Democrats continue downward slide...

[sqwkvfr]

......This is inexcusable.

A KSFO listener wrote a letter to Congressman Pete Stark, D-Fremont:

Pete Stark
House of Representatives
239 Cannon HOB
Washington D.C. 20515


Dear Mr. Stark,

I am appalled that you voted against today's House Resolution 627, Roll Number 150. This measure would have shown publicly that you condemn the abuse of the prisoners in Iraq while simultaneously commend the service of the fine men and women who are serving in Iraq that bring honor to the uniform that they wear and to the Nation that they serve.

There are many Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coastguardmen from your 13th Congressional District who are serving with pride and distinction . These men and women bring great credit upon their hometowns and the State of California.

Your "NO" vote is an indication that you do not support the troops who selflessly serve our nation and in many cases have given the ultimate sacrifice so that you might have the freedom that you enjoy as a citizen of this great Nation. Further, your "NO" vote on this resolution is a disgrace to the people of this district who have elected you.

I urge you to stop your contemptuous display of bitter partisanship and your politicization of this War. Your actions are very divisive and destructive to the morale of our troops and the morale of our nation. I know that a majority of the population of the 13th Congressional District are very strong in their support of our soldiers and in their support of the War in iraq. Your "NO" vote today reflects that you are way out of touch with the people of this district.

Very Sincerely,

Daniel L. Dow

Now, Mr. Dow is a Staff Sergeant in the California National Guard and a life member of the VFW and the American Legion.

Here is Pete Stark's response. The message was left on SSGT Dow's answering machine.

 

[Crizz]

His reply is unbelievable...

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

 

[Singlecoil]

Here is an excerpt from the bill: (emphasis added)


H. Res. 627

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 6, 2004.
Whereas the American people and the world are dismayed by revelations of abuses inflicted upon detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad;

Whereas the military justice process so far has resulted in charges being brought against six individuals, three of whom have been recommended for trial by court martial;

Whereas the investigation by the United States Central Command has identified problems of leadership, chain of command, and training that contributed to the instances of abuse;

Whereas the Congress was not fully informed of the existence, or the seriousness, of those abuses or of the investigation of those abuses until after they had been disclosed in the national media;

Whereas such abuses are offensive to the principles and values of the American people and the United States military, are incompatible with the professionalism, dedication, standards and training required of individuals who serve in the United States military, and contradict the policies, orders, and laws of the United States and the United States military and undermine the ability of the United States military to achieve its mission in Iraq;

So first it says we're gonna hang the enlisted men and women, then it says there are problems in the chain of command, then it says these soldiers were not following orders. Many of those soldiers are saying they were ordered to loosen up the detainees. What does this bill accomplish? It lets your opponent in the next election say you voted against supporting the troops when in reality you voted against it because the investigation isn't complete.

I agree that his pithy response is totally lame. Congress spends way too much time on crap like this instead of doing their jobs. Like Lisa Murkowski's bill saying we were going to support our troops that passed 99-0 in the Senate. What fool is going to vote against that? Why not introduce a bill saying we all love our mothers?

 

[sqwkvfr]

What does this bill accomplish?

Nothing. It was a complete waste of time, paper and government resources.

Here's what a very well-listened to radio talk show host said about this situation:

The reason I played this for you is not just to outrage you, but rather to illustrate what I've always told you about liberals. They are condescendingly arrogant. They think you're idiots, not smart enough to make life decisions that will protect you or anybody else -- and if you do come across as intelligent, somebody else had to write it for you because you don't have the guts, brains or ability. Fortney is just typical of how a liberal speaks to an upstart peasant who dares to speak to his congressman.

....I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[festus]

Mr. Stark - what an a$$hole!

 

[jetexas]

Man, what a jerk! If you disagree with him he pelts you with insults in a childlike demeaning tone. The liberal MO!

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

BTW what is the source?

 

[sqwkvfr]

I should have been more clear about that:

Talk Radio KSFO 560 AM- San Francisco

 

[BoDEAN]

The Naval Commander that was above Kerry in Vietnam, was quoated this past week as saying "Kerry was a lose cannon!"

heh


That should cause more doubt with Kerry being in office.

 

[merikeyegro]

So, I get it. Kerry serves and goes a little whacko. It happens when you're at war. He came back, admitted his guilt, and rallied against a crappy war. Ask your dad if HE liked it. Mine hated it. Bush hides in the Guard, hangs out and drinks lattes with his buddies at Skull & Bones, and talks about yachting in Kennebunkport. Cheney trumps up a BS excuse about how he can't serve and blah blah blah. They both proceed to lie about just about anything when questioned. They employ people that are, yes, ORDERING TORTURE. These guys are incredibly honorable. Hide behind 9-11 all you want. You, as a citizen of this great country, should be appalled that you defend such idiots. I guess there's just no convincing Bush-lovers. Hell, I want to follow a guy that just repeats the same thing over and over again (9-11, evil, stay the course, etc.). I want someone who never, EVER changes his mind, no matter the support or evidence to do so. Oh, and I want someone who will never fire ANYONE, no matter how poor the performance. Give me a break.

John Kerry voted against some weapons systems. So be it. He has to answer for that. However, our appalling abuse of prisoners when we're supposedly on the moral high ground only serves the purpose of the terrorists. If you're going to somehow try to turn THIS scandal into something against the Dems, you're going to lose sleep trying. This took no weapons, no fighter jets. This is just out and out abuse that was not only tolerated, but encouraged. There are multiple accounts from British, Americans, Taliban, and Iraqis alike. Run a Google search. The info will light your hair on fire. Maybe that's what it'll take for you to wake up.

Hearts and minds, my a$$. These people will, or already do, hate our guts. I'm just waiting for the next 9-11. Let's see if Bush can blame Clinton, liberals, pacifists, the ACLU, and other "traitors" for it. This one's on their watch.

 

[sqwkvfr]

our appalling abuse of prisoners

I guess the guards went

a little whacko. It happens when you're at war.

 

[sqwkvfr]

UPDATE!

Stark stands by statement

 

[100LL... Again!]

merikeyegro is apparently the founder and sole member of the james carville fan club.

let me get you a tissue, so you can clean off the tip of your nose.

toolish, very toolish.

 

[Timebuilder]

So, I get it. Kerry serves and goes a little whacko. It happens when you're at war.

Of all the Nam era vets I know, none of them have done what Kerry has done, or said what he has said in regard to the United States.

He came back, admitted his guilt, and rallied against a crappy war.

He did far more than just "admit his guilt." He impuned the character of every soldier with whom he served. Further, he failed to make a timely report of any behavior he was aware of that was inconsistent with the Geneva Convention.

Bush hides in the Guard

I love it when a liberal says that, as if guard service was somehow not honorable. The military disagrees. In fact, right now, most of our troops are reservists. Is there service more honorable because they received orders for service in Iraq or Afghanistan?

hangs out and drinks lattes with his buddies at Skull & Bones, and talks about yachting in Kennebunkport.

No attempt at a rebuttal by a liberal is complete without sticking in a few supposed "facts," no matter that they are not in evidence. Why not suggest that he was having sex with farm animals, too? It would be just as believable as what you are suggesting. See, when a Massachusettes liberal is on a yacht, that's okay. Even better if he rides a bicycle that costs $5,000 while posing as a "populist."

Cheney trumps up a BS excuse about how he can't serve and blah blah blah.

You mean he followed the guidlines for service, and was exempted for medical reasons? Something bogus about that? Of course. It's a personal attack, since you have no ideas to argue. You should be ashamed, for as a liberal, you are using "hate speech" against a "disabled person" when you attack someone who could not serve. Now go and say five "our williams" and three "hail hillarys."

They both proceed to lie about just about anything when questioned.

And your supporting evidence is....? Ooops. You don'e need no stinking evidence.

They employ people that are, yes, ORDERING TORTURE.

Ask your dad about torture. He'll set you straight. The stuff we have seen is disgusting, yes. Torture, no. Not even close.

Hide behind 9-11 all you want.

A non sequitur.

You, as a citizen of this great country, should be appalled that you defend such idiots.

I, as a citizen of this country, am glad that we have people who are willing to lay down their lives for the liberty of all of us, even those who trot out their mouths while leving their brain tied up in the barn. In other words, I'm glad they defend you, too.

Hell, I want to follow a guy that just repeats the same thing over and over again (9-11, evil, stay the course, etc.). I want someone who never, EVER changes his mind, no matter the support or evidence to do so. Oh, and I want someone who will never fire ANYONE, no matter how poor the performance. Give me a break.

Then you are right. Kerry is most likely your best choice. He will give you all of that, and more.

However, our appalling abuse of prisoners when we're supposedly on the moral high ground only serves the purpose of the terrorists. If you're going to somehow try to turn THIS scandal into something against the Dems, you're going to lose sleep trying.

Why would I do that? You guys are toast.

This is just out and out abuse that was not only tolerated, but encouraged. There are multiple accounts from British, Americans, Taliban, and Iraqis alike. Run a Google search. The info will light your hair on fire. Maybe that's what it'll take for you to wake up.

Ah. A Google search. The new standard of investigation and justice.

Get a grip.

These people will, or already do, hate our guts. I'm just waiting for the next 9-11. Let's see if Bush can blame Clinton, liberals, pacifists, the ACLU, and other "traitors" for it. This one's on their watch.

Glad tou reminded me. It is very likely that there will be another attack. We have a very open society, so it will be easy. Why will this happen?

Well, for one, because they already "hate our guts," and there is nothing we could do to make that hatred any worse. If they want virgins in heaven, we should oblige each and every one of them who follows that doctrine of death.

The terrorists are eager to see if they can turn this election just like they did in Spain. They are counting on the American left to help them, as unwitting accomplices. They want to mount another attack, and then have Kerry come out and condem our involvement in the Mideast, Iraq, and elsewhere. They hope enough people will become frightened by the next attack, and that the left will help to amplify that fear.

The terrorists see the American left as their best bet to accomplish their goals, getting us out of the Mideast, away from Israel, and forgetting about the spreading of democracy in the Arab world. After all, they want their radical Islamic sect to rule the Arab world, and western values are threatening that future.

Thanks for supplying more grist for the mill.

 

[merikeyegro]

TB - Always happy to give you grist for your "mill." I guess I'll just be the bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, feminist-cheering liberal that you suppose me to be. I'll oblige you, even though you are a Bush apologist.

The Guard today is NOT the Guard of 1970. Today's Guard is essentially no different than Army or AF reserve. Your paycheck just comes from a different place. Back then, it was admittedly a hiding place for people to avoid the draft. Ask around. The Florida NG today gets deployed. In 1970, the military was twice the size, thus no need to deploy. Hence, the "national guard." When the others left, they stuck around. Sounds like a good way to avoid war, doesn't it? Especially if you can get a preferential commission based on family connections...

Kerry went nuts. Yup. At least he volunteered to go. All these attack dogs from the GOP and the Project for the New American Century have little or no military experience, including Cheney, Limbaugh, and Wolfowitz. If I visited New Orleans, came back and said it sucked, and you had never been there, would you argue that it was a great place and that I was a nutjob for saying otherwise? I would probably look at you strangely and wonder how you could be so sure.

Actually, I don't know why I bother with you. I'm actually gonna go out and do something to get this $hithead out of office. You can sit here and bash me all you want. I'm done with it. Peace...

 

[I.P. Freley]

>>>You can sit here and bash me all you want.<<<

Translation:

"I popped in and mouthed off with an angry, vitriolic, venomous post that was a highly personal attack against the President, the National Guard, Cheney et. al., made baseless claims, and suggested using Google to find evidence of how the US Military gets a stiffie for torturing prisoners. 'Timebuilder' had the nerve to address every one of my pi$$y points and slanders, and very well at that, and I'm annoyed. All I have to come back with is to call him a "Bush Apologist" (since I am certainly not a "Kerry apologist) and rant further about how the "old National Guard" was nothing back then and today it is... And I don't want to look like I am not supporting the troops, even though I don't... And I want them all to come slinking back to Fortress America with their tails between their legs. Oh, yeah, and New Orleans sucks, trust me on this. I've nothing of substance to respond with, either (except to naiively proclaim I am going to "do something to get this $hithead out of office", proving how adult I can behave). Since I've used up my DNC-approved "Democrat Sourpuss Dictionary of Terms and Anti-Bush Phrases", and I can't think for myself, I am going to go 'nyeah nyeah nyeah nyeah nyeah nyeaaaaahhhhh'."

At least that's how I read it.

 

[EagleRJ]

merikeyegro

Bush's National Guard squadron wasn't deployed to Vietnam because it flew the F-102 Delta Dart, an interceptor. The squadron was tasked with protecting the mainland US from Soviet bombers, and was not in danger of being deployed to Vietnam because we held air superiority there (Yes, Bush and other pilots who joined the unit probably knew that).

Bush still served his country in the military, learning to fly a difficult to fly aircraft, placing himself at risk of injury or death, and protecting the country from external threats. I don't see it as a refuge from service.

Both Bush and Kerry served their country, although neither was a poster boy. Saying that Bush was AWOL and Kerry is a war hero with a chest of medals is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Timebuilder]

All these attack dogs from the GOP and the Project for the New American Century have little or no military experience, including Cheney, Limbaugh, and Wolfowitz. If I visited New Orleans, came back and said it sucked, and you had never been there, would you argue that it was a great place and that I was a nutjob for saying otherwise? I would probably look at you strangely and wonder how you could be so sure.

Attack dogs. Ya gotta love it. James Carville is an attack dog. Limbaugh isn't. The difference? What Carville says is utter liberal fantasy, and what Limbaugh says can be both insightful and funny.

No military experience? Is that an imperative for a president or even others who serve? Are we now trying to elect an el presidente a la south of the border in central or south America? No, we are a country where we are ruled by a majority of non-military types. Does that mean that they cannot speak on military matters? Of course not. This is another of your straw men.

If you said New Orleans was great, I would probably check it out on the internet to see if that was true. I'd look at reasons you gave to see if I disagreed with your position.

You see, you have to live a little longer, and examine both positions of American politics, and with knowlege of the intent of the founders, then decide which position is more consistent with what America is supposed to be, and with what has made America great. Having done so with intellectual honesty, you will, as I did , change your mind about liberalism.

 

[N2264J]

Re: merikeyegro

Bush still served his country in the military, learning to fly a difficult to fly aircraft, placing himself at risk of injury or death, and protecting the country from external threats. I don't see it as a refuge from service.

Right, then he failed to show up.

=======================

World of Hurt
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: May 9, 2004

WASHINGTON

Good golly, you knew Rummy wasn't going to pretend to stay contrite for long. Not with lawmakers bugging him about the Pearl Harbor of PR, as Republican Tom Cole called it.

The flinty 71-year-old kept it together as John McCain pounced and Hillary prodded. But soon he was once more giving snippy one-word answers to his inquisitors, foisting them on his brass menagerie or biting their heads off himself.

By Friday evening, when the delegate from Guam, Madeleine Bordallo, pressed him on whether "quality of life" was an issue in the Abu Ghraib torture cases, you could see Donald-Duck steam coming out of his ears.

"Whether they have a PX or a good restaurant is not the issue," he said with a veiled sneer.

Rummy was having a dickens of a time figuring out how a control-freak administration could operate in this newfangled age when G.I.'s have dadburn digital cameras.

In the information age, he complained to senators, "people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon."

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, mourned that America was in a "world of hurt." If Gen. Richard Myers knew enough to try to suppress the CBS show, Mr. Graham asked, why didn't he know enough to warn the president and Congress?

Donald Rumsfeld, a black belt at Washington infighting, knew the aggrieved lawmakers were most interested in an apology for not keeping them in the loop. He no doubt was sorry — sorry the pictures got out.

The man who promised last July that "I don't do quagmires" didn't seem to be in trouble on Friday, despite the government's blowing off repeated Red Cross warnings.

But who knows what the effect will be of the additional "blatantly sadistic and inhuman" photos that Mr. Rumsfeld warned of? Or the videos he said he still had not screened?

Dick Cheney will not cut loose his old mentor from the Nixon and Ford years unless things get more dire.

After all, George Tenet is still running the C.I.A. after the biggest intelligence failures since some Trojan ignored Cassandra's chatter and said, "Roll the horse in." Colin Powell is still around after trash-talking to Bob Woodward about his catfights with the Bushworld "Mean Girls" — Rummy, Cheney, Wolfie and Doug Feith. The vice president still rules after promoting a smashmouth foreign policy that is more Jack Palance than Shane. And the president still edges out John Kerry in polls, even though Mr. Bush observed with no irony to Al Arabiya TV: "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country, and we will help them rid Iraq of these killers."

The only people who have been pushed aside in this administration are the truth tellers who warned about policies on taxes (Paul O'Neill); war costs (Larry Lindsey); occupation troop levels (Gen. Eric Shinseki); and how Iraq would divert from catching the ubiquitous Osama (Richard Clarke).

Even if the secretary survives, the Rummy Doctrine — using underwhelming force to achieve overwhelming goals — is discredited. Jack Murtha, a Democratic hawk and Vietnam vet, says "the direction's got to be changed or it's unwinnable," and Lt. Gen. William Odom, retired, told Ted Koppel that Iraq was headed toward becoming an Al Qaeda haven and Iranian ally.

By the end, Rummy was channeling Jack Nicholson's Col. Jessup, who lashed out at the snotty weenies questioning him while they sleep "under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it."

Asked how we can get back credibility, Rummy bridled. "America is not what's wrong with the world," he said, adding: "I read all this stuff — people hate us, people don't like us. The fact of the matter is, people line up to come into this country every year because it's better here than other places, and because they respect the fact that we respect human beings. And we'll get by this."

Maybe. But for now, the hawks who wanted to employ American might to scatter American values like flower petals all across the world are reduced to keeping them from being trampled by Americans. As Rummy would say, not a pretty picture.