Henry Waxman is convinced that the only reason someone would oppose his atrocious cap and tax bill is because they hate the U.S. and want Obama to fail.
“It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well,” the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman told WAMU.Gee, couldn't it just be that they think that these are godawful bills?
21 comments:
"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration."
Put that in your Hillary Clinton cigar and smoke it, Congressman Waxman.
Hmm... if the President doesn't succeed, the nation doesn't succeed. Where have I come across this kind of formula before? Ah, that's right...
Seig Heil!
Is this something like the patriots demanding that photos be allowed at Dover because this Bush censorship was obviously political. But now allowed whenever, most recently the Chairman of the JCS, a pol is photographed paying respects to the remains of a serviceman.
I guess the reasoning is that it's a patriotic duty to criticize the commanders and fighter but it is not patriotic to criticize spending?
Yes, it is wrong of people to question the patriotism of other Americans who differ with them politically.
It was wrong when Bush, Cheney, the GOP, and Betsy's gang of ragged extremists did it for 7 years.
And it is wrong now when Waxman does it.
If Democrats were on a high horse back then, then you are now.
If Republican dissent != lack of patriotism, then Democratic dissent != lack of patriotism.
Pick your stance and stick to it, or don't complain when the Waxmans of the world are hypocrites too.
Funny, for eight straight years Hollywood celebs of all stripes cried, whined, fretted and were generally distraught because (as they assured us) Bush, Cheney & Rove were taking away our precious freedoms by fostering an atmosphere of repression and "equating dissent with treason." Of course they never could actually cite a single statement by Messers. Bush, Cheney or Rove, to support their passionately proclaimed fears. Neither could they ever give a single example of any freedom that was ever lost during W's terms in office. When pressed for specifics - any specific at all - they'd simply chant "Patriot Act" over and over as if reciting this mantra was proof of something really bad.......or something.
But now Democrats are calling for oversight boards to control the content of radio speech, Keith Olbermann advocates legally prohibiting Glenn Beck from uttering his opinions and Henry Waxman, a sitting US congressman, LITERALLY equates criticism of Obama with treason.
And what about those same celebs? Well, they see nothing to worry about. They all feel warm, fuzzy and safe. All you can hear out of Hollywood today are the crickets.
Biddle,
What about this remark:
“He betrayed us! He betrayed this country!” ~ a frothing Al Gore accusing President Bush of treason.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5882
Do you condemn Gore for this extreme?
What about the disgraceful Moveon.org sponsored "General Betrayus" ad in the NYT?
Do you condemn Soros' organization and the NYT for their defamation of General Petraeus ahead of his testimony before the Congress?
Attacking your countrymen during a time of war will cause others to wonder which side you support in the war, particularly if you offer that the "war is lost", as did Harry Reid.
Squabbling over legislation, important as a given bill may be, cannot compare to deliberate efforts to undercut America's Armed Forces. Once the troops are in battle we have to do everything possible to bring them victory and that includes putting the petty politics aside. A political split at home is just about the ONLY way an enemy of America can hope to prevail during war. Gore, Soros, Reid and many others were only too happy to hold out that hope for our enemies and that is simply unpatriotic.
Principled disagreements are another matter and they were heard prior to the U.S. Congress passing a resolution which authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States against Iraq.
Waxman just sounds idiotic but his accusations against his political enemies do no real harm. Encouraging our enemies amidst armed conflict is dangerously different and must be condemned.
From LA Times blog-TOP of the Ticket by Andrew Malcolm-
"A majority of young people still approve of Obama's job performance, but a majority of seniors over 64 now don't (54%). Maybe they'll (that is, we'll) all die before the next election."
I am beginning to understand why the Left loves Government run RATIONED healthcare.
How patriotic of them.
"Attacking your countrymen during a time of war will cause others to wonder which side you support in the war, particularly if you offer that the "war is lost", as did Harry Reid."
I don't think it is possible to have a rational conversation with someone who is as rabidly demagogic on this issue as you are, tf.
The Cheney/GOP definition of the war being lost was always "retreating on a surrender timetable". And that is exactly what we are doing now. Don't you read the news? And it's not even an American retreat surrender timetable.
The retreat surrender timetable was given to us by the Iraq government. The ultimate defeat - being sent home by foreigners. Just like that other great "victory" - Vietnam.
Thank goodness the Democrats were able to snatch victory from defeat in Vietnam and appear intent on doing so again in Iraq. BTW, who is Commander in Chief? GWB or Obama? And if the war is lost whose loss will it be? No fudging and looking the answer up either.
Bill B.,
I suggest you be a little careful about calling others demagogues. You made the claim the Bush, Cheney, and the GOP questioned dissenters patriotism. Uh, what is your source for that? Kos?
That was one of the myths the left loved to repeat, but not support. So, unless you can support your claim, j'accuse.
Rick
See what I mean? Bill B. is living proof that BDS is still alive and well on the Left.
"It was wrong when Bush, Cheney, the GOP, and Betsy's gang of ragged extremists did it [question the American Left's patriotism] for 7 years."
Come on Bill, ol' boy, there's so much wrong with this single statement that it positively boggles the mind.
We had troops in the field and the Dhimmicrat leadership was, in fact, actively thwarting our ability to wage the war and they gave aid and comfort to the enemy. I don't know.....that pretty much sounds like a serious paucity of patriotism to me. Even so, I don't recall W ever publicly calling 'em on the carpet for it. Did I miss Bush calling Dick Durbin a treasonous bastard? Is it possible that Bush described Kennedy as a modern Tokyo Rose and I didn't catch it?
And PUH-LEEZ....don't try that old tired Leftist clap trap equivalence B.S. here. Actively aiding an enemy when our soldiers are engaged in a shooting war against it IS treason. Actively speaking up and voting against a president and his party's attempt to turn America into a socialist nightmare IS NOT treason.
So Cal & Rick -- please get your stories straight between you.
Either Rethugs did or did not question progressives' patriotism. (Hint: they did).
tfhr,
I know you love to bring up the moveon.org ad, but people here have been far more insulting of Gen. Petreus and other military leaders. According to several here, anyone for closing Gitmo and against waterboarding is aiding or championing the terrorists: Two positions held by Petreus and other generals.
And every time some of the more idiotic posters here accuse Obama of being a secret Marxist, they are implying that those under him - including Petreus- are either part of the duplicity, or being so stupid that they do not realize they are being used.
The moveon ad was wrong, but it was nothing compared to the disrespect shown him here.
Biddle,
Only you could imagine that supporting troops in the field as being "rabidly demagogic"! You know what? I still support the troops and always will. Your loyalty, on the other hand, seems to shift with political fortunes but we've always known that.
I appreciate that you are bitter, and angry, and want to lash out, tfr. Yours is never the thoughtful or intelligent approach.
But even a child of 5 could appreciate the irony. You are whining bitterly against my patriotism, in a story of Betsy's criticizing Americans whining about the patriotism of other Americans.
You have Sarah Palin-like levels of self awareness, which is to say, none.
By the way, can you remind us which president signed the Surrender on a Timetable SOFA agreement? Some of the regressives here don't seem to know that it was Bush. GOP - starting and losing wars for 40 years.
I think Bill B just admitted that Henry Waxman and the Democrats are whiners?
Plus since I think there is a snowballs chance in hell Bill B read the SOFA between the USA and the Republic of Iraq I'll go ahead and provide the link anyway.. Bill should note that withdrawal of forces is not mentioned once except for extending jurisdiction of the IA into the Green Zone. So the question must be, what withdrawal is it that Pres Bush supposedly agreed to in the SOFA?
http://tinyurl.com/5qmtky
mark,
To disagree with General Petraeus does not require one to suggest that he is literally betraying the country. His good name and dedicated service was inexplicably smeared by hyper-partisan liberals - please explain to me why you think they did such a thing.
You claim that GEN Petreaus has been shown disrespect in these threads. By whom? Are you talking about Biddle? If you are going to make such a claim, I hope you are prepared to back it up. Otherwise, shut up.
And by the way, if I decide that the CENTCOM commander's position on a given issue differs from mine, I can handle that without suggesting that he has betrayed the country. How about George Soros? What do you think of one of the left's premier billionaire's and his treatment of the man that President Obama has entrusted with carrying out his conduct of the war?!
COCOM commanders are tasked with fighting and winning wars, not engaging in public debates about frivolous political finery. If you would prefer it to be otherwise, I suggest that you write to the White House and advise them to publicize the differences in opinion that exist between the national leadership and the commanders in theater. In the end, the national leadership and the commanders in the field speak as one. That is how we present a unified front and that his how we win.
Questions?
tfhr-I think many on the left and in all honesty some on the right, have confused disagreeing on tactics and strategy in war time and political acts by vigorous debate is the ethically same as thing as simply attacking the source of those ideas as being illegitimate. And once you have convinced enough people and tainted the well then it is much easier to block or degrade a tactic or strategy simply by impugning its bona fides.
You simply don't have to attack the idea, much like the Declaration of Independence becomes tainted because several slave holders participated in the Continental Congress, but simply smear those that are the source of these ideas or those that carry out those ideas when put into action.
PS-Asked very nicely by one of those SOF types to wait till the papers on Polish operations are released. Sometime in 2030? Yikes!
Pat Patterson,
Agreed. It is possible to disagree on the best course for victory but once the troops have been committed public pronouncements that suggest that the country is divided to the extent that it will abandon the fight gives hope to an enemy. To do so is an unforgivable transgression.
As for the Polish SOF materials, a "declassify on" date is pretty subjective. As situations change materials may become more or less sensitive and the decision to declassify a given document may be delayed indefinitely depending many variables. Imagine if a minor player mentioned in a given document has since risen to a position of importance in 2030. Sounds interesting though - I'll stay tuned.
The only thing that they were willing to speak on was that much of this contact was through pre-World War II exiles connected with Pilsudski's Sancaja Movement. That meant a group that was exiled and murdered by the Nazis then banned by the Communists was still active after 50 years.
Post a Comment