Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Leahy Just Can’t Quit Being a Partisan Jackass [Dan Collins]

Some well-intentioned ninny at St. Mike’s asked me to sign this pile o’steaming, yesterday:

Vermonters for the CCA

The Civilian Claims Act is a bill written by Senator Leahy which would provide monetary compensation for innocent civilians accidentally harmed by the U.S. military in war zones. Currently, civilian losses are addressed by the Condolence Payments program which is both arbitrarily administered and inadequate. (It has a cap of $2500 per individual.) The CCA would provide permanence, training, and uniform guidelines for allocating funds to injured civilians. We believe that this bill reflects America’s best humanitarian values. Please join us in urging Senator Leahy to bring it before the Senate.

For additional information click here

To read the Frequently Asked Questions click here

Would I sign it?

–Why, no, thank you.

–Why not?

–Because it omits to observe that Saddam was paying out thousands of dollars to parents of Hamas youths used as suicide bombers.

–Well, that’s not the issue; these people are innocent victims who had nothing to do with Saddam.

–You know, lady, when we invaded Germany and later rebuilt it, I’m sure there were innocent victims too.  Where are you asking for compensation for the innocents killed in Lebanon because brave Hamas warriors decided to take up positions near them?

This is asinine beyond belief, and it will lead to fighting over corpses, and lies, and more lies, and set a dangerous and stupid precedent.

But that, of course, is Leahy’s main intention.

More Leahy:

I am not saying that we should not be helping Iraq rebuild.  As chairman of the subcommittee that handles the Senate’s work in drafting the budget for foreign assistance, I know the need for funds for stabilization and reconstruction programs in Iraq.  But I also believe it is time we require the Iraq Government to begin contributing a portion of rebuilding costs, especially when, with the increase in the price of oil, Iraq is expected to end the year with a budget surplus of $25 billion.

I hear every day from Vermonters struggling to make decisions between putting food on the table and heating their homes, even while food prices continue to rise and oil hits an all-time high of $114 a barrel.  We in Congress know what they are going through and many of us are trying to help them, but again we find our hands tied, as the President says he will veto any supplemental spending bill that goes a dollar over his request – except, of course, for the open checkbook he demands for spending in Iraq.

This war has cost Americans far too much – too much money, too much damage to our alliances and influence around the world, and, most importantly, too much death and too many maimed soldiers coming home.  We need a clear change of course in our priorities, and that means also in our budget priorities.


Gee, Pat, you know what would be nice?  If you would demand that the Iranians pay compensation to the families of those maimed or killed by shaped IEDs. But you won’t, because you’re an ass.

51 Replies to “Leahy Just Can’t Quit Being a Partisan Jackass [Dan Collins]”

  1. Carin says:

    I suppose it matters not to these nitwits that more innocent civilians are harmed by … the OTHER TEAM than the US military.

  2. Mr. Pink says:

    Sometimes I think these people sympathize more with the OTHER TEAM than with President Bush.

  3. Big D says:

    Sometimes?

  4. Mossberg500 says:

    Maybe we convince our enemies to fight a Nerf™ War!

  5. Rob Crawford says:

    “Not only will I not sign it, but I have a bottle of White Out here to remove some names…”

  6. BJTexs says:

    Yea, let’s go down that road and all of the attendant issues that will pop up. Just to assuage some distant feeling of guilt and, as a consequence, continuously spotlight every civilian death, no matter what the circumstances, as a result of American operations.

    Great idea! Not.

    I’m reminded of that picture a few years back of an old Iraqi woman holding up a .50 Caliber bullet as an example of collateral damage in her home because of U.S. military operations in her neighborhood. While AP was happy to run the picture and the woman’s complaint the editors missed the fact that the bullet was fully intact!

    Thank you, but no.

  7. Mossberg500 says:

    Sometimes I think these people sympathize more with the OTHER TEAM than with President Bush.

    Ask the Israelis how it feels!

  8. BJTexs says:

    What about the families of terrorists? aren’t they victims of the same war that forces their children/husbands to strap on bombs and blow themselves up? Maybe we should be compensating them, as well. I think Saddam had some kind of a program to accomplish that.

  9. BJTexs says:

    /sarcasm

  10. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    Aren’t we already paying them back with that whole nascent democracy stuff? What’s stopping those people who signed the petition to donate themselves?

  11. Techie says:

    I was killed by the evil American pig-dogs………………

    (I got better)

  12. BJTexs says:

    Oh! Oh! I know! Let’s compensate all of Islam! I mean, since our GWOT is almost completely against Muslims have we not harmed and created victims of the entire religion!?!?!

    Let’s just hire Hamas and al qaeda to have guys stand outside of mosques and hand out hundred dollar bills.

    FOR THE PERSECUTIONS!!!

  13. happyfeet says:

    wowsers. Iraq’s surplus is almost as big as California’s deficit! This is because Californians couldn’t budget a taco stand cause they are gay and stupid and are more worried about stem cells and carbon dioxide then being a viable state.

  14. urthshu AKA The Corinthian says:

    Pay them in leveraged carbon credits.

  15. Mossberg500 says:

    Our Vice-President Elect may have already thought of a similar solution, BJ! Here is an exerpt from the New Republic after 9/11:

    At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: “I’m groping here.” Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we’re not bent on its destruction. “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran,” Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.

    The staffers sit in silence. Finally somebody ventures a response: “I think they’d send it back.” Then another aide speaks up delicately: “The thing I would worry about is that it would almost look like a publicity stunt.” Still another reminds Biden that an Iranian delegation is in Moscow that very day to discuss a $300 million arms deal with Vladimir Putin that the United States has strongly condemned.

    You can bet Joey Hairplugs is preparing for muslim reparations as we type!

  16. Curmudgeon says:

    Sometimes I think these people sympathize more with the OTHER TEAM than with President Bush.

    Sometimes?

    It really *is* time for a revived Un-American Activities Committee….

  17. Mossberg500 says:

    Comment by urthshu AKA The Corinthian on 12/3 @ 8:50 am #

    Pay them in leveraged carbon credits.

    Al Gore fiat currency! How big will the bill have to be to fit his fat fucking face on it?

  18. Pablo says:

    While AP was happy to run the picture and the woman’s complaint the editors missed the fact that the bullet was fully intact!

    Ah, a Dissident Frogman classic.

    Oh, and Pat Leahy is a tool? You don’t say.

  19. alppuccino says:

    I’m reminded of that picture a few years back of an old Iraqi woman holding up a .50 Caliber bullet as an example of collateral damage in her home because of U.S. military operations in her neighborhood. While AP was happy to run the picture and the woman’s complaint the editors missed the fact that the bullet was fully intact!

    Well, there you have it Beej. Looks like you didn’t read the whole story.

    Turns out that the nice old Iraqi woman had just brought a hot steaming kettle of goat-ball soup from the open fire. She then slipped on the fully intact .50 cal round and subsequently threw the hot bisque onto her sister who reacted to the scalding by running around uulating and knocking over brick-a-brack until finally busting an Iraqi-shaped hole in the North wall of their abode. At the very same time that she was losing control of her stew, our lady was attempting to keep her balance by grabbing her husband’s belt, which only caused her to pull his pants down around his ankles and simultaneously shove him into an unsuspecting ram who was grazing nearby, thereby bringing much shame upon their house.

    There are no victimless wars. I would vote “present”.

  20. slackjawedyokel says:

    To the end of her days, my Grandma was bitter over the failure of the Yankee government to reimburse her Grandma for setting fire to the barn and stealing all the livestock on their way to Savannah.

    Maybe I can send the bill (plus interest) to Senator Leahy?

  21. BJTexs says:

    Pablo … Ha! “No Shooty!” Classic.

    al: I see your goat ball soup and unsuspecting ram and raise you five cold falafals, a spent Stinger Missile and one well thumbed copy of “Saddam! The Man! The Myth!” in paperback.

  22. alppuccino says:

    deal

  23. mcgruder says:

    the war was an idiotic venture, but we appear to have turned a corner.
    the petition was an idiotic venture and Pat Leahy appears that he will never turn a corner.

  24. BJTexs says:

    mcgruder: Pat Leahy’s corner is a circle.

  25. Rob Crawford says:

    the war was an idiotic venture,

    Bullshit.

  26. BJTexs says:

    mcgruder: not to wander off topic but… you may have thought it was idiotic to actually start the war. As to whether or not the venture is such will be determined over the course of time. A stable, secular democratic Iraq could have long term benefits in that part of the world.

  27. JohnAnnArbor says:

    I think Leahy once insisted that the herbicide we were air-spraying on coca plants in South America–which was basically RoundUp–be perfectly safe for anyone it might fall on. Because treating coca growers with compassion is a priority with him.

  28. mcgruder says:

    BJ in Tx: On Leahy, I agree, and well said. On Iraq, perhaps. But that’s a metaphysical argument a while off. I’d have preferred victory in Afghanistan and muscular covert and diplomatic pressure on Iran and Pakistan.

    Rob Crawford: You see it differently, fair enough.

  29. garyandrew says:

    Just so I can be sure, you fellas are AGAINST compensating civilians accidentally killed or maimed by the US military, because a) The Union Army never compensated Confederates for property damage, or b) the US military didn’t compensate individual Germans for bombing their cities to the ground as a result of a war Germany declared on us, or c) Iraqis are backwards liars and no one is really dead, or d) giving them democracy is compensation enough for their dead, or e) the Iraqi government should compensate them for actions caused by accidental, but direct, American fire?

    The very idea that 1) we don’t accidentally kill civilians is such counter-factual garbage I will not address it, and 2) that a country can barge into another country and kill its citizens, and attempt to extinguish an insurgency WITHOUT winning the hearts and minds of the people is so 2004.

    Making friends with the population wins them over to your side and money tends to help ease the pain, see Anbar Awakening.

    Your callous disregard for the lives accidentally shattered by Americans attempting to complete their mission is cruel to the Iraqis, ignores the fact that we ALREADY pay some compensation, and places US troops in danger by turning the locals against them (the very antithesis of counter-insurgency tactics).

    You supported the war, you should support the efforts of the American military to show it is a positive force for Iraq or Afghanistan, and as supporters of the war, you should sign the petition. It’s only money and we tend to provide it to car companies and bank CEO’s in the billions if they ask nicely enough, whereas the Iraqi/Afghan widow is asking for compensation for actual harm done to her family.

    It is the indomitable Christian spirit of mercy combined with the anger of the white Republicans that makes me wish each of you could attend an Afghan wedding, so you could see the fun that happens when the Americans mistake you for a terrorist convention. Winning those hearts and minds!

    Normally, I wouldn’t be so disgusted, but to begrudge people compensation for smashed doors, dead daughters, or maimed fathers is just so beyond the pale. Dan Collins, I don’t know if you’re religious or not, but you certainly are able to place politics above the “least of them.”

  30. Dan Collins says:

    I see. It’s I who am playing politics.

    Did Leahy ask for no-cap compensation for Kosovar victims? Why not?

  31. BJTexs says:

    Your callous disregard for the lives accidentally shattered by Americans attempting to complete their mission is cruel to the Iraqis, ignores the fact that we ALREADY pay some compensation, and places US troops in danger by turning the locals against them (the very antithesis of counter-insurgency tactics).

    Cuz, you know, getting rid of the murderous dictator, allowing free elections for the first time in memory, spending billions rebuilding infrastructure and ultimately creating the sorts of frameworks that allow long rivaled sects to live in relative peace is not enough to win hearts and minds.

    If you really want “win hearts and minds” cough up the filthy lucre, bitches!

  32. daleyrocks says:

    The very idea that 1) we don’t accidentally kill civilians is such counter-factual garbage I will not address it,

    -Good, because we already have a compensation fund and nobody has actually asserted the point you are making Gary.

    2) that a country can barge into another country and kill its citizens, and attempt to extinguish an insurgency WITHOUT winning the hearts and minds of the people is so 2004.

    -Gary, you may not realize it, but the U.S. has been in Iraq now for several years with the blessings of the elected government of Iraq as well as the U.N.

  33. JohnAnnArbor says:

    How about those Serbs that ended up dead in the late 1990s when we bombed them? We were trying to stop their genocidal campaign, but an awful lot of the dead weren’t part of it.

    How would the claims be managed? Would auditors be sent in by parachute to take down names an hour after the bomb hits? Or would we just put out a sign later saying “show up with a body and get cash”? I’m guessing that the morgues would be emptied as hearses go from booth to booth picking up cash. Putting a value on something will lead to such behavior (grave-robbing for medical school bodies in the 19th century).

    Leahy’s proposal is impractical, and he knows it. It doesn’t matter if it is well-meaning if it won’t work in practice!

  34. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    Fuck off gary. I wasn’t a supporter of the war, dumbass. Plus, you didn’t give a flying shit about the Iraqis BEFORE we escalated. Why do you give a shit now? Now go donate some of your hard earned salary to the Iraqis. Because you know, to you, it IS all about the cash. BTW, tell them it was a gift from me, too.

  35. daleyrocks says:

    “2) that a country can barge into another country and kill its citizens,”

    Gary – You screwed up the meme. It’s supposed to read “barge into another country that didn’t do anything to us…..”

  36. Mikey NTH says:

    Our alliances around the world have damaged by Iraq? You don’t say?
    Which one? Oh. I forgot – you didn’t say.

    Perhaps our allies ought to repair their relations with us, unless the alliance wasn’t that valuable to them in the first place. Perhaps it wasn’t that important if Iraq damaged it, and if unimportant, perhaps Iraq was a good thing, allowing us to clean out our address book, so to speak.

    Sen. Leahy is a tool, a mendouchous tool.

  37. garyandrew says:

    #30 and #33. Sure, if you gents want to find the claims (and somehow I doubt you give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about Serbs, but care a lot about obscuring the issue, i.e. Mr. Collins objecting to signing a form which would help people injured by the US), then I’m all for it. See, civilian deaths, an unavoidable part of war, bother me, so yeah, I say, if we hurt ’em, then we should cut a check.

    Then, again, I forgot they were supposed to be so grateful for a purple finger than they don’t mind that the toddler was just killed!

  38. JohnAnnArbor says:

    “Mr. Collins objecting to signing a form which would help people injured by the US” because the idea is WILDLY IMPRACTICAL. So, I ask again, how would it be implemented?

    You know our “friends” in the international community would be more than happy to help file fraudulent claims.

  39. Slartibartfast says:

    DO we have to reimburse only families of people we killed, or do we also have to pay off the families that the insurgency killed, too?

  40. daleyrocks says:

    Dan – Getting Iran to cough up some dough is just an impractical solution. They deny any involvement in Iraq and though many people, mostly right wing bloodthirsty war mongering neocons who want to bomb the country into the stone age, suspect they are being slightly less than forthcoming in these statements, having them make cash payments would slow down the country’s peaceful development of nuclear energy and its support of Hezbollah in Lebanon to protect that country from evil Zionist incursion. In fact, Hezbillah just resached the 42,000 missile milestone thanks to the efforts of the Iranian people, up from the 14,000 missile inventory they had at the start of the 2006 War of Israeli Aggression. Praise be to the U.N. and French peacekeepers for looking the other direction!

  41. Rob Crawford says:

    Uh, Gary, we already reimburse when we’re at fault. If the act was criminal, we prosecute our soldiers.

    Name another country anywhere, anytime, that has had that as a policy.

    What I’m against is Leaky Leahy dicking with the program.

  42. Old Texas Turkey says:

    How about pre-pays? Given the shitty standing of US credit, perhaps we should pre-pay random citizens on a country we about to invade based on our estimate of collateral casualities. We can true up the debit/credit once we have Launcet conduct an audit of actual civilian deaths a year or two after combat operations cease.

    That way we won’t be saddled with issue of “open-ended” checkbooks for wars. Think about it, we all complainn about Government not being able to stick to a budget. What a better place to start than by having The Pentagon work with a collateral causualities budget of lets say $3 million dollars. We could keep tabs of it on a board on Time Square.

  43. steveaz says:

    The idea is, they blow us up, and then, when we try to defend ourselves, we have to pay millions to the attackers. In Jihad, the victim pays.

    Leahy’s just doing his job: ratcheting up America’s dhimmitude a notch.

    Keep it up, Leahy, and we’ll all be riding camels, soon.

  44. SmokeVanThorn says:

    “And, having demonstrated his righteous anger, garyandrew rose from his chair at Starbucks and walked – nay, strode – to his mother’s Prius, leaving more than one barrista sighing with the wish that she (or he – slim young William not being immune to the smoldering sensitivity exuded by double monikered paragon) could be the one to froth garyandrew’s next soy decaf latte.”

  45. B Moe says:

    Sure, if you gents want to find the claims (and somehow I doubt you give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about Serbs, but care a lot about obscuring the issue, i.e. Mr. Collins objecting to signing a form which would help people injured by the US), then I’m all for it

    He didn’t ask how you felt about it, Einstein, he asked why Leahy hadn’t brought it up, as an example of who is actually playing politics here. Is there any chance you might grasp the premise?

  46. Is there any chance you might grasp the premise?

    judging by his initial assumptions? no.

    Had really hoped Major John would chime in on this one as I seem to recall he had an opportunity to hand out these funds in Afghanistan.

  47. T.Marcell says:

    garyandrew,

    What is incentivized will increase, what is disincentivized will decrease; Liberals seem uniformly obstinate in accepting certain rules of human nature. If the US pays, unquestioningly, for each claim of harm by civilians, such claims will increase–ironically, it will likely increase via claims made by those who were “harmed” while firing on US troops. If this is your, and Leahy’s aim–to undermine our troops–I understand what you are seeking; we are, after all, in a three-party war, we are fighting violent, radical Islam, they are fighting all whom they consider infidels, and you are fighting Conservatives and Christians. What I don’t understand is why you believe your own country is inherently the oppressor, who must redress any, and every, apparent wrong voiced by any group no matter how heinous, intolerant or suspicious the group, or its’ claims, may be.

    PS please stop using the “hearts and minds” meme…the 60’s are over.

    PSS please stop using the phrase, “a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut”, no one reads Vonnegut anymore…and the seventies are over.

  48. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    “I say, if we hurt ‘em, then we should cut a check.”

    The cut a check, you dumbfuck. But again, tell them I contributed, too.

    “DO we have to reimburse only families of people we killed, or do we also have to pay off the families that the insurgency killed, too?”

    Well, slart, I’m betting gary thinks that we have killed far more than the insurgents and terrorists. So, I’m betting he’ll say yes.

  49. Blitz says:

    http://tinyurl.com/Dissident-Frogman

    This isn’t going to work….is it too hard to get a link button here? I suck at HTML

  50. Blitz says:

    Crap. Didn’t read through, Sorry Pablo

  51. JD says:

    Why is it that whenever someone starts off with a phrase like “Just so I can be sure”, they then proceed to intentionally misstate and distort the position that they claim to want to be clear about?

    garyandrew sure seems to have enjoyed venting his spleen on here. What an ass.

Comments are closed.