Obey Belittles Comment by Grieving Army Mother
Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 09:35AM Bottom Line Up Front: Democrats say they support the troops but continue to belittle their efforts with condescending arrogance.
During debate on the floor of the Congress last night on the $50 Billion War Funding Bill that required troop withdrawal from Iraq, Democratic Congressman David Obey belittled a comment by a grieving mother of a fallen U.S. soldier in Iraq. The bill passed 218 - 203 and is sure to be vetoed by the President (HOOAH). Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas gave this statement on the floor:
R-TX LOUIE GOHMERT: We show the greatest reverence for those who’ve given their last full measure of devotion not by pulling out before we leave a stable area, but by seeing that we finish the job and leave a stable area so they will not have died in vain.
I leave with a comment of Travis Buford’s mother there in Nacadocious, TX at the funeral home earlier this year. And I said to his mother as we stood near his coffin, "Is there anything I can do?" She gritted her teeth and she said, "Go back and tell the Congress to shut up and let the military finish their jobs." I yield back.
D-WI DAVID OBEY: Mr. Speaker, after that very thoughtful statement, I would like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin. (Democrat Congresswoman laughing)
Excuse me, are these the same compassionate liberals who give Cindy Sheehan a pass on every vile thing she says because she LOST A SON IN IRAQ?
Hypocrisy, anyone?
As an army wife who has been to many funerals of the fallen in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I can say it doesn’t matter if the sarcastic swipe from Congressman Obey was aimed at the grieving mother, Janet Buford or Congressman Gohmert who relayed her sentiments; the effect is the same.
While Democrats inebriate themselves with this grandiose gesture of arm-twisting military commanders and micromanaging the war from plush offices in DC, military families and soldiers know this is not about us; it is about them. They have fought success in the war since the beginning and have made life harder for troops with demoralizing comments of defeat heard around the world, giving encouragement to our enemies. The friend of our enemy is our enemy.
The message military families and their soldiers have been trying to convey for several years now is perfectly aligned with those of Janet Buford. This display of tactless arrogance reinforces our belief that the Democrats just don’t get it. The idea of supporting the troops flies completely over their heads.
So, Congress, SHUT UP AND LET THE MILITARY FINISH THEIR JOBS. That one's for you, PFC Buford.
OTHERS BLOGGING: Gateway Pundit Wake Up America Michelle Malkin Don Surber A Worshipping Christian's Blog The American Pundit Pirates Cove Macsmind
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1371566
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (45)
So as to not be accused of implying that I question their patriotism, let me says this clearly.
I do not "question" their patriotism... I am stating with 100% assurance that THEY HAVE NONE.
It isn't a question of whether they have any patriotism at all, it is a question of whether they have any humanity at all.
I question their humanity as well.
It is important for us to realize that while there is a Benefit to removing Sadam Husain, there is also a cost. That cost comes in terms of lives (X) and other resources (Y). Let us call the benefit Z, and assume for a minute that we all agree with what that benefit is. The real problem is that in 2003 you and I had different estimates of what the costs of war were. Your expectation was that X+Y < Z. My expectation was that X+Y > Z. Everyone in the country went through this implicit calculation. As the costs of war continue to increase, the X and Y increase. More and more people have been wrong about what X and Y are. I believe you and assume that for you Z is infinite. That is not the case for your fellow countrymen. The reason the war is no longer supported by a majority (whereas it once was) is because most people guessed wrong about the price of the war. This was in part hubris and in part really bad information and communication on the part of Rumsfeld. Regardless, for people with a large, yet finite Z, it is easy to understand how they have been overwhelmed by the costs of war. As the wage of the soldier increases (through bonuses) the Y increases. The body count continues to increase. The problem is that you never named a Z. You never let us know what you were willing to pay back in 2003, so we cannot evaluate how far we have gone with you towards that goal. It is easy to always say that more is better, but that is no way to get agreement. By forcing your fellow citizens to support you no matter what the costs, you are not being true to democratic decesion making. You support an undefined goal and are willing to tax other people for ever more. You cannot be blamed for allowing other people to sacrifice blood for the cause becuase you are one of the ones willing to do so, but that does not mean that I support this country wasting our resources on a cause that costs more than we are willing to pay. The tradgety is that we will leave before Z is reached, some of us knew that this would be the case before we started. There will be some benefit, sure, but it only makes sense to evaluate that in terms of the cost.
"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."... John F. Kennedy
FREEDOM for human beings and safety for those same human beings is worth ANY cost.
Unless you do not care about human beings and thenas I said above...I question your humanity.
Does any cost include the destruction of our own nation?
Witness financial degradation.
Witness cost in blood.
Witness raising the prevalence of terrorism in the world rather than the decrease.
Witness the erosion of principles which were explicit in the founding of the nation.
It is easy to continually say "more" is needed -- but that is not an argument that is an ideology. I question the humanity of anyone who is willing to make the argument that "any price" is the relevant metric for any decision. By saying that Z is infinite, you depart the ranks of your countrymen. Large finite Z has to be able to be reached, it is just a matter of when. Now we are in a social choice theory, and you have to understand that unless you are willing to undermine the principles of democracy, every day that the war lasts more people enter the X+Y > Z camp.
"The grave's a fine and private place, But none, I think, do there embrace" - Andrew Marvell
There is a freedom that is available in death such that there is no coersion. "Any price" is by definition the solution which ends by making everyone equal through death.
Amy,
Obey is one and the same idiot who said that violence in Iraq was decreasing because ... here it is ... the insurgents were running out of people to shoot!. Yes, that's right! Out of 25,000,000 people in Iraq, the insurgents cannot find a single one of them. Otherwise, the violence would be just as bad as it once was.
Frankly, I know how frustrating morons like this can be, but he is so full of hot air that he just should be ignored. He's nothing but an empty suit. A phantom who speaks nothing.
I agree there were pros and cons involved in taking down Saddam Hussein, but eventually it had to be done. Much of Europe was corrupt during his rule, like Russia, France and Germany who were in bed with Saddam financially. They would not have taken down Saddam. Its 100% clear that Saddam wanted WMD and was seeking to develop them. It's clear he wanted to attack Israel and believed in PanArabism, wanting to make the Middle East a panarab paradise. It's clear Saddam was a threat.
Qusay was the head of Iraq's WMD department. Even if we had left Saddam in place, he had two very evil heirs who were invested in chemical, nuclear and biological development... to think ignoring Saddam would make athe problem go away is niave.
And imagine the race between Iran and Iraq as Syria is found to have WMD.
He had to be eliminated, period. We'll look back and see this war as a necessary evil. The good news is that we have volunteers willing and able to invest in this difficult period in history. This is what makes them heroes; that they are willing to lay down their lives so millions of people they have never met can have a chance for a better future.
And it's a garauntee that the United States is safer with Iraq as an ally.
The money is irrelevent. We waste millions studying cow farts and frog dung. We wasted 10's of millions that were misused in New Orleans intended for disaster relief. Our government spends millions paying poor women to abort their babies. We have the money to invest, have a strong economy and are paying less in taxes...... the emphasis on money spent on this war is a distraction.
I personally haven't noticed any extra money leaving our family budget for the war. That doesn't mean it isn't costly but if we can rebuilt a country to be our ally as we did in Japan, this will be more than worth it, saving not only money but LIVES in the long run.
Anyone concerned by these erosions should oppose pornography, abortion and promiscuity. Liberalism in the name of freedom of *whatever* promotes these things and we're hypocritical if we only act shocked at a loose interpretation of these in foreign policy and not our personal lives.
on your first point -- will you acknowledge a difference between millions and trillions?
on your second point -- you make a fallacy of hasty generalization.
I agree with Mr. Smith
I certainly know the difference between millions and trillions, but I consider this making up for the lack of investment in the military under the Clinton administration.
I'm surprised that Obey did not brand Janet Buford a chickenhawk.
just a refresher for anyone who calls them self a republican: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmPS0XmeBw&feature=related
How much money do you consider your rightful transfer from the American Taxpayer?
The military is not entitled to the money from the taxpayer. There is no certain level which we failed to meet under a previous president. Your assertion that this is "making up for the lack of investment" is to distort terminology from the private market "investment" and applying this concept to private interest on behalf of military contractors. This is an abuse of language.
Regarding " personally haven't noticed any extra money leaving our family budget for the war." Nor have I. But at http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Publications/Local-Costs-of-the-Iraq-War-4.html and elsewhere, current estimates are between $4100 to $20000 per family. We don't see it because it is written off to the national debt. Most financial analyses see the Iraq war as the most expensive we have fought. Not that we should quibble over war costs...unless it be an unecessary one.
Spree, I agree, they have no patriotism.
nor luap,
How so? By allowing this assinine group of Congress people continue to throw temper tantrums and do everything they can to insure that destruction, including giving comfort and aid to our enemies in the form of obstruction and obfuscation? Include the mainstream, liberally biased media in that because if they weren't culpable, you'd know that troop withdrawals are already on the table and reductions are to begin... if they haven't already.
Financial degradation in the form of complaining about the costs of war but never stop the flow of dollars going to spurious and unnecessary projects? When they aren't sacrificing a thing? I'd also like to inform you, or remind if you already knew it at one time, that Congress writes the checks. That is their main function. If they were really concerned about it, they'd stop the pork spending. Once you add up all the different little pieces of pork it would make a pretty heft dent in the national debt but you don't hear them talking about doing that do you? They use broad terms and let you assume that's what they mean when they really mean nothing of the sort.
Which blood do you want to talk about? The blood on the battlefield or the blood in the streets here thanks to all the liberal policies that let criminals continue to walk the streets? There are more deaths in any one major city in a month than all the soldiers we've lost over the entire war in Iraq. In a comment on another post you claimed to be a "Student of History" so why don't you go look at some crime stats for any one major city.
The prevalence of terrorism hasn't grown. We're just more aware of it than we were before 9/11.
Which principle would you like to start with? How about freedom of religion? When a nation formed by Judeo-Christian principles can't celebrate its religious and cultural holidays or pray for fear of offending someone and landing in court defending themselves against a lawsuit?
How about freedom of speech? Such as when the Minutemen were prevented from speaking at a college or when the Islamofascism Awareness group were speaking at a number of colleges and were prevented from speaking, not by the colleges, but by people who shouted them down and interupted them every time they opened their mouths to speak? You don't have to agree with what they have to say. You don't even have to listen. But you take away their right to free speech when you prevent them from speaking.
How about the tolerance the left is always talking about? Where is their tolerance when I disagree with something they believe but instead of debating I get called names?
How about respect for the law? What does it say about a group of people to state they don't have to follow the laws of this nation? For an example, look to California where they openly refuse to abide by federal immigration laws.
How about the right to privacy? People who complain about warrantless wiretapping because of fear of Big Brother? Who do you think you protect with that? I hate to disillusion you but Big Brother was here long before FISA laws or warrantless wiretapping or anything else similar. You met Big Brother the day you applied for a social security number, if not before. Think about everything it's used for and go ahead and believe that you have privacy. You think using a fake name on the net keeps you safe? Think again. You can be found and a lot more easily than most people think they can.
I'm done for now before I work myself up into a real rant.
An accounting note: You state: "Our government spends millions paying poor women to abort their babies." Not so,
Before Hyde, the federal government paid for about one-third of all abortions - 294,600 in 1977; after Hyde, it paid for virtually none.
Some states fund abortion, most are insurance, cash or charity. Our government spends millions on 'abstinence only' programs. Wouldn't think you would be complaining....
Patriots sacrificed their hearts, souls, bodies, minds, and lives to defend this country, defend its freedoms, and patriots died and sacrificed themselves when they knew they could live the good life.
Democrats bemoan that life is not giving them enough government money to live off of while they sit on their tusshes and complain and demand more government programs to live off of -- so they can sit down and complain more. Patriots did not do this.
Looks like the Patriot Guard is going to have to start running interference in Congress now with comments like that.
When will A$$hats like Obey realize they are mocking themselves when they shows no respect for their fellow congressmen and the families of our fallen?
There ya go, Gawfer!
Steph,
Thank you for taking a detailed analysis of my objections. I can't help but respect how you choose to respond to each point in detail so that I can see where you are coming from.
I would like to be clear that one can oppose war without condoning the sorry state of partisan politics in the US. I personally model my idea state on a concept of limited government. I am an economist, and therefore have spent time thinking about the efficiency arguments for limited government. I claim no special insight into moral claims. Most of my disagreement with people who are in favor of the war comes because they do not separate the moral claims from the positive claims.
Your strongest point is about the terrorism. I claim that there is more terrorism, you claim that there is the same or less, we just are more aware of it. This is a testable claim. We both have access to resources and data which will help us understand the reality of our competing claims. In the end it will come down to what we consider terrorism. If we limit the sample be calling what is going on in Iraq a war, or if we only look at the US, I could see your point being stronger. If you include Iraq, if you include the recruitment and execution of related but separate groups in Europe, we start going toward my side of the argument. Killing is never a solution, it breeds hate. This seems so obvious as a component to future terrorism that it should not need to be stated. There is no peaceful war. The US is childish to think that by invading a country and killing that they can bring about peace.
The financial costs: The expenditure on war a weapons are often 3-6 orders of magnitude larger than many of the complaints about domestic spending that you and Amy have offered as waste domestically. The dollar is loosing value. The debt is sky rocketing. Ron Paul is the only one that is addressing this issue. Do you really want to see what financial collapse looks like? Germany in the 1920's was a mob scene because of financial problems brought on by debt to other countries. How much money do you think we owe to China?
Limited government is the answer to both of our complaints. You complain domestically. I complain about the foreign policy. We are working together to say that politics does not solve problems, it creates them. There are very few and specific roles that the government can perform better than alternative private sources. These are such things that do not exist without government, not that government improves them, just that they would fail to be there without government. This group of things is surprisingly low. So I really see us working together on this front.
Finally -- on the principles of the government. Jefferson set us out on a Lockean path. Madison brought Montesquieu into the Constitution. These have been known as our founding traditions. Locke had a notion of government which undermined a Hobbesian one. Hobbes lived through the beheading of a king and the evils of Cromwell's rule based on religious intolerance. Hobbes KNEW that the world was anarchistic and that the only solution was to prostrate ourselves in front of leaders who would exert the power swiftly and without remorse, such that order can be achieved at all costs, including personal liberty.
Locke rejected this. He built a theory of government based on principle. This inspired the limited government that was formed in the United States. Negative rights were an important part of his system. This means that you have a right to function without interference from other people such that you do not interfere with them. I cannot tell you what to do, without first framing it in terms of why that prevents me from doing what I want to do. As a concept of government, this alternative is a far more optimistic one. September of 2001 helps to move us back into the Hobbesian world.
I agree that in the 20th century people claiming --positive-- rights (the right to work, the right to vacation, the right to health care) have undermined the Lockean tradition of this country which was founded on --negative-- rights, listed in the Bill of Rights. This is a harm as well. I suggest that the proper direction for the nation is to return to the principles that this country was founded on under the optimistic outlook of Locke. I think you cannot tell a story about why the US became what it was without Locke, and the further we are from Locke, the more and more we are walking toward Stalin.
It almost seems off topic at this point, but did anyone read or listen to Gohmert's full statement? Was Obey commenting on Gohmert, not Buford's mother? As is typical of Congressmen of either party, they are not really listening, just waiting to speak.
The Dems havn't come to terms with victory in Iraq - too stupidly liberal...
I liked Donald's take on this at: http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/democrats-must-cope-with-victory-in.html
nor luap,
"negative-- rights" there is no such thing as a negative right. all rights are positive.
I edited out most of Gohmert's speech but he had just finished describing Vietnam, which segwayed into the comment quoting the Army mother.
Let's just say Obey was being an insensitive slob to Gohmert only. It was still incredibly insensitive considering he JUST FINISHED QUOTING A GRIEVING MOTHER who lost her son. It shows at best that Obey has no sensitivity toward military families and that his concern for the military is only political; that is, to use them like chess pieces to win a match.
But I cannot give him the benefit of the doubt. Gohmert just finished quoting the grieving mother, which was the pinnacle of Gohmert's statement. Obey's comment was about the poignancy of the comment he had just finished.
It seems clear to me.
Lovers of freedom:
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:77
"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823. ME: 15:436
"I sincerely join... in abjuring all political connection with every foreign power; and though I cordially wish well to the progress of liberty in all nations, and would forever give it the weight of our countenance, yet they are not to be touched without contamination from their other bad principles. Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Lomax, 1799. ME 10:124
"We have a perfect horror at everything like connecting ourselves with the politics of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1801. ME 10:285
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321
"We wish the happiness and prosperity of every nation." --Thomas Jefferson to Mme de Stael-Holstein, 1815. ME 14:333
These are just a few of the quotes.
If you think Jefferson would be for our current war follow this link and see why you are wrong:
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1400.htm
Jefferson is the founding father responsible for introducing the Lockean optimism to our country. Let us not turn our back on his heroic example.
nor luap, if you're going to use comments from several hundred years ago and apply them to a situation in which our enemies have nuclear capabilities, missiles, flying plane bombs, etc, be prepared to live according to the entire context.
No abortion rights. Lots of freedom to express religious views including Presidents leading the country in long national prayers envoking God's help and asking for our forgiveness. Etc.
And we all wish happiness on every country, which is one of the humanitarian justifications for liberating Iraq.
nor luap, Thomas Jefferson was an agrarianist, anti-federalist, and anti-modernist. He does not represent the totality of independent thought of the whole of the founding intellects of the USA.
“If you think Jefferson would be for our current war follow this link and see why you are wrong:”
Jefferson was anti-military. If we followed TJ, we would not have a country today. However, it takes some type of intelligence to understand this.
Many "other" USA founder saw JT as an irrationalist.
Jefferson's views are more "extreme-leftwing" that Hillary and Billy the Clinton.
As an agraianist, Jefferson wanted to see the USA as a "farming community, with no military", and open to trade with the world.
Other founders implied he was insane, and that British or Spanish empires would waltz right in an take over the colonies.
I’m not sure what your point is, when I went to school, this was taught to all the kids in the city at the age of ten-years old. That means everyone know this. His contributions were the Declaration of independence, with its perceptual language, and his letters about separation between church and state. Otherwise, many other “founders” contributed to the founding principles ( opposed to his) of the USA.
nor luap, Also, the difference between our founding fathers, George Washington, and TJ, is that after GW passed on, he let “all” of his slaves go free. Whereas, when TJ passed, he left his will to say that almost all his slaves stay in bondage and be passed down to others in bondage.
"Let us not turn our back on his heroic example." --nor luap
Maybe you should question who he really was all about?
Callparrot,
So -- be clear. Are you impugning T. Jefferson? Do you hate the Declaration of Independence? Your slights about an author's personal life aside - the relevant factor is the quality of the ideas and the writing. I don't see you offering substance on this margin.
Here is an article by a George Mason University professor:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111600865.html
Blood lust is evil in more ways than are immediately clear.
Amy,
It seems that your only objection to T. Jefferson's words is that they are old. Do you make this same objection to the Bible? It is older.
T. Jefferson's importation of Locke into the founding ideals make the US what it is. No serious objection could be raised to this. The attempts to dismiss this are clear in their absurdity. You have to claim that he is old, you have to claim that he had slaves. These are ways that you dismiss the real argument that we are turning from Hobbes to Locke. It is sad that when you cannot engage substance you have to invoke personal attacks.
It is true that Jefferson was one voice among many. He kept Locke alive, he followed that position with consistency vis-a-vis the US. If the US had had a larger military in Jefferson's time, do you think this country would be the same as it is today? That is a bold claim, and should show you the absurdity of your position. Jefferson was an anti-federalist -- which meant he opposed CENTRAL government. This does not mean that he opposed a two-tiered system because he wanted a strong federal government, as the name might be misunderstood (forgivablly).
So tell me, where do you differ on the quotes?
Why are you so content on rejecting writing more than a hundred years old?
What is your metric for impugning Founding Fathers? Are there any other founding fathers you would like to desecrate? BTW, I don't call that patriotism.
“Are you impugning T. Jefferson?”
How can I "challenge in argument?" when Jefferson is a human being? Are human beings arguments?
Do you know how to pose a question properly?
“Do you hate the Declaration of Independence?”
How can I hate a piece of paper?
Again, do you know how to pose a question properly?
You probably meant, do I hate TJ for writing the Declaration of Independence?
I care less about a moral argument of “hate” or “like.” Jefferson wrote it because he was chosen by others because of his handwritten skills. Without Jefferson, the Patriots would have found another scribe to draw us the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson has been mythicized because he has been conceptually argued to be the founding father of the Democratic Party -- a word that was never used by the founders – we live in a republic – the person who argued the key principles of that party – by modern democrats in the Democratic Party today.
If Jefferson did not exist we would still have a country exactly like we have today.
nor luap, I don't believe we do want the same thing, although your roundabout plugging for ron paul(nor luap) is interesting. You see, Ron Paul, the real one, starts out making a lot of sense but by the time he finishes having his say, his logic is so twisted as to make the whole nonsensical. Now, if he were a more reasonable fellow I could almost buy into some of what he says... at least the parts that make sense... but he's not so I can't.
The truth is, no matter what we want, isolationism, whatever, it's not possible. It wasn't possible from the beginning of this country because of how the country was formed. No matter what we want, it's not what the rest of the world wants and you can't say pat little things like, if "we weren't over there, they wouldn't be over here."
I'd suggest you and the rest of the Paul-ites do some more reading of history books that haven't been rewritten for P.C. Yes, T. Jefferson advocated an isolationist policy but he's only one of many who formed this country.
The Callparrot did not engage a single point I made. I asked you to engage the ideas, you have not done so. Fallacies of attack on the person don't advance arguments (myself or Jefferson). Calling yourself a patriot does not make you one. This country was founded on principle, deviation from that principle I would argue makes you the opposite of a patriot. I am sill trying to understand your point, which is why I asked you questions about your emotional state (I am sorry you found that to hit too close to home). I had hoped you would contribute to our exchange. All you brought to the table was "handwriting skills." Your choice, but what a waste of your time.
Steph, I have a very good command of history (thank you for your concern). It is this command of history which makes me see common roots in our positions. I challenge you to see the consistency in Ron Paul's argument. If you refuse to try that on, I can't make you. Finally, there is nothing round about in the way I am advocating. I reversed the letters of Mr. Paul's name because I did not want you to suspect that I am impersonating him. Think about his assertion that he stands for the Republican Party the way it was when it opposed war. Check the quotes he uses from the founders and prove where he is convoluted. Simply asserting this does not make it so.
Everyone:
There has still been no engagement on the issue I raised on: The move from Locke to Hobbes. The silly banter and name calling aside, do you have anything to say on this point?
Steph, Here are some history questions: what platform regarding WWI did Woodrow Wilson run on?
Did George Washington support war with foreign nations?
Why did the Monroe Doctrine get written?
What are the constitutional limits on standing armies?
What did Eisenhower warn against as he left the presidency?
What good thing is Richard Nixon remembered for? Did that stance help to get him elected?
What party started more wars in the 20th century? What party opposed them?
What is blow-back? How has it played a role in destabilizing the Middle East following the second world war?
nor luap, this isn't early America and George Washington et al didn't face this sort of enemy.
As for blowback, you've got to be kidding if you don't believe the Middle East was a mess before we arrived in Iraq. If anything, it was worse. Afghanistan was a terrorist state, Lebanon occupied by Syria, Iraq run by a cruel dictator with nuclear ambitions with two horrific heirs in waiting....
Egypt has had free elections for the first time in it's history.
Perhaps these will give you an idea where my values stem.
Great archive.
[29] No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
The Magna Carta
A translation of Magna Carta as confirmed by Edward I with his seal in 1297
http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/magna_carta.asp
About this time in history, the Tercomen, and various Muslim sects were beginning the subjugation of Orthodox Christianity in Anatolia, and would later capture Christians, imprison them and force them to do whatever they wanted – including force them to make war on their families. Hostilities between Christians and Muslims go back for centuries. In the west, the first signs of human rights were being born. I suggest that Bush be given credit for some elemental “Human Rights” that are starting to take place in Iraq. Instead the democrats frame the war as scourge of human dignity. And the Middle East was somehow this tolerant behemoth until the allied forces showed up to mess this tolerance all up. The democrats want the republicans to fail in Iraq because if this ploy works, the democrats will never get the credit for the middle east transformation into civil rights and will be seen as the group that tried to stop racial equality.
Amy,
What is different about war that was not true of G. Washington's time?
You are truncating the blow-back argument to one day before the Iraqi invasion (or functionally similar). The question specifically talks about a post WWII CIA world. Changing the question may change the answer, but fundamentally undermining the assumption of the question is just ignoring the problem. I have never seen you engage this part of the story. Amy, you have never answered 1) why you fear history older than 6 years ago and 2) why you think that people are so fundamentally different today than they were then. I think your analysis will break down when you address these problems.
Steph, I will be glad to follow your link, but I am still uncertain where you are asserting THE superior understanding of history. If you want to understand where the point of view comes from, you can engage the historical narrative suggested by the questions presented.
Parrot,
THE magna carta -- I am sure you already know that Magna Carta corresponds to a series of documents and not just one.
Steph,
Are you claiming to have uploaded these documents here? How many have you read? Do you think any conflict at all? Is there a clear ethic which you derive from them? Do you think that we could still disagree when and if I cite the same documents? Isn't the decleration which Amy and Callparrot want to throw away (becuase they disagree with Jefferson's role in US history -- apperently he was never president, he only had good handwritting) listed in these documents? Are you comfortable with saying that your values come from the Babaloynian "The Code of Hammurabi," the same city from the bible, the one with the tower? You will also notice the confederate constitution here, It seems that this also plays a role in your value formation...??
I am not sure I follow your point. Please clarify.
nor luap, make a cogent argument instead of trying to treat everyone else as if they are beneath you. Why don't you read the ones dealing with this country and read them ENTIRELY instead of taking things out of context. If it's not clear to you then, the problem is yours not mine.
Every time I comment here, I have to login. Density isn't worth the effort. If you want to support Ron Paul, I don't have a quarrel with you but do stop treating the rest of us as if we're lacking in someway for not joining you in that support.
I have listened to Ron Paul, really listened to him... every debate. He starts out making sense by the time he's finished speaking there are so many tangents as to make the whole nonsensical. Now, if that's what you want in a president, go for it. I won't stop you.
If you want a real discussion, try getting off your high horse and stop talking down to people.
steph, just because I called you out on your link which was supposed to show a SOURCE of values superior to mine, does not mean that I am on a "high horse."
I have tried to be reasonable with you, you claimed we had nothing in common and suggested that you come from a superior position, now, when you are confronted with that claim you simple reverse it.
Steph, feel free to hold the Declaration of Independence up as a good document. You will find that I have done so here. Rather than linking to a cite which has no support for what you claim it to have, please tell me what is wrong with the Declaration. I suggest that you and I both agree that the Lockean roots which are reflected there are important foundational principles of this government. You are going to have to show me where we disagree here to show A) that we are not coming from the same place, and B) that I am trying to show you up.
All I ask for is you to admit the common ground, and then to have a logical extrapolation of that coherent argument. It is the games, the links, the talking down to, the impugning Ron Paul's message, the other random distractions that you subvert the real argument. If I am a little embarrassed for you when I see that you run and hide from the actual issue because you know that you cannot engage these and still treat me as if I was some wacko, then I guess you will pick up a condescending attitude, but your ability to engage on the substance of the argument is your choice. I am not the one that is making a mockery out of coherent logic.
I have given you many categories of issues of substance to engage. I am still waiting for you to address the issues. I don't think you have to look very hard to see what it would take to have a "real discussion" as you say. Simply address the substance and we will leave these condescending issues aside. It takes two to tango, and I have given you reasonable questions to answer and reconcile with your bold claims.
Steph,
FYI - this is the coherent argument I advance, which you have not engaged:
"Finally -- on the principles of the government. Jefferson set us out on a Lockean path. Madison brought Montesquieu into the Constitution. These have been known as our founding traditions. Locke had a notion of government which undermined a Hobbesian one. Hobbes lived through the beheading of a king and the evils of Cromwell's rule based on religious intolerance. Hobbes KNEW that the world was anarchistic and that the only solution was to prostrate ourselves in front of leaders who would exert the power swiftly and without remorse, such that order can be achieved at all costs, including personal liberty.
Locke rejected this. He built a theory of government based on principle. This inspired the limited government that was formed in the United States. Negative rights were an important part of his system. This means that you have a right to function without interference from other people such that you do not interfere with them. I cannot tell you what to do, without first framing it in terms of why that prevents me from doing what I want to do. As a concept of government, this alternative is a far more optimistic one. September of 2001 helps to move us back into the Hobbesian world.
I agree that in the 20th century people claiming --positive-- rights (the right to work, the right to vacation, the right to health care) have undermined the Lockean tradition of this country which was founded on --negative-- rights, listed in the Bill of Rights. This is a harm as well. I suggest that the proper direction for the nation is to return to the principles that this country was founded on under the optimistic outlook of Locke. I think you cannot tell a story about why the US became what it was without Locke, and the further we are from Locke, the more and more we are walking toward Stalin."
nor luap, the world you insist upon can exist only in a bubble without any outside interferences. Lockean theory, Hobbesian theory, Montesquieu, and all others you care to bring into the mix are not perfect. If they were, they'd be God. You take what works and reject the rest.
I agree that the further we go from Locke the closer we get to Stalin. The slide toward socialism/communism began long before I was born; long before any of us were born. To identify and clarify each every one would take several books. Therein lies the crux. This country was founded only in part upon Lockean ideology. There is also the matter of personal responsibility and the rule of law. Our founders sought to combine the best parts of several ideologies and created the longest lasting democratic republic to ever exist. There was a time when the laws of this land lay lightly upon its citizens. The creep towards where were are now... as I stated before... began a long long time ago.
Do we need to return to basics? Yes. That being said, can we just turn back the clock? No. To return to basics, one has their work cut out for them. One would have to completely dismantle the education system in this country from elementary school level through university. A number of laws would have to be repealed from the federal level down through to local governments. Considering the number of years, more than a century, that we have gone in the direction in which we're headed, it would be impossible from a pragmatic stance, no matter how desirous that ideology might be. And, one would have to unfight all the wars that have been fought between then and now.
So, the only pragmatic solution is to work with what we've got and turn gently back toward the basics until such time as more radical changes back to those basics can be made. Your way would land us in a civil war to completely overshadow the previous one... when we're already at war with radicals who seek to conquer us in order to impose their ideology upon us and the rest of the world. As much as I already fear that such a cival war is inevitable, if there is a way to avoid it without becoming a socialist nation in the process, I will.
Free nations will always be at war with enslaved nations; the only way the enslavers can stay in power is to continue to garner power. The more aware of this country the world becomes, the less tenuous is the hold that the enslavers have over their people. Technology and other modern marvels that are as much the results of Lockean ideology as anything else have made the world a very small place and the struggle for and against freedom is as old as time itself.
What good to safeguard our liberties at home if we allow those from without to take them away? Opposing the war in the Middle East is not going to safeguard anything because the world is a dangerous place. Even as we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia and China are making moves toward furute conflicts because they see us as "ripe for the picking". Pakistan is in chaos. There is no bubble safe from a pinprick from the outside, let alone the forces encapsulated within.
It might be a nice fantasy to engage in on a slow day but the reality of the world makes it: only a nice fantasy.
Now as to superior to yours? I never said that. I said I reject Paul. If that means I'm saying I'm superior, that's your problem, not mine. I provided that link because of a propensity for taking statements out of context of the whole when our founders didn't write that way. Some points took several paragraphs before a point was made. Your question about whether I uploaded them would have been obvious if you had bothered to read or look around the site. Instead, you decided it was better to just say something like that, knowing how it would be taken. So, again, I suggest if you want a discussion/debate stop treating people as if they are inferior to you. If you have a point to make with all your questions why not make it instead using them in an attempt to put yourself on a level above everyone else here? You've belittled the blog owner and other commentators here in that attempt.. for very little cause.
I gave you opinions on your first set of questions and instead of truly engaging in discussion of those, you belittled Amy for having a different opinion and extrapolating some of your opinions to our current situation within this world. You ridiculed CalPatriot because he didn't agree with you, either. So, what I'm gaining from these "talks" is that if people don't agree with you, they must be inferior. You can deny it if you wish and I won't stop you but your very phrasing will bely the claim.
nor luap said:
In addition, you take the stance that because I don't fall over worshipping Ron Paul that I haven't listened to him and you're wrong. My opinion of Paul is my own formed from having listened to him and the attendent tirades where his leaps in logic leave a whole lot to be desired.
And to top that off, you sent me an email to which I cannot reply as you gave a bogus return address, which certainly doesn't endear you to me one whit. Now, I can either go to a lot of trouble to track you down or I can ignore you. I prefer the latter because I have more important things to do.
Note to Amy: I wasn't complaining about having to log on to comment here. It's just a glitch in the system and that it's not supposed to work that but I can live with it. I just don't always feel the need to comment on every post and given the load times (it has to reload after I login) I don't bother unless I want to comment. Most the time I read without commenting because I have nothing to add to the posts and comments.