regards