**** Now with Gratuitous Insults! ****
In what was likely her final legislative act in Congress, outgoing Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney introduced a bill Friday to impeach President Bush.
The legislation has no chance of passing and serves as a symbolic parting shot not only at Bush but also at Democratic leaders. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment.
McKinney, a Democrat who drew national headlines in March when she struck a Capitol police officer, has long insisted that Bush was never legitimately elected. In introducing her legislation in the final hours of the current Congress, she said Bush had violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution and the nation’s laws.
. . . .
She has hosted numerous panels on Sept. 11 conspiracy theories and suggested that Bush had prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks but kept quiet about it to allow friends to profit from the aftermath. She introduced legislation calling for disclosure of any government records concerning the killing of rapper Tupac Shakur.
“I’m not going to stand for this racism, OTAY?”
So, you see, it’s not true that women aren’t funny, and I fully expect to see Cynthia on Comedy Central. She’s said to be looking for another budding stand-up comedian to help her polish her act, so if you know anybody, and you know how to get ahold of her . . .
I admire Hitch, I really do. But this just isn’t true:
(If you yourself are a guy, and you know the man in question, you will often have said to yourself, “Funny? He wouldn’t know a joke if it came served on a bed of lettuce with sauce béarnaise.”)
Although conceivably if you’re a guy with a subscription to Vanity Fair, that might be true.
here’s a Christmas Carols for the left.
https://www.cruxy.com/info/6927
I think it expresses what they’d like to see.
Well, she’s expanding more than budding, but I’ve got just the “comedienne” for the job.
I like how the earrings nicely set off her eyes in that photo. Makes her more attractive I think than she might typically be.
I’m beginning to realize that the American voter did the right thing this November.
Ever since the election, the memes that the Dem’s ran on are dying like flies in a bug-zapper.
The latest terminal liberal meme was retailed repeatedly as THE reason for impeaching Bush. It is the venerable “Bush-lied, Illegal War for Oil, No WMD’s”-meme.
As soon as McKinney’s bill goes down in flames, following her sinking reputation, we can flush another frivolous Democratic talking point down the toilet, and maybe then, we get on with fighting this war and winning.
To sum up, I am more optimistic than I have been in weeks. It’s apparent that the Dem’s don’t believe their own party’s political rhetoric. Simply put, most of the Bullshit dished out by the Dem’s 527’s this election cycle cannot survive the light of day.
-Steve
Amen, Steve. It’s one thing to run on it, but it’s quite another to be faced with the prospect of actually being held responsible for the consequences of implementing it.
Off comes the mask.
Recall that after Ned “Who dat?” Lamont’s primary victory, Michael Moore solemnly informed us that Hillary Clinton was too right-wing to be acceptable to the Petulant Left as the 2008 Democrat President nominee, and that nothing that she could do could win her redemption or forgiveness.
When the “netroots” realize that Pelosi is not going to give them a blank sheet of paper to write the Democrat agenda, what will they do…and will it matter?
TW: today the Congress, tomorrow the San Francisco city council?
Well put steve. Another interesting thing about the election was that many of the Dems who got elected where centrists…….not all mind you but some were. It’s kinda wierd reading that post and nodding my head……continue reading and….WHAT…..that was penned by steve……WOW. Good post!
More light exposed on the BS of “we oppose the war but support the troops”.
Wouldn’t be suprised to see McKinney support this bitch.
Dewclaw’s link is here.
I think that should be filed under “Gift of the Maggi.”
Dewclaw, why on earth would you suggest that the spitting woman said that she was against the war but for the troops? That was not mentioned anywhere in the article.
I weary of intellectual dishonesty posing as pointed political comment.
Yeah? I weary of vile behavior posing as pointed political comment.
Did I say she said that, Doc? Get your panties out of a wad…
My point is that very few of the anti-war left (AS A WHOLE) actually claim to be against the troops… and yet they do everything in their power to denigrate them, to accuse them of atrocities (real or imagined), to undermine support for them, etc. Now we have a spitting incident. Vietnam, anyone?
It will be very interesting to see who condemns this among our new, fearless Dem leaders.
Mckinney is one scary looking bitch. She has those craaaazy eyes that scare the shit out of me!
Thanks for the kind words, John.
And Dew Claw, with the spitting “incident” now this war really is like Vietnam!
I’m watching to see how 2006’s national media spin(s) a “traveling-civilian-spits-on-soldier” story that could be a verbatim reprint from 1966 or ‘67.
If the NYT, LAT, CNN and the rest of the lefty media believe that Iraq really is “like” Vietnam, their current coverage of this recent spitting incident should resemble their late ‘60’s reports of similar “acts of protest” against another, supposedly unwinnable and unpopular war.
If they cover it all.
-Steve
Dewclaw, when you write this:
More light exposed on the BS of “we oppose the war but support the troopsâ€Â.
And then tell the spitting story as an example of the BS you mention, then, yes, you are saying that.
Why on earth should the Democratic leadership say anything about this? Was this woman a representative of the party?
There’s nothing at all in the story saying that she was a Democrat. Maybe she’s a Republican voter disgusted at the Administration’s mishandling of the war.
I can’t control how you interpret things, Doc Washout. I know what I said… I know what I meant. If you can’t comprehend…
Oh well.
Because some things transend politics, Doc. These are America’s finest, and ANYONE spitting on them deserves derision.. from AMERICANS, not just Dems and Republicans. I doubt you would understand.
BWAHAHAHA! I’m sure that’s how Kos will try to spin it, Doc.
Now run along and play…. the grown-ups have important things to talk about.
I bet that makes you giddy.
And it’s Dewclaw (one word), Brainiac.
It didn’t need to be in the story because it was in her actions.
Hoorah! The namecalling begins!
Hell, that wasn’t namecalling, pumpkin…
… that was foreplay.
So how much you willing to wager that Ms. Maggi is a tree-hugging, birkenstock-wearing member of the Kos Kiddies, Doc?
Put your money where the Dem’s member is, princess.
Dewclaw:
I’m not betting anything. She may very well be all that you suggest and more. I don’t know, and the fact is that neither do you. The story doesn’t mention her party affiliaton, and you’re building up a foaming head of fury based on something that you want to be true, but have no proof of.
Here in the reality-based community, we try to deal with reality rather than speculation.
When I was teaching eleven- and twelve-year-olds how to write research papers recently, they faced the same problems that you do: first, because it fleshed out their papers and made them feel better about themselves as writers, they inserted “facts” into their drafts that didn’t appear anywhere in their research; second, they had clear ideas in their heads about what they wanted to write, but they sometimes had trouble getting is out on the page.
It’s all good, though. Practice makes perfect.
Begins?
Of course not.
Riddle me this, then sunshine….
How many Republicans have ever spit on a member of the military? How many conservatives?
Name one.
The reality is that liberals have participated in this in the past. Not a real stretch to imagine that it also true in this case.
I weep for the future.
As for the rest of that paragraph, I will keep your thoughts in mind the next time I write a research paper.
Posting on a blog is another matter, cupcake.
Doc,
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Yea, Doc… listen to Steve.
Your blowing the SecProgg’s cover.
Althought we already knew the “Supporting the Troops” line was BS.
Hey Doc,
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…..
Hold on…wait a second…I’m quacking myself up!
tw:future…can’t wait for ‘08
Steve:
??!!??
Was she representative of some PORTION of those that vote Democratic? Absolutely. Dems always want to pretend that the Leftys marching with the signs saying “Down witn America”, “No Blood for Oil”, “Baby-Killers” etc., etc. don’t vote Democratic. Total BS. These are the EXACT same type clowns that marched during Vietnam and they are saying essentially the EXACT same thing. These idiots haven’t even changed their shoes, much less their talking points.
Just checking here, Scape-Goat:
You’re saying that any time someone whom you think might be a registered Democratic voter does something, then the official Democratic party is supposed to come forth with an official denial or condemnation or something?
Does that cut both ways? Is the Republican party as an institution supposed to conduct a public mea culpa every time someone who might be registered Republican does something bad?
Is this for all transgressions committed worldwide, or just here?
What part of “they should denounce it because they are AMERICANS” do you fail to grasp, Doc?
And you’re a teacher?
Dewclaw:
If the parties officially condemned everything that happens that’s bad, there would be no time in life for anything else to happen.
It sounds like the legal system will deal with the woman.
What would the point of condemning it be? Do emotions not exist unless someone stands up in front of a podium full of microphones to express them?
What if the President does not specifically come out and condemn this act? By your reasoning, doesn’t that mean that he approves of it?
Doc do you teach at a public or private school?
What does that have to do with anything?
Howsabout you condemn it, Doc, rather than strutting in here trying to dazzle us with your affectation of clinical disinterest in the posting habits of slackjawed conservadopes.
Now granted, I never taught 12-year-olds how to write research papers, but I did teach university students how to write them, as well as how to write argument papers—a different animal entirely. The inference Dewclaw sets up here is, for the reasons he and others have outlined, perfectly reasonable as an assertion, even though it has not yet been proven factual.
Occam’s razor and all that.
Consequently, you can choose to fight your rhetorical battle here by trying to turn our attention to the way the argument is structured, or you can engage the premise on a contingency basis.
Thing is, though, most of us here (believe it or not) are able to internalize the contingency and incorporate it into our thinking. It is a given, in other words, that should this woman turn out to be a Republican or a paleoconservative, then the assertion that she is a left-liberal is in error.
For my part, though, I’ve been years now highlighting the unholy union of Buchananites and progressivists, so it doesn’t matter to me either way what she calls herself.
The label is simply indexical—though it is doubtless the case that most folks who are now pushing for isolationism, protectionism, and foreign policy realism are voting Democratic or Libertarian. That many of the Dems are doing so out of political expediency is telling, but it is also beside the point.
In short, your entire showy disdain for the rhetoric used here is itself a transparent rhetorical dodge. But your attempt to juxtapose your own intellectual rigor and “reality-based” worldview against the fantastical illusions of the blood-drenched neocon hordes is not fooling anyone. Including yourself.
Reality-based. It is to giggle.
Here’s the problem: Dewclaw said that this spitting incident was an example of “we oppose the war but support the troops.” Why on earth should that be the case? The evidence of her actions suggests strongly that she opposes both the war and the troops fighting it. It stands to reason–if you’re for the troops, you don’t spit on them.
There is no evidence at all that suggests she says that she is “anti war/pro troops.” The only thing that makes it so is that Dewclaw wants it to be so. The evidence of her actions supports the “anti war” assumption; nothing at all supports the “pro troops” part.
Another writer compares this incident to others from the Vietnam era. The people who spit on the troops then and called them babykillers were not “anti war/pro troops”; they were against the whole shooting match.
So, no: it’s not a logically valid assumption. You can’t get both those ideas in on her one action. One, yes–but not both.
It is, in fact, possible to be for the troops and against the war. It looks like this: “Christ, I wish those kids didn’t have to die over there for this cause.” It’s pretty straightforward. I disagree with the decision to fight in Iraq. How does it follow that I then want all our soldiers to die? The ideas aren’t logically related at all.
It’s even possible to see that there are valid uses of force to promote national policy, but that Iraq is not an example of one.
Personally, I’d rather see more troops in Afghanistan. For crying out loud, that doesn’t mean that I want the troops in Iraq to die; it means that I’d rather see them being used in Afghanistan.
By all means, there are people for whom “for the troops but against the war” is so much protective blather. It may even be the case for this woman. The problem with Dewclaw’s position is that she never said it in the article.
Of course. But what we’re dealing with here—and what dewclaw was alluding to—is a class of political opportunists who claim to be for the troops and against the war, but who are in actuality against both. That many of us on the “right” have been saying so since early on in this conflict, pace consistent protestations from the hard left to the contrary, is what dewclaw is highlighting here. So yes, you can shoehorn in both of these ideas with ease, provided your comfortable with asserting that ideology is now often tempered by a cynical commitment to media finessing. Which is to say, the true colors of those who have, when it helped their cause, claimed to support the troops, but who now feel the zeitgeist is right to spit on them, doesn’t negate what we’ve argued was all along in their hearts.
To agree with you, I’d have to concede to the anti-war side an ideological purity that I’ve spent years now pointing out was being purposely hidden behind dissembling rhetoric.
Which is what dewclaw is talking about here. He sees this woman as emblematic of that very thing (even if she is not a proper factual example of such; we don’t know either way at this point). Your desire to individualize her—to protest her being used symbolically as one of the craven, cynical, Janus-faced opportunists of which there are legion—doesn’t pass the laugh test, and is, as I noted in my last comment, nothing but a rhetorical dodge. Because let’s face it: the left only admires the kind of “individualism” that forms coalitions and voting blocs. Real individuals—Michael Steele, Thomas Sowell, Ward Connerly, et al.,—are treated as pariahs by the left, and your only reason for fighting this particular battle here is to try to distance yourself from someone you know, deep down, is on “your” side.
Incidentally, those “kids” dying over there chose to join the military. You may search for all sorts of excuses why they did so (according to Kerry and Rangel, they’re too stupid to do otherwise), but the fact remains that that simplistic materialist argument is but conjecture disputed by actual recruitment data. Not only that, but it infantilizes adults who make their own decisions to join the US military.
Being for the troops and agains the war is, of course, possible. But such a position doesn’t entail doing things that endanger the troops, nor does it entail denegrating them, spitting on them, or aiding the enemy by giving voice to its propaganda.
Forget it Jeff, those Jedi tricks don’t work on mindless ‘bots. Sure is some purty talkin’ though, and much missed.
They’re kids, Jeff. They’re brave and highly trained kids doing necessary jobs, but kids nonetheless. My own kids are older than a lot of our soldiers over there. For crying out loud, I have underwear older than a lot of the soldiers over there.
Here’s the real issue for me–the rock-bottom problem that I have with Dewclaw’s approach: for the past few years, the Right has been telling me how I feel. “You hate America,” I’m told. “You want our enemies to succeed. You want our nation to submit to Islam. You want all of our soldiers to die.”
Well, no. Those things aren’t true. I know how I feel about things. Those feelings don’t coincide with the feelings that many on the Right have, but that doesn’t mean that they get to define them for me.
I don’t know any more about this woman than that she wanted, for reasons unknown, to spit on a soldier. (If you read the article, it sounds like she might have a problem with Fort Drum. She apparently didn’t say, “Are you a soldier?” She asked whether the guy was from Fort Drum in particular.)
I don’t want to impute motives to people whose motives I don’t know because I’m weary of it being done to me.
I’m not sure those not in the military during a time of war can easily imagine the extent to which the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines identify with their mission – to the extent that to denigrate the mission is a tacit slap in the face to them as well. Having spent 21 years in the Army and Navy, with a son in the Marines in Iraq, I can attest to the difficulty with which one can separate the combatant with his/her mission.
Combatants can (and do) complain bitterly about their missions, but it’s THEIR mission and THEIR buddies at risk. Any action seen as compromising their ability to perform their mission during actions that involve life and limb are seen as a threat, of sorts, to them as well.
So, please spare us the “I support our troops”, but I don’t support the mission. It doesn’t wash with people whose lives are actually on the line.