Say Anything Blog

Glad to not see North Dakota’s lackluster senators in the “No” list.

That is truly sad…

Not voting: Biden

Biden wanted to vote, but he wasn’t sitting close enough to any other Senator to copy off his paper!

---

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Obama didn’t vote either.  No sense taking a stand on anything for Mr. Bland.

What’s really sad is that we think, praise, denounce, vote, etc. strictly along party lines. Bush’s Defense Dept and his generals, right or wrong, can say and do whatever they want. They’ll get flack from Democrats, and no flack from Republicans. We don’t look for truth, validity or reason. We simply follow partisan ideology and then try to tailor everything to fit our doctrine.

We simply follow partisan ideology and then try to tailor everything to fit our doctrine.

Here again is the collective ‘we’ on display for those who don’t have the courage or sense to post an opinion as coming from ‘I’.  Interesting that most of the collective ‘we’s seems to come from leftist posters. ‘We’ do not follow partisan ideology but make up ‘our’ minds on the available facts.  You do know what facts are, don’t you?  They usually aren’t what you have been brainwashed to believe.

---

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Mitt Romney’s response sums it up:

“Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our armed forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief.”

Well said Mitt, well said.

I do not ever want to be seen as supporting Madame Hillary in any way, shape, manner or form; but the explanation is that she fears undermining her chances at the nomination if she irritates the extreme Left, so she has publicly taken every side of this issue and during the general election you will never hear about this vote, rather only the others statements she has made seeming to support our troops.

The monsters of the Democrat Presidential candidates are of their own making. They stir up Leftist hatred for the Republicans thus creating hate groups that then drive the nomination process. I have no pity for them, its just that I see what they are doing now to placate the extreme Left Wing, Rabid Liberal Dogs they created.

---

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

So why did this meaningless “sense of the senate” even come up for a vote? Ditto the MoveOn.org resolution. Doesn’t congress have enough other important business to attend to, such as the debacle in Iraq, now slated to cost the country more than $2 TRILLION?

If they must introduce such votes, how about one condemning John Boehner for saying that 4,000 dead and 25,000 wounded US servicemen is “a small price to pay”? Lets get the GOP on record about that issue.

Twenty-five sitting Senators, one of whom is running for President, voting against mere support for the general the Senate voted unanimously to appoint to his current position.

Is Dodd still running for President? That would make two.

Well, his campaign website is still up, so I stand corrected.

---

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Notice the rogue’s gallery on the “Nay” side?
Kennedy, Kerry, Byrd, Schumer, Boxer, Clinton, Dod, Lautenberg, and the one admitted Socialist Sanders...are ANY of these people known for anything other than their strident left-wing agenda?

---

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

This vote is truly unbelievable.  It’s one of those things that you doubt or even excuse for the terrible nature of such an act.  No American wants to believe their US Senators are capable of such atrocious behavior.  This event needs to stay in the press long enough to sink into the minds of Americans so that we fully grasp the enormity of this vote.

One of my senators (Murray) voted no, the other (Cantwell) didn’t bother either way.  I can proudly say that I did not vote for either of them.

---

"No Sane man will dance.”—Cicero

Docdave

My goodness, are we ever on the offensive! I was hoping to evoke some kind of some nonpartisan discussion, and you immediately get on your high horse about the left being wrong and the right right.
The “we” means “Americans.” And if you changed what Revel said from “Democrats” to “Republicans,” it would still make the kind of sense I was talking about. When Revel talks about democrats he’s referring to social democrats. What the left stands for in this country is slightly more complex than their social objectives, and much of it is shared by the right. Likewise, what the right stands for in this country is slightly more nuanced than the Iraqi issue, and explains why even pacifist Americans continue to vote Republican.

I agree with what you say:

You do know what facts are, don’t you?  They usually aren’t what you have been brainwashed to believe.

But, just who has been doing the brainwashing? If you conducted a national or international poll asking, “Who has been brainwashing the Americans, the Democrats or the Republicans?” what do you think the answer might be?

What the left stands for in this country is slightly more complex than their social objectives

Complex only in the sense that Ksrl Marx was complex.  Actually I think the liberal Dims programs are quite transparent.

Who has been brainwashing the Americans, the Democrats or the Republicans?” what do you think the answer might be?

If the poll didn’t say Dimocrats, I would believe that the people polled were brainwashed.

I don’t consider myself offensive at all.  I’m just a little tired of people like yourself who think they can speak for all Americans.  You have an opinion, say it as coming from only you.  That is the essence of my previous post.

---

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

This is truly a ridiculous vote.  This is pure politics.  They should of all refused to vote.

This is truly a ridiculous vote.  This is pure politics.  They should of all refused to vote.

Lestat,

In the first place, ALL votes in both the House and the Senate are “pure politics”.  That’s what they’re there for.  Politics is how we Americans make decisions.  You are simply making excuses for the fact that, once again, your side lost.

As for being ridiculous, you might be able to make a credible argument that it was… but no more ridiculous than the assorted attempts by congressional Democrats to assert political control over areas that are patently outside their constitutional purview… such as the Webb Amendment voted down earlier in the week. (lost that one too, didn’t you?)

Finally, you’ve suggested not voting… a response motivated no doubt by pique rather than prudence.  But Democrats already do this… routinely.

In 2003, Democrat Senator John Kerry, the Democrat Party’s soon-to-be presidential nominee, was absent more than any other senator or congressman, Republican or Democrat.  Kerry missed a total of 76 days of the Senate’s 115 day session, while of the total of 320 days absence reported by the National Taxpayers Union, only Republican Ernie Fletcher’s 27 days were counted against the GOP.  The remaining 295 days’ absence was Democrats.

In 2004 Kerry missed a total of 70 days.  Of the 62 Senate votes taken during the 2003 session, Kerry participated in only 25, less than 40%.  In 2004, Kerry was absent from 87% of the rollcall votes taken, including the infamous vote to extend unemployment insurance benefits.  The measure lost by one vote.  Kerry was the only senator not present.  Ironically, if not surprisingly, Kerry had previously championed the very same unemployment benefit extension.  He was for it, before he was too busy to be for it.

Also during 2004, Kerry managed to miss 36 of the 38 votes on Medicare… including the one giving seniors coverage for prescription drugs.  A Democrat-sponsored bill which would have made so-called “war profiteering” illegal failed in the Senate by two votes.  Both Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, were to busy elsewhere to attend to their Senate duties and participate in the vote.

---

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Lestat is right about one thing--Dems don’t want to have to go on record about Iraq.  It is a no win proposition.  Either you completely alientate the rank and file folks (meaning those that aren’t anarchist vegan environmentalist socialist Daily Kos readers) or you piss off the big money folks that “bought and paid for the Democrat Party”.

It is an interesting dance motivated out of fear and pragmatism.  Hillary is trying to dance it right now because in order to win the nomination, she needs to court the radical left, but in order to win the general election she needs to distance herself from their craziness.  She is hoping that she won’t have to go on record with anything now while appearing to be a radical Liberal so that she doesn’t have to defend her statements later during the general election.

It will be interesting to see how the Iraq War shapes up.  If we win, it may spell the doom of the Dems.  If we lose all credibility, it may spell the end of the Dems.  They are in dangerous territory hitching their wagons to the radical left because there is no way that a Moderate Dem can ever be a “non-partisan”.  It is funny to think that they were the ones calling Bush a “divider not a uniter” and begging for bi-partisan politics and appointments when they were in the Minority.  Now they are trying to vote out in the primaries and Dem that dares cross party lines and support the war or vote against their soak the rich agenda.

What’s all this bullshit about not supporting Petraeus? Of course he is a great and honorable general. The problem is that he has allowed himself to be drawn into Bush’s political maze. He is no longer defending the American people or the Iraqis, he is defending Bush’s misguided policy.  He is a Bush puppet instructed to carefully adhere to a political agenda. The Surge is just part of the new gimmicks the President has come up with to try to salvage his Iraqi fiasco in preparation for 2008. Bush has got to explain why our levees, bridges and other infrastructures are falling apart at home while we are ready to spend a trillion in Iraq. He must quickly transform his circus in Iraq into something meaningful. He says we must “win.” Win what? And what’s the difference? He is trying to “win” the way he has always proceeded: “Let’s invade and see what happens,” and now “Let’s beef up the military and see what happens” — no matter the cost. How can anyone be expected to blindly support a “Republican” general backed by a “Republican” Defense Secretary, and (coincidentally?) supported by mostly Republican senators, who by the way were were significantly repudiated by half of America in recent elections? Did you seriously expect Patraeus to find or say anything contradicting his President? The 55 million Americans who voted for Kerry have been joined today by many others in denouncing the war in Iraq and the continued killing of our boys and girls and innocent Iraqis. They are counting on their representatives in Congress to stop the bloodshed.

Oswaldo - What’s really sad is that we think, praise, denounce, vote, etc. strictly along party lines.

Speak for yourself. I happen to hang with a crowd (here at Say Anything blog) that is largely Republican and who regularly criticizes the Republicans on things such as immigration, the border, spending, and etcetera.

You’re only speaking for yourself here.

What’s all this bullshit about not supporting Petraeus? Of course he is a great and honorable general.

Okay.

He is a Bush puppet...

What? I thought he was “great and honorable”. Now you’re saying that he is a “Bush puppet”?

Make up your damn mind. You’re all over the place.

The Surge is just part of the new gimmicks the President has come up with to try to salvage his Iraqi fiasco in preparation for 2008.

How is it a “gimmick”?

Bush has got to explain why our levees, bridges and other infrastructures are falling apart at home while we are ready to spend a trillion in Iraq.

Bush has to do no such thing. He doesn’t have power over how the billions in transportation money are spent. That’s the purview of Congress.

He says we must “win.” Win what?

Iraqi independence and stability. I would explain further, but you first have to find out who the enemy is. I don’t feel like explaining that one to someone who is cluelessly all over the place.

He is trying to “win” the way he has always proceeded: “Let’s invade and see what happens,” and now “Let’s beef up the military and see what happens” — no matter the cost.

Huh?

How can anyone be expected to blindly support...

Who is asking for blind support? Point it out please.

The 55 million Americans who voted for Kerry have been joined today by many others in denouncing the war in Iraq and the continued killing of our boys and girls and innocent Iraqis. They are counting on their representatives in Congress to stop the bloodshed.

So how come the votes keep on failing? How come they continually get worse?

It’s alright Oswaldo. You’ve already admitted that you “think, praise, denounce, vote, etc. strictly along party lines.” You’ve already shown that you’re not going to seriously consider any of this. You only have blind support.

Congradulations Oswart, you have posted the entire leftist screed in one paragraph.  Now that you got that foul thing out of your head, time to take a breather, relax and smoke some more pot.

---

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

And to boot, Oswaldo thinks that you can secretly replace objective facts, like the surge is actually working and therefore no gimmick, with Folger’s-Instant-Coffee-flavored rhetoric, and nobody will ever notice.  Just too funny!

And to boot, Oswaldo thinks that you can secretly replace objective facts, like the surge is actually working and therefore no gimmick, with Folger’s-Instant-Coffee-flavored rhetoric, and nobody will ever notice.

What was the stated goal of the surge?  How long was it supposed to last initially?  Why was an order given last week that no American can leave the Green Zone?  Yeah, it’s working great.

Lestat:

What was the stated goal of the surge?

To provide stability to Iraq to allow the democratic process a chance to work.

How long was it supposed to last initially? 

The specific duration was never a strategic consideration as far as I know: Other than until the objectives (see above) were met.  Of course the real question is when did it start which was technically July 1.  It’s been in place for just two months and you munchkins are already having a cow.

Why was an order given last week that no American can leave the Green Zone?  Yeah, it’s working great.

The surge was never intended to make life in Iraq better for American civilians but rather Iraqis.

You simply are clueless, as usual.

To provide stability to Iraq to allow the democratic process a chance to work.

Than where is the evidence of success?

Lestat:

Than where is the evidence of success?

Haven’t you been reading the news?

Anbar, Salahadin and Diyala Awakenings.... Factor of four reduction in civilian violence in Baghdad. Etc.

Anbar, Salahadin and Diyala Awakenings.... Factor of four reduction in civilian violence in Baghdad.  Etc.

That’s not where the surge took place.  The surge was in Bagdad.  And there still has been virtually no political reconciliation, even from our own reports.  Yet most of the neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Likwidshoe says

Speak for yourself. I happen to hang with a crowd (here at Say Anything blog) that is largely Republican and who regularly criticizes the Republicans on things such as immigration, the border, spending, and etc.

Hilarious, a proud neocon speaks out on things like immigration, the border and spending. Very, très, mucho big deal. So does everybody else, my friend.  You should provide better examples of when you have criticized the Administration on critical issues, like international diplomacy, war, and the trashing of America’s image around the world. The truth is you don’t question the President’s or the party’s decisions on anything. If the President says so, it must be true. If the President does it, it must be right.
C’mon, man, tell us just how you disagree with anything the Bush Administration has been doing.  Admit that if it had been the Gore Administration, you would be bashing it no matter what it did, even if it were doing exactly what Bush is doing.

Hilarious, a proud neocon speaks out...

Um, yep, sure, okay, you got it!

Whatever.

You’re lost Oswaldo. You don’t even know who you’re talking to.

...and the trashing of America’s image around the world.

Our enemies don’t like us!?! Oh Jesus. Whatever will we do?

Meanwhile,...around the real world - France, Germany, Australia, Poland, Mexico, and Canada have elected leaders that are more in line with American interests and (gasp!) Bush’s interests since the guy has taken office.

But just ignore that. Focus on our enemies instead and then act as if that is the reasonable barometer to use in judging our image. Yeah! That’s the ticket!

The truth is you don’t question the President’s or the party’s decisions on anything. If the President says so, it must be true. If the President does it, it must be right.

You only say this because you deny the disagreements. You say, “Very, très, mucho big deal.” to the disagreements. Now you’re denying that there are any disagreements. The name for this behavior of yours is called lying Oswaldo.

I don’t have time for liars.

HG says:

This vote is truly unbelievable.  It’s one of those things that you doubt or even excuse for the terrible nature of such an act.  No American wants to believe their US Senators are capable of such atrocious behavior.  This event needs to stay in the press long enough to sink into the minds of Americans so that we fully grasp the enormity of this vote

My goodness. Gimme a break. Republicans and war lovers are jumping all over this thing to “condemn” the left with accusations (same ol’ same ol’) that it is not supporting the troops. Of course the left supports our troops. It values their lives, and wants them brought home and out of harm’s way as soon as possible. The MoveOn ad was perhaps not very kosher, but it should be construed as questioning the general’s objectivity when reporting on the war. It is not questioning his loyalty to our country. It is (clumsily) denouncing his excessive loyalty to Bush and the President’s need for “positive progress” reports in order to save face.  This reminds me of the Dixie Chicks sham, and how right-wing media madmen, like O’Reilly and Hannity, were “outraged” and were telling the nation to start bonfires with Dixie Chicks CDs all over the country. Hannity looked so upset, jumping up and down and stuttering, you’d think he was about to shit in his pants. That’s the kind of feigned “righteous” outrage grotesquely seeking to impress sensitive Americans about an issue. I stopped watching their shows a long time ago, but I suppose they’re bouncing up and down about MoveOn with their usual song and dance. Easy does it, boys, you don’t want to do dirty your diapers. I see Giuliani is also jumping on the bandwagon hoping to enhance his nomination chances by accusing Hillary of not supporting the troops because she, like millions of Americans, on one occasion questioned the objectivity of the general’s reporting.

...questioned the objectivity of the general’s reporting.

How objective is your version of reality, Oswaldo?  By what authority do you question the General’s report?  Any credentials to judge the war effort, or simply parroting your partisan talking points?  Do you have any logical arguments against the General’s report, or simply an ideological objection.
BTW, those who wish to actively oppose terrorism aren’t “war lovers”; they’re freedom lovers.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Hillary was asked to defend her vote on this on Fox News Sunday this AM. She tried to make the argument that the debate was not about the ad, but about some amorphous support for all Americans in general (you should pardon the pun!) but she shied away from stating the obvious, that she would not support Petraeus in particular!

---

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Lestat:

That’s not where the surge took place.  The surge was in Bagdad. 

There were two operations, one aimed at Baghdad called Operation Fardh al-Qanoon (aka Operation Baghdad Security) and the other a corps level operation call Operation Phantom Thunder, which was directed towards Diyala, Babil and Anbar Provinces, as well as the Mahdi Army and operations against al Qaeda throughout the country.

And there still has been virtually no political reconciliation, even from our own reports.

Again, it’s a military action intended to buy time for civilian progress to be made.  It’s not even three months old, but already has been highly successful in terms of any meaningful measure of its stated goals.  Obviously it can’t solve political strife created by 30 years of Sunni-tyranny by itself.

Really, it’s entirely silly that you seem to expect what amounts to buying time to solve all of Iraq’s political problems in a three-month time window.  Obviously it can’t do that.

But what it can do is lay the groundwork for a future true democratic process, as witnessed by the degree of cooperation between the Shi’ite dominated Iraqi Army and the local Sunni militia in fighting al Qaeda in Anbar and Diyala Provinces.

Isn’t this the level that true democracies function at?  Local then state then federal?  Our founding fathers functioned effectively as independent states until their union, but even given that, it took a while to get everything sorted out (depending on how you measure it, about 65 years).

As I see it, Lestat, you’re really not interested in seeing a solution in Iraq, or you wouldn’t be responding with such dismay over the hurdles that we’ve gotten past this last summer.  The “Iraq is not winnable” meme of the Left is not and never has been about the objective facts on the ground. You guys continue to see this as essentially a struggle between the Right and the Left in the United States. 

Bluntly, you see winning in Iraq as a political defeat at home.  And that’s a rather shameful position to be in, IMHO.

robert108 says:

Do you have any logical arguments against the General’s report, or simply an ideological objection?
BTW, those who wish to actively oppose terrorism aren’t “war lovers”, they’re freedom lovers.

As concerns logical arguments, only God (and certainly not Bush or Petraeus) knows how things will be evolving in the shifting sands of Iraq. Would anybody under the control and influence of the Administration dare refute anything the president says? Petraeus is under the direct command of his commander-in-chief. It is natural for him to report (and to honestly want to believe there is) positive progress.
As far as “freedom” goes, it is almost sacrilegious to use the term the way Bush does: “They hate freedom, we love freedom.” “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (since our invasion about 2 million Iraqis have hightailed it out of Iraq into Syria and surrounding countries in search of humane living conditions (freedom?) and very few were allowed into the United States). Also, calling the new WTC edifice the Freedom Tower sounds like a politically inspired machination by Bush supporters, knowing how much the country has been beguiled into associating “freedom” with Bush. Their strategy: “Let’s throw the words freedom, 9/11, God, war on terror, Freedom Tower, etc. into every one of our speeches making sure we point out that the left is against all that stuff.”
Instead of talking about freedom, why not talk about peace? Why not the Peace Tower? Why not Peace Lovers instead of Freedom Lovers. Bush has an aversion to and hence rarely speaks of peace. He and his cohorts energetically bashed the UN — an institution founded on peace by the world’s nations — for defying Bush’s planned invasion, for seeking a peaceful diplomatic solution in Iraq and for considering “serious consequences” only as a last resort. Our president, who conveniently flip-flops between being for the UN and against the UN as called for by the situation, was against “endless debate.” “When the UN promises serious consequences, serious consequences [war, bloodshed] must follow,” he said.  He also warned that nations will be held accountable for their inactivity. “You are either with us or against us in the war on terrorism.” (What the hell did Iraq have to do with any war on terrorism?). That “with or against us” statement will go down in history as a grotesque affront to the world’s sovereigns by a reckless upstart.  Of course, he continued to boast about those on his side, his “coalition,” which today represents no more than 12,000 troops in Iraq compared with our 160,000, after being abandoned by Angola, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Spain, Thailand, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
All of which might explain why much of the world associates Bush and his followers with war not peace and why anti-American sentiment has been ballooning around the globe. If we’re lucky and Bush doesn’t have the time to get us into another quagmire in Iran — with the support of asinine Democrats and Republicans in Congress — and a wiser leader emerges from either side of our political divide, hopefully we can show the world that most Americans do not agree with the current runaway war policy, and that world peace and amicable diplomacy is what we’re after.

Oswaldo: During your slow comeback, things have emerged that verify the truth told by both the General and the President.  Your lies have been exposed, once again:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/a_quiet_triumph_may_be_brewing.html

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Amazing that something like this becomes political