Friday, June 16, 2006

Sometimes The Hypocrisy Is Too Much To Take

It’s not that granting amnesty to Iraqi insurgents is a bad idea ONCE THE WAR IS OVER, but having Republicans in the Senate advocating for it AS OUR TROOPS ARE STILL WALKING AROUND WITH TARGETS ON THEIR BACKS is just too much to bear.  These are the same assholes that have deemed Iraqis fighting against a foreign occupation of their country “terrorists”, and now they want to give the “terrorists” amnesty at the same time they argue for leaving our troops in harms way.  Am I the only one that feels like screaming with rage at this sort of blatant hypocrisy?

To make matters worse, bigots in the GOP have been railing against amnesty for illegal immigrants, but “terrorists” (by their own definition), well that’s a great idea!  Jesus H. Christ, what is wrong with these people?!


And on a lighter hypocritical note, The Colbert Report Wednesday night gave Congressman Lynn Westmoreland the opportunity to put his own hypocrisy on display.  This kind of shit galls me to no end, last week I got some flack for calling Christians to account, yet this pillar of Christian virtue cannot even name the commandments that he wants displayed in our courthouses and public buildings.  Unbelievable.

13 Comments:

Anonymous tiredofphoneys said...

You're so right. The hypocrisy of liberals is too much to take. Your phoney bs about the Iraqi government's considertion of amnesty to insurgents comes out of the other side of the same mouth that calls for immediate withdrawal of our troops; which would give the insurgents not only amnesty, but victory.

Typical liberal, you don't want us to kill the insurgents but you don't want to give them amnesty either. What's your solution then, stick your head up your a and hope the problem goes away by itself? Your only solution is to whine and moan, never anything specific.

2:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ummm tiredofphoneys, the red herrings and strawmen in your comment almost hide your whining drivel, but not quite.

Nice work.

3:15 PM  
Blogger The (liberal)Girl Next Door said...

tiredofphoneys--I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but here it goes anyway.

If you could read anything other than talking points you would have noticed that I have no problem with amnesty for Iraqis that have tried to fight our occupying force ONCE THE WAR IS OVER AND OUR TROOPS ARE NO LONGER IN HARMS WAY!!

You see, liberals support the troops, whereas conservatives support the chickenhawk civilians that paint targets on the backs of our soldiers, pay them peanuts, refuse them proper armor, deny them adequate healthcare for their injuries when they return from war and preach amnesty for those they've been calling "terrorists" at the same time they are preaching stay the course.

And by the way, I think immediate redeployment is pretty specific, not that anyone in this administration or the GOP led Congress is listening to John Murtha (the soldiers best friend) let alone little old me.

5:23 PM  
Anonymous Jonathan said...

LGND,

That was a marvelous response to the troop-hating tiredofphonys poster. It was almost exactly what I was thinking when I read his post. You left out some clearly anti-troop policy positions that republicans have forced into law (in many cases with most, if not all, democrats voting to block it) or did through executive branch actions. Like the decrease in funding for on-base schools that happened a couple years back - just after the war started. Or how about Bush’s attempt to cut combat pay to the soldiers who are in Iraq? He tried that a couple years ago too. But the Democrats were able to stop him. How about the “bring ‘em on” statement he made just after the invasion? Or how about the little practice of charging wounded shoulders for the meals they eat while in the hospital recovering after being injured in this war of choice?

Republican is just another word for hypocrite. The republicans who started this horrible war could care less about the soldiers who are fighting it. To them the soldiers are just so much cannon fodder.

6:25 PM  
Anonymous Dale Hippert said...

I sent this to a couple of Repug acquaintences before the House debate began. Glad I saved it to share with yet another clear thinking Wingnutistanian...
..tiredofphoneys.

I'll just take a wild guess that the only uniform you ever donned was when you went door to door selling cookies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13306324/

"I can't help but feel through eyes of a combat-wounded Marine in Vietnam, if someone was shot, you tried to save his life. . . . While you were in combat, you had a sense of urgency to end the slaughter, and around here we don't have that sense of urgency," said Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.), a usually soft-spoken backbencher who has urged his leaders to challenge the White House on Iraq. "To me, the administration does not act like there's a war going on. The Congress certainly doesn't act like there's a war going on. If you're raising money to keep the majority, if you're thinking about gay marriage, if you're doing all this other peripheral stuff, what does that say to the guy who's about ready to drive over a land mine?"
( Is this a trick question? It says that the sponsors of this resolution are morally bankrupt chickenhawks who refuse to support the troops in any meaningful sense, from supporting an administration that sent too few troops with too little of the right armor, and which to this day underfund a needed expansion of the armed forces to cut down on the repeated tours, as well as underfund veterans' benefits.

Watch the gutless Repugs who stand up and once again conflate the war in Iraq with the war on terrorism. Anyone who still buys that crap should be forced to visit a VA hospital and explain themselves. Fat freakin' chance. They didn't wear military uniforms when they could've served their country, and they sure as hell don't deserve to empty the bed pans of those they were so cavalier in sending to their fates, with little that could be mistaken for thought or analysis. Your President doesn't do nuance, a Commander in Chief worthy of the title should. The Republicans quoted indicate that someone must have kicked over some of the Repug Wingnut Kool-aid bowls in the House! DH)

"This is nothing more or less than really a charade," said Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.), who made headlines in the run-up to the Iraq invasion by changing french fries to "freedom fries" in the House dining room but has since turned strongly against the war.

Already, the resolution itself -- declaring that the United States will complete the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq and will prevail in the global war on terror -- has attracted strong criticism from lawmakers in both parties. Democrats and antiwar Republicans object to the linkage between the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism, while some Republicans have said it sets unrealistic goals. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), who supports the war, called the resolution "strategically nebulous and morally obtuse." (Whoa there Thad, better pass out some thesaruses for the benefit of some of your shit-kicker chickenhawk Rethug colleagues!)

But the strongest misgivings may be practical. Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) called the entire exercise "a dumb idea" that will highlight precisely the issue that is threatening Republican political fortunes. (Yeah well, dumb is as dumb does.)

7:39 PM  
Anonymous tiredofphoneys said...

Thanks libgirl for responding to a "troll," you've got guts at least. But you still ducked the question. Saying that amnesty for insurgents is fine after US troops are gone simply avoids the question of what to do now. Our troops are there now. What should be done if an insurgent wants to surrender now? Should they be shot, jailed, what? Some sort of amnesty program for insurgents is a logical response to a problem; you ignore the issue of amnesty and instead offer the unrealistic hope that the troops will be withdrawn immediately.

That is the problem with liberal thinking, it fails to focus on what can actually be done now given the situation we are in, and instead just complains that we shouldn't be there. We are there.

As for the rest of you pathetic libs, it's always you pacifist ponytail types who have never fought for your country who claim to know what soldiers need from us.
Since I was a soldier, I do know. They need to be shown appreciation for doing their job, not stabbed in the back and told that they are fighting for a bad cause. You aholes don't really give a sh about the troops, you dance on their graves and use their sacrifice for cheap anti-Bush trash talk. You're not good enough to shine their shoes.I respect the enemy much more than you America-hating, self-hating Marx wannabees,and so do our fighting troops. They'd spit on you if you went to Ft.Lewis and tried to talk your cowardly trash to them.

9:19 PM  
Anonymous Dale Hippert said...

Tiredofphoneys:

The only "stabbing in the backs" was by the Neocons over ruling/ignoring sound military advice of what it would take to both win and pacify Iraq, together with the "my country right or wrong" wingnuts like yourself. And whose bright idea was it to disband the Iarqi army?

Soldier my ass. I was a Marine and and I'm proud that many of them are the most outspoken RE Bush's half-assed stewardship.

You speak for all the troops at Ft. Lewis? I seriously doubt you'd leave that base alive if you spewed your ignorance to anyone who had returned from Iraq

Substitute the names of Dem senators in place of the
names of some of your Repug party's leading wingnuts
listed below. Arguments don't seem any more plausible, do they?

No, I didn't think so!

Why are these patriots so trusting of Iraqi Chu Hoi?
Oh, that's right, they're not getting shot at and blown
to shit themselves.

And because once again, all together now, they're
Repug CHICKENHAWKS who know neither military
history, nor any kind of history for that matter.

Last time I checked the Germans, the Japanese and those
damned Red State Confederate traitors were all
soundly, unconditionally defeated before we made nice.

Can you think of a good reason to give amnesty in the midst
of armed conflict when you already have insurrectionist
infiltration in the police and the Iraqi army?

No, I didn't think so on that one either.

The following is a compilation of Senate Republicans defending the proposal to give amnesty to terrorists who have killed or wounded US troops. These statements were made on the Senate floor yesterday.


TED STEVENS - "IF THAT'S AMNESTY, I'M FOR IT:" "I really believe we ought to try to find some way to encourage that country to demonstrate to those people who have been opposed to what we're trying to do, that it's worthwhile for them and their children to come forward and support this democracy. And if that's amnesty, I'm for it. I'd be for it. And if those people who are, come forward... if they bore arms against our people, what's the difference between those people that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What's the difference between the Germans and Japanese and all the people we've forgiven?" - Sen. Ted Stevens


MCCONNELL SUGGESTED A RESOLUTION COMMENDING IRAQIS FOR GIVING TERRORISTS AMNESTY. "...might it not just be as useful an exercise to be trying to pass a resolution commending the Iraqi government for the position that they've taken today with regard to this discussion of Amnesty?" - Sen. Mitch McConnell


ALEXANDER COMPARED IRAQI AMNESTY FOR TERRORISTS TO NELSON MANDELA'S PEACE EFFORTS. "Is it not true that Nelson Mandela's courage and his ability to create a process of reconciliation and forgiveness was a major factor in what has been a political miracle in Africa...Did not Nelson Mandela, win a - the co-winner of - a noble Nobel Peace Prize just for this sort of gesture?" - Sen. Lamar Alexander


CORNYN: IRAQI AMNESTY DEBATE IS "A DISTRACTION." "It makes no sense for the United States Senate to shake its finger at the new government of Iraq and to criticize them... it really is a distraction from the debate that I think the American people would want us to have." - Sen. John Cornyn


CHAMBLISS: AMNESTY IS OK FOR EX-INSURGENTS AS LONG AS THEY ARE ON OUR SIDE NOW. "Is it not true today that we have Iraqis who are fighting the war against the insurgents, who at one time fought against American troops and other coalition troops as they were marching to Baghdad, who have now come over to our side and are doing one heck of a job of fighting along, side by side, with Americans and coalition forces, attacking and killing insurgents on a daily basis?" - Sen. Saxby Chambliss

9:50 PM  
Anonymous Betty Cracker said...

Well said, Dale. Wingnut blowhards like "tiredofphoneys" claim to speak for the troops, but yet another regurgitation of Rush Limbaugh talking points and blind allegience to failed Bush policies won't do a damn thing to help the soldiers on the ground in Iraq.

"Tiredofphoneys," you need to learn that there is more than one way to love America. There's your way, which is like the way a three-year-old child loves his mommy -- anyone who disagrees with anything mommy does is bad.

However, there is an adult way to love America too, which is what you are more likely to encounter on this blog. We love America, but we recognize that our country (or rather its leaders) can make horrible mistakes. We also know it is capable of doing better. Our votes and the policies we support are designed to improve America. You can disagree with what we advocate. But to call us "America-hating, self-hating Marx wannabees" just displays your vast ignorance and pathetic, childish inability to grasp different points of view.

RE: the amnesty question, I find it difficult to believe you were really a soldier if you think it's a good idea to grant amnesty to enemies in the middle of an ongoing war. Do you think soldiers in WW2 allowed captured Nazis or Imperial Japanese troops to return to their lines? No? Why do you think they didn't? Well, because they might re-arm and come back to blow your ass to kingdom come, that's why. Duh. Which is why sensible folks generally wait until the shooting is over to talk about amnesty.

There's nothing unrealistic about bringing our troops home. The only obstacle are people who are too invested in their own unwise decision to support the ill-conceived, badly planned venture in the first place.

Would our withdrawal hand the insurgents a victory as you claim? That would depend entirely on the people of Iraq. Bush and his minions often claim the insurgents are a tiny percentage and that the vast majority want democracy. If that is true, maybe it's time to see if they have the will to make it so. They have to sink or swim on their own at some point, and after we leave, it might make sense to take up amnesty considerations, etc. AFTER we leave.

3:50 AM  
Anonymous everyman said...

Amnesty.
Where does one stand?

"Yes, I want our troops to leave Iraq because this was the wrong war to fight, BUT I don't want to negotiate amnesty for anyone who fought against us."

OR
"No, I want our troops to stay in Iraq in order to make over the Middle East and spread freedom and democracy, BUT I want the same people who were fighting us to be excused for their insurgency and terrorism."

I think both sides have lost it but I cannot think of any American war that we won that did not embrace amnesty as a condition of surrender.

The hatred of liberals for Republicans and the hatred of Republicans for liberals ( and I said that correctly) is not a vitalizing element causing each to improve.

Stereotyping and name calling each other instead of debating the point. That is what has happened.

Shame on all of us.

I ask everyone to denounce name calling and stereotyping and discuss issues instead of identities.

5:02 AM  
Anonymous Betty Cracker said...

Everyman, I think you set up a false dichotomy in your opening paragraphs. My position is that we should leave Iraq now, and if the Iraqis want to negotiate amnesty AFTER we leave, that's their business.

But if you take the Bush view (which I most emphatically do not) and buy into the idea that we have to stay to defeat the "terrorists," (which is how Bush defines all Iraqi insurgents), does it really make sense to negotiate amnesty with "terrorists" while fighting a war against them at the same time? Where is the logic in that position?

As quoted in Dale's post, Ted Stevens (R) sees no difference in this amnesty proposal and the amnesty extended to Confederates, Japanese and Germans and the end of the Civil War and WW2, respectively. But there's a HUGE difference: those wars were over before amnesty was extended. This one is not, unless Bush is declaring "Mission Accomplished" again, in which case he should have no objections to our leaving.

As for your call to civility in discourse, at times I have some sympathy for that view, but no real expectation that it's ever going to happen, not while demonization of your opponent is so effective, anyway. Look at a frothing kook like Ann Coulter, who openly calls for political murder and yet is a wildly successful author and is treated as a credible guest on network television. Shame on us, indeed.

5:56 AM  
Blogger Godlessfriend said...

Tiredofphoneys,

Your posts were largely ignorant and only hold marginal value if you assume that we were in Iraq for a democratically supported purpose. I would like to address this statement: "so do our fighting troops. They'd spit on you if you went to Ft.Lewis and tried to talk your cowardly trash to them." I seriously doubt you have ever stepped foot on any military base. I'm certain they don't need support in the manner in which you provide. They are, afterall, mostly just kids.

8:30 PM  
Blogger capsiplex said...


stag geciktirici sprey
geciktirici stag,
geciktirici spreyler,
zayıflatıcı haplar,
sperm arttırıcı,
kırışıklık giderici krem
sprem hapı,
zayıflama hapı ,
select lash
göğüs büyütücüler,

4:46 AM  
Blogger hayrettin alici said...

akülü istif makinası
ceraskallar
Elektrikli zincirli vinçler
akülü istif makineleri

1:56 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home