« Hillary To Make First Campaign Visit To South Carolina | Home | GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell Holding Press Conference To Respond To Reid »
Goode: Without Surge, U.S. Money May Soon Say "In Muhammad We Trust"
"In Muhammad We Trust." That's what GOP Rep. Virgil Goode says that U.S. money risks being marked with — that is, if we don't support escalation of the Iraq war as part of our broader efforts to stave off Muslim domination of the United States in general. "In Muhammad We Trust." Goode, you may recall, sparked a national controversy back in December by saying that the U.S. should close its borders lest it be overrun by frightening hordes of Muslims. To watch Goode's surreal moment on video, click here.
Advertisement















Two words come to mind:
"batshit" and "insane."
February 15, 2007 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do his constituents realize they have a brain-dead nutjob representing them in Congress? My recently deceased cat has more brainpower than this fool.
February 15, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do these psychos get elected? I mean really, this is the kind of thing that elementary schoolchildren get suspended for.
February 15, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even in a party with so many embarrassing politicians, this guy must be pretty high on the list.
February 15, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real frightening thought is:
He has a constituency.
We know his state of mind. What State is he from?
February 15, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a moron - for a start the Muslims believe in God (Allah) with Muhammad being the prophet. If the US currency said "In Jesus We Trust" then at least the analogy would be technically equivalent. As it is Moslems have the same God that Christians claim to have - in the Arabic Bible God is translated Allah. Christians, Jews and Muslims are the so-called three religions of the book.
Where do they dredge these idiots up and who votes them in to office?
February 15, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank GOD for the Republicans! Without them, we'd all be speaking Swahili and bowing down to pray to Macaca five times a day. Or whatever. The American public gave these lunatics the boot because they wouldn't listen, and they STILL AREN'T LISTENING. What gives them the impression that they still have the right to debate this at this point? We, the people who pay their wages, already told them how to vote. They work for US. What part of "representative government" don't these cluelessly arrogant buffoons not understand?
February 15, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's nuts.
February 15, 2007 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite line in the speech is when Representative Gump warns us that if this resolution passes "the terrorists would suuuuuurrrely enter in to this country", presumably to make us all slaves of this fellow Moohamid. While I'm relieved to learn that there currently are no terrorists in this country (phew!) I wasn't aware that the resolution actually addressed the issue of immigration. Maybe I missed a line or two. All I can say is, it's too bad we didn't invade Iraq sooner. Maybe the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City would still be standing today.
Let's fight them over there. I sure as hell don't want to have to fight them in the restroom at Taco Bell.
February 15, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This ignorant shit-kicker sure is a quaking girly-man, idn't he? The type to soil his Depends at the very thought of those big, bad, nasty Islamists. Its amazing how its always the biggest cowards and bed-wetting bullies who are the most strident and extreme exponents of irrational policy, idn't it?
Oh Laudy! Save me Mr. Prezdint!
Virgil Goode? Nope, Virgil Bad.
UA
February 15, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I wasn't aware that the resolution actually addressed the issue of immigration. "
Heh, Ellison swearing on the Koran didn't have anything to do with immigration, either. This guy is just nuts - and extremely hateful.
February 15, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Insert your own Appalachia joke here.
February 15, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This clown's district includes Charlottesville, home of the University of Virginia. I'll bet those UVA people are real proud to be represented by an idiot like this.
February 15, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it fair to demonize the entire GOP for the ignorant remarks of one man? Maybe not. But I don't hear a rising chorus of his Republican colleagues denouncing him either. And until I do, I'm content with calling the GOP the party of bigots, among other things.
February 15, 2007 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
That, and a rock
Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.
February 15, 2007 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Virgina
Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.
February 15, 2007 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'd really like to know is what idiots voted this moron into office...
WTF were they thinking???
Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.
February 15, 2007 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christians do in fact believe in the divinity of Jesus, so even that wouldn't be the best analogy. A better one may be: "In Isaiah we trust."
The "What a moron" comment, though, is exactly right.
February 15, 2007 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP is in full-on bunker mode. They dare not say anything of substance re this issue. The best they can hope for is to say nothing but "support the troops," watch the escalation fail, and then throw their hands up and blame the Iraqis for this failure. By my clock they have until September at the latest. Problem is, by that time, all of the credible presidential candidates will have participate in at least one debate, which will only put more pressure on GOP reps.
What a shame.
February 15, 2007 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
While a student at the University of Richmond, Congressman Goode was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa and Omicron Delta Kappa honor societies. Following his graduation from the University of Richmond, Congressman Goode attended the University of Virginia School of Law where he received a J.D. in 1973. During that time, he was selected for the Virginia Law Review.
http://www.house.gov/goode/biography.shtml
Did he choke on a pretzel at some point before getting to the US House?
February 15, 2007 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I'm from Charlottesville (thus my screen name) and frankly I am glad that this stupid hillbilly is finally nailing his coffin shut! The truth is that he has always been a dope but he has a reputation for responding to constituents' requests for help.
His opponent in the last 2 elections was Al Weed. A gentleman and a scholar and a real thinker. All you have to do is listen to Virgil for one minute to realize that he doesn't appeal to thinkers.
My hope is that his idiocy will finally be obvious to all those who just voted the status quo or listened to all those who said, "Virgil will read your letters and stand up for you."
Our daily paper has had about 50/50 letters to the editor about his remarks about muslims. Some say that he is saving our country from the godless, and the rest of us say he is ruining our country. I don't think he will survive another election, but I could be wrong.
Virginia may be entering the world of the educated and thoughtful, but I don't make any promises. There are way too many
uberchristianswhofeartheworldandvotewedgeissues here. I know. I am related to many of them!
Jan Knaus
February 15, 2007 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, he makes me really proud to be a Virginian. What an idiot! You couldn't create a better stereotype of a Southern bigot, right down to his horrible accent. He was a Democrat up until 2000. Started calling himself an independent then joined the GOP in '02. Charlottesville is the one beacon of sanity in his district.
February 15, 2007 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they also revere Abraham
February 15, 2007 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although Goode may believe what he is saying, I think he's an old-fashioned Southern demagogue--stirring up fear of another (then blacks, now Muslims) for his own political advantage. I don't think he's as dumb as he looks, or sounds.
February 15, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly do not know which is more frightening / disheartening / disgusting:
(a) Goode is as stupid as he sounds or (b) he is not as stupid as he sounds. Forced to choose, I think it is the latter. At any rate, this is a very depressing display - all the way down to his "invocation" of Moo-hammad. One could almost feel him/herself transported back to the roaring 20's.
February 15, 2007 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both of those honor societies look good on paper but don't mean much in real life. Scholarship is not intelligence. PBK is entirely determined by gradepoint average, and ODK lists the following high standards:
"Student membership candidates must rank in the upper 35 percent in scholarship of their school or college and must show leadership in at least one of five areas: scholarship; athletics; campus or community service, social and religious activities, and campus government; journalism, speech, and the mass media; and creative and performing arts."
So, you could get ODK with a 2.5 GPA in P.E. while teaching a junior high softball team. Acquiring a J.D., as we all know, is no guarantee of intelligence.
February 15, 2007 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If in fact he is a lame duck, that would explain a lot of reasons he might have to spew administration talking points. I wonder how many others are sacrificing their terms for this cause.
February 15, 2007 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone checked Jefferson's grave for disturbed earth?
February 15, 2007 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you overestimate people. If he does get tossed out, it will be a sign that attitudes have changed. Even after the Keith Ellison flap, he won re-election with 59% of the vote. He's had some financing scandals hit him since then, and frankly those have a better chance of scuttling him than all thr bigoted comments he could make -- as long as the comments are aimed at the right ethnicities.
February 15, 2007 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is not a lame duck. He was just re-elected in 2006! To the Senate!!!!! He is definitely lame! But lame duck, unfortunately NO.
Jan Knaus
February 15, 2007 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Keith Ellison episode did not happen until after the 2006 elections. Before that and now this event, I had only known him as a usual strong conservative you'll see in Congress. But he seems to be getting rather outspoken, now that he's in the minority.
February 15, 2007 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in northern VA -- and often advocate that we should secede and leave the southern Virginians, residing as they do in the economically and politically backward parts of the state, to fend for themselves. I should say, in fairness, that this state has both good Dem moments -- Doug Wilder, African American was governor when I moved here in '90 and is currently mayor of Richmond -- and bad Dem moments -- my rep is Jim Moran who manages to embarass us all at least once a term by saying something or doing something that is outrageously inappropriate -- anti-Semitic remarks, taking loans from lobbyists.
So yes folks, Goode(NOT) is an authentic BubbaDumbHead in the mode of our beloved(NOT) former Sen. Macaca, BUT neither our hands nor our houses are clean. However, we do generally manage not to louse it up as ignorantly or consistently, that much I can give us.
February 15, 2007 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the US currency said "In Jesus We Trust" then at least the analogy would be technically equivalent.
Please... don't give the fundies any ideas!
February 15, 2007 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of his constituents are indeed aware, and an army of volunteers have knocked on doors the last couple of elections to unseat him. But he's got a lot of support among the good-ol-boys. It's only lately that he has been shooting off his mouth like this. Until now, he has been known as a mediocre, fairly corrupt glad-handler, who did a lot of business with Mitchell Wade, the guy who bribed Duke Cunningham with boats, hookers, and who knows what else. Here's some background: http://www.questionsforvirgilgoode.blogspot.com/
Any way you cut it, a real embarrassment.
February 15, 2007 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, these people picturing the the "surge" as the only way to forestall the Apocalypse remind me of George Carlin, when mocking the decision makers during the Vietnam War:
" Pull out? Doesn't sound manly to me Bill. I'd say lets leave it in there and lets get the job done"
And in Virgil Goode, we have found the one politician who's more of an embarrassment to this country than George W. Bush. I was getting worried.
February 16, 2007 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you mind if I used your line...
...in my next letter to the editor to the Charlottesville Paper, the Daily Progress?
It says a mouthful! What I can't stop thinking about is that Virgil's little speech was written; it was rehearsed; it was not off-the-cuff. It was a thought-out response! This is what this guy REALLY thinks!
I can't help but wonder if he was a wanted child. Only someone rejected early on in his life (or inately ignorant) could end up with such hateful and ignorant thoughts.
Jan Knaus
February 16, 2007 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know it probably doesn't rate as important in the larger scheme of things but I propose a game of sorts.
What is the most despicable speech ever made in either house of congress? I think Virgil Goode's call to action to all true christianist amuricans must certainly be in the top five.
I suppose you would have to go back to the slavery debates between Calhoun and Clay or, perhaps, the debate over the Spanish American war? Maybe the debate over the Philipine action. I don't know - I just can't imagine being more ashamed of being an American than listening to this neanderthal today.
Who would you nominate and for what speech?
ps. Stupidity and mendacity - i.e., Jeff Sessions - doesn't count. It has to be a true offense against humanity.
February 16, 2007 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear a lot of people calling him an idiot and a moron, and that they feel shame for their American citizenship, but I don't hear anyone arguing on points why what he said is moronic. I wouldn't have said the things he said, but why not address his points?
He is asking what the consequences in the distant future will be if we pull out of the middle east. I don't know what will happen, but I don't hear the democrats on the floor this week even addressing that. What happens if the Shias from the east and sunnis from the South and west break out in a "real" civil war. And the Saudi Arabian people come to support their brothers and the kurds to theirs and the Iranians who are already there flood in from the east? What if a regional war ensues that expands with out limits because they know that once we leave, we are not coming back. When the Democrats claim that redeploy means we will sit close by and then come back if it gets real bad, does anybody believe that? No one does. So what if millions are dying? How does that affect the rest of the world?
For those that argue that a civil war is spinning out of control right now, how can you possibly think that when we leave the spinning out of control stops?
People here don't like when these questions are brought up, because they don't want to face these questions. Millions upon millions died in South East Asia and very few would even talk about it as the genocide raged on. I give credit to George McGovern, because he was one of the few that tried to bring the genocide to the attention of the World, but he was shooshed by a country that had closed the book on that chapter of our history. No one believes the redeploy and return argument.
The democrats have made their proposal clear this week that they plan to bleed the policy slowly until our commanders are denied any offensive capability. They do not want to get our troops out of harms way as soon as possible. They want to leave them in the field without the ability to fight. How is that supporting the troops. For those congressman like Murtha that opposed the War in the beginning and want immediate pullout, they are consistent. For those that voted to put the troops in harms way, voted to put Petraeus in charge and now won't give them the means to carry out their mission and yet they still won't take them out of the theater, That is cynical, political pandering and it is not supporting the soldiers they put in harms way.
Rep. Goode is consistent and so is Murtha. The others do not support the troops.
February 17, 2007 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush lied us into this bloody unnecessary war and lied that we were making progress while Bush supporters blathered about Freedom Fries and boycotting France whose leaders wisely warned us not to invade the heart of the Muslim world.
Twenty-one Democratic Senators and one Republican voted against the politically timed October 2002 'use of force' resolution, which was pure pre-election partisan jujitsu by Republicans to milk the 'war president' mojo to stupid American voters, while reaping billions for Republican connected war profiteers.
Going on a fifth year of bloody conflict and killing, it should be clear to even the most mentally challenged observor, there is no military solution to the huge mess Bush has made with his failed policies of aggression in the Middle East, that is the message sent by the Democrats.
February 17, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Bronto, you also choose not to address the subject of what might occur in the aftermath of a pullout. Well, you did say there is no military solution in the middle east, so you obviously agree that the democrats who argue we will bring our troops back if things get real bad are morons or insincere. Furthermore, based on your statement, if the possibility, no matter how remote, but a possibility nonetheless that the region expands into ever broadening massive war, that we are helpless to protect ourselves. You seem to bolster Goode's predictions.
February 17, 2007 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was never about 'protecting us'.
We, and the people of the Middle East, need protection from the failed Bush policies that you support.
February 17, 2007 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It was" is past tense. Regardless of whether you falsely assume that our national interest was never a consideration when the Democrats and Republicans agreed to enforce the UN sanctions against Saddam, the points I just mentioned are are regarding what occurs in the future.
With each evasive response that you make, you reflect the underlying message in this past weeks debate. That is to say, the message is for Democrats to deflect responsibility from themselves, direct blame on Republicans for past events in a cynical attempt to gain political advantage, and avoid at all cost addressing national security concerns for the future.
You continue to run and hide from the question of what we are to do if the region devolves into an expanding conflagration that draws the rest of the world into it.
Blame all you want, but admit that you have no plan whatsoever to protect our national interest if that possibility comes about.
February 17, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why Goode is a moron? A terse answer is that this is because he is a cretin. More elaborate answer is possible, of course.
You see, an outside force without friends in a country has not prayer for exercising decisive influence in that country, and this is what we try to do. Why Iraqi security forces do not defend their own country etc.? Because potential officers do not like us (understatement), so when we train and arm them, we do not trust them and they do not trust. We have some choice between folks who detest us and folks who hate our guts, but that's about it.
Now, why t_h_e_s_e p_e_o_p_l_e do not like us? Our Congressman contributes to the perception that we hate all Muslim, so they hate us back. Our wing nuts are convinced that al-Qaeda or al-Mahdi types read periodicals like Mother Jones and The Nation and thus they get hope of success. I say, they read about people like Boykin or Goode and fortify their hatred or contempt. Thus our Representative hurts the war effort he supports.
February 17, 2007 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh.
February 17, 2007 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
On February 17, 2007 - 11:10am TJKING said:
You ask about what will happen after we withdrawal.
I think a better question would be, what happens if we don’t?
You like questions, answer these.
We’ll save American sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, from the grave, from maiming. Isn’t that reason enough.?
How long must American’s fight for European interests. For Israel’s interest? Foreign interests?
How long must America be held hostage to the addiction of oil?
How long before the recruitment numbers don’t meet the expectation of war making leaders?
How long before they’ll say we need forced conscription? The DRAFT, because we shouldn’t abandon the memory of those who have already sacrificed?
Will the American people support the draft? Will they be forced to like it against their will?
How long must the American people bear the weight, of treasure being squandered?
With problems mounting in the Continental United States, our homeland. Healthcare, baby boomer expectations only to be told, we have no more money to satisfy the social compact the Government made to We the People,how will we pay for these programs?
Why then, do the people have to support a government, that can’t keep it’s promise, or just uses it’s citizens as cannon fodder? Or as a mercinary army for commercial interests?
When do we the people, say enough of this madness? Will the people have to suffer the indignities of poverty because the Government spent, what rightfully belonged to the people of the United States. For another peoples causes?
Why are we fighting against the desires of people, who want to remove the yoke of Colonialism, just as we were determined to do?
Why don’t we build schools at home, build infrastructure at home, remove the burden of debt off our middle class? How about bringing pallets of money to my neighborhood?
As Bush always said when promoting tax cuts. "It's your money, it isn't the governments"
Support the troops, bring them home alive an unharmed, no more delays. No more deaths. NO DRAFT, Prevention is worth a pound of cure. Prevent the draft.
February 17, 2007 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might think those are better questions, and I can address those and have repeatedly.
How do you expect anyone to rely on your judgement if you can't even hint at what consequences your decisions will have in the future.
Please let me know if you decide you are capable of even dropping a clue as to what will we do in the future if these possibilities are given proper consideration.
I don't think you have even thought about it.
February 17, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mother Jones? Oh yeah, right, our enemies on the other side of the world are not aware of or interested in the fact that the Left is insisting that we open up the region to their free reign of hegemony and sharia. They have no interest in your propositions and are so inert that they have never seen CNN or Cspan.
Al-Qaeda does not waste two seconds thinking about Goode's speech, but they analyze the efforts of the left endlessly, because they consider it the path to their success.
Regardless of who they detest, they do not have even the slightest esteem for the Left, since that seems to mean something to you.
If you can't see that then your head is too deep down there to pull out.
If Zarqawi or Saddam has contempt for the right, then let them stew in their hatred from down below.
February 17, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You see TJ, when you come up with trollish shit like this:
well, that's when your credibility goes from its previously deserved place on the floor, all the way down to the center of the earth. OK, we know you've got the talking points: Democrats hate the troops! Can you tell me why you think people here at TPM would want to have our soldiers "in the field without the ability to fight?" because it is the same as saying that we want our troops dead. Why would we want that, and why would you say it?
Never mind. You obviously think supporting the troops = sending more there to fight and die. Why do I think you want that? Why would I say that? Because I think you are just plain wrong; that you think might makes right, but you are saying WE actually WANT our soldiers to die. You can take your draft-dodging VP's Senatorial advice, as far as I'm concerned!
Jan Knaus
February 17, 2007 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It was" is past tense. TJ
The Iraq of 2002 was a threat to no other country. Millions of people went to the streets all over the world to try to stop the dogs of war being set loose by Bush and his delusional supporters.
The poor 'peasants' of Turkey had enough brains and knowledge to know Saddam was contained and was no threat to them. The Turkish government listened and refused to let the US invade from Turkey. Turkey is next door to Iraq.
TJKing (above) thought Saddam was a threat to him. He lives on the other side of the world in the US, which has the biggest defense budget on earth. It seems illiterate peasants in a third world country have more brains and common sense then the likes of you, TJ.
February 17, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, whats going to happen after we pullout, Bronto?
February 17, 2007 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me repeat slowly: the problem is not that al-Qaeda hates us, but that prospective members of Iraqi armed forces detest us, and so do the politicians that we work with.
If our fight is with Islam, it is hopeless. We cannot commit enough atrocities to win such a thing. If our fight is to defeat sworn enemies while winning allies among the rest, then Goode has potential to hurt us.
February 17, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, Please explain to me what the new "Slow bleed" strategy of the democrats really intends to accomplish:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2751.html
Even their own strategists explain that it is a way to avoid political heat for a clear decision to bring the troops home immediately. How the hell can I understand what your party is advocating if you don't understand it yourself?
Please explain to me how else to explain the "Slow bleed" concept. You have a choice to let them stay and fight, with offensive capabilities, which you have made clear you are against.
You can aggressively exert your power as the majority to bring them home ASAP.
....Or, you can "Slow bleed", which leaves them in the field while you jerk around their ability to fight. Your party has chosen to leave them in the field and jerk them around.
As I said, some Democrats like Kucinich, have been consistent from Day one. If you support the new strategy, say so. If you do, defend it. If you don't support it and you want to just whine and bitch that you are being unfairly accused, when in fact you turn around and accuse me of wanting to see more dead soldiers, then Whimper and wail at the moon all night.
I don't care about your opinion of my credibility, because I have defended my stance, you on the other hand refuse to,...leaving you nothing but a whimpering crybaby.
February 17, 2007 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep hearing this from the left. Why does the left keep asking why would want to fight Islam? Why does the left keep asking if we are fighting on behalf of Christianity against Islam?
There is a huge difference between us fighting Islam and a maniacal group of radicals claiming to be fighting on behalf of Israel that have chosen to fight against the rest of mankind, but starting with us.
Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
When the Hordes rush over the hill to attack your village, you don't ask how we can buddy up with them. You kill the murderers first until you have neutralized their ability to attack.
They are disgusted by our Constitution, our bill of rights, our tolerance, our freedom, our respect for the individual, they want us dead for that reason. Period. If you are willing to negotiate those things over to them, count me out.
February 17, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: I hear a lot of people calling him an idiot and a moron, and that they feel shame for their American citizenship, but I don't hear anyone arguing on points why what he said is moronic.
Can anyone conceive of any realistic scenario under which Al Qaida, or any Middle Eastern nation, or any combination of Middle Eastern nations could conceivably conquer the United States. Unless we invoke things like giant metors first obliterating most of North America, that idea is simply not even remotely credible and oft expressed fear of wingnuts that it could happen strikes me as paranoid to the point of psychosis. At least with the Soviets we were facing a credible threat that might have done us vast harm. The Middle East is one of the weakest regions of the world, in fact only Africa is weaker, And once the oil is gone, and if the regiomn does not get its act together first, even Africa will probably leave the Middle East in the dust.
February 17, 2007 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
On February 17, 2007 - 3:00pm TJKING said:
Saving American lives is the objective. We can sit here all day and think of all kinds of scenarios, possibilities, that can occur.
again On February 17, 2007 - 3:00pm TJKING said:
Heck, we better build a meteorite protection system, because you never know? Possibility Although meteors hit the Earth everyday.
Heck, maybe we better equip the people with space suits and eye shields because a solar flair might erupt. Possiblity?
Your so worried, you better build a bomb shelter and crawl in it, because someone named McVey could be looking to do you harm.
Get real, deal with today, you don't know if you'll be around tomorrow.
Personally this President and the war leaders have cried Wolf so long. I don't belive them anymore. I actually fear more, what the lack of trust, has done to our way of life.
Are you going to sign up, for the all volunteer military?
Before these war preachers, force us, to drink the koolaid?
Like the farmer, who keeps his eyes to the sky, for fear of rain and then because he sees a cloud, he never plants seeds, because he's afraid it will rain. He's foolish. Likewise; we as a Nation can't afford to sit idly by, running our American kids, our American people, through the meat grinder of war, because of some cloud of worry. Sow seeds of peace. War is not peace.
Bottom line: Iraqi's are not American's.
I propose we ask all those who signed up to defend America, (National Guard) give them the option to opt out, return to defend the mainland. Do you think Americans should be forced to serve? Do we have the right to determine where we die, or what causes or conscience, is acceptable? Are we just pawns, for National interest Commercial interests?
With so many peope who hate America, I'm surprised our war leaders haven't promoted fear of Venezuela, Cuba, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (where the majority of 9/11 ATTACKERS came from). Britain, has terrorists, should we send troops. Spain?
What about the undocumented workers flooding across our southern border? Is it posssible? Terrorists?
You' better get a grip, or fear will overtake you, and rob you of a satisfying life.
YOU, You cannot positively tell me the outcome of what will happen if we withdraw. You can only make conjecture of the possibillities.
But I, can assure you, that if we pulled out tommorrow, we might save more American lives. Iraqis might lose lives, but our troops do not belong to IRAQ. When did Iraq become the 51st State? We are not going to solve all the Worlds problems, lets solve the ones we can.
Bush himself said Mission accomplished, he manipulated his stature as a war hero to get reelected, of course he's going to exploit fear, he's done so in the past. He wants you to fear the possibilites. It keeps his friends in power.
If America has been heavy handed, in maintaining regimes that the people do not support, then you will not change the law "You reap what you sow"
I really believe that if there were no oil in Iraq, what national interest would we have? Cive me the answer to that and I'm sure we'll understand whose interests were serving? Paying with forced, conscripted, American blood is to expensive.
February 17, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Starve the beast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve-the-beast
"Starving the beast" is an American conservative political strategy which uses budget deficits to attempt to force future reductions in government expenditure, especially spending on socially progressive programs.
The term "beast" is used to denote government and the social programs it funds, including publicly-funded health care, welfare, educational financial aid, and Social Security.
The to-be US President Ronald Reagan had foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, claiming of opponent John Anderson "John tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker." [1]
Using Reagans analogy, Well, if you've got an Administration that ignores the will of the people, and is intent on rejecting the Bipartisan report, it rejects the outcome of the 2006 election, and you point this out to the Decider that he needs to listen, you can lecture him all you want to about his arrogance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker.
February 17, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What planet are you on? There is no draft and there is not going to be a draft. What do you mean conscripted? The people that are signing up to fight believe in what they are doing, they support the mission, they believe in the President. There are even a lesser represented contingent of Democrats involved in Combat as well. Whether you like it or not only Democrats are calling for forced conscripted service and the leading advocate in the last 40 years in the government for abolishing the Draft is Donald Rumsfeld. Refrain from the acid for a day and check in to rehab.
Your idiotic statements intended to imply that there is nothing to worry about after a pullout, includes examples like Timothy McVey[sic]? He did actually blow up a building and kill 100s of people, so are you arguing we should not waste our time concerning ourselves with the "extremely unlikely" possibility that people blow up buildings?
A meteorite did not kill thousands of Americans in New York (93), Pennsylvania, Virgina, Kenya, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, Beirut, Lockerbie, and New York again in 2001. Murderers did that dimwit! But you would have us, as you say:
"...Get real, deal with today, you don't know if you'll be around tomorrow..."
You have again failed to answer the Pol Pot question, what are you going to do in the future?
Your above answer speaks volumes. Don't think about tommorrow! ..or the past. Don't have sympathy for the thousands of Americans that died at their hands and definitely don't care for the future victims that our soldiers would like to protect. No, you should leave them in the field and deny them the offensive capability in a cynical strategy called "Slow Bleed".
You still won't answer the question and for that, you can not be trusted to make decisions of national importance, because you don't care, and this draft fantasy of yours proves you totally have no clue about the war.
Finally this completely assanine slur on the American people proves that you think that we deserved to have our people murdered on 911. That it was our fault? You are a sick and troubled person!
"...If America has been heavy handed, in maintaining regimes that the people do not support, then you will not change the law "You reap what you sow" ..."
February 17, 2007 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Starving the beast" is a false representation and criticism of Reagan's policy. The quote you provided from the debate was refering to Reagan's criticism of Anderson's approach to Inflation not deficit spending. Reagan went on to explain in detail his soon to be successful plan to tame inflation for the next 27 years and counting. It was a devastating problem that Carter tried to convince americans was just something we would have to learn to live with cause it was insolvable. We now see Carter's buddy Hugo Chavez arguing the same thing to defend his socialistic policies while it climbs to 20% in Venezuela. Reagan delivered,...once again. Again, stop doing acid and do some homework.
In the current situation, we are not talking about cutting off Democrat pork barrel spendaholics from a compulsive addiction to big and oppressive government, we are talking about "Slow Bleed" which is cutting off the troops ability to wage offensive campaigns but not bringing them home.
No one elected your so-called bipartisan commission and regardless of why some precinct in North Carolina chose to pick their local congressman, they elected George Bush to be commander in chief of the United States military in an election that, thanks to John Kerry was built around an argument over how we should wage war. The nation chose Bush. They didn't choose your local pork barrel congressman who promised a new sewer system or for that matter Jim Baker or Lee Hamilton. They voted on the topic of War and chose Bush's ideas and that he would be the one in charge of that responsibility for 4 years. So if you don't like the fact that he ignores your ignorant blatherings, tough!
You have the opportunity to encourage congress to bring the troops home. Your defense of the "slow bleed" is a cynical attempt to leave the troops in the field without the ability to carry out their mission.
Home or fight! which is it?
Referring to cutting Bush's allowance shows you think you are hurting him, but you overshoot your target and hurt innocent Americans whose lives are at risk.
Its leaving our soldiers swinging in the breeze. There are people on this board that care deeply about the troops. In your previous post I can tell you could care less, when you clearly expressed your hand wringing by saying that America's casualties are an example of "reap what you sow".
Chuckie, please stop cutting and pasting without proper attribution. At least steal something factual.
February 17, 2007 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy what a paranoiac. Your just like every other promoter of war. Blinded by your own blood lust, lets get even.
On February 17, 2007 - 7:33pm TJKING said:
That’s the same mentality that sent our young friends and family to their deaths.
According to Marc Leepson, ed, Webster's New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999. U.S. killed in action, etc. - 58,159. South Vietnamese military - 224,000. Republic of Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand - not listed. DRV military - not listed. DRV civilians - 65,000. South Vietnamese civilians - 300,000.
58,119 deaths, before we realized the pointlessness of the Vietnam War, and the lies our government told us. How the world was going to end, if we lost Vietnam.
We have over 3,000 deaths now, how many are you and the easychair Generals, willing to expend to save the world from destruction?
Your assurances of No future draft. You're clueless. Then you have the audacity to even mention a discredited Rumsfeld, as though he’s so brilliant and we should listen to him. You listen to him.
Besides; it would have been political suicide to have brought up the draft, and Bush would not have won a second term. I personnally believe it’s going to occur, because people like you don’t want to forget the fallen, mislead ones. You believe it would be cowardly to turn around, when knowing that the path were on is leading to destruction, but your attitude is full speed ahead. We can't forget those who died for the lie"
Your reference to acid, is unknown to me, Do you speak from experience? If that is the reason for your lack of civility, I guess I have to spell it out for you. We don’t have the draft yet, but if people like you, finally deplete America’s military, which is near the point of breaking. From your own mouth, you speak of the fear of the possibility. What is the prospect of a Draft, if people like you destroy the volunteer army?
As for the reference to McVey. America doesn’t have to run around the world, looking under every rock, looking for trouble.
We attack Iraq instead of the Nations of Origin: Nineteen men boarded the four planes, Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.
What the hell,I guess people like you become so disturbed, you want to kill someone, Revenge Revenge Attack Iraq.
We have homegrown terrorists. WHY!!
Solve that problem. Take the rafter from your own eye, before you try to remove the splinter from your neighbors.
As for the Republican talking points Khobar, USS Cole, Kenya, tell me why did they attack us. Oh, I forgot your mentors tell us, they hate US citizens, just for the hell of it.
Did the CIA or any other secret organization, try to undermine, overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, prior to 9/11?
Didn’t President Bush and the Administration believe that when you declare war secretly, you better be prepared for the opposing side? Instead briefing memos were ignored stating Bin laden determined to strike, FBI ignoring Middle Easterners learning how to fly, then claiming Oh my God, this enemy can strike us. DUH Let’s get them, in Iraq?
Your implication, Remember the Alamo, Remember the Maine, Remember, Remember why we need to kill. We’re righteous and they're heathens.
You wrote "You have again failed to answer the Pol Pot question. What question? You mean the question; if the United States had not been involved against Vietnam, that Vietnam would have dealt with Pol Pot. What, did you not know, we fought against Pol Pots enemy Vietnam? How many lives could have been spared?
Now with our war in Iraq, Bush has made Iran's position stronger. We destabilized Irans enemy.
It is people like you, BJ, that ruin it for those who love peace. We'll fight when necessary, foreign and DOMESTIC, but not the wars, manipulated, promoted by falsehoods, directed at the wrong perpetrators.
If you want to remember something, do you know where Bin laden is. Ask your taking point managers.
When do you think we’ll push the button and launch the Nukes, to save the world from terrorists?
February 17, 2007 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, TJ, what do you have to say to this? A rant? Crazy? I dare you to refute chuckie's post with anything honest and substantive.
Oh, well, you'll probably invoke Bill Clinton at this point. He did lie about an affair. Wow, THAT had international implications, and caused how many deaths? None? No matter. It is where you go when you realize you have stupided yourself into a corner.
Jan Knaus
February 17, 2007 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There is a huge difference between us fighting Islam and a maniacal group of radicals...."
so -- are we fighting Islam or a "maniacal group"
"...fighting on behalf of Israel"
Are you talking about Pipes, Lieberman etc.?
"that have chosen to fight against the rest of mankind, but starting with us."
Some chronology?
"When the Hordes rush over the hill to attack your village you do not ask how to buddy up with them..."
So why are were we inviting Allawi and Maliki to talk to Congress? Not to mention inviting heads of state of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Malesia etc. And it was not "the left" doing so. And why our not-so-leftist Leader says that "Ishlam is peashful religion".
"our respect for individual"
expressed by "kill them all" and "they are all the same"
"our tolerance"
are you becoming a leftist in the middle of the sentence?
February 18, 2007 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I lived in Arlington for several years (Montgomery Co. native) and think you can hope that more Washington commuters setting up in Manassas and Richmond will shift the center leftward. However, a friend that lives past Snicker's Gap points out that the folks on his side of the ridge ignore Washington utterly, most of the time.
I always enjoyed the ride down US 29 to "TJU" when I gigged at the student union.
February 18, 2007 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Gigged?" You were in a band? Which one?
Jan Knaus
February 18, 2007 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waaay back in the 70s, with the band Grits.
February 18, 2007 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, lame duck in the sense that he doesn't (or isn't going to) have to worry about being (re-) elected in the next cycle.
February 19, 2007 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator?? Ack, spit on your fingers and toss salt over your shoulder to ward off the possibility of that coming true! This doofus wasn't elected by the whole state (thank God!), just by the voters of the 5th District.
I should note for those who aren't familiar with the district that Charlottesville is only a small part of it. The 5th District includes a lot of territory in Southside Virginia, the very rural area along the North Carolina border, and that's where Goode's base of support is.
--Constituent of Bobby Scott in the 3rd District
February 19, 2007 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appalachia? No, not at all. His district does include some parts of Virginia's Blue Ridge, but the bulk of it is in Southside Virginia, including Prince Edward County, notorious for shutting down its entire public school system between 1959 and 1964 in order to avoid having to integrate it.
Small preview map here; 13MB PDF map here.
February 19, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I made a number of trips down part of US-29 myself in the 70's, on the way from Richmond to Lynchburg.
February 19, 2007 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
While you're at it, you might add, "and more of an embarrassment to the state than George Allen." Allen at least apologized (eventually, and sort of) for his "macaca" remarks.
February 19, 2007 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want one progressive analysis of what the possible effects of a troop withdrawal are, and how it could help improve the situation in Iraq, see Robert Dreyfuss's article "Apocalypse Not" in the current issue of the Washington Monthly.
Hogwash. Even you must know that is not the case. The majority of Democrats want them out of the field altogether. Murtha's proposal is to assure that those that are there at least have proper equipment and training, and are allowed proper rotations out of combat.
February 19, 2007 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, except that the term "lame duck" refers to a politician whose time in office is limited because his/her office will be finished in a finite amount of time because his/her successor has already been elected and is waiting to take office. The lame duck has essentially no power because of that. (For example, if Dubya doesn't get impeached, he will be a lame duck after November, 2008 until the new Prez takes over on January 20th, 2009.) He will have more power as a lame duck, however, if we nominate a person who people despise as our candidate, and some republican gets it. Oh, well, if it's close the Supreme Court can always appoint another Prez! It sure worked out last time!
Unfortunately, Virgil is not a lame duck by anyone's definition. He is just plain lame.
Jan Knaus
February 19, 2007 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink