Rep.Stark (D) Should apologize!

[disneyfan67]

As I was reading your post, I was thinking what a different world it would be if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Hussein would still be in power, there would still be hundreds of thousands dieing in Iraq (almost 1/3 of them under 14), but we would not be involved.

I no longer believe that we should have invaded. If we had not, if we had just continued in Afghanistan or whatever country Bin Laden was in, the deaths we would have received would have been seen in a different light. We might still be looking for him, but it would be an active search instead of one that seems to be on the back burner.

I hope whoever is elected next, Democrat or Republican, is able to get us better focused.

I feel in my heart if we would have concentrated on getting Osama and accomplished that goal. Securing our ports, water treatment, power grids, and other national security interests, Bush would still have a majority of America behind him. I had no problem with taking out Saddam's military might and getting inspectors inside Iraq, using force if required. What we have now in Iraq, is the end result of not listening to different opinions and people who knew the Middle East. It's hard to ignore centuries of sectarian violence, IMO and think things will be different this time. It's amazing that the President rushed to get us into Iraq, yet ignored the same concerns his father had in removing Saddam in 1991. When you see quotes like this in 1992 from Dick Chenney:

The question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.

"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

If Cheney had followed his own beliefs from 1992, instead of being a driving force to invade Iraq in 2003, things might have be different today. The situation in Iraq hasn't only hurt GWB and his administrations legacy, it's tainted everything since. It gave his political opponents/enemies credibility and a legitimate platform to criticize him. It's allowed enemies of America in general to see how vuneralbe and divided we are at this moment. Look to Iran for current examples. America is divided over this war, we have a huge deficit, troops are dying, and there's a general feeling of disgust and cynicism in this country. It just didn't have to be this way. Arrogance, Ego, stupidity, and a failure to see the big picture, is why we are in the mess we are today.

 

[Charade]

Apologize for what? Having an opinion? .

Eh, I don't know, a gross mischaracterization??

 

[crcormier]

Eh, I don't know, a gross mischaracterization??

Like phony soldiers?

 

[SwedishMeatball]

It's his opinion and I don't see it as a reflection on the troops. It's interesting though that even Charlie Rangel, who is one of the most outspoken critics of Bush, declared that the comment about "amusement" was over the line.

 

[Hound 109]

Exactly! Thank you. You're on quite the roll today and using up the daily requirement of common sense that gets used on these boards.


Note: To all Conservative posters

This is how a lot of us feel with the words written above, at least I do and I'm proud to stand behind Fits on this. All of you who are quick to condemn Rep. Stark over his stupid choice of words, should slowly re read what Fits wrote above. A lot of us don't care about the outrage over words and speeches being used anymore. We want results, mistakes fixed, things done better in the future, and our nation to heal. It's not 2003 anymore. I could care less about what this Stark guy said or how the POTUS feels. We have real problems facing us and we need to keep our eye on the ball.


Thank you again, Fits.

Well said.

The "amusement" comment was wrong. But his anger represents an anger that is growing nationwide. It used to be a mile wide & an inch deep....it's now several feet deep & folks are getting fired up.

Regarding Bush keeping his eye on the ball.... He's a chicken hawk & a former cheerleader.

Chicken Hawks start dumb wars & cheerleaders wouldn't have a clue how to keep their eye on the ball. Too many distractions for him (them). Plus, he either doesn't know how to.....or doesn't want to win the game.

He's just a dumb, drugstore cowboy, crock wearin, chicken hawk & former cheerleader.

I just wish he had been more like his Daddy. There would have been 3800 fewer American Deaths & an extra 750 Billion (with a B) Dollars in the Treasury.

(but i don't think he derived amusement....so Stark should retract the amusement word).

 

[transparant]

Read your article on the Conservative Board again. One of the soldiers had his charges dismissed because he agreed to tesify against another. What do you think he is testifying about? The soldiers were attacked and then acted in a way that caused 24 people to die. Of them, at least 7 were women and children that had a grenade tossed into a room they were in. Why should Murtha apologize for what he said about this?

You are kidding me right? So let me ask you a question...do you agree with Mr. Murtha that these Marines are "cold blooded murderers"?

I have a great book you should read - it's called "Lone Survivor", you should read it.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Since Iraq was invaded the primary result for the women is a few token representative who cant make any changes and the inability to walk out of the front door without the fear of rape and murder, we have turned their lives into hell and should be ashamed of it

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0620-01.htm

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article3008141.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2082702,00.html

'You can come upon women's bodies anywhere'


Life was supposed to get better for women in Iraq after the ousting of Saddam. The reality has been rocketing rates of rape, murder, domestic violence and infant mortality, reports leading US writer Katha Pollitt

Friday May 18, 2007
The Guardian


The video, originally posted on jebar.info, a Kurdish website, was soon plastered all over the internet: a young girl in a red tracksuit jacket and black pants was being beaten, kicked and stoned to death by a mob of excited, shouting men. It is a gruesome marriage of 21st-century technology and medieval barbarity. At one point, bloody and dazed, the girl tries to protect herself, whereupon a man drops a big rock or lump of concrete on her face, killing her. Her crime? Doaa Khalil Aswad, a 17-year-old member of the Kurdish Yazidi religious minority, a non-Muslim sect, had fallen in love with a Sunni boy and possibly converted to Islam. For this "crime" against family and community, Doaa was murdered in the village of Beshika, near Mosul, in a collective act of woman hatred, led by her brothers and uncles. In the video you can see local policemen watching and one man recording the killing on his mobile phone.

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the new Iraq, where women were going to be free and equal - no more "rape rooms", no more psychopathic Uday Hussein summoning young virgins to the palace for his pleasure. In the early days of the occupation, we heard a lot about building schools, starting women's health programmes and funding women's micro-enterprises. At the 2005 State of the Union address, Laura Bush sat with Safia Taleb al-Suhai, leader of the Iraqi Women's Political Council, telegraphing the message that women's rights and democracy went together and that both were part of the big plan for Iraq. Well, scratch that.
The status of women was never as high under Saddam as opponents of the war sometimes asserted, and it was already declining throughout the 1990s, as Saddam embraced Islam to distract the populace from the effects of the Gulf war, UN sanctions, and his own depredations. But Iraq today is even worse for women: more repressive, more violent, more lawless. As if car bombs and suicide bombers weren't horrific enough, criminal gangs, religious militias and death squads kidnap, rape and kill with impunity, with special attention to women professionals, students and rights activists. According to the United Nations' most recent quarterly report on human rights in Iraq, domestic violence and "honour" killings are on the rise - Kurdistan, often described as comparatively peaceful and orderly, saw more than 40 such killings between January and March this year; in the province of Erbil, rapes quadrupled between 2003 and 2006. Women who had worn western clothes and moved about freely all their lives have been terrorised into wearing the abaya and staying inside unless accompanied by male relatives. In Sadr City and elsewhere, sharia courts mete out misogynist "justice".

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Well said.

The "amusement" comment was wrong. But his anger represents an anger that is growing nationwide. It used to be a mile wide & an inch deep....it's now several feet deep & folks are getting fired up.

Regarding Bush keeping his eye on the ball.... He's a chicken hawk & a former cheerleader.

Chicken Hawks start dumb wars & cheerleaders wouldn't have a clue how to keep their eye on the ball. Too many distractions for him (them). Plus, he either doesn't know how to.....or doesn't want to win the game.

He's just a dumb, drugstore cowboy, crock wearin, chicken hawk & former cheerleader.

I just wish he had been more like his Daddy. There would have been 3800 fewer American Deaths & an extra 750 Billion (with a B) Dollars in the Treasury.

(but i don't think he derived amusement....so Stark should retract the amusement word).

Lots of name calling by you and then you ask Stark for a partial retraction.

I'm glad Saddam is out of there and that we're winning in Iraq.

 

[basas]

The "amusement " part was hyperbole. I agree that hyperbole was not a good choice when there is a section of the audience waiting to pick apart the words. It was meant to convey his disgust for the financial and human toll the war has taken on this country.

If you want to start taking words literally.....are you prepared for the President to be taken for his every word?

Well, we'll remember that the next time a Conservative says something that gets page after page of " ", " " and " ". It's just hyperbole right- not meant to be taken literally- simply a bad choice of words.

I really don't care what it was- it was inappropriate and they should apologize.

 

[alldiz]

I feel in my heart if we would have concentrated on getting Osama and accomplished that goal. Securing our ports, water treatment, power grids, and other national security interests, Bush would still have a majority of America behind him. I had no problem with taking out Saddam's military might and getting inspectors inside Iraq, using force if required. What we have now in Iraq, is the end result of not listening to different opinions and people who knew the Middle East. It's hard to ignore centuries of sectarian violence, IMO and think things will be different this time. It's amazing that the President rushed to get us into Iraq, yet ignored the same concerns his father had in removing Saddam in 1991. When you see quotes like this in 1992 from Dick Chenney:



If Cheney had followed his own beliefs from 1992, instead of being a driving force to invade Iraq in 2003, things might have be different today. The situation in Iraq hasn't only hurt GWB and his administrations legacy, it's tainted everything since. It gave his political opponents/enemies credibility and a legitimate platform to criticize him. It's allowed enemies of America in general to see how vuneralbe and divided we are at this moment. Look to Iran for current examples. America is divided over this war, we have a huge deficit, troops are dying, and there's a general feeling of disgust and cynicism in this country. It just didn't have to be this way. Arrogance, Ego, stupidity, and a failure to see the big picture, is why we are in the mess we are today.

Very well said.
We certainly are in a big mess with no end in sight
Kerri

 

[alldiz]

Lots of name calling by you and then you ask Stark for a partial retraction.

I'm glad Saddam is out of there and that we're winning in Iraq.

Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong.....

What exactly are we winning?
Kerri

 

[Hound 109]

Lots of name calling by you and then you ask Stark for a partial retraction.

I'm glad Saddam is out of there and that we're winning in Iraq.

I stand by everything i said.

He was a cheerleader.

He is a drugstore cowboy (aka as all cowboy no hat). - Never spent time in rural America or on a farm / ranch until he bought one. (The definition of a "drugstore cowboy").

He wears crocks (with black socks) i saw it right here on the Dis.

He is a "chicken hawk" - He did not serve in harms way & entered the Guard to avoid going to Vietnam. (& in fact his National Guard Admission & Service is a whole nuther topic...but no matter). & then he (& Cheney & Rumsfield - two other Chicken Hawks,) sends our troops to war. The definition of Chicken Hawk.

& in my opinion, he's dumb. (not calling him a name.....just questioning his intelligence.)


I'm just reminding non-Texans what this guy is. & he is NOT his father. (a war hero / who was polished / not stubborn or prideful / started HIS OWN business (as opposed to having 2 given to him). Bush 1 was a pragmatic foreign policy guy who knew how to WIN a war & get out before it became a CIVIL war. & he also played college baseball. I don't think he was ever a cheerleader.

Bush 2 can't even define what it is we're trying to win. (much less win it.)

 

[Fitswimmer]

I feel in my heart if we would have concentrated on getting Osama and accomplished that goal. Securing our ports, water treatment, power grids, and other national security interests, Bush would still have a majority of America behind him. I had no problem with taking out Saddam's military might and getting inspectors inside Iraq, using force if required. What we have now in Iraq, is the end result of not listening to different opinions and people who knew the Middle East. It's hard to ignore centuries of sectarian violence, IMO and think things will be different this time. It's amazing that the President rushed to get us into Iraq, yet ignored the same concerns his father had in removing Saddam in 1991. When you see quotes like this in 1992 from Dick Chenney:



If Cheney had followed his own beliefs from 1992, instead of being a driving force to invade Iraq in 2003, things might have be different today. The situation in Iraq hasn't only hurt GWB and his administrations legacy, it's tainted everything since. It gave his political opponents/enemies credibility and a legitimate platform to criticize him. It's allowed enemies of America in general to see how vuneralbe and divided we are at this moment. Look to Iran for current examples. America is divided over this war, we have a huge deficit, troops are dying, and there's a general feeling of disgust and cynicism in this country. It just didn't have to be this way. Arrogance, Ego, stupidity, and a failure to see the big picture, is why we are in the mess we are today.

I agree. It's amazing how forgetful people are. I hear over and over about "flip flopping"-well what in heaven's name do you call what Cheney did? Or what GW said himself about not wanting the US to get involved in nation building and then proceed to involve us in exactly that?

This administration squandered national and global support in order to invade Iraq-and for what? Some say it's about the oil interests, and it does seem to be an interesting coincidence that Exxon has been making record profits since the war started and now we're all excited that gas is below $3 a gallon. That's double what it was prior to the war in case anyone has forgotten. Some say it's about revenge against Saddam for an assassination threat on former President Bush. Still others say that it's about GW wanting to prove something to his father.
We all know now that it wasn't about WMD's, nuclear weapons or the people that attacked us on 9-11.

 

[DISUNC]

I agree. It's amazing how forgetful people are. I hear over and over about "flip flopping"-well what in heaven's name do you call what Cheney did? Or what GW said himself about not wanting the US to get involved in nation building and then proceed to involve us in exactly that?

This administration squandered national and global support in order to invade Iraq-and for what? Some say it's about the oil interests, and it does seem to be an interesting coincidence that Exxon has been making record profits since the war started and now we're all excited that gas is below $3 a gallon. That's double what it was prior to the war in case anyone has forgotten. Some say it's about revenge against Saddam for an assassination threat on former President Bush. Still others say that it's about GW wanting to prove something to his father.
We all know now that it wasn't about WMD's, nuclear weapons or the people that attacked us on 9-11.

I will borrow a GOP quote "Are We better off than we were 6 1/2 years ago?"

The really sad part is that when we get a Democratic President & a full Democratic Senate & House this in 2008 (it WILL happen). It will take them and us 20 years (at least) to dig us out of this mess.

Remember, every child born in 2007....already OWES 400k in future earnings...JUST TO PAY FOR this War alone!!!!!

 

[Fitswimmer]

I will borrow a GOP quote "Are We better off than we were 6 1/2 years ago?"

The really sad part is that when we get a Democratic President & a full Democratic Senate & House this in 2008 (it WILL happen). It will take them and us 20 years (at least) to dig us out of this mess.

Remember, every child born in 2007....already OWES 400k in future earnings...JUST TO PAY FOR this War alone!!!!!

I was better off in 2004 than I was in 2000-but that's not true today. Rising energy costs, rising local taxes (because of cuts in Federal funding) and lower wages because of increases in benefits costs have definately put me in the "worse off" category now.

 

[yeartolate]

Then he should have commented on the war, not insulted the President by claiming he enjoys watching soldiers get blown apart.

He did.

You misunderstood the hyperbole. I wish he had been more direct with his words myself, but it was quite obvious what he was trying to say.

 

[disneyfan67]

I'm glad Saddam is out of there and that we're winning in Iraq.

A lot of us are glad Saddam is gone, just not at the cost of what we have now.

We did win by accomplishing our original goal of removing him and defeating his military. There is no winner or winning in what is happening now in Iraq. There is no army in Iraq to fight. What you have is religious secretarian violence that has been going on for 1400 years. Saddam was a monster, but it's clear he kept a lid on that pressure cooker. You're coming at this from a WW2 angle or something. There is no defeat and surrender with religious fanatics, just an endless parade of death. There will be no ending of this war by signing a treaty on the USS Missouri. We can only hope that after enough suicide bombing, killing and violence that the Iraq people will step up and lead. Or that there isn't many people left to kill because they're all dead. As for calling that winning, I don't know if that is the correct definition of the term.

 

[DawnCt1]

He did.

You misunderstood the hyperbole. I wish he had been more direct with his words myself, but it was quite obvious what he was trying to say.

Sounds like Nancy Pelosi didn't appreciate the hyperbole;

Pelosi Rebukes Stark for Iraq Comments

Oct 19 06:20 PM US/Eastern
By ERICA WERNER
Associated Press Writer







Stark Raving Mad: Congressman Accuses President of Deriving 'Amusement' form American War Dead

Flashback: Stark Berated 'Dissenting' Veteran on Answering Machine


Related Stories


House Minority Whip Blunt's Statement on Rep. Stark's Comments on the Floor

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked a fellow San Francisco Bay-area liberal Friday for what she said were "inappropriate" comments about Iraq during a congressional debate.
During a debate on children's health care Thursday, Rep. Pete Stark accused Republicans of sending troops to Iraq to "get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Condemnations rolled in from Republican politicians, right-leaning bloggers had a field day, and a White House spokesman declined to "dignify those remarks" with a response.

Pelosi issued a statement Friday evening rapping Stark, who is in his 18th term representing the liberal East Bay. He's California's longest-serving House members.

"While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand—providing health care for America's children," Pelosi said.

Stark's comment came as the House failed Thursday to override President Bush's veto of legislation to expand the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"You don't have money to fund the war or children," Stark accused Republicans. "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."

After numerous Republicans called on him to apologize, Stark said it was they who should be apologizing, for failing to provide the votes to override Bush's veto.

Asked for a White House response Friday, spokesman Tony Fratto said: "I see absolutely no reason to dignify those remarks with a comment."

 

[LakeAriel]

Sounds like Nancy Pelosi didn't appreciate the hyperbole;

Pelosi Rebukes Stark for Iraq Comments

Oct 19 06:20 PM US/Eastern
By ERICA WERNER
Associated Press Writer







Stark Raving Mad: Congressman Accuses President of Deriving 'Amusement' form American War Dead

Flashback: Stark Berated 'Dissenting' Veteran on Answering Machine


Related Stories


House Minority Whip Blunt's Statement on Rep. Stark's Comments on the Floor

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked a fellow San Francisco Bay-area liberal Friday for what she said were "inappropriate" comments about Iraq during a congressional debate.
During a debate on children's health care Thursday, Rep. Pete Stark accused Republicans of sending troops to Iraq to "get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Condemnations rolled in from Republican politicians, right-leaning bloggers had a field day, and a White House spokesman declined to "dignify those remarks" with a response.

Pelosi issued a statement Friday evening rapping Stark, who is in his 18th term representing the liberal East Bay. He's California's longest-serving House members.

"While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand—providing health care for America's children," Pelosi said.

Stark's comment came as the House failed Thursday to override President Bush's veto of legislation to expand the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"You don't have money to fund the war or children," Stark accused Republicans. "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."

After numerous Republicans called on him to apologize, Stark said it was they who should be apologizing, for failing to provide the votes to override Bush's veto.

Asked for a White House response Friday, spokesman Tony Fratto said: "I see absolutely no reason to dignify those remarks with a comment."

She said what she had to say, period. No one, including Stark, believes Bush is amused by the maiming and carnage. He just turns away from it and keeps sending them in, over and over and over. Still disgusting.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Sounds like Nancy Pelosi didn't appreciate the hyperbole;

Pelosi Rebukes Stark for Iraq Comments

Oct 19 06:20 PM US/Eastern
By ERICA WERNER
Associated Press Writer







Stark Raving Mad: Congressman Accuses President of Deriving 'Amusement' form American War Dead

Flashback: Stark Berated 'Dissenting' Veteran on Answering Machine


Related Stories


House Minority Whip Blunt's Statement on Rep. Stark's Comments on the Floor

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked a fellow San Francisco Bay-area liberal Friday for what she said were "inappropriate" comments about Iraq during a congressional debate.
During a debate on children's health care Thursday, Rep. Pete Stark accused Republicans of sending troops to Iraq to "get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Condemnations rolled in from Republican politicians, right-leaning bloggers had a field day, and a White House spokesman declined to "dignify those remarks" with a response.

Pelosi issued a statement Friday evening rapping Stark, who is in his 18th term representing the liberal East Bay. He's California's longest-serving House members.

"While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand—providing health care for America's children," Pelosi said.

Stark's comment came as the House failed Thursday to override President Bush's veto of legislation to expand the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"You don't have money to fund the war or children," Stark accused Republicans. "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."

After numerous Republicans called on him to apologize, Stark said it was they who should be apologizing, for failing to provide the votes to override Bush's veto.

Asked for a White House response Friday, spokesman Tony Fratto said: "I see absolutely no reason to dignify those remarks with a comment."

I'm kind of sorry she did that, even though I do think the "amusement" line was over the top. By issuing that statement she gives credence to the idea that we should continue this competition of who can be more outraged about what was said this week.