Channel: Home | About

What I find odd about his bizarre statement was his use of the trite and much ballyhooed term "Illegal War"

Correct me if I'm wrong but... didn't the House and the Senate VOTE to send troops to war? Didn't Democrats insist on being allowed to vote on the measure to show their Patriotism? Did Congress then engage in an illegality? And judging by the magnitude of their vote, couldn't this be construed as a High Crime? Especially since they continue to vote to FUND the war!?

Hmmmm.


9 Comments:

  1. Anonymous said...
    If a conman fools you into giving him money, it's still an illegal act. Even if you beg to give him the money, you can still regret later that you were conned, making it an illegal act. That's the reasoning for those who think the Iraq War is an illegal war. They feel that the reasons and justifications for going to war were fabricated and exaggerated.

    Things can be looked at from different angles and have different shapes. That's one of those lessons you learn in kindergarten that serves you well all through life.
    Eric said...
    And yet they continue to fund the war... is the Left so foolish and the President so smart that they continue to fall for his crafty scheming lies about the War in Iraq.

    Come on!

    The Left in Congress are cowards... afraid of the people who may vote them out if they vote to take shells out of Johnny's M16.
    Al-Ozarka said...
    Pete Stark really needs to go to his cardiologist and have his medication adjusted. His rediculous rant was obviously one influenced by an elixer of life-sustaining drugs manufactured by evil cor[porations. It's the ONLY logical explanation for his actions.

    Other than...he is an anti-American leftist shmuck.
    Al-Ozarka said...
    Hey BenT,

    I have to wonder if you ever look at things from a perspective other than your own after your comment above.

    I've seen absolutelt NO evidence that you do after having read your comments for these past two years or so.

    None. Nada. You are a stone wall, my friend...a stone wall.
    Anonymous said...
    You mean after your impassioned and logical condemnation of Rep. Stark? I try to see all the angles of an issue and make up my mind before I post. But I can be swayed. I didn't get deeply into EL recent discussion of global warming, but some of the points he made caused me to rethink some of my conclusions. I still think human-kind is playing a large role in climate change, and that said climate change is a real phenomenon, but I'm not as despondent over the results of said climate change.

    Back to topic!

    Defunding the war would be an active effort. As a generalization all politicians avoid active efforts until all other paths are closed. Secondly some democrats more passionate about this issue have brought forward bills and amendments that would limit our engagement in Iraq. Thirdly Republicans have amazing party loyalty, when these divisive issues come up for a vote not one Republican crosses party lines. Democrats don't march in such lock-step. Forth Pres. Bush will veto any measure that ratchets down the struggle in Iraq. Democrats don't have the votes to override. Those are the practical real-world reasons that the Democratic Controlled Congress hasn't just turned off the money tap.

    Several national polls show that a plurality of the American public is ready for us to withdraw from Iraq. But Democrats don't spoil for legislative fights the way republicans do, so you get your war until the next president is sworn in. Because no matter what happens, the next president will pull troops out of Iraq pretty damn quick. Even a republican president won't want to start an administration with an unpopular war hanging around his neck like an albatross.
    Eric said...
    I readily admit that even Democrats can speak before thinking. Pete Stark certainly did that. As to whether he actually believed what he said-- and most people do when they speak --I cannot say. That he tearfully apologized is a mark in his favor, but the cynic in me wonders if it wasn't all a sham to get back in the peoples good graces... That was the cynic in me speaking. The WHOLE EL likes to think the best of people, but in this climate of severe polarization it is sometimes hard to see past the cynicism.
    Anonymous said...
    Rep. Pete Stark has said inflammatory things before. It seems to be something he likes to do. Sort of like me and you, EL. He happens to be a United States Representative though. He has been reelected though, so he must be saying the things his district wants said.
    Mark said...
    Stark represents the absolutely most Liberal district of California. It's no wonder he keeps getting re-elected. They are as stupidly radical as he is. Since his people won't do the honorable thing and throw him out, he should do the right thing and just resign.

    After all, when Republicans say and do stupid things, they resign out of embarrassment. Lone Ranger is right. Democrats are incapable of being embarrassed.
    Eric said...
    A LOT of people should resign, and I agree with Lone Ranger's assessment, but I did ask a pointed question here-- a question no one has answered:

    "Did Congress engage in an illegality by sending American troops to Iraq?"


    If not, Pete Stark is a liar and an Idiot-- as is every other Liberal Democrat who spouts the same tripe.

    But if Congress DID engage in an illegal act by sending American troops to Iraq, then every last one of them should resign. Because THAT amounts to a High Crime, in that more than 3,000 American lives alone were lost.

    Barring that, every single one of these idiots should keep their mouths shut about "illegal" wars-- ESPECIALLY since they continue to fund the blasted thing!


    [cundqyfg]

Post a Comment