Rep.Stark (D) Should apologize!

[Charade]

You are not seriously comparing world war II to the current occupation in Iraq are you? Can you not see the HUGE glaring differences between the two through the smoke and mirrors they're trying to use on the American people.

Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 - there was NO connection between the two. If after Pearl Harbor FDR had decided to attack Spain instead of those that attacked us, would that have been ok with you? Spain was friendly with Germany and Japan, but they had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, it's the same thing we have today.

I do think Saddam was a horrible man, I think he was dangerous to the region and the people of Iraq. But I do not believe he was a direct threat to the US at all.

Of course they aren't the same, in that respect. However, if we had prosecuted the war in Iraq the same way we did in WWII, it would been over by dinner. Iraq time.

That's pretty much what people are saying when they compare the two. We fought WWII to win. We aren't in Iraq. There are too many people who I honestly believe are invested in defeat because of political reasons and put up speed bumps impeading our success. I'm sorry if that bothers some people but I'm just calling like I see it. I think you could say this feeling is the same as those that feel Bush got us into the war in Iraq for his oil buddies and to seek revenge for the attempt on his pappy's life. People honestly believe that so why am I not allowed to believe what I believe?

 

[Hound 109]

Well lets all remember that the next time someone makes a 45 minute long speech and makes the ‘poor choice’ to say "I hate black people" at the end. The point is that it doesn't really matter what percentage of the speech the words make up, or even how long the speech is. Inappropriate is inappropriate.

The first example is an example of racism.

The second is an example of a congressman's anger & frustration of over 3800 dead American serviceman & the utter waste of One Trillion Dollars of our treasury. (That's $1,000,000,000,000).

He was mad as hell. As is most of his constituents & most of the country.

Tomorrow, Stark will be forgotten. Bush's folly will have to be paid for by my 8 y/o son.

 

[PaulaSB12]

If you want to listen listen to the women of Iraq who are now living a perminant hell because of what America and the UK has done to them, yes we removed a dictator but you can guarenttee there will be a new one soon (as was shown last time we removed a leader and put one we liked in) and maybe we will get out of Iraq soon but what about the women of Iraq who are being tortured and killed basically because we put the nutcases in charge the lovely extremists in power who really hate women because if they don't I don't understand the rape and killings the honour killings and the utter determination to push women into denying they have a body by wearing the burkha. Of that I am ashamed.

 

[shortbun]

Really? Why is that again?

Because King George was bored and wanted to play with his army men. Yes, I too believe that George W Bush started this war for his own amusement and the benefit of his friends, family and supporters. I've said it many times and I'm glad a similar statement finally made it to the House floor. To me, THIS is the elephant standing in the middle of the room and the first step to recovery is to admit it's there. The sooner we bring them home, the more of them there will be to come home.

 

[shortbun]

That’s OK. What I was referring to in the other post was people going on about how “you don’t have to support the war to support the troops”, etc as if we (myself, Dawn, whoever else) were calling him a traitor for being against the war. We weren’t- we simply thought the comments he made about the president were inappropriate.

People always fear the truth. The truth hurts. The comments he made about George W Bush were appropriate because either he's incredibly stupid OR he's being entertained. Either way, people need to know.

 

[ConcKahuna]

It's idiotic comments like this that scare me concerning the future of the USA!

Which comments, the fact that people feel someone should apologize because they said something against the pres? The point of a democracy is that not everyone agrees with everyone else. If you listen to the differing opinions, you can normally find the truth somewhere in the middle. I feel he had the right to be mad, although he could have worded things better and been a bit less over-the-top. I still don't think he should apologize though.

Dawn, they won't give an inch. It's not what they want to hear so they will turn it around to their benefit. If someone says anything against the President they are on it. Forget about the troops. They claim to support them but only when it's convenient. This is clearly a divided subject. I almost hate reading some of the posts because I can't believe what people think. Clearly Stark should apologize. Someone dying is not amusement for the President. I think he is a decent human being that gets up everyday and hopes to do the right thing for this country. Iraq had to be done. Like it or not.

I don't think the pres is amused by the deaths, but I also havent once seen him express what I would see as genuine emotion over those deaths. I think he just doesnt care because those deaths don't touch his life at all.

Boo hiss... Stark said something bad. Cry me a friggin' river. BUSCH however, goes beyond words and steps into the realm of action and in the process, kills thousands and thousands of men, women and children on both sides.

I'll take words over action any day.

I love you Rick!

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

Are you talking about the same war that everyone else is? It's hard to win a war when you don't have a definitive goal or target, and although the opposing sides debate whether or not we are doing any good, I havent even seen any educated conservatives saying that we are "winning."

 

[disneyfan67]

Because King George was bored and wanted to play with his army men. Yes, I too believe that George W Bush started this war for his own amusement and the benefit of his friends, family and supporters. I've said it many times and I'm glad a similar statement finally made it to the House floor. To me, THIS is the elephant standing in the middle of the room and the first step to recovery is to admit it's there. The sooner we bring them home, the more of them there will be to come home.

I do believe now that the administration did do everything it could to get America involved in Iraq. I won't be surprised to see in a few years former staff members come forward and declassified documents to show that they knew the intelligence was faulty, but made it fit anyway. I have no concrete proof, but everything inside me tells me this. Within a few years, more documents and insiders with stories to tell, will come out in the open.


As for the amusement part, I have to disagree with that. I think they look at the loss of troops as part of the package when waging war. They probably come at it in a cold business like mindset, like most staunch Republicans do on just about everything. They don't look at it like most of us in the real world do. I remember starting a thread here, on the rising suicide rates in the military and one Bush supporter coldly dismissed it as a non issue and said it was still lower than the national average. I remember reading that and thinking, how cold and uncaring do you have to be? I understand that soldiers die in war, but my belief is that you should do all you can for the people who are fighting for your freedom.

I think the POTUS and his staff were completely unprepared for how long we would be in Iraq and the level of violence that would happen after Saddam was removed. It's like they had no plan after defeating Saddam's military and removing him. My gut feeling tells me while Bush may feel bad about American deaths, he looks at it as a necessity and as something that happens in war. That's why I find him to be hypocritical when discussing his religious faith, yet that compassion doesn't seem to extend to those who put their lives on the line. If you're going to wage war, IMO, you should make sure that you're doing everything you can to make the mission successful and protect American lives. It's pretty clear that the administration is going to run out the clock and drop Iraq in the laps of the next POTUS. There's no way that any significant troop withdrawal happens in the next year or so. Amusement? No. Cold and detached? Yes.

 

[disneyfan67]

I'm posting Colin Powell doctrine below and it's too bad that the administration didn't dwell on a number of them. The fact that they had this man working for them in the WH and ignored this, is unbelievable, IMO.

The Powell doctrine:


Questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:


1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?


2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?


3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?


4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?


5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?


6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?


7. Is the action supported by the American people?


8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

 

[RickinNYC]

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.

I don't think he's amused at all. I think he honestly just does not care one single bit about who gets killed. It's not him, his family or anyone he knows so where is the need for any emotion in his world? He's a cold hearted, soulless, empty headed, absolutely worthless 110% idiot. He doesn't have enough intelligence in that noggin of his to be capable of knowing whether something is amusing or not.

He's an embarrasment to the United States and to the presidency.

 

[yeartolate]

I'm posting Colin Powell doctrine below and it's too bad that the administration didn't dwell on a number of them. The fact that they had this man working for them in the WH and ignored this, is unbelievable, IMO.

The Powell doctrine:


Questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:


1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?


2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?


3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?


4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?


5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?


6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?


7. Is the action supported by the American people?


8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

The Bush Administration wasted Colin Powell. When Bush first went into office I had grave reservations about him, but I remember feeling at ease once Colin Powell was placed at his side. To bad he was used more like a prop than the valuable resource he should have been.

 

[DawnCt1]

I'm posting Colin Powell doctrine below and it's too bad that the administration didn't dwell on a number of them. The fact that they had this man working for them in the WH and ignored this, is unbelievable, IMO.

The Powell doctrine:


Questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:


1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?


2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?


3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?


4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?


5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?


6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?


7. Is the action supported by the American people?


8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

I would say that we have had ONE through EIGHT....certainly at the time we went into Iraq. I would say that the media has done a good job undermining #7 and #8.

 

[transparant]

I don't think he's amused at all. I think he honestly just does not care one single bit about who gets killed. It's not him, his family or anyone he knows so where is the need for any emotion in his world? He's a cold hearted, soulless, empty headed, absolutely worthless 110% idiot. He doesn't have enough intelligence in that noggin of his to be capable of knowing whether something is amusing or not.

He's an embarrasment to the United States and to the presidency.

Rick - without getting into specifics & detail - I can honestly tell you that this is 110% incorrect. I really don't want to get into why - but on a personal level...I know this is not true.

 

[RickinNYC]

Rick - without getting into specifics & detail - I can honestly tell you that this is 110% incorrect. I really don't want to get into why - but on a personal level...I know this is not true.

He himself would have to tell me otherwise, and even then I wouldn't believe a word that came out of his mouth.

 

[transparant]

He himself would have to tell me otherwise, and even then I wouldn't believe a word that came out of his mouth.

Believe what you will. I've seen, know and believe differently.

 

[LakeAriel]

If he gave a rat's behind he wouldn't have sent them there..Sitting around Walter Reed mold house, holding their hands, with crocodile tears, doesn't cut it.

 

[yeartolate]

I would say that we have had ONE through EIGHT....certainly at the time we went into Iraq. I would say that the media has done a good job undermining #7 and #8.

Sadly, I think you really believe that.

 

[transparant]

If he gave a rat's behind he wouldn't have sent them there..Sitting around Walter Reed mold house, holding their hands, with crocodile tears, doesn't cut it.

FYI - Walter Reed has been drastically improved upon.

 

[LakeAriel]

FYI - Walter Reed has been drastically improved upon.

That is good to hear!

 

[Beca]

I do believe now that the administration did do everything it could to get America involved in Iraq. I won't be surprised to see in a few years former staff members come forward and declassified documents to show that they knew the intelligence was faulty, but made it fit anyway. I have no concrete proof, but everything inside me tells me this. Within a few years, more documents and insiders with stories to tell, will come out in the open.

Here you go:

http://bushcrimes.net/

 

[Kathi OD]

I would say that we have had ONE through EIGHT....certainly at the time we went into Iraq. I would say that the media has done a good job undermining #7 and #8.

You've got to be kidding! At the time this fiasco began, yes could be the answer to only #2 and 7; and #7 only because the information was faulty.