Roll call vote on Iraq supplemental
House
Senate
WTF? Burr voted against the supplemental? Nothing on his website explaining that vote. I'll keep looking to see if this is any kind of mistake. Feinstein, Harkin, Levin, and Mikulski all voted in favor. How did Burr get religion on this vote?
UPDATE: Here's what the morons who represent us in Washington voted for yesterday:
Tell me Dianne Feinstein, tell me Carl Levin, how this differs from the Soviet Union's catastrophic actions in Afghanistan in 1987?
Senate
WTF? Burr voted against the supplemental? Nothing on his website explaining that vote. I'll keep looking to see if this is any kind of mistake. Feinstein, Harkin, Levin, and Mikulski all voted in favor. How did Burr get religion on this vote?
UPDATE: Here's what the morons who represent us in Washington voted for yesterday:
The U.S. military announced on Friday the deaths of six more soldiers in Iraq, hours after U.S. President George W. Bush predicted a bloody summer lay ahead.
Five of the soldiers died on Thursday while another was killed on Tuesday by a roadside bomb in Tikrit, 175 km (110 miles) north of Baghdad, the military said.
. . .
Bush told a news conference in Washington on Thursday he expected heavy fighting in Iraq in the weeks and months ahead.
"It could be a bloody -- it could be a very difficult August," Bush told reporters.
Tell me Dianne Feinstein, tell me Carl Levin, how this differs from the Soviet Union's catastrophic actions in Afghanistan in 1987?
Labels: Afghanistan, Iraq, politics
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
6 Comments:
Preface: I do think we had no business being in Iraq under the pretenses that the President gave us. There were some legit reasons we could have gone but the President in his infinite wisdom chose to go on a fat lie instead of the solid truth. However...
When did America become a nation of yellow belly pussies? Only a few thousand American soldiers have died. We're doing great compared to the enemy, and great compared to previous military campaigns!
In the Vietnam War, which the Iraq war is often compared to, we lost over 58,000 soldiers.
In WW2, we lost almost 58,000 just in the invasion of Normandy (aka D Day) and it was an overwhelming victory for us! In the course of the war, we lost over 400,000 soldiers and over 11,000 civilians. That's right, our civilian deaths in WW2, which was a great victory for America, far exceed the military deaths of the Iraq war.
In WW2, we'd lose hundreds or even thousands of soldiers in a day. Tragic, yes, but the American people generally weren't bellyaching about it. Today, we lose half a dozen and the peacenicks are camping out in D.C. and weeping.
Protesting the war is ok. Protesting the false pretenses for going there is fine.
But as long as we are over there, let's not be pussies about it. Let's not get all weepy just because half a dozen soldiers died in the line of duty today and use that as the reason we should be pulling out. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way, and it's not going to change anyone's mind. Focus on the lies that got us there, and now you've got some leverage if you can convince your congresscritter to use it.
By
viridari, at 8:31 AM
Sweet Jesus, when are you going to enlist?
As i've argued elsewhere on this blog, the US in Vietnam is not the proper analogy for this war.
Rather, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is much more akin to what we are experiencing now.
If you know anything about history, you'll know that Soviet losses in WWII were an order of magnitude greater than the US. Their losses in Afghanistan were only a bit higher than ours, and if you deconstruct the numbers of soldiers wounded vs killed, most of their higher death rate is attributable to better medical technology on the battlefield saving more injured soldiers who would probably have died in earlier conflicts.
Our position in Iraq has nothing to do with being "pussies" for not being able to stand up to a little death. Our position is untenable because we have no idea on whose side we are fighting, we have no concrete military ojectives that can be attained, we have no definition of victory, and quite frankly, we have no stake in Iraq once you accept the President's argument that we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here for the steaming heap of bullshit that it is.
Your opinions about this are no better informed than that turd about there being no robberies at gunshops which you dropped at that Nebraska police chief's site. I strongly suggest you expand your reading list beyond Ayn Rand and Ann Coulter if you hope to make a meaningful contribution to the dialog here or elsewhere in the blogosphere.
By
Barry, at 8:43 AM
Just to continue my point about Soviet losses in WWII, we know from this that the Soviet people were more than capable of sacrificing for their country. Their losses in Afghanistan were no where close to their losses in WWII, and yet, there was simply no way for them to achieve a victory in Afghanistan.
I'm sure their government propaganda during the time in which the war had lost the support of both the army and the people was very similar to what we are now hearing from George Bush, and that hardliners in the media, army, and general population made comments similar to yours.
Bottom line, not only could the Soviets not achieve victory in Afghanistan, they couldn't even survive as a nation following the war.
That's a lesson that needs to be learned by those who think that calling the American people "pussies" is a legitimate argument.
By
Barry, at 8:51 AM
Viridari,
I'd like to know that arithmetic behind this:
-How many deaths are acceptable for a "good" cause?
-How many deaths are acceptable for a "bad" cause?
-How many deaths are acceptable for cause that was fabricated?
And a comment on your vocabulary:
"Pussy" is a slang term for women...or, for "weak, ineffectual men"...in other words, men who are perceived as behaving like women, who are perceived as being weak and ineffectual. What I understand from your post is that accepting large number of people dying is an acceptable, manly stance, and that saying that people should not be expected to die for a lie is a stance that can only be held either by a woman, or by an effeminate man.
As a woman, I'm happy to be construed as being on the side of those who are cautious about sending others to their deaths. But I'm also insulted by the notion that cowardice=female.
By
Anonymous, at 9:13 AM
it could be a very difficult August
Yes, I hear the brush is going to be especially thick in Crawford this year. I hope you've been working out, Mr. President, because your month-long vacation this August is going to be brutal.
By
toastie, at 9:28 AM
The difference between WWII and this war is that all Americans--military and civilian--were asked to, expected to, and prepared to sacrifice for the war effort. Over the course of this war, President Bush has asked us to enjoy our tax cuts. Clearly, this is not the battle for the future of our way of life that Bush sometimes claims it is. Arguably, WWII may have been. That's the difference. So every American soldier's death in Iraq, as even John McCain said (and had to take back, being the political coward he's become), has been a waste.
By
toastie, at 9:39 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home