On to war… 26 April 2007Posted by marisacat in 2008 Election, Abortion Rights, AFRICOM, Beirut, Culture of Death, Democrats, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Iran, Iraq War, Israel/AIPAC, Sex / Reproductive Health, WAR!.
It doesn’t matter the quote is from Obama, it’s all of them, the Top Three + Three Lesser Luminaries.
“Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region. … If we have nuclear proliferations around the world that is a profound threat to the security of the United States,” Obama said of the threat from Iran.”
“I’m not planning to nuke anybody right now,” he later joked when pressed whether he would take military action against Iran off the table.
Deep down they want a pair of Glocks and the ability to shoot off 170 rounds in 9 minutes.
Oh right: War waged by the Great Nation State, the Greatest on Earth, the Last Best Hope on Earth, is different. I did get that, they keep rubbing it in.
moiv emailed this tonight, NY Daily News opinion piece from an abortion doc who practices in NY:
Questions about the decision flew around the room. Exactly which abortion methods were now illegal? When would the law go into effect? What did this mean for the patients we were scheduled to see next week?
Some were easy to answer. The law would go into effect in 25 days. Doctors would not be liable if we unintentionally violated the ban. There is no gestational age included in the legislation – meaning that abortions as early as 12 to 15 weeks will be affected. Most troubling of all, there is no exception for a woman whose health is threatened by her pregnancy.
Many of our questions had no answers – at least, not yet. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion makes it clear that the Supreme Court expects this law to be enforced, meaning that doctors like me face stiff penalties and even jail time if we violate the act. But who will enforce the law, and how? It’s bad enough that Congress can dictate how I practice medicine. Should I expect federal marshals to supervise me in the operating room?
But the wars go on.
UPDATE, 10:35 pm
He may be a terrible man, but when he is right, he’s right:
[T]he more widely quoted is the “war is lost” remark of April 19, which, read in context, amounts to a charge of rankest cynicism against President Bush and his War Cabinet.
“I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense (understands) and — you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows — that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything.”
Reid is not just saying the war is lost, but implying that Condi Rice, Bob Gates and probably George Bush know it, and are denying us the truth and cynically letting our soldiers be killed at a rate of 100 a month in what they know is a lost war.
If Reid believes this, he has a moral duty to vote to terminate any further funds for this war. Even the great Robert E. Lee, whose 200th birthday we celebrate, surrendered to stop the killing when his army began to disintegrate after the fall of Richmond in 1865.
Why would Reid not demand his party deny funds for a lost war?
Hearken now to the April 12 quote of Harry Reid: “We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Sen. Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.”
One imagines Reid and Schumer sniggering in the cloakroom over the list of Republicans they can bring down if Americans are still dying in Iraq when November 2008 rolls around. […]
Reid and the Democrats are risking having this can tied to the tail of their donkey. For though Americans want the war to end and the troops brought home, they do not want America to lose the war. And that may explain the duplicity of today’s debate.
Reid and four Democratic candidates for president — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd — voted to give Bush a blank check for war. Now that the war is going badly, all five are calling for withdrawal. But neither they nor their party wants to be seen as responsible for the defeat that appears inevitable if we depart now.
Politically, cynical Harry and cynical Chuck are right.
If the war is still raging and Americans are dying at the same rate in November 2008, Republicans lose the White House and Congress. However, if U.S. forces have been defunded and withdrawn by Congress, and November 2008 rolls around with a strategic disaster and Cambodian-style bloodbath in Iraq, Reid’s party could be credibly charged with having cut and run, lost the war and caused the greatest debacle in American history. The stakes here are huge.
Democrats believe they have a winning hand on Iraq. Polls seem to confirm it. But the situation is not static. There are more cards to be dealt in this highest of high-stakes poker games. And what looks politically shrewd in April 2007 could look like suicidal folly in November 2008. [snip]
And really, Pat Buchanan, when all is said and done, is no worse than the war gamers, the 6 who stood on that South Carolina stage tonight.