Is what Joe Malchow calls the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Fuckhead Manifesto.
From Opinion Journal:
In addition to being feckless, all of this is unconstitutional. As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the sole Constitutional authority to manage the war effort. Congress has two explicit war powers: It has the power to declare war, which in the case of Iraq it essentially did with its resolution of 2003. It also has the power to appropriate funds.
Here’s how I feel about it:
My anger was the cattle prod
You didn’t feel
My cock was the demi-god
You didn’t kneel
Feel me, Dan?
I believe that statement boils down to this:
I think there was a Republican vote in there too, Meg.
Moo.
Hagel is a Republican like I’m a New Yorker. I have to wear the name but damned if I’ll act like one.
Retardo’s cattle fetish is kind of . . . icky.
Hagel thinks he’s running for President. The NYT tells him how inspirational he is every time he sells his party out. And I wouldn’t care, if I though he gave a rat’s ass about the country. I’m not even sure he realizes what a whore he is. For nothing.
alphie, please note my formulation does not specifically leave out asshole Republicans voting with the majority.
That one made every hair on my body stand straight up. Only a completely amoral animal could read that, understand it, and support it.
“Whereas we are a bunch of blowhards who want to wipe our asses with Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution…”
From the Desk of Traitors that Seek Power at the Expense of All Free People’s Futures.
Still, I am surprised. I am surprised by every new depraved low achieved by the Democrats.
At some point in the future someone will actually mean what they say and proceed to ruthlessly destroy Freedom’s enemies foreign AND domestic, or, our children’s children will live as tenth century barbarians.
How could it be different?
Mencken, Hagel received a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union last year. He has alos polaced his ass in combat for his country.
It’s not wrong to say you disagree with the President and never has been, no matter who the President is. Are you folks calling 60+% of your fellow citizens traitors?
Or is the only way to deal with Iraq to verbally abuse people who disagree with you?
Lugar, Coleman, Hagel, Smith, Snowe, Warner, the list is growing longer seemingly by the day. My own Senator has “doubts” about escalation, but said he wouldn’t vote for the resolution because it wouldn’t do any good (Lugar). Is Lugar a whore too for having doubts or are you only a whore if you cast the non-binding vote?
Just want to make sure our enemies list is up to date
Go ahead and add Voinovich.
Correction: He has also placed his ass in combat for his country.
Thought I’d translate that into English so the serious members of the PW community could attack the substance and not the grammar.
So it’s cool to have “doubts” if you’re a Republican, but good to maintain party loyalty on votes if you’re a Democrat? I’m not necessarily quoting you, timmy, this is the impression I’ve gotten over the years from general media coverage (in recent years, just see: McCain, John, or Warner, John, vs. Lieberman, Joseph, or Miller, Zell).
The ACU website doesn’t list this. Where’d you get this 2006 data?
This is where you frame lowering the morale of our troops in a war zone as patriotic right? It’s just a non-binding signal to the world (read: terrorists) that if our enemies keep their heads low a little longer, they can have their way.
You’re a whiny little bitch aren’t you? Did I just help you feel bad/good/bad/good/bad about yourself? I really can’t fathom the perverse motivation behind your ‘logic’ Timmy.
I really don’t understand anyone that wants to waste time chit-chatting about what we should or shouldn’t do when an enemy has declared they want us all dead or enslaved. I really don’t know what the malfunction is with such people.
Some barbarians want to kill us.
I say we kill every one of them, bring our troops home and then get a good nights sleep.
Kill them. This they understand.
People like Timmy lack the wiring required to understand this statement. They are not Barbarians, only misunderstood and are just patiently waiting to live in peace and harmony with Timmy and his allies as their buttboys.
It is amazing how the left sees Viet Nam everywhere. It was their biggest victory ever (at the cost of 2 million lives). When we run away from Iraq, which we almost certainly will, how many lives will be lost this time?
The left’s answer is: “Who gives a shit? We fucked Bush”.
Why do I feel so much like saying “Fuck it!”?
These assholes have transformed a great country into a parody of itself.
Anybody remember when Americans actually had some backbone? The loss of shame in one’s own actions and stupidity has turned us into a bunch of 8 year old pussies.
Jeebus…How did I get to be so cynical?
Lost Dog, when did Americans have some backbone? Just curious.
Doh! Ever hear of World War Two?
You are a stupid fuck, a perfect fit for the Proggs…
World War II, timmy? Korea? I mean, don’t let me puff you guys up or anything, but I don’t think your last 300 years has been an unrelenting series of spineless equivocations.
And if you do, what are you doing living there?
Man, did that piss me off, or what?
Timmy, I rarely go over the line like that, but you are obviously French. I think you should go live in France, where they have those weird toilets that shoot water up your ass. Then you could be sure that your brains were clean.
Judt wnated a frame of reference, since opposition to the current war has always been a hallmark of American politics (see: The Tories in the Revolution, the Southern states in the War of 1812, the Presidential election of 1864, the Northeastern states threat to succeed during the Mexican-American War, America’s general disinterest in WW1, the draft-dodging in the Korean War, etc).
I love how history started in 1941 for you, Lostie. Anyway, Furriskey, the same arguments were present about Korea. You might notice the country is still split in two and Americans were tired enough of dying, we elected a President whose main promise was to end the war. He did. Eisenhower was a pussy. Didn’t he know barbarian Commies were trying to kill us?
Seriously, you guys need to calm down. The President doesn’t care what these people say and no one’s mind is changed by this resolution. You’ll get your surge and it will give you time to explain how this is a partisan issue.
burhog, I heard it on the NPR that he rated a 100% for 2006, although that does not appear on the ACU website yet. The last numbers for 2005 only give Senator Hagel a 96, so you’re right, a dangerous liberal in sheep’s clothing
You must be so proud to be in such good company.
1941?
Don’t be ridiculous. All Proggs know that history started on the day they were born. What could the Troglodites who lived before then possibly have to offer?
We all know that we are incredibly smarter than anyone who is dead, don’t we? I mean, just how stupid do you have to be to die?
Now please. Go to France.
Your little list excluded the “Peace Democrats” during the Civil War and the Coughlinites and other fascists during WWII.
Which is odd, because the current “anti-war” movement has so much in common with those.
LD,
Whenever I get a little sad and blue I just think of Grenada.
**sigh**
It was the best of times.
Robert, I included those Dems in “the 1864 election”. You know, the one Licoln squeaked by….again 45% of the country wasa bunch of traitors? One of the only times in our nation’s history we faced an existential threat and over 40% of the populace was willing to make peace with the South. For the record, they were wrong (you never know what you get accused of on PW) and Lincoln, the greatest American, was right.
As for the fascist opposition to WW2, I didn’t include it, because it was never serious. At most, it garnered one vote against any war policy in the House. Wilkie ran againt FDR in ‘44, but he did not criticize the war effort or promise peace.
Bu your last comment are you saying the folks who voted for this resolution are supporters of slavery or fascism?
My how things change . . . sKerry ran 60-years late—criticized the war and promised peace.
If we had this Congress 60-years ago—the resolution would negate Truman’s effort to use the USAF to supply Berlin . . .
Overtly.., no. I think they have not thought through the consequences of their “position.”
I’d charge tehm with a lack of introspection, a lack of thoughtfullness and a lack of judgement.
Interestingly, three traits I’d consider indispensible in a legislator.
TimB,
Not sure if you’re addressing me
I realize you’re outnumbered here.
When I said
Yes, I do mean that supporters of this resolution are supporters of slavery and fascism – de facto.
See: Orwell, George.
Yes. If you agree with this:
Then yes, the only compromise the hard-corps Islamic fundamentalists understand is surrender, so you are advocating the return to power of people who view women and infidels as subhuman chattel, and who have absolute power over the government and economy.
Orwell railed agaisnt authoritarian governments (Communist) who attempted to control the lives of their citizens. Chuck Hagel and Dick Durbin are in favor of this?
You maintain this on the same website that believes the US government can read all emails, listen to all phone conversations, examine all banking transactions all without a warrant any time they choose to do so? I’ve read a couple of Orwell’s books and “war without end,” surveillance of its citizens, and denouncing opposition thought as traitorous seems like the goal of certain other elements of the government than the Foreign Relations Committee.
RTO, well-stated. In my humble opinion, if one opposes the resolution, then your grounds are dead on. The same way I felt about the AUMF in 2003. I thought it was short-sighted, open-ended,, and lacked any check on the President’s discretion.
Congressmen and women aren’t traitors because they vote for a freakin’ non-binding resolution. But calling them unserious clown or deviosu political operatives who don’t mind watching George and the GOP twist in the wind are most likely correct.
I just answered this in the post directly above.
You just can’t help yourself, can you? I suppose if I were that hopelessly stupid and dishonest I would want the nannystate to look after me.
Essentiallg did?
Senator Biden (who voted for the AUMF and is a professor of Constitional Law) claims it was not just essentially a declaration of war, but literally one, as far as Constitutional requirements go.
I mention this only because I still run across people trying to assert that there was “no declaration of war”.
Timmy: I imagine the Orwell comment referred to Orwell’s labeling of British Pacifists as “objectively pro-fascist”.
Thus he intended, I believe, to say that the Senators so-posturing were, if at all serious, objectively pro-Islamism, even if they have no direct intent to support it, or any personal sympathy with it.
Orwell isn’t all 1984, you know.
I know, but my experience with him is Christpoher Hitchens’s essays, 1984, and Animal Farm.
And, when Orwell said that (1942 according to this copyright) http://orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw,
it would have been difficult to argue otherwise. Just like the earlier example of the Coughlin-ites. Being pro-peace in 1942 England was essentially being fascist.
With that said, we coudl get really crazy and ask whether Christ was a fascist or Washington, Jefferson, and Adams for signing that Peace treaty when we hadn’t conquered England, or Kissenger when he signed the Paris Accords (okay, bad example).
Calling someone a fascist because they want our adventure in Iraq to end, does not mean they like the terrorists. None of them are calling for retreat from Afghanistan. In fact, almost all the libs I speak with want more American troops in Afghanistan. None want to lessen our chase of bin Laden and his surrogates. All these people are saying is that we have done what we could in Iraq.
It’s popular in some circles to believe everything Georgie says about the “GWOT”, but one doesn’t have to be an international scholar to see the dangerous terrorists started on the Pakistan/Afghan border and are still there.
Lastly, people who disagree with the resolution should criticize it as being unserious and short-sighted.
Traitorous? Dear Lord, in principle it’s backed by John Warner (you can read Warner’s version of the Resolution in today’s Washington Post). Not exactly Ted Kennedy.
Besides, you guys realize you’re sidign with McCain, right? Almost to man or woman, you hate McCain. What gives
What check do you think should have been placed on the President’s discretion?
We do have a Constitutional issue to hash out here.
In the past, wars have ended by some form of international agreement–treaty or cease-fire–which was subsequently ratified by the Senate. Congress declared war and then approved of it’s end–but thre can be no such end to this conflict as there is no one with whom to make such an agreement.
Which is also part of the existential threat we face.
Three in a row actually. There’s no one here that “favors” war. War over and above other things–death, slavery–I’m assuming we can agree that these things are bad and that you’d agree that war is preferable? Do you disagree, then, that Terrorists don’t wish those things on us? Or that there is something we need only do or understand to get them to stop trying to fulfill that wish?
You’ve heard of the proverbial stopped clock, right?
Timmy,
You’re being a sport I must say. Thanks.
You really should look again at Orwell. You’ve missed some major points. Think about the meaning of words. Think about control. Think about the repetitive use of words that contradict two ideas, i.e. “we support our troops†– ‘let’s surrender’.
Holding and espousing contradictory views has thrown the left into vapor-lock. They’ve lost sight of right and wrong. They have lost reason and meaning.
The Islamofascists could not be clearer in their words (and demonstrated intent).
They seek both a return to Sharia law and the violent creation of a new Caliphate that spans the globe.
That’s what the terrorists keep insisting. You could Google it.
This non-binding resolution is, at best, a CYA for amoral, power hungry fools. Objectively the resolution is surrender to Islamofascism (thanks Sigivald for clarifying).
Also, your histrionics about GWB wanting to
where did you hear GWB wanted to do this? It’s news to me. I’ve heard of some pretty reasonable sounding, limited powers to do such things to known terrorists or their cohorts but I haven’t heard of the ‘Everybody Gets Their Phone Tapped’ law.
Given what site I was typing on, I intentionally did not accuse the administration of those things. I accused people on this site of supporting that, not the Administration. If your mind traveled to W and company, then that was your interpretation.
Anyway, that dodge aside, I will go read the Orwell piece closely (I only checked it for a copyright date) and let you know what I think.
What you guys say about bin Laden is only partially true. In his wildest dreams he would love a Caliphate (I would love to be President by acclimation), but in his fatwa against America, bin Laden stated he wanted US troops out of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia specifically). Considering where RTO is right now and where 150,000 of my countrymen are, one could argue his plan has back-fired.
In the end, bin Laden and his ilk can’t and won’t conquer America. They are on the wrong side of history. Further, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be in the Straits of Hormuz or Kandahar or that we should stop trying to kill bin Laden and friends, only that we need to be more careful about where and how we fight them.
Having said that, it seems to me to be an argument about policy and not traitorous, or fascist, or advocating slavery to argue we are not advancing our interests in Iraq.
If we remember, my original point was that this resolution is a rational, if CYA act (tip of the hat to burrhog), of war opponents, and opposing this war in Iraq does not make one a traitor.
PS McGehee, I liked the McCain observation. Can you tell me, besides McCain/Feingold, which I understand many people hate, what is it about McCain that galls you so? I probably wouldn’t vote for him, but why you? For eight years he’s been trying to burnish those conservative credentials and yet you are unmoved.
If it were an argument about policy, there’d be a counter-propsal on the other side.
And that is a lie, you know it is a lie, that makes you a liar. Link to one example of a regular on this site proposing any such thing.
There is a counterproposal there, RTO: reach a “compromise” acceptable to the fucking savages.
RTO, you don’t accept that it’s a policy argument?
Durbin, et al aren’t calling for a retreat or redeployment from Iraq at this time. All they did was condemn escalation. So did General Casey, etc.
I think the underlying motivation for the Democrats is not to do much. They don’t want to be blamed for failure, or for cutting funds but they wanted to appease the Daily Kos folks too.
That middle way is not exactly one that covers you in glory. that’s why the vitriol here surprised me. I would expect it if this meant anything, but it’s the equivalent of sticking your tongue out at Bush (while he’s flipping you off, no less). As such, it didn’t seem worth the traitor accusation.
I don’t think I’m the one who needs to calm down, timmy.
You have a history here, which you are repeating now, of making a stupid remark and then instead of admitting your mistake and backing down, twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to prove the unprovable.
You suggested that America had always been spineless. Two sound examples of occasions on which America was not spineless were immediately presented to you.
Here we are half a day and in my case 2,000 miles on, and you are still introducing irrelevant sidetracks which certainly don’t fool us and I suspect don’t fool you.
You need to strive for a degree of maturity.
As a politician he is inauthentic. Nothing about him rings true to me.
So, the burnishing thing? He can keep that up ‘til Doomsday, won’t mean a thing.
Of course it’s not a policy argument. As I pointed out, no alternate policy has been proposed.
A Monty Python sketch leaps to mind (Congress as unserious jokers?): “That’s not an argument, it’s just simple contradiction.” “Yes it is.”
Why isn’t it worth the traitor accusation? The’s look at an historical analog. Tokyo Rose told US Servicemen, that 1) their President had lied to them, 2) The war was illegal, and 3) they should give up and go home. What ever happened to Tokyo Rose? She at least “supported the troops” by providing popular music.
Let’s look at it another way. LG Petraus will likely be confirmed as MNF-I commnader and GEN unanimously, or very nearly unanimously. Add to the picture this “non-binding” abortion of legislation. The message is an unequivocal, “Congratulations on your promotion, Congress supports you GEN Petraus, but not anything you will or want to do.”
And that’s the same message we in the ranks have been hearing from the “we support the troops but not the war,” crowd. I’ll award 2 points ofr consistency of effort, but minus a few hundred for consistencey of message.
I don’t want my Congress seeking political cover from Daily Kos, or Focus on the Family. I want and expect leadership. What I see is a bunch of folks desperately following the polling tends trying to make sense of a population who thinks we are on the wrong track in Iraq, but would oppose retreat (incidentally, redeployment from Iraq, is the same thing as retreat–Chesty Puller had the benefit of remaining inside the borders of Korea when he “advanced in another direction.”)
As for vitriol–I don’t see that in particular directed at the source of the noxious odor emanating from this resolution, so much as toward the various efforts to tell us that it’s really jasmine and vanilla we smell.
I think you misunderstood the question, furris. He said Americans were spineless pussie and I was curious when he says America was not spineless. He answered. I answered with “Just wnated a frame of reference, since opposition to the current war has always been a hallmark of American politics (see: The Tories in the Revolution, the Southern states in the War of 1812, the Presidential election of 1864, the Northeastern states threat to succeed during the Mexican-American War, America’s general disinterest in WW1, the draft-dodging in the Korean War, etc).”
My argument is the same tired old cliche that Teddy Roosevelt, a noted warmonger and non-pussy, once said “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President.” Dissent is not treason, nor does it make one spineless.
Furriskey, don’t take this wrong, but isn’t there some Tory website you should be on trying to stop the her Majesty’s soldiers from leaving in 2008? Rumor has it that they are going to abandon Iraq just like it was 1920. So, instread of calling my legislator’s traitors to America, give us list, old chap, of the MP’s we shoudl accuse of treason in London.
Gee, that was fun
Bingo, we have a winner.
Before timmy accuses me of burnishing RTO’s ego for the sake of Afghani kabob, all of the other rat a tat tat about traitors and courage is useless without the above. What makes this resolution so heinious is the legislative fiat without force. Each of these Senators is free to speak on the record individually or en mass to bray their views for or against. A non binding resolution on a war issue (which, by the way, is already happening) is narcisisstic primping and an abomination.
In other words, we don’t need non-binding puff pieces; give us a little leadership and gravitas fer cryin’ out loud. Get your noses out of the polls and speak up for what is right right now.
Timmy, you have been trying to be reasonably civil which I take with a certain amount of cynicism. That crack above about “everyone”: wanting to tap “everyone’s” phones goes to the heart of your problem. You allow your passion for your “cause” to get the better of you. I’m not sure if it has something to do with not making any headway with “changing” us or if your emotional attachment to your views overwhelms you but those particular gross characterizations, especially when they are patently untrue, will not win you friends or influence people. This is a free wheeling site but doesn’t lower itself to the mangy odiousness of a Sadly, No! Let’s try to keep it that way. Resist the urge to snipe with gross generalizations and everyone will get along, ur, not scream at each other.
That is real nice, timmy. Too bad no one in the thread has asserted anything resembling that.
Timmy, take this wrong as you care to, but just who the fuck do you think you are?
RTO, couple of notes: Tokyo Rose was wrong, because she was lying. (disclaimer here: I believe that President Bush believed there were WMD in Iraq, so technically he was not lying about WMD. He was grossly wrong, but not lying)
second: please tell me you didn’t compare feckless Congressmen with Tokyo Rose. You were making sense for so long.
third: Murtha has a plan, Pelosi and Reid have plans, Walter Jones (R, NC) has a plan. There are plenty of plans out there.
Lastly: “I want and expect leadership.” Amen. Did you criticize the last Congress, because the only thing they ever led was applause at the State of Union?
timmyb,
Are these in the same lock-box as Kerry’s plans? If these people have a plan the time to unvail it is NOW. Obviously they don’t have the same plan they had thirty days ago – because that’s what Bush is doing – exactly what they suggested all fall.
The truthiness is: they have no plan. Just snipe, CYA and schemes to grab power.
Short sighted fuck-sticks is what they are.
Ain’t got a hair in their ass.
BJ, I agree with you and RTO on the general fecklessness of a non-binding resolution. There hasn’t been leadership in Congress, since Newt shut the govt down in ‘95. He lost that battle and grew smaller each year until he resigned in ‘98. Congress has been ruled by pinheads ever since.
And, I agree with and admire the angling for the kabob. I think I blew that chance a long time ago, but Afghan kabobs sound awesome. Makes me want to drag the wife to the Indian buffet this weekend…closest I can get (there’s not a big ex-pat Afghan crowd in Indianapolis). dragiing because she’s not a fan.
One least thing, you are Dan Collins to RTO’s Jeff. That’s not a sycophantic relationship. It’s a partnership (no, not in that way).
Anyway, had I known there were kabobs at stake I might have converted. Damn, I should have observed longer before commenting!
Why stop at “the last Congress?” I’ve considered writing “A Brief History of Congressional Leadership” but “brief” is all it could be and I don’t think there’s a market for pamphleteering since the 19th Century.
The last case of “Congressional leadership” I can think of was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but, no, that was simply following the Supreme Court’s lead.
Why restrict my Tokyo Rose comparison to Congress? How about extending that to anyone who says, “the President lied, the war is illegal and we should give up?” That’s how I apply it.
Jones, Murtha, Reed and Pelosi have plans for giving up. It’s a shame that I have to specify “a plan for winning,” but there it is and I appologize for not being clear.
Failure to lead is the root of my complaints about a good many of our national figures. Reagan (Beiruit 1983), Carter (Iran 1979), GHW Bush (post Gulf War 1991). Given the electorate’s track record 1) I’m amazed that we elected a man who would run his political capital into the ground in order to lead (so long as we’re not talking about the Southern Border or domestic issues beyond taxes) and 2) Hillary, who wants to “discuss” her campaign, should be a shoo-in for the job, especially after seeing where principle and determination got us.
Unless they’ve outlawed charcoaling in Indianapolis you can make your own kebab.
And naan.
God Bless you.
Can you change the lamb to chicken. I tried to get the kids to eat lamb before and they are not down (something about an uncle who raises sheep and holding and feeding lambs). Fortunately, no family memebers raise cows, chickens, or pigs. Although from being around all three growing up, I am and was a big fan of eating all three. I don’t know where their wimpiness arises…
This is a Tory site, timbo. And you are still twisting like a pretzel to avoid the real point. You said that your country was spineless. I showed you it wasn’t. What you should do then is apologise for your stupidity and find something else to try to be contrary about, but you are too conceited for that. You try to wriggle out of your original stupidity by piling further stupidities on top of it.
Now as to Iraq and the British Army, I know you don’t get out much, but I have to let you know that the Government in Britain which went into Iraq and which is speaking of leaving Iraq is a Labour government; and the British Army does what it is ordered to do by the Government.I think you have a similar system. So address your damfool questions to Mr Blair.
As to your suggestion that I have accused any of your legislators of being traitors, please show me where I said or suggested that. You can’t, can you? You are a fraud and a poltroon, and a disgrace to your country.
I’ve explained where you went wrong about my meaning twice now. I asked “when did we have a spine?” There are two meanings one can takje from that #1) if we have no spine now, when did we lose it or 2) snarky , sarcastic, “like we ever had a spine.”
Since I am snarky and sarcastic on occaison, I understood where you would think I meant number 2, when from the next post, you could tell (if you were fair-minded) wehat I meant. you persist in not listening, because my politics are all baaaad, so believe what you want.
My country has the spine to kick you out of here, beat your ass at New Orleans, decide you weren’t so bad after all, so much so we saved your ass twice within the first 50 years of the 20th century, and then have bossed you around since (anyone remember 1956?). Geez, you can’t even fight Argentina without our help.
Was that jingoistic enough for you? Have I satisfied your desire to discern my patriotism?
Thanks for playing.
TimmyB:
That time of the month?
Sorry, but he asked twice about it and I get damn tired of being accused of being un-American just because I don’t like Bush or this war.