Comments on: Charles Schumer Vows To Plunge America Into Another Vietnam

By: Edcclub71

Edcclub71 — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:49:56 +0000

To anyone who talks about how much the was “costs’, I then ask, “how much are you willing to pay in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)?” In other words, if the current price is too much, what IS the price? My gut feeling is that the anti-war sentiment is this: we don’t want to see anyone die for anything, and we won’t pay for much either — well, OK, we’ll pay a wee little bit of money and if a few soldiers die, then, well, OK.

As a retired military officer, I hate to see anyone die, but, unfortunately, death is a part of any struggle with evil. And terrorism is evil. And it costs big bucks to beat evil.

Thank God the people who founded this nation had a different position on doing whatever it took for freedom and liberty to stand tall in these United States.

By: eliXelx

eliXelx — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:36:08 +0000

What Schumer really means with his comparison to Vietnam is this:
I was young then; we had free sex, drugs and rock n’ roll (Ok we paid for the sex but the other two were free!) I want the people of America to experience in 2007/8 what I experienced in 1967/8, because, let’s be truthful, once 2009 rolls round, and the Democrat Party controls everything, the party will be over. Long Live PC! Death to Bush! Allah Who??

By: Randy Means

Randy Means — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:56:16 +0000

“The notion that being anti-surge is somehow an “immoderate” position is crazy. It’s the position held by over 70% of the population.”

Well, then by all means let us decide to lead the nation and the world based upon poling data. Bill Clinton taught us the value of running a nation based on polls, while simultaneously refusing to act as the United States was attacked repeatedly. (U.S.S. Cole, Kobe Towers, World Trade Center 1). And let us not forget how decisive he was in managing the opportunity he was given to eliminate Osama Bin Laden. Yes, let us return to those wonderfull days where leadership depended upon the direction of the current winds of public emotion. That certainly worked well for 3000 innocent New Yorkers, and those evil Pentagon employees, along with those pesky passengers on Flight 93. Yes, lets do take another poll.

By: Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report

Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:46:36 +0000

The fact is, Schumer can't pass legislation. What he can do is endlessly debate, form partisan investigative committees, hold press conferences, and just generally muddy the water. In so doing, Democrats set themselves up to receive no credit for success, but a good share of the blame for any failure. Great strategy! Nick Kasoff The Thug Report

By: Sister Toldjah » Senator Chuck Schumer predicts “resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam”

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:49:35 +0000

[...] Mark Coffey writes in response: The gloves are off, that’s clear…and the mask is falling off, too. The ‘moderate’ Democrats who won the 2006 midterms are nowhere in sight. When Senators as well-regarded as Schumer start talking like columnists for The Nation, you can bet that we are through the looking glass. [...]

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:49:33 +0000

Senator Chuck Schumer predicts “resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam”

The anti-war rhetoric of the anti-war Democratic party escalates:
WASHINGTON – After Republicans blocked a Senate debate for a second time, Democrats said Saturday they’ll drop efforts to pass a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush̵…

By: A Blog For All

A Blog For All — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:58:00 +0000

On Nonbinding Votes

…is there anyone out there asking how this move will improve the US security posture in the region, long term national security, or long term strategic interests in the Middle East and around the world, especially when al Qaeda is still active in I…

By: Bob from Ohio

Bob from Ohio — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:38:41 +0000

Empty threats. They can’t shut off debate on a non-binding resolution, how can they do it on a real amendment. Let alone override a veto.

Do they think they can pass a funding bill with huge strings attached, have it vetoed and then not be forced to pass a clean bill?

Further, compare the Dem majority in either 1972-74 and 1974-1976 to now. The 1975 majority in particular was huge with the watergate babies. No such majority exists now. Chuck can’t back up his macho, no way, no how.

By: jpe

jpe — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:08:22 +0000

Jabba: despite your conviction that the American people are irrational fools that can be pulled this way or that by media coverage, a poll from the Washington Post in 2002 – before the war – told us that only 35%, IIRC, would support a war that went on for more than a few years, required 50k soldiers in Iraq, and cost 15 billion / year.

We’ve beaten those figures handily, mind you, so it’s really no surprise at all that people don’t support this war. They said they wouldn’t, and now they don’t. This isn’t about communications or media: it’s about the American public being rational. h

By: jpe

jpe — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:57:57 +0000

Those “moderate democrats” were never moderate to begin with. Almost to a one, they’re farther left on economic issues than any crop of politicians we’ve seen in decades, and were similarly opposed to the Iraq War.

Sonya: oh teh noes! Well, that’d be a shocker for a Republican to avoid substantive debate with name-calling.