Heads Blown Off For The President's Amusement?

[stephanie]

By haystack Posted in Congress — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »




Pete Stark is an American Democrat-Politician scumbag
<object width="425" height="366"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7lTUB5_l0Mg&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7lTUB5_l0Mg&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="366"></embed></object>

The biggest scumbag to bubble to the surface of the Democrat swill just opened his pie-hole and spewed the foulest thing to come out of a politicians mouth in, perhaps, my lifetime (maybe not-but this is in the top 3):

But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement.

Democrats have no problem using troops or kids to advance their political goals in Washington. There should be an OUTRAGE...and this piece of human bile should be called out for it by every American who, like me, is ABSOLUTELY not amused.

read the rest and comments...
http://redstate.com/stories/congress/heads_blown_off_for_the_presidents_amusement

[April15]

So the truth upsets you that much?

[jimnyc]

So the truth upsets you that much?

And do you get your jollies off with repeating the lies as if they were truth?

[stephanie]

A Democrat ought to be embarrassed by this...
But as usual, they make an excuse for them...


Pretty pitiful...

[theHawk]

Its an old democrat political tactic, use victims to further their own political cause. They'll use the widows of 9/11, now they've found out they can just use "the kids" to push their socialist agendas. If you oppose their lousey tax increase/spend trillions more policy then you're a heartless demon who hates the little innocent children.

If any of these shitbags in Washington cared about the welfare of children, they'd make child molestation a capital punishment.

[Guernicaa]

Its an old democrat political tactic, use victims to further their own political cause. They'll use the widows of 9/11, now they've found out they can just use "the kids" to push their socialist agendas.
"Use victims"...I'm glad you can admit that our troops are victims to an insane war. The 9/11 Widows aka "The Jersey Girls" pushed for a report on what the government did wrong leading up to 9/11 and what could have been done to stop it as well as the official documentation of the events that occurred that day. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pushing for that, and the only reasons Republicans were opposed to it was because there was the possibility of bringing up severe faults within the early Bush administration (which there were). These 9/11 Widows not only criticized Bush, but also heavily went down on the Clinton administration.

"Socialist agendas"--hahahaha...I love hearing it.

Maybe none of you ever paid attention in history class. Otherwise you would have known that trying to compare health care for children to the real definition of what socialism has been in other countries is nothing more than a disgusting lie. We don't even come close to the collectivist mind set that European countries have, and even they aren't up to par with hard line Soviet socialism.

[Gaffer]

They have tried repeatedly to make the military look like victims and it has failed miserably. There is a constant search for people of victim status by the libs. So nothing here is really surprising. What's insulting is saying that the president would take pleasure in peoples deaths. This coming from the party that could care less about anyone dying as long as they get power.

[Guernicaa]

This coming from the party that could care less about anyone dying as long as they get power.
....lol

[stephanie]

"Use victims"...I'm glad you can admit that our troops are victims to an insane war. The 9/11 Widows aka "The Jersey Girls" pushed for a report on what the government did wrong leading up to 9/11 and what could have been done to stop it as well as the official documentation of the events that occurred that day. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pushing for that, and the only reasons Republicans were opposed to it was because there was the possibility of bringing up severe faults within the early Bush administration (which there were). These 9/11 Widows not only criticized Bush, but also heavily went down on the Clinton administration.

"Socialist agendas"--hahaha...I love hearing it.

Maybe none of you ever paid attention in history class. Otherwise you would have known that trying to compare health care for children to the real definition of what socialism has been in other countries is nothing more than a disgusting lie. We don't even come close to the collectivist mind set that European countries have, and even they aren't up to par with hard line Soviet socialism.

I think you need to get out and work and live life for awhile before you can REALLY...understand things....
Life isn't experienced from a book...:cheers2:

[Guernicaa]

I think you need to get out and work and live life for awhile before you can REALLY...understand things....
Life isn't experienced from a book...:cheers2:
Niiiiicceee argument stephanie.

Talking about current issues requires having an opinion, and staying informed.
(The second of which you fail to do)

[Sir Evil]

Niiiiicceee argument stephanie.

Talking about current issues requires having an opinion, and staying informed.
(The second of which you fail to do)

Easy junior, I think she was suggesting once you have experienced life a bit more that you may have different perspectives on this political stuff.

How informed can you really be when you are still in high school? thats not a knock as you seem like an intelligent kid but there is a whole lot more going on in the world when you start making a living for yourself, pay taxes, see exactly the taxes you pay, and so on. Many people have much different outlooks after the school days. Well of course you could stay in school for another 12 years, and then become a professor, and blow that whole theory out of the water too.

[82Marine89]

So the truth upsets you that much?

Got anything to back up that claim?

[stephanie]

Easy junior, I think she was suggesting once you have experienced life a bit more that you may have different perspectives on this political stuff.

How informed can you really be when you are still in high school? that's not a knock as you seem like an intelligent kid but there is a whole lot more going on in the world when you start making a living for yourself, pay taxes, see exactly the taxes you pay, and so on. Many people have much different outlooks after the school days. Well of course you could stay in school for another 12 years, and then become a professor, and blow that whole theory out of the water too.


Yep...that's what I was trying to say, except in a shorter version...
Now I wasn't thinking of the last sentence, but it is sooooo true...:laugh2:

It wouldn't matter.... I think...Obama has a hate going on for me, anyway...
Oh well...I think I'll survive...:cheers2:

[Sir Evil]

Yep...that's what I was trying to say, except in a shorter version...
Now I wasn't thinking of the last sentence, but it is sooooo true...:laugh2:

It wouldn't matter.... I think...Obama has a hate going on for me, anyway...
Oh well...I think I'll survive...:cheers2:

He's young yet Steph, hanging about with this nasty old bunch he'll learn that it's more fun to join in instead of hating. :D

[Classact]

Its an old democrat political tactic, use victims to further their own political cause. They'll use the widows of 9/11, now they've found out they can just use "the kids" to push their socialist agendas. If you oppose their lousey tax increase/spend trillions more policy then you're a heartless demon who hates the little innocent children.

If any of these shitbags in Washington cared about the welfare of children, they'd make child molestation a capital punishment.I guess you are good because the system wouldn't let me give you points...

What you say is so true... I watched the debate as it went down this morning, or most of it any way... With what this puke said many other Democrats said in nicer words... but then I checked out the CSPAN2 for the Senate and for the second day in a row the Dems were voting down funding for the folks that investigate Union fraud... it was the only element in the entire bill that was cut... The dems are for Unions, well I guess not they are for union bosses and allowing those bosses to fraud the union members... the element in question had returned over $100 million dollars to union members but is funded at a level that they can only visit an individual union every 67 years... 37% of the Unions refuse to submit federally mandated reports to the agency... This agency was established by JFK himself... politicans for sale... send money union bosses and I won't let the members find out how much you sent.

Edited to add: Oh, but Senator Shummer of NY found a million dollars to spend on a Woodstock Museum in NY state... a republican introduced an amendment to return it to the health and human services budget and Shummer got angry and tried to table the amendment... his table was voted down to his dismay and the republican amendment was approved but I'll bet it wont go to police union bosses.

[stephanie]

He's young yet Steph, hanging about with this nasty old bunch he'll learn that it's more fun to join in instead of hating. :D

I just hate to see some so young, being so cynical already...

Hell...it took me 50yrs. to get that way...:laugh2:

[April15]

Got anything to back up that claim?I have no written document if that is what you want. What I do have is my interpretation of what the president is doing and it matches Pete Starks words. No excuses or apologies for what we see.

[jimnyc]

I have no written document if that is what you want. What I do have is my interpretation of what the president is doing and it matches Pete Starks words. No excuses or apologies for what we see.

Ok, so you say you saw it. Can you please tell me, specifically, where it is you saw the POTUS laughing or getting amusement out of deaths in Iraq?

[April15]

Ok, so you say you saw it. Can you please tell me, specifically, where it is you saw the POTUS laughing or getting amusement out of deaths in Iraq?Every time he opens his mouth and speaks about the Iraq battle. I can not see him caring about the US soldier. It is the way I see his efforts to win a war that speak loudest.

[jimnyc]

Every time he opens his mouth and speaks about the Iraq battle. I can not see him caring about the US soldier. It is the way I see his efforts to win a war that speak loudest.

Thank you for proving my point. You guys do nothing but use rhetoric to support your claims and make baseless claims out of thin air.

NEXT!

[April15]

Thank you for proving my point. You guys do nothing but use rhetoric to support your claims and make baseless claims out of thin air.

NEXT!I am so sorry you are blind to what is going on in your nation.

[jimnyc]

I am so sorry you are blind to what is going on in your nation.

And I'm equally sorry that you have this habitual lying thing.

[Classact]

I am so sorry you are blind to what is going on in your nation.Bait and switch... What is going on in America? Leading up to the war what happened? What happened was that the entire US population knew we were going to war because when the all voluntary military was designed the brilliant generals that designed it insisted that the Reserve Components would be a "necessary part" of another war equal to Vietnam... using this thought patern the generals concluded that America could not silp into a war without total attention of the nation and without the backing of the nation... remember the reserves from every state being called up as the troops stood in the ready position as the president and the Secretary of State went to the UN? Do you remember the vote that congress made authorizing the war? It was a much higher vote than that of the Gulf War... Now can you remember during the Clinton administration the congress voting to remove Saddam from power even if he lived up to the UN demands? Go look at that vote...

Now I watched senator Kerry give his speech to congress on why he was voting in support of the president to go to war and I watched many other democratic senators speeches... They were under duress... do you know what duress is? 25% of the population eligible to vote had put them in power but 95% of the population was backing the president... they were worried about their jobs and not their votes because they knew that if the war turned to crap they could make up some lies to justify why they voted the way they voted... Now this congressman in question and the leaders in the Majority of both houses and many that sent the soldiers into battle with the blessings of their state citizens are giveing aid and comfort to the enemy along with the press by saying this is Bush's war and the republicans war... this is America's war because the American people demanded they be protected after 9-11 and the congress was worried about their jobs if they had information that there was no threat. All of those who voted and then change their minds are cowards and are cause for the enemies of America to rejoice in the know facts that Democratic liberals will put a wet finger in the political wind in a heartbeat... they should hand their heads in shame. That's what is going on in America...

[April15]

Bait and switch... What is going on in America? Leading up to the war what happened? What happened was that the entire US population knew we were going to war because when the all voluntary military was designed the brilliant generals that designed it insisted that the Reserve Components would be a "necessary part" of another war equal to Vietnam... using this thought patern the generals concluded that America could not silp into a war without total attention of the nation and without the backing of the nation... remember the reserves from every state being called up as the troops stood in the ready position as the president and the Secretary of State went to the UN? Do you remember the vote that congress made authorizing the war? It was a much higher vote than that of the Gulf War... Now can you remember during the Clinton administration the congress voting to remove Saddam from power even if he lived up to the UN demands? Go look at that vote...

Now I watched senator Kerry give his speech to congress on why he was voting in support of the president to go to war and I watched many other democratic senators speeches... They were under duress... do you know what duress is? 25% of the population eligible to vote had put them in power but 95% of the population was backing the president... they were worried about their jobs and not their votes because they knew that if the war turned to crap they could make up some lies to justify why they voted the way they voted... Now this congressman in question and the leaders in the Majority of both houses and many that sent the soldiers into battle with the blessings of their state citizens are giveing aid and comfort to the enemy along with the press by saying this is Bush's war and the republicans war... this is America's war because the American people demanded they be protected after 9-11 and the congress was worried about their jobs if they had information that there was no threat. All of those who voted and then change their minds are cowards and are cause for the enemies of America to rejoice in the know facts that Democratic liberals will put a wet finger in the political wind in a heartbeat... they should hand their heads in shame. That's what is going on in America...

I was not one of those who supported war led by this president. The American people were mislead on purpose for a group of Republicans called Project for a New American Century. They had laid out in the mission statement that war was to be had with Saddam.


PNAC Statement of Policy
June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

[jimnyc]

I was not one of those who supported war led by this president. The American people were mislead on purpose for a group of Republicans called Project for a New American Century.

Don't you get tired of the rhetoric and lying? The American people were told the same stuff by democrats and republicans alike for years, about Saddam and his regime. The democrats had access to the same intelligence as the republicans, and they voted for the war. So, were all these democrats that spoke up about Saddam and his weapons lying, or were they part of PNAC as well?

[April15]

Don't you get tired of the rhetoric and lying? The American people were told the same stuff by democrats and republicans alike for years, about Saddam and his regime. The democrats had access to the same intelligence as the republicans, and they voted for the war. So, were all these democrats that spoke up about Saddam and his weapons lying, or were they part of PNAC as well?Those who partook are guilty regardless of party. And the PNAC has some very eloquent and persuwasive orators.

[Classact]

I was not one of those who supported war led by this president. The American people were mislead on purpose for a group of Republicans called Project for a New American Century. They had laid out in the mission statement that war was to be had with Saddam.


PNAC Statement of Policy
June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul WolfowitzI determined that Saddam should live up to his ceasefire agreement also... America encountered casualties in Iraq as a result of Saddam's choices in the Gulf War. Go to the UN site and see how many resolutions were offered to Saddam to prevent war after he invaded Kuwait... he chose to kill our soldiers so until he would meet his obligation to justify the death of those soldiers he was a dead man walking in my mind and every US citizen should demand that he FULLY disarm within 90 days of the ceasefire or be destroyed... America's only fault was leaving Iraq following the Gulf War before the WMD's were destroyed.

[Joe Steel]

Every time he opens his mouth and speaks about the Iraq battle. I can not see him caring about the US soldier. It is the way I see his efforts to win a war that speak loudest.

Remember the video of Bush in the Oval Office looking under tables and in back of furniture for "Weapons of Mass Destruction?"

"Nope. No WMD there." he said.

Amusing.

How about his landing on the aircraft carrier stunt?

Amusing.

I guess he thought all that was fun -- as long as no one was shooting at him.

[gabosaurus]

Don't want to hear the truth, do you Stephanie? Not only are American military being killed for Bush's amusement, they are dying for YOUR amusement as well. The Bush Apologists are the ones using the ongoing slaughter in Iraq for political gain.
So have fun each time there is a roadside bomb or mortar attack. This is YOUR war. The blood is on YOUR hands. Enjoy it while you can.

[April15]

I determined that Saddam should live up to his ceasefire agreement also... America encountered casualties in Iraq as a result of Saddam's choices in the Gulf War. Go to the UN site and see how many resolutions were offered to Saddam to prevent war after he invaded Kuwait... he chose to kill our soldiers so until he would meet his obligation to justify the death of those soldiers he was a dead man walking in my mind and every US citizen should demand that he FULLY disarm within 90 days of the ceasefire or be destroyed... America's only fault was leaving Iraq following the Gulf War before the WMD's were destroyed.Have you found out why and who raised the concerns for not taking out Saddam in 91?

[Classact]

Have you found out why and who raised the concerns for not taking out Saddam in 91?Yes, I know and they were wrong.

I was minding my own business after graduating high school in the class of 66... had a great job, great girlfriend and had just bought a brand new car when the President wrote me a letter congratulating me for being selected to serve our nation. My classmates lost limbs in Vietnam and my best friend lost his life. I thought how can congress vote to go to war and then change their minds... to me the Vietnam Memorial is America's wall of shame for Congress... a monument of government failure with a listing of the sacrifices on it... How could government sell out to women and girlie men causing the loss of so much life for nothing... Never again should an American servicemember die at the act of congress unless congress and the country intend to prevail in victory.

In the case of the Gulf War we easily accomplished the UN mission but our servicemembers died doing so and a ceasefire was agreed to on good faith to limit further losses of life on both sides... that I agreed to but not leaving until the debt had been paid in full... If the ceasefire was worth the loss of over one hundred American soldiers we should have hung around, the entire cooilition until Iraq was dissarmed... it could have been done in 90 days... satisify the payment for our troop losses and Iraq is once again a free nation without sanctions led by Saddam. Why would Saddam not dissarm? It sounds like insanity to not live up to the ceasefire since he could build and buy all the WMD's in the world AFTER dissarming... it was insane for us to leave without the payment for those we lost... it was a mistake.

Your statement above seems to relate to fear on the part of the US, when in fact it was a conclusion that it would be easier to leave Saddam in control and trade the ceasefire conditions to protect the American interests in the region.

I totally respect President Bush for putting an end to the game Saddam was playing... Saddam was peeing on the graves of our fallen servicemembers and for an insane reason, an unexplainable reason... he could dissarm and then be free to re arm... but he wanted to prove he retained power over the ME... After 9-11 his game was put in checkmate... President Bush offered him the opportunity to prove he had lived up to the ceasefire agreement but he, Saddam held one hand behind his back... President Bush was correct to do exactly what he did.

[stephanie]

Don't want to hear the truth, do you Stephanie? Not only are American military being killed for Bush's amusement, they are dying for YOUR amusement as well. The Bush Apologists are the ones using the ongoing slaughter in Iraq for political gain.
So have fun each time there is a roadside bomb or mortar attack. This is YOUR war. The blood is on YOUR hands. Enjoy it while you can.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/Plutodog.gif

[Gaffer]

Yes, I know and they were wrong.

I was minding my own business after graduating high school in the class of 66... had a great job, great girlfriend and had just bought a brand new car when the President wrote me a letter congratulating me for being selected to serve our nation. My classmates lost limbs in Vietnam and my best friend lost his life. I thought how can congress vote to go to war and then change their minds... to me the Vietnam Memorial is America's wall of shame for Congress... a monument of government failure with a listing of the sacrifices on it... How could government sell out to women and girlie men causing the loss of so much life for nothing... Never again should an American servicemember die at the act of congress unless congress and the country intend to prevail in victory.

In the case of the Gulf War we easily accomplished the UN mission but our servicemembers died doing so and a ceasefire was agreed to on good faith to limit further losses of life on both sides... that I agreed to but not leaving until the debt had been paid in full... If the ceasefire was worth the loss of over one hundred American soldiers we should have hung around, the entire cooilition until Iraq was dissarmed... it could have been done in 90 days... satisify the payment for our troop losses and Iraq is once again a free nation without sanctions led by Saddam. Why would Saddam not dissarm? It sounds like insanity to not live up to the ceasefire since he could build and buy all the WMD's in the world AFTER dissarming... it was insane for us to leave without the payment for those we lost... it was a mistake.

Your statement above seems to relate to fear on the part of the US, when in fact it was a conclusion that it would be easier to leave Saddam in control and trade the ceasefire conditions to protect the American interests in the region.

I totally respect President Bush for putting an end to the game Saddam was playing... Saddam was peeing on the graves of our fallen servicemembers and for an insane reason, an unexplainable reason... he could dissarm and then be free to re arm... but he wanted to prove he retained power over the ME... After 9-11 his game was put in checkmate... President Bush offered him the opportunity to prove he had lived up to the ceasefire agreement but he, Saddam held one hand behind his back... President Bush was correct to do exactly what he did.

Excellent Post. I received my invite from my friends and neighbors in 66 as well.

[JohnDoe]

I really have to say that i think I differ with most of my Democratic compadres on this board's view of this.....though I have only skimmed just a couple of posts...and not to generalize...

I would have to ask, "What good did it do, for the Democratic Party, for Rep. Stark, and for our own Country, for him to word his comments about what is going on in Iraq and for whose "amusement" ...in that manner?"

I mean, did it accomplish anything?

Are our troops coming home now because of his comments?

Did he give the "other side of the aisle'' ammunition to use against us, and to separate us from our other fellow americans, "the other side", even more?

I think what he did was STUPID and childish, and he is known for sticking his foot in his mouth from what I have read.

Stark could have easily made his point without having to stoop this low. Can you imagine if you were one of the soldiers over there and heard this Congressman wording it in a manner that made them think that their commander in chief thought no more of them than as an amusement toy....?

Even if it WERE true, this is not something that should be said on the floor of the congress, being recorded, so that it could be blasted before the country, the world, and our TROOPS...for goodness sakes!

How demoralizing could that be, ESPECIALLY to those that ARE over there that DO believe they ARE fighting for a cause...and I may disagree with them and the cause they THINK they are fighting....

What I do know is that those guys that have put themselves on the line for us, should never be subjected to this kind of CHILDISH AND TRIVIAL "talk" from a usa Congressman imo.

I just dont get why anyone would think that a comment like this from Stark was appropriate, or was the right thing to do? Even if it could be explained away, with Bush's low life actions like looking for wmd's under the desk, it doesn't mean that we, as a party , need to stoop as low as others have, ya know?

Sometimes it boils down to class....being a class act or being classless.

And one other thing, those guys & gals of ours that are fighting this war, are still in Iraq because our Congress doesn't have the balls to do what they said they would do.

jd

[actsnoblemartin]

that guy pete, is an asshole.


By haystack Posted in Congress — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »




Pete Stark is an American Democrat-Politician scumbag
<object width="425" height="366"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7lTUB5_l0Mg&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7lTUB5_l0Mg&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="366"></embed></object>

The biggest scumbag to bubble to the surface of the Democrat swill just opened his pie-hole and spewed the foulest thing to come out of a politicians mouth in, perhaps, my lifetime (maybe not-but this is in the top 3):

But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement.

Democrats have no problem using troops or kids to advance their political goals in Washington. There should be an OUTRAGE...and this piece of human bile should be called out for it by every American who, like me, is ABSOLUTELY not amused.

read the rest and comments...
http://redstate.com/stories/congress/heads_blown_off_for_the_presidents_amusement

[April15]

I really have to say that i think I differ with most of my Democratic compadres on this board's view of this.....though I have only skimmed just a couple of posts...and not to generalize...

I would have to ask, "What good did it do, for the Democratic Party, for Rep. Stark, and for our own Country, for him to word his comments about what is going on in Iraq and for whose "amusement" ...in that manner?"

I mean, did it accomplish anything?

Are our troops coming home now because of his comments?

Did he give the "other side of the aisle'' ammunition to use against us, and to separate us from our other fellow americans, "the other side", even more?

I think what he did was STUPID and childish, and he is known for sticking his foot in his mouth from what I have read.

Stark could have easily made his point without having to stoop this low. Can you imagine if you were one of the soldiers over there and heard this Congressman wording it in a manner that made them think that their commander in chief thought no more of them than as an amusement toy....?

Even if it WERE true, this is not something that should be said on the floor of the congress, being recorded, so that it could be blasted before the country, the world, and our TROOPS...for goodness sakes!

How demoralizing could that be, ESPECIALLY to those that ARE over there that DO believe they ARE fighting for a cause...and I may disagree with them and the cause they THINK they are fighting....

What I do know is that those guys that have put themselves on the line for us, should never be subjected to this kind of CHILDISH AND TRIVIAL "talk" from a usa Congressman imo.

I just dont get why anyone would think that a comment like this from Stark was appropriate, or was the right thing to do? Even if it could be explained away, with Bush's low life actions like looking for wmd's under the desk, it doesn't mean that we, as a party , need to stoop as low as others have, ya know?

Sometimes it boils down to class....being a class act or being classless.

And one other thing, those guys & gals of ours that are fighting this war, are still in Iraq because our Congress doesn't have the balls to do what they said they would do.

jdJust once in a while it does feel good though!

[JohnDoe]

Just once in a while it does feel good though!

April, I can understand that it might feel good, but all aspects of what is said, should be thought about, before being said. It isn't like all of us don't already know that President Bush is basically a buffoon when in Public and that we think that we were sent in to this war on false pretences?



There was no positive effect, for the Democratic Party....thus no effect for the Democratic cause...it hurt more than helped in any manner, and stood the chance of demoralizing the guys over in Iraq... and quite frankly, I am certain they have much more important things to worry about, like surviving their tour.

Some things are just better left undaid, and this was one of them imo.

At this point, I am feeling that it is time for the Dems in office to ''shit or get off the pot.'' If the Dems can't do something, like cut off the spending to end this war, then they need to stop talking about it and using it over and over again for political posturing.

Do something or shut up, is where I am at...and I am getting tired of the ''trash talking'' that really is getting us nowhere and only dividing us further as a country. And this is coming from both sides, not just ours....but someone needs to put a halt to it, and it might as well be us, we CAN hold the higher ground, IF we think farther than the moment's gratification.


jd

[April15]

April, I can understand that it might feel good, but all aspects of what is said, should be thought about, before being said. It isn't like all of us don't already know that President Bush is basically a buffoon when in Public and that we think that we were sent in to this war on false pretences?



There was no positive effect, for the Democratic Party....thus no effect for the Democratic cause...it hurt more than helped in any manner, and stood the chance of demoralizing the guys over in Iraq... and quite frankly, I am certain they have much more important things to worry about, like surviving their tour.

Some things are just better left undaid, and this was one of them imo.

At this point, I am feeling that it is time for the Dems in office to ''shit or get off the pot.'' If the Dems can't do something, like cut off the spending to end this war, then they need to stop talking about it and using it over and over again for political posturing.

Do something or shut up, is where I am at...and I am getting tired of the ''trash talking'' that really is getting us nowhere and only dividing us further as a country. And this is coming from both sides, not just ours....but someone needs to put a halt to it, and it might as well be us, we CAN hold the higher ground, IF we think farther than the moment's gratification.


jd

What a party pooper. But you are correct!

[Classact]

April, I can understand that it might feel good, but all aspects of what is said, should be thought about, before being said. It isn't like all of us don't already know that President Bush is basically a buffoon when in Public and that we think that we were sent in to this war on false pretences?



There was no positive effect, for the Democratic Party....thus no effect for the Democratic cause...it hurt more than helped in any manner, and stood the chance of demoralizing the guys over in Iraq... and quite frankly, I am certain they have much more important things to worry about, like surviving their tour.

Some things are just better left undaid, and this was one of them imo.

At this point, I am feeling that it is time for the Dems in office to ''shit or get off the pot.'' If the Dems can't do something, like cut off the spending to end this war, then they need to stop talking about it and using it over and over again for political posturing.

Do something or shut up, is where I am at...and I am getting tired of the ''trash talking'' that really is getting us nowhere and only dividing us further as a country. And this is coming from both sides, not just ours....but someone needs to put a halt to it, and it might as well be us, we CAN hold the higher ground, IF we think farther than the moment's gratification.


jdThere is no person from either party that is electable that is running on ending the war. You have to read between the lines to hear what the serious candidates are saying and they are saying the same thing as Bush. I know you on the left think differently about your leading candidates but I guess we shall see because it looks pretty promicing that a Democrat will be next in the Whitehouse... Congress will not stop funding and Iraq will be finished by either party... with any luck without going to war with Iran but my odds are we will be in war with Iran regardless of what party wins in 08 and be in Iraq through the decade and longer.

Iran, Russia and China will not allow peace so we will be at war for a while.

[Dilloduck]

I really have to say that i think I differ with most of my Democratic compadres on this board's view of this.....though I have only skimmed just a couple of posts...and not to generalize...

I would have to ask, "What good did it do, for the Democratic Party, for Rep. Stark, and for our own Country, for him to word his comments about what is going on in Iraq and for whose "amusement" ...in that manner?"

I mean, did it accomplish anything?

Are our troops coming home now because of his comments?

Did he give the "other side of the aisle'' ammunition to use against us, and to separate us from our other fellow americans, "the other side", even more?

I think what he did was STUPID and childish, and he is known for sticking his foot in his mouth from what I have read.

Stark could have easily made his point without having to stoop this low. Can you imagine if you were one of the soldiers over there and heard this Congressman wording it in a manner that made them think that their commander in chief thought no more of them than as an amusement toy....?

Even if it WERE true, this is not something that should be said on the floor of the congress, being recorded, so that it could be blasted before the country, the world, and our TROOPS...for goodness sakes!

How demoralizing could that be, ESPECIALLY to those that ARE over there that DO believe they ARE fighting for a cause...and I may disagree with them and the cause they THINK they are fighting....

What I do know is that those guys that have put themselves on the line for us, should never be subjected to this kind of CHILDISH AND TRIVIAL "talk" from a usa Congressman imo.

I just dont get why anyone would think that a comment like this from Stark was appropriate, or was the right thing to do? Even if it could be explained away, with Bush's low life actions like looking for wmd's under the desk, it doesn't mean that we, as a party , need to stoop as low as others have, ya know?

Sometimes it boils down to class....being a class act or being classless.

And one other thing, those guys & gals of ours that are fighting this war, are still in Iraq because our Congress doesn't have the balls to do what they said they would do.

jd

:clap: I owe ya

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

I just hate to see some so young, being so cynical already...

Hell...it took me 50yrs. to get that way...:laugh2:You have to cut obama08 some slack he's been brain washed by the far left liberal education system and it sounds like he's been drinking a lot of their kool aid

[Gaffer]

Yes, cut off all the funding for iraq. That will solve everything. Recent history teaches nothing after all. Can you say Vietnam. All funding was cut off for Vietnam. South Vietnam fell because of that. So did Cambodia and Laos. Its the democrat party legacy.

[April15]

Yes, cut off all the funding for iraq. That will solve everything. Recent history teaches nothing after all. Can you say Vietnam. All funding was cut off for Vietnam. South Vietnam fell because of that. So did Cambodia and Laos. Its the democrat party legacy.Did the communist policies get to America? Did Westmoreland alter his reports to look favorable? Did we not learn from that farce? Most who were in the military fighting did but those who dodged or got papa to get them into the reserves didn't, other than let someone else fight.

[Gaffer]

Did the communist policies get to America? Did Westmoreland alter his reports to look favorable? Did we not learn from that farce? Most who were in the military fighting did but those who dodged or got papa to get them into the reserves didn't, other than let someone else fight.

Who went and who didn't has nothing to do with who was responsible for the fall of Vietnam and the millions killed after that. It's a democrat legacy and they want to repeat it. Point your finger in another direction is not changing the facts.

[April15]

Who went and who didn't has nothing to do with who was responsible for the fall of Vietnam and the millions killed after that. It's a democrat legacy and they want to repeat it. Point your finger in another direction is not changing the facts.My comment on who did or didn't go is relevent only in their knowledge of warfare. As to the fall of Vietnam the purpose for the war was to keep communism from comming to the USA.

[Classact]

Did the communist policies get to America? Did Westmoreland alter his reports to look favorable? Did we not learn from that farce? Most who were in the military fighting did but those who dodged or got papa to get them into the reserves didn't, other than let someone else fight.I was looking at your signature
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.~Dwight D. Eisenhower and looked at your above quote and wondered what you were getting at? Were the WWII elected officials veterans of war, Eisenhower was but... do you need to be a veteran of war to lead the nation? Prez Bush was a fighter pilot, Senator Kerry was a PT 109 operator, duh, uh I mean swift boat pilot and both of thier daddy's got them their jobs and neither job would make a positive or negative for a resume for being the leader of the free world. Senator Kerry had a fettish for JFK and wanted to be just like him so daddy got him the closest thing... trust me the waiting list for the Navy was five years in 66-67 and the reserves not much better, I checked because I was drafted... But the leader of the free world that ended WWII? Google: Senator Kerry dream of JFK pt 109 ... and read the links. So I'm just wondering what was your point?

[Gaffer]

My comment on who did or didn't go is relevent only in their knowledge of warfare. As to the fall of Vietnam the purpose for the war was to keep communism from comming to the USA.

No it was to keep communism from spreading through southeast asia. Which it promptly did once South Vietnam fell. The communist were already here, called the democrat party.

[bullypulpit]

Pete Stark just gave public voice to the private feelings of many Americans, and I agree with his points until he talked about the President's amusement.

This unfortunate turn of phrase gave the GOP the tool they needed to take the discussion off of the issues of children's health insurance and spending for the occupation of Iraq and shift attention to what is...really...a non-issue.

As for Bush's amusement, I don't believe he derives any pleasure from the deaths of American troops. He is simply incapable of mourning their loss, or any loss at all, since his sister died, and Babs locked herself in her room in drunken stupor for the better part of a year. It's a psychopathology on his part, just one of the many that has made him the dysfunctional, borderline personality that he is.

[theHawk]

Pete Stark just gave public voice to the private feelings of many Americans, and I agree with his points until he talked about the President's amusement.

This unfortunate turn of phrase gave the GOP the tool they needed to take the discussion off of the issues of children's health insurance and spending for the occupation of Iraq and shift attention to what is...really...a non-issue.

As for Bush's amusement, I don't believe he derives any pleasure from the deaths of American troops. He is simply incapable of mourning their loss, or any loss at all, since his sister died, and Babs locked herself in her room in drunken stupor for the better part of a year. It's a psychopathology on his part, just one of the many that has made him the dysfunctional, borderline personality that he is.


If the American people really feel that way, then why doesn't the Democratically controlled Congress stop funding the war and demand that the President bring the troops home? Why hasn't Hillary or even Obama PROMISED to pull out the troops?
Oh thats right...because the bottom line is the Dems voted for the war, and the bottom line is they will continue it....

[glockmail]

...[Bush] is simply incapable of mourning their loss, or any loss at all.... It's a psychopathology on his part, just one of the many that has made him the dysfunctional, borderline personality that he is.

More bullshit that can't be back up.
:pee:

[bullypulpit]

If the American people really feel that way, then why doesn't the Democratically controlled Congress stop funding the war and demand that the President bring the troops home? Why hasn't Hillary or even Obama PROMISED to pull out the troops?
Oh thats right...because the bottom line is the Dems voted for the war, and the bottom line is they will continue it....

Gosh...Could it be the razor thin Democratic majority in the Senate and the larger but, still tight, Democratic majority in the House? Could it be because Congressional Republicans are still kissing Bush's ass, for reasons known only to them?

The bottom line is that Democrats voted for the war because they were given cooked intel...It will continue because the Bush administration is pushing the whole, sordid mess off onto the next administration be it Republican or Democrat.

[bullypulpit]

More bullshit that can't be back up.
:pee:

Applied psychoanalysis, a tool used by intelligence and government agencies for years to reliably examine and analyze the personalities of various world leaders.

<center><a href=http://www.amazon.com/Bush-Couch-Inside-Mind-President/dp/0060736704>Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President</a></center>

[glockmail]

Applied psychoanalysis, a tool used by intelligence and government agencies for years to reliably examine and analyze the personalities of various world leaders.

<center><a href=http://www.amazon.com/Bush-Couch-Inside-Mind-President/dp/0060736704>Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President</a></center>


Irwin Savodnik, a psychiatrist who teaches at the University of California, Los Angeles, described Frank's book as a "psychoanalytic hatchet job" and said that "there is not an ounce of psychoanalytic material in the entire book." [1] The code of the American Psychiatric Association, of which Frank is not a current member, states that "it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement." [2] Although Frank had in the past written for Salon.com, the online magazine reviewed the book unfavorably, arguing that it included "dubious theories" and that Frank had failed in his avowed intention to distinguish his partisan opinions from his psychoanalytic evaluation of Bush's character. [3]

However, in interviews Frank freely admits his partisan affiliation, but claims his book is in a tradition of psychological assessments of leaders frequently undertaken, for example, by the CIA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_on_the_Couch#Critical_analysis_of_the_book

Looks to me to be the work of an unethical, partisan, salon contributing hack.

[hjmick]

Glock you bastard! How dare you muddy the waters with truth and facts? What the hell are you thinking? :cool:

[Classact]

Gosh...Could it be the razor thin Democratic majority in the Senate and the larger but, still tight, Democratic majority in the House? Could it be because Congressional Republicans are still kissing Bush's ass, for reasons known only to them?

The bottom line is that Democrats voted for the war because they were given cooked intel...It will continue because the Bush administration is pushing the whole, sordid mess off onto the next administration be it Republican or Democrat.It would be very easy to end funding for the war... they could do it the same way they did SCHIP... in the House write a funding bill in the committee and not allow any amendments... send it to the floor for a vote for or against... send it to the Senate... The bill would state monies could only be used for troop removal in a safe maner... the Senate could not modify the basic bill the House passed because the House of Representatives appropriates money and the Senate doesn't have authority to appropriate funds. If the Senate voted it down then it would be returned to the house... if the President vetoed they could send the same bill forward over and over and over until the DOD was out of funds... they could then demand any funding for the military be issued only to remove troops.

Is that what you want then print and copy this and send it to Nancy and ask her WTF.

[glockmail]

Glock you bastard! How dare you muddy the waters with truth and facts? What the hell are you thinking? :cool: I know I'm such an asshole like that. One more trait of a conservative, along with being hompohobic, racist, and intolerant. :pee:

[BoogyMan]

He is simply incapable of mourning their loss, or any loss at all, since his sister died, and Babs locked herself in her room in drunken stupor for the better part of a year. It's a psychopathology on his part, just one of the many that has made him the dysfunctional, borderline personality that he is.

Lets see your substantive proof of this specious claim. You voiced it as fact so I am sure that you can provide rock solid concrete evidence of this claim, right?

Lets see your cards....

[glockmail]

Lets see your substantive proof of this specious claim. You voiced it as fact so I am sure that you can provide rock solid concrete evidence of this claim, right?

Lets see your cards.... Nothing concrete, just babble from an unethical, partisan hack.