Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, March 11, 2010

The House voted 356-65 Wednesday to reject a measure that would have compelled U.S. armed forces to leave Afghanistan within 30 days. Five Republicans joined 60 Democrats in voting for the resolution. "Is the cost of this war worth it?" asked Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine). "Can we afford to turn our backs on the challenges we face at home and continue to pursue failed policies abroad?"

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

iraqibukkake

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Well Democrats, it's your war now. Time to strap YOUR boots on and send your children to die for nothing...er...I mean the "right war".

#1
Yep.

I'm pleased that 65 House members voted to end the war. There's nothing we can accomplish in Afghanistan we haven't already accomplished the past seven years. We're pouring money and lives into the country for no purpose.

#1, 2

And remember, no one can support this war unless they are personally willing to enlist and go over there themselves lest they be labeled a chickenhawk

Or have the rules predictibly changed since Bush was president? LOL

1,2,3,4...Yep.

I'm not even anti-war per se, but I agree with RCade at #3.

Or have the rules predictibly changed since Bush was president?

They OBVIOUSLY have! The double standards on display by the right here are as empty headed as the Doublemint Gum Twins.

Everything was Clinton's fault until Obama was elected, now it's Obama's fault.

In RiR's case, for example, government borrowing 'at low rates' was a good thing. Now the deficits Bush created are not discussed, only what Obama was left to deal with.

The list is way too long to bother typing. Double standards aplenty.

#7 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-11 10:37 AM
Have you no shame son? lol! I nominate AU for master deflector.

"Everything was Clinton's fault until Obama was elected, now it's Obama's fault."

It's not his fault, but it is his problem.

#3

Well, we could run out on them after promising to help fight the Taliban with them if they would only let us come in country to go after Osama. I mean, that's what we have always done with these countries, agree to help them then run out on them. That's what they expect of us now.

And for most of the "7 years", we were twiddling our thumbs, not doing what we have been doing for the last year.

If we were to pull out, there would be Taliban retributions that would kill thousands of innocent women and children, not to mention what else might be done to them.

I've seen US troopers on the front lines, including women in combat, interviewed and talking about how this fight was so much different than the one in Iraq.... that these people really have a good chance for a reasonably secure future if we just hang in a little longer and defeat a force that took us only a few weeks to kick out of the country last time.

When, after all these years, we are finally accomplishing something, including having finally persuaded the Pakis to get serious on their side of the border, is no time to cut and run.

#9 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Of course.

When will Obama's daughters enlist?

How about Chelsea Clinton? She's old enough.

Everything was Clinton's fault until Obama was elected, now it's Obama's fault.

Who said anything about Obama? Go read the top of the page and try again.

Well, we could run out on them after promising to help fight the Taliban with them if they would only let us come in country to go after Osama. I mean, that's what we have always done with these countries, agree to help them then run out on them. That's what they expect of us now.

Yes, with our 700 bases in 200 countries, our history of running out truly is prolific.

And for most of the "7 years", we were twiddling our thumbs, not doing what we have been doing for the last year.

Massive increases in drone strikes that hit innocents more often than the intended targets? Repeated killing of AQ #2 in Afghan/Pakistan...wow, Giterdun.

If we were to pull out, there would be Taliban retributions that would kill thousands of innocent women and children, not to mention what else might be done to them.

What makes you think that isn't going to happen whenever we properly leave? When we leave, there will be a vacuum and someone will fill it. We already know about Blackwater trained Afghanis switching sides. All we know is that the longer we wait, the people filling these voids will be more and more trained by our hard earned dollars.

I've seen US troopers on the front lines, including women in combat, interviewed and talking about how this fight was so much different than the one in Iraq.... that these people really have a good chance for a reasonably secure future if we just hang in a little longer and defeat a force that took us only a few weeks to kick out of the country last time.

Well, lets see...I've got dozens of different armies, over thousands of years who have never been able to conquer that region of the world, and you've got a few soldiers trying to justify their presence in a third-world shithole, battling for mud farmers.

When, after all these years, we are finally accomplishing something, including having finally persuaded the Pakis to get serious on their side of the border, is no time to cut and run.

Dubya couldn't have said it better himself.

/cue "What's that on your face?"

The House voted 356-65

65 good members of the House.

Five Republicans joined 60 Democrats in voting for the resolution

Enough to start a new party since the remaining members of the House all seem to be in lock-step with one another.

If we were to pull out, there would be Taliban retributions that would kill thousands of innocent women and children, not to mention what else might be done to them.

Or we'll make a deal with the Taliban the same way we've made deals with former Iraqi insurgents.

Well, we could run out on them after promising to help fight the Taliban with them if they would only let us come in country to go after Osama. I mean, that's what we have always done with these countries, agree to help them then run out on them. That's what they expect of us now.

And why they are doing as little as they can now to keep the country stable. They know it is only a matter of time before the U.S. leaves like the Soviet Union did. And then the real war starts.

Nation building will not work in Afghanistan. The most we could have hoped to achieve there was to oust Al Qaeda. Which we did. Trying to turn that country into a stable Western-style democracy is utterly futile.

may want to wait until november THIRD, ...the house will have a WHOLE NUTHER look then...

may want to wait until november THIRD, ...the house will have a WHOLE NUTHER look then...

Yes, because a resurgence of neocons in tea party clothing is a real game changer...yawn.

-And why they are doing as little as they can now to keep the country stable.

The people of the country are doing as much as they can to survive, and even the government is showing signs of interest, as the military there is the most respected institution in the country.

No one I know is trying to build a Western democracy there, or thinks that is possible. What is possible is to help the people, as we promised, who want their country back and know that if we leave the Taliban will be right back in.

We can make them strong enough to fight for themselves without an outright abandonment as per usual, and perhaps repair our own reputation in the world.

This isn't Iraq, where I expect the Shiites and Sunnis to start shooting the moment we leave, as do most Iraqis, many of whom are already nostalgic for a Saddam-like strongman to keep them apart.

This is a country where the vast majority do not want the Taliban, and where the Taliban can be ultimately defeated, especially if the Pakis do their part on their border.

We can make them strong enough to fight for themselves ...

If we couldn't do that in the first seven years of the war, how long should we stay there trying to accomplish that? 14 years? 21?

If we couldn't do that in the first seven years of the war, how long should we stay there trying to accomplish that? 14 years? 21?

When the goal is as nebulous as "helping those who want their country back", you potentially have a mission that can never be accomplished.

more completely meaningless posturing by the democrats trying to get morons like many here to believe that there is a difference between the parties.

completely clueless fucktards choosing to suffer from convenient thinking.

-If we couldn't do that in the first seven years of the war

Did you miss the part where we didn't do diddly squat the first 7 years and have only begun to take on the challenge a year ago?

I'm going to credit what the troops in the field say, that this is a doable job. We've only really been at it a year, and I think in another 2 years we'll be rotating troops out like we are now in Iraq.

But that the situation in Afghan will be more stable than it will be in Iraq.

Rcade shines on, "I'm pleased that 65 House members voted to end the war."

Of course you are! That's the abadon-your-democratic-friend to Islamic Jihadist terrorism; similar to the same collective cowardice that led to the genocide after Democrats abandoned *ALL* defense for South Vietnam.

Why did the Progressive Party abandon our ally in Vietnam and allow communist aggression their victory and revenge onthe lives of millions of Asian peoples?

Rcade explains, "There's nothing we can accomplish in Afghanistan we haven't already accomplished the past seven years. We're pouring money and lives into the country for no purpose."

This craven philosophy is inherent in those who call themselves, "Democrats"! They naturally consider in their cowardice that *MONEY* is more important than encouraging and defending democracy in the world. Indeed! They actually spit on the reputations of our citizen soldiers who risk their lives VOLUNTARILY ... then turn around and whine about their lost lives (to turn you into the collective coward they happen to be!).

You and your Yellow-Dog-Democrat ilk are craven vermin; selfish party fascists who delcare, "OUR WAY OR NO WAY AT ALL!"

Despicable, cowardly and the worst example of selfishness in all of history ...

After three hours of debate by a miniscule number of antiwar Democrats, the House voted 356 to 65 to reject the withdrawal proposal. Five Republicans joined 60 Democrats in support of pulling out while 189 Democrats and 167 Republicans were opposed.

The resolution was introduced by Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich. His resolution would have invoked the War Powers Act to force the withdrawal of American troops within 30 days.

The War Powers Act was passed in 1973. It was a feeble attempt to reign in the executive.

"Does the President assert as the kings of old that as Commander in Chief he can order American forces anywhere for any purpose that suits him?"
asked then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after Nixon illegally sent bombers to Cambodia in violation of the Constitution.

Under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. Congress has not officially declared war since World War 2. The wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and numerous other conflicts declared by the executive are violations of the Constitution.

In the mid-1970s, after Nixon's fall from grace for attempting to cover-up Watergate, Congress passed the War Powers Act, eliminated the draft, demanded oversight of the CIA, cut the budget for the Pentagon's Special Operations Forces, and curtailed the ClA's paramilitary capabilities.

"The lesson of Vietnam is that we must throw off the cumbersome mantle of world policeman,"
said then senator Edward Kennedy.

Well Democrats, it's your war now. Time to strap YOUR boots on and send your children to die for nothing...er...I mean the "right war".

----------

it always has been.

just now they can't hide it behind 'no' votes anymore.

Damn!@&%&$#^!

Bested by the Tadowe Rule.

"If Tadowe agress with you, you are obviously wrong."

agrees

#27
Who would've guessed it could happen?

L_C says, "Under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war."

This is one of those bipartisan claims and based on ignorance and the belief that the claimant is correct; the point moot, at best.

Declaring War, and conducting war are two (2) different subjects. If congress declares war, then the president is given dictatorial powers in order to defeat the enemy. That means martial law, censorship of all media, forced draft, direction under distraint to private enterprise, and a host of other conditions needed to asure the best chance for victory over the aggressor(s).

Conducting a war, sans those tyrannical restrictions (or the chance for a coup d'etat) is a matter of FUNDING; which restricts any military action taken by the commander in chief.

Congress has the power to do both; even suggest wars to be done against some "enemy" congress identifies with the consent of the public.

As a matter of fact, Ron Paul already knows this, but like any other lying politician uses the stupid claim, himself ... (or maybe he is just another dimwit constitutionally and knows more about impacted teeth ...)

Most of the USA's military adventures have been funded, not declared ...

Corky agrees (twice now), "Bested by the Tadowe Rule. *If Tadowe agress with you, you are obviously wrong.*"

How are you wrong, Corky?

No, that's not fair, is it?

On what do we agree, Corky?

Did you miss the part where we didn't do diddly squat the first 7 years and have only begun to take on the challenge a year ago?

I don't believe that part. The Obama administration is still in Iraq, so it's not like we're hyperfocused on Afghanistan now. We're spinning our wheels and taking Americans away from their families for years -- all for a country where it won't be safe for an American to visit for the foreseeable future.

#32 | Posted by rcade

Iraq is a major success for the Obama administration.

Didn't Biden give you the memo?

Iraq is a major success for the Obama administration.

Didn't Biden give you the memo?


The Academy Awards told me that. A pro-Iraq movie won over one seen as anti-Iraq.

-I don't believe that part.

Well, GW did do diddly squat, so you believe that part.

What is it about an additional 20k + troops last year and increased Paki involvement that you don't believe?

You may not believe they will be successful, but the idea that we tried this for 7 years and it didn't work is 'diculous.

Well, GW did do diddly squat ...

The first six months of the Afghanistan War were very successful. It wasn't until Bush went for a war two-fer that our progress languished.

RCADE - Are these not the same statements you made on Iraq 3 years ago? They are now voting in their 5th election and providing their own security.

People are the same all over the world ..they yearn to have thier kids grow up happy, with a future and in peace. Each culture defines a different way to get there ..but that is the basic end.

To achieve that sometimes requires force - "those who beat thier swords into plowshares will work for those who do not" Thomas Jefferson.

Afganistan has been a brutalize country since the invasion by the Soviet Union. Like a dog beaten too often, it bites at anyone or anything that it percieves as a threat and latches onto anything that brings just a bit of stability and safety - which is what the Taliban brought until it started abusing its power.

Now we have the chance to bring that stablity and end the brutalization. It takes a long time for wounds to heal..but time does heal all wounds. We just have to be there long enough for it to take effect.

America is unique in world history for coming to the aid of people and freeing them - removing the yoke of despotism and allow personal liberty to grow. For that reason we have been the light of the world for over 200 years.

Are these not the same statements you made on Iraq 3 years ago? They are now voting in their 5th election and providing their own security.

So we can leave today, right?

Now we have the chance to bring that stablity and end the brutalization. It takes a long time for wounds to heal..but time does heal all wounds. We just have to be there long enough for it to take effect.

Soviets could have said the same thing. But in Cyrillic.

-our progress languished.

Yes, it only took a few months to kick them out before. That we have to do it all over again now is thanks to GW and his preemptive war..... wait, does that rhyme?

But we haven't been trying to do it for 7 years.

-So we can leave today, right?

Obama's schedule of combat troops out by August is holding up so far.

Did you miss the part where we didn't do diddly squat the first 7 years and have only begun to take on the challenge a year ago?

* * * *

Yes, I must have. Did Obama liberate Kabul yet? Or was that already done, in 2002?

Sure, Bush's operations drove the Taliban to the mountains, but NATO forces had control of all the cities. It was up to Obama to declare victory and go home, had he so chosen. What if he had said that in the event the Taliban retakes the cities, we'll just bomb them to the ground?

What were the libbies always saying? That just being in the Middle East is what's creating all these terrorists in the first place? But now that Obama is "promising to fight" in Afghanistan, now it's irresponsible to leave?

Is there anything that comes out of Obama's piehole that the libbies here really subject to analysis at all? How many times does Obama have to flip-flop, with you guys along for the ride to explain away every one of them?

Obama is doing in Afghanistan exactly what he said he'd do during the presidential campaign.

Did you miss the part where we didn't do diddly squat the first 7 years and have only begun to take on the challenge a year ago?

Maybe you missed the part when Obama was Senator and in charge of the committee for Afghanistan and didn't lift a finger--didn't even have ONE hearing on the committee he was the head of...

As for now--it took him three months to find his shit and make a decision--but he finally did it.

So just do it!

We have a responsiblity --morally--to make this right so this country can move forward without the taliban or AQ or whoever.

Obama wasn't CiC. Only the CiC can direct military actions.

As for the time, it's called formulating a 'plan' with an end game before going half cocked into a military mission like we did in Iraq. First two weeks of Iraq were planned. After that, nada. We all know how that turned out.

while the drones argue over the withdrawal continued occupation of afghanistan, a $700 billion defense (sic) budget is passed.

psst its about corporate welfare to defense contractors.

keep on thinking you mean anything

Obama wasn't CiC. Only the CiC can direct military actions.

Not one hearing AU..

He voted 'present'.

President Obama is a war president. Let's hope he is good at it.

We are living like in the book 1984 where a few imes a day an anouncement from Big brother tells how the war casualties are going.

There are 291 congressmen that need to be not voted for next election/

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable