Soccer Mom: Unplugged

raves, rants, reviews and recounts of life in middle America

2006/11/20

Anti-War?

Tags:
@ 09:56 AM (21 months, 27 days ago)

Much valuable print space is given to photos of and statements by Americans who clamor for peace.  They condemn war at any cost.  Or do they?  A closer review of the statements and activities of these groups reveals that not only do they not give a damn about war generally, their efforts are focused not on stopping war but on condmening and impeding American response to war. 

Most of these groups are thinly veiled front organizations for political operations like the American Communists or social movements looking to take advantage of the free publicity.  In fact, if these groups were at all interested in stopping war, they'd be in Indonesia (see below) right now.

Anyone who takes a 30 break from the MSM and does one mouse click's worth of research will find that ANSWER one of the largest organizers of the anti-war rallies over the last 5 years was founded just 16 days after 9/11 by none other than Ramsey Clark, a communism supporting Democrat who served under Johnson and was the party's nominee for Senate from NY in 1974.  I won't even address the fact that he is defending the Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein.

If Clark had any interest in stopping war, why wasn't he in Saudi Arabia before September 11th protesting outside of the madrassas?  Why wasn't he in southern Lebanon picketing Hezbollah?

These groups are pursuing a political agenda whether or not the 19 year old koolaid drinking college coeds who fill the ranks are aware of it and stopping war is nothing more than a talking point. 

Sanggauledo2_1 (h/t Atlas Shrugs)

 

Comment(s) »

  1. I TOO AM AN AMERICAN WHO "CLAMOR'S" FOR PEACE !!!

    Comment by jim— 2006/11/20 @ 03:19 PM — (Reply)

  2. You DONT HAVE TO BE a DEMOCRATE OR REPUBLICAN to also CLAMOR FOR PEACE

    Comment by jim— 2006/11/20 @ 03:21 PM — (Reply)

  3. at what cost though Jim..hundreds now or thousands later?

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/20 @ 04:51 PM — (Reply)

  4. POINT: exactly ! c the problem is someone out there wants to "KILL ME" cause I'm an AMERICAN !!! WHO ??? BIBLICAL ARMEGEDON IS CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR, IRAN IS THE DISEASE ! THIER YOUNG ARE TAUGHT TO BELIEVE "THESE PEOPLE, CHRISTIAN AND JEW, ARE BORN FROM APES AND PIGS, AND OK TO KILL", FOR THIS REASON I MUST SAY A LOUD "STOP" !!! IF SOMEONE COULD DO THIS TO ME , THEN IT WOUNT BE LONG THEY WILL TURN ON YOU !!!

    Comment by jim— 2006/11/20 @ 05:02 PM — (Reply)

  5. Most liberals are coming to the conclusion that it is better to fight terrorists elsewhere than here in America.

    Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/20 @ 05:16 PM — (Reply)

  6. I think that too, But I want to take the "shortcut" 200-250 thermo nuke devices should do the trick ONE big greasy spot where there used to be a place called "HELL ON EARTH" , "FRY BRAIN SHEETHEADS' that belive whole heartedly that it is for them to usher in the "ARMEGEDDON" , Thier you have it BIBLE PHROPHESY FULFILLED

    Comment by jim— 2006/11/20 @ 06:07 PM — (Reply)

  7. That would give the americans a false sense of peace, A peace none the less

    Comment by aza spade— 2006/11/20 @ 05:46 PM — (Reply)

  8. Well, it looks like I was wrong, ya'll. There appears to be one anti-war group that really is in it for peace (or is that a piece?).

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/20 @ 06:17 PM — (Reply)

  9. I have it on my calender. Can't hurt.

    Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/20 @ 06:20 PM — (Reply)

  10. Cate,

    Brooke had that on her site...I wonder where you sign up?

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/20 @ 07:46 PM — (Reply)

  11. Most liberals have reached the conclusion that it's better fight the terrorists there, true. The difference is that liberals know what a terrorist is, and here's a hint for all the conservatives here: IT TWEREN'T NEVER HUSSEIN.

    Indonesia's a rank mess, particularly Sulawesi, which is where the photos are from. You planning to invade Indonesia to solve the turmoil, Cate?

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/20 @ 08:15 PM — (Reply)

  12. I agree as of this time that the war in Iraq has not solved the terrorist problem. Back at the time, liberals were in full support of the war in Iraq. No one deliberately lied to liberals. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. The roles are reversed. Hopefully for all of our sakes, the other side won't have anythiing to Monday morning quarterback about two years from now.

    Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/21 @ 02:47 AM — (Reply)

  13. Beg to differ with you, Barry, but liberals were NOT "in full support of the war in Iraq" at the time. Milquetoast centrist Democrats voted for the resolution because their pansy-asses were afraid a "no" vote would backfire against them. The result was the lovely "first I voted for, then I voted against the war" cr*p that moderates like Kerry and Clinton get stuck with (legitimately, I might add).

    23 Senators, and 133 Representatives voted against the Iraq resolution, I will remind you, and while there might be a rare case of a conservative voting, on principle, against an un-declaration of war, I guarantee you that the vast majority of those votes were from liberals who could smell the con-job the administration was blowing.

    I won't say that anyone in the administration lied- that would require more "proof" than anyone on your side is ever likely to accept. But they sure did selectively present the truth... and I sniffed out the bad smell as Powell was supposedly presenting his case to the Security Council.

    Still, past is past... just don't give me any tripe about Republicans being better on the "war on terror" than Dems. Dems may not know what to do, but Reps can't figure out who the terrorists are.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 07:50 AM — (Reply)

  14. un declared war?? you better pick out a different avatar

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/21 @ 07:53 AM — (Reply)

  15. "Authorization of Force" is NOT a declaration of war... and "police action" is not a war either- Great point!

    You want an unsupported off-the-cuff observation? The USA has never lost an actual declared war. It's worst result was the War of 1812- fighting the most powerful (or arguably, the 2nd most powerful) nation in the world at that time to a draw.

    However, its record in undeclared wars is rather abyssmal.

    Maybe quagmires like Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn't be such a mess if we'd actually had an actual declaration to begin with! Just a thought.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 08:37 AM — (Reply)

  16. maybe if the military was actually allowed to prosecute the was instead of playing political correctness they would have won

    a will to win is what is and was needed

    Comment by elmers brother— 2006/11/21 @ 09:08 AM — (Reply)

  17. Ahhh - avoiding the topic are you, Michael? The point isn't what am I going to do about Indonesia, the point is why aren't peace activists over there singing Kumbayah.

    I'm not the one calling for world peace (though I'd love to see it) but your leftist buddies are... they're all talk no action :lol:

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/21 @ 06:14 AM — (Reply)

  18. Cate,

    You can't be serious. You seem to be asking: "Why aren't American anti-war groups protesting what's happening in other countries, that the US isn't currently involved in?"

    How about putting out the fire in one's own house before trying to stop the fires in other people's houses?

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 08:42 AM — (Reply)

  19. I'm not the one calling for world peace and blaming the US for all the world's problems, Michael, they are.

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/21 @ 08:52 AM — (Reply)

  20. One other point, Cate. I'm a bit surprised that you're drinking the koolaid and "exposing" (*gasp*gasp*) that left groups have ties with socialists and communists. But even your red-baiting pales in contrast to Fox & Friends. E.D.Hill (who's no longer on the show- darnit! she was always good for a laugh), made a similar observation as you, except she pointed out that all the anti-war groups' funding could be traced to Cuba. :lol:

    I still laugh about that. Next time that Fidel sends me a paycheck, I'll let you know, just so you can do more than just hallucinate your reality out.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/20 @ 08:26 PM — (Reply)

  21. Have you been to the marches, Michael?

    You can try to dismiss this if you want but the evidence is there for anyone to see. Our state fair had a group handing out anti-war and communist stickers.

    It isn't the first time I've posted links to this info. Here's a mystery for Dugg - or even you Michael since you're quick to defend the antiwar movement: Code Pink is a notoriously far left antiwar group. I wanted to write about them again before the election and suddenly their websites were gone - for about a week before the election you couldn't find any of the pictures of Murtha posing with Code Pink members and receiving an award from them. Further the about us page that revealed their activism had begun just before the 2000 election (before that war they oppose even started) when they actively held marches against the GOP and for local Dem candidates. They're no antiwar group - they're a DNC supporting PAC.

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/21 @ 06:21 AM — (Reply)

  22. I've never heard of Code Pink before. Is this the group you're talking about? And is this typical of the koolaid you've been chugging down?

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 08:50 AM — (Reply)

  23. Micahel, the website is available now but was not for at least a week before the election. Why was that?

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/21 @ 08:54 AM — (Reply)

  24. fingers got ahead of me - Michael, but I didn't see any of the pictures from the prewar marches against Bush dating back to 2000 - the ones revealing that this group had an agenda before March 2003 or even 9/11 - yep the action alert archive has been cleansed of anything prior to 2004.

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/21 @ 09:01 AM — (Reply)

  25. First time I've been to the site, but looking at their FAQ, I found out that they were founded before the invasion of Iraq, and in fact had made at least one visit to Iraq before the war had begun. The 4-year anniversary suggests a 2002 founding, which would be prior to the war, though not prior to 9/11. Beyond that- like I said, I don't know anything about this group, so I'm not really sure what your evidence, or even your accusation against them, is.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 09:38 AM — (Reply)

  26. No clue, since I know nothing about the group. A little Yahoo searching brought up this page, which mentions that the site was down for a few weeks in January as well. There was a little debate there as to the cause, and the best guess seemed to be a router malfunction or a backhoe attentuator. There was a suggestion that it might have been a "denial of service" attack, but there seemed to be more plausible reasons.

    So, why do you think their website was down?

    Or should I ask Dugg that question? :lol:

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 09:10 AM — (Reply)

  27. Laugh if you want, Michael, but I did the research earlier this year out of sheer curiousity. Whether you believe it or not, I had no agenda then, I wanted to know the truth about the group because I was upset that they were picketing outside of Walter Reid.

    I got into blogging because I was fed up with all the ugly politics and all I've found is that is gets even worse when you start researching - and with the ability of the delete button to erase any and all evidence, things are covered or uncovered in a nanosecond. I don't believe in vast conspiracies but I do believe in dishonest and agenda driven people. Neither of which I am.

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/21 @ 09:33 AM — (Reply)

  28. And if it makes me a koolaid drinker to believe that protesting the war outside the windows or wounded servicemen and women is disgraceful, then pass me a glass.

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/21 @ 08:56 AM — (Reply)

  29. Code Pink also sent over $600k to the jihadists ("freedom fighters") in Fallujah

    Comment by elmers brother— 2006/11/21 @ 09:06 AM — (Reply)

  30. I was waiting for that accusation, but I didn't figure it would come from you, EB.

    They sent $600K to homeless refugees in Fallujah. As a good Christian, you ought to recognize the merit in giving clothing to the naked, even if they are the "enemy."

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 09:46 AM — (Reply)

  31. Fallujah’s refugees – the ones receiving the largesse – had shown marked sympathy for the “insurgents” (terrorists) in their midsts. “The mujahedeen are our sons,” said 62-year-old Umm Samir. “I would become a mujahedeen myself.” Later the native Fallujan told reporters the mutilation of four U.S. security workers was excusable. “Those people who dragged the Americans’ bodies through the streets, they certainly had had a brother or a father killed by the Americans; they had burnt hearts,” Umm averred. American troops had to stop a relief aid shipment from going into town in later for fear it would fall into terrorist hands. Was there any assurance this aid would not?

    and do you support their protestations outside of wounded soldiers hospital rooms? Is this the baby killer hangoverfrom Vietnam?

    Comment by elmers brother— 2006/11/21 @ 10:07 AM — (Reply)

  32. No, EB, I don't support it. Protesting outside the military hospital shows grave disrespect. I really liked and completely laud what this veteran of Iraq said to the group.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 10:17 AM — (Reply)

  33. I didn't think you would be.

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/21 @ 10:34 AM — (Reply)

  34. Oh I love E.D. Hill....

    Indonesia is not the only one that's a mess...S. Thailand, Philipines, Somalia, Sudan, to a smaller extent even Australia, France....etc

    Michael the problem is not whether you can recognize one it's what you would do when you see him.

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/20 @ 08:44 PM — (Reply)

  35. No, EB... there problem with folks on your side is first basic recognition. Strategy loses a lot of its value if you're not even hunting for the right animal. Then again, if one can only see the world in black and white- it's not surprising if they get easily confused.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/20 @ 08:55 PM — (Reply)

  36. Does it irritate you that our enemies were excited when the Dems took over?

    Comment by Ernie Els— 2006/11/20 @ 09:01 PM — (Reply)

  37. Wall Street has become very excited about the Dems getting voted in as well- does that irritate you?

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 10:48 AM — (Reply)

  38. wall street was doing fine without them

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/21 @ 11:09 AM — (Reply)

  39. Wall Street has become very excited about the Dems getting voted in as well- does that irritate you?

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 11:10 AM — (Reply)

  40. if Clinton is too far right for you..who is too far left for you?

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/21 @ 11:12 AM — (Reply)

  41. who is to the left of you is a serious question. not an attempt at sarcasm.

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/21 @ 11:13 AM — (Reply)

  42. Good question, EB. :) I'll put it simply

    Clinton supported NAFTA, and still claims it as one of his presidency's greatest successes.
    I view NAFTA as the biggest crime against the American worker in generations.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 11:26 AM — (Reply)

  43. Good question, EB. :) I'll put it simply

    Clinton supported NAFTA, and still claims it as one of his presidency's greatest successes.
    I view NAFTA as the biggest crime against the American worker in generations.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 12:02 PM — (Reply)

  44. a week after Dem victory economy booms, climate cools, Ozone hole shrinks

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/21 @ 09:37 PM — (Reply)

  45. Michael

    oh the old nuance argument..okay

    Zarqawi in Northern Iraq in 2002

    Saddam shooting at our planes

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/20 @ 09:03 PM — (Reply)

  46. War is for suckers - brainwashed into thinking they serve some great moral cause - when all they really serve is a big lie and a bunch of fat evil bastards getting rich.

    Comment by Dugg— 2006/11/20 @ 09:11 PM — (Reply)

  47. would you have said that to Joshua and Caleb?

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/20 @ 09:48 PM — (Reply)



  48. there problem with folks on your side is first basic recognition.


    Apparently we're not the only ones who need glasses.



    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton Feb 17, 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -- Madeline Albright Feb 18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton Nat. Sec. Advisor Feb 18, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and hea has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." ---Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, Ca) Dec. 16, 1998

    "There is no doubt that...Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre- Gulf War status. In additon, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the the cover of a elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the US and our allies. ---Sen Bob Graham (D, FL) and others Dec 5, 2001

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." --Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI) Sept 19, 2002

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore Sept. 23, 2002

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore Sept 23, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen Ted Kennedy (D, MA) Sept. 27, 2002

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." Pres. Bill Clinton Feb 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." Pres. Bill Clinto Feb 17, 1998

    "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary action (including if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to Pres. Clinton signed by -- Democratic Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle and John Kerry Oct. 9, 1998

    "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies. Madeline Albright Sec. of State Nov. 10, 1999

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary --to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen John F. Kerry (D, MA) Oct 9, 2002

    even the media said there was a link with Al Queda

    I would also invite you to read Saddam's Bombmaker

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/21 @ 06:25 AM — (Reply)

  49. Damn GOOD post EB... I enjoyed reading ALL those QUOTES by the DEMOCRATE LEADERS from back then......

    Comment by jim— 2006/11/21 @ 07:24 AM — (Reply)

  50. *yawn*

    Please, EB... don't toss out the tired quotes that supposedly say "Hey- we weren't the only ones fooled!" It's galling to see you quoting Clinton, circa 1998, without context. Here are some other quotes from 1998 for you:

    "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time...both the timing and the policy are subject to question" - Trent Lott

    "Never underestimate a desperate president," Rep. Solomon (R-NY), chairman of the House Rules

    "The United States is exposed as a paper tiger for timidly undertaking an operation it should have avoided." -- Robert Novak

    "A President who uses his duties as Commander in Chief to bomb foreign countries every time he wants to change the subject ought to be removed with alacrity" -- Ann Coulter

    Don't throw '98 Clinton out there, and neglect that EVERYONE on your side, and even a lot of folks on my side had a stinking suspicion that Clinton was ducking and dodging his way out of impeachment. It completely undermines your argument, and actually supports my theory that justification for action against Iraq can be viewed selectively and arbitrarily towards political, NOT strategic, objectives.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 08:17 AM — (Reply)

  51. Michael I realize the truth hurts but just because you're tired of it doesn't mean it'll go away. Speaking of ducking and dodging you don't find it ironic that our enemies were elated when the Dems were returned to power?
    I wonder why?

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/21 @ 08:24 AM — (Reply)

  52. And talk about ignoring context - you quote Ann Coulter. Tell me, Michael, what subject was Bush trying to change (was he having sex in the oval office, too?

    If the administration is guilty of picking and choosing intel to fit their hunger for war, how would you describe the democrats who abandoned their objections at the first hint of pro-war polling data and climbed over each other to line up behind the president?

    Either both sides were wrong or both sides were right together but only one side changed horses midstream when the poll numbers faltered...

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/21 @ 08:32 AM — (Reply)

  53. The other side waited until the election results came in.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 08:38 AM — (Reply)

  54. And yet still no defense of the Dems, Michael?

    It's great we can swap talking points but where is the actual, factual argument showing that the Dems were on the right side of history here? Show me the evidence that they are doing anything other than seeking power.

    I watched Chuck Schumer's speech two days after the election (or sometime that week) ad he slipped up (though no one on the news caught it) and plainly said, "We've gotten ourselves elected now let's do what we have to do to keep a majority" not - let's do what's best for the people or let's do what we can to improve America... nope! Just 'let's keep the reigns boys, don't drop the ball! Rah! Rah! Rah!"

    I'm not naive enough to pretend both sides aren't power hungry but for crying out loud the ink wasn't even dry on the "authorization of force" before the likes of John Kerry was out talking down any possible Iraq policy... he was shooting down ideas that hadn't even been suggested yet - just blanket verbal gunfire aimed at the White House virtually the day of the vote. Where is the integrity in that? Why do men like these deserve my votes?

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/21 @ 08:51 AM — (Reply)

  55. I ain't here to defend the Dems, Cate. I'm here to argue against the absurdities your side tries to stick on them. But I have very little love for the Democrats.

    Half of them are pure politicians, guided by no principles other than what polls tell them and what will get them reelected. Half of what's left are shrill harpies, more intent on spewing anything to get media time than actually spending a moment to reflect. Half of what are left are so conservative, they might as well be Republicans. Doesn't leave a whole lot left over for me to feel all that warm and fuzzy about. :)

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 10:57 AM — (Reply)

  56. Yours is a failed dichotomy, Cate and EB.

    You take the "centrist Democrats" and present them as representative of the liberal voice.

    For the record, as much as you might like them to be, Clinton (either of them) and Gore are NOT liberals. They only look that way from your perch way out on the right-wing fringes. From my perch, they look almost as right-wing as you guys.

    Find me quotes from Wellstone, Feingold and Sanders supporting the Iraq war, and then you'll be able to vindicate your side's repeated mental mast***ation about how "we all thought Iraq needed to be invaded."

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 08:57 AM — (Reply)

  57. JOHN I voted for the war before I voted against the war or whatever the hell he said KERRY has the one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.

    But your hard-cre leftists reserve their "yes" votes for imaginary conflicts like Clinton's false claims of genocide in Kosovo... hey. aren't we still over there?

    Feingold voted for using all force necessary in Clinton's invented war in Kosovo...
    So did Wellstone, who also voted to use airstrikes on Clinton's pretend war in Kosovo...


    And again, I posted on this earlier this year but interestingly all the links have been changed... hmmm.

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/21 @ 09:29 AM — (Reply)


  58. S.J.Res. 20- Authorizing the President all necessary force against Yugoslavia (Sponsor, Sen. McCain, with Kerry and Leiberman among co-sponsors):

    Vote to table (in effect, a vote against):
    Aye- Wellstone, Feingold

    Not sure where you got your data, but that fact is just wrong.

    S.Con.Res.21 : War with Yugoslavia resolution, authorizing air and missile strikes

    Aye- Wellstone
    Nay- Feingold

    Okay, ya got me there. Wellstone did vote for airstrikes.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 10:09 AM — (Reply)

  59. Mccain wanted to send in ground troops.

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/21 @ 10:33 AM — (Reply)

  60. Feingold - yes on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo

    Wellstone on Kosovo

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/21 @ 11:00 AM — (Reply)

  61. Cate,

    Sorry, to hash the point, since it's not really relevant, but the site Issues 2002 is simply wrong on Feingold's vote. Go to the source for specifics. I did provide you the resolution number, after all. You could have done the same search on Thomas as I did.

    The vote was to table the resolution, so an "Aye" vote is a vote to kill it, not in favor. But you know that.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 07:19 PM — (Reply)

  62. Michael - I didn't put the link up to offer a correction - you asked where I got my information. I provided the link.

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/21 @ 07:43 PM — (Reply)

  63. Okay-I rechecked the ontheissues site and their explanation is that SJ20 was to table the motion that Trent Lott made to vote down the use of force. I haven't found any evidence to support or refute that on THOMAS because I couldn't find context for the vote.

    Here is a direct citation from the secondary source that I used which claims to put the vote into context.

    Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo.
    Majority Leader Trent Lott motioned to kill the resolution that would have authorized the president to "use all necessary forces and other means," in cooperation with U.S. allies to accomplish objectives in Yugoslavia.
    Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)78; N)22
    Reference: Motion to table S. J. Res. 20; Bill S. J. Res. 20 ; vote number 1999-98 on May 4, 1999

    Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo.
    Vote to adopt a resolution to authorize the President to conduct military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with NATO against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
    Reference: Bill S.Con.Res 21 ; vote number 1999-57 on Mar 23, 1999

    I'll graciously accept your correction since this sounds odd to me but frankly, this is tangetial to the actual issue which as best as I can recall is that you will only accept the argument that the Iraq war was supported by the left if we can find quotes given by your favorite 3 liberals. You tried to box us in and we went for it. Smart debating technique but not legitimate since support was overwhelming without the 3 legislators mention.

    Does the name McCarthy give you nightmares, Michael? :lol:

    Comment by Cate— 2006/11/21 @ 08:56 PM — (Reply)

  64. Straw man as I have not expressed support for Rebublicans views during the Clinton administration. If Clinton had actually done more than send a few missiles I would have supported that. Clinton also signed the Iraqi Liberation Act. Unfortunately like most people on that side of the aisle he was missing the intestinal fortitude and balls to do anything about it.

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/21 @ 08:28 AM — (Reply)

  65. Michael Have you picked out a new avatar yet? Just wondering.

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/21 @ 08:30 AM — (Reply)

  66. And no. Harry was many things, but he was human most of all. He made mistakes. Responding to the invasion by the North Koreans was not a mistake, nor was engaging the UN to mete out an international response.

    Failing to follow-up on that by presenting a formal declaration of war upon the North Koreans, however, exposed Truman to the vagueries of strategy and objectives that led to McArthur's notion of attacking Red China as well. Declarations of war unleash the full potential of our military, as well as conscribe the limitations. By failing to submit to Congress and receive both sanction and restrictions, Truman set in motion McArthur's expansionism.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 10:40 AM — (Reply)

  67. I never said Korea was mistake, I merely pointed out an example of undeclared war.

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/21 @ 11:07 AM — (Reply)

  68. undeclared war - Kosovo

    Comment by elmers brother— 2006/11/21 @ 09:06 AM — (Reply)

  69. Yep, and another piece of Clinton's failed legacy.

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 09:52 AM — (Reply)

  70. Wellstone:

    "I voted, six weeks ago, to authorize the United States participation in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. I did so because it was my judgment that we had exhausted every diplomatic possibility, and that our best and most credible information was that without NATO military action, a humanitarian disaster was beginning to occur. I had no doubt about the wisdom and correctness of our decision. My rationale for supporting the airstrikes was a simple one: inaction in the face of unspeakable, imminent, and preventable violence, including horrific atrocities that continue even now, was absolutely unacceptable. In short, the slaughter must be stopped. I have no regrets about that decision," Wellstone said.


    Comment by elmers brother— 2006/11/21 @ 09:59 AM — (Reply)

  71. Ernie and EB,

    al Qaeda has made plenty of statements in the past expressing delight that Bush continued to send American troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. Did that irritate you guys at the time??

    These guys lie, and will twist anything around to look like a victory for them!

    Or hadn't you considered that?

    Comment by Michael— 2006/11/21 @ 11:18 AM — (Reply)

  72. One of my semi serious solutions to the thousands of years Middle East conflict is to blow up Jerusalem, cancel Israel and move and US expense all Israelis to the Calgary area.

    By my calculations this would save a huge amount of money.

    Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/21 @ 05:37 PM — (Reply)

  73. So "NUKE THEM FIRST" and let god say "well done thou good and faithfull servant" " thou hast save me the trouble of doing it myself" !!!!!

    Comment by jim— 2006/11/21 @ 06:09 PM — (Reply)

  74. You have to be careful with the nuking. Phase two is taking over any one of a number of Middle Eastern countries with large oil reserves and making it the 51st state.

    Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/21 @ 07:08 PM — (Reply)

  75. I considered it because I know about taqiyya, ktiman and hudna. I know that their primary means of winning this thing is through propaganda. I mention it merely as a means to describe the fact that our enemies seem enegized at the fact that the dems appear to them to be weaker. Anyone can also draw conclusions that the far left (as far as I know you don't fit this description) is much more inclined to side with these guys like they did with the communists. It's called liberal guilt. It's also the reason OJ walked. Monday is my day for self loathing.

    Comment by Ernie Els— 2006/11/21 @ 08:10 PM — (Reply)

  76. War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.

    ~General Smedley Butler

    Comment by Dugg— 2006/11/21 @ 11:30 AM — (Reply)

  77. While I can respect a man who won the Medal of Honor TWICE...there is a reason he was popular with communists and pacifists. He certainly is an enigma.

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/21 @ 09:23 PM — (Reply)

» Leave a comment


:mrgreen: :neutral: :twisted: :arrow: :shock: :smile: :???: :cool: :evil: :grin: :idea: :oops: :razz: :roll: :wink: :cry: :eek: :lol: :mad: :sad: :!: :?:

Preview:

You say:

To prevent spam, please type in the exact word you see in this image: CAPTCHA
To refresh the image, click here. Otherwise, contact us.

  • Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
  • Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
  • The line and paragraph breaks automatically