Presidential Candidates Say the Darndest Things
Just minutes ago on on CNN’s “The Situation Room,” U.S. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware) claimed his vote for the 2002 “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq” was actually a vote to prevent a war rather than to start one. I have to give Biden some credit: his composure was amazing. I couldn’t have said something like that with a straight face.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
How does the old t-shirt go–I used to be disgusted, now I’m just amused.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Several Senators have “justified” their vote for force against Iraq by saying that they saw the need to give Bush the negotiating tool that he needed to force Saddam to back down and thus avoid war. It’s an interesting argument, and one that could have been legitimate it another time and place. The problem I have with it is the level of trust they extended to Bush in this act.
There’s also the level of trust I have in politicians. Maybe one in a thousand could believably claim that they were seeking the nobler path in their actions. The other nine hundred ninety nine can only believably be seen as having wanted to save their seat (the other one besides their butt) and voted in fear of being labeled “unpatriotic” or“soft on terrorists” with an election coming up.
They folded and made some pretty speeches about it as they did so. It’s not unlike the last week’s worth of news. I both cases, I’d like to be believe that they better angels in the politician’s nature guided their actions. In both cases, I pretty much figure it’s fear of loss of power and craven instinct that guided our elected officials.
I’m soooooo happy that I got out of bed early to vote last November.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Why is it that anything they work on in Washington has added bells and whistles like some kind of legal extra value meal? All these things get caught up in people arguing over whether or not to include this or that. Then, even a bill with the best of intentions and the support of 99 per cent of thinking people could get shot down because it’s also carrying the weight of a half dozen other things that no one thinks could get by on their own.
Have to tell you that I’m so glad to live in an era when we can cure a heck of a lot of what ills us except spinelessness and namecalling. Something I’m trying to get my 6-year old to survive and move past it seems the politicians are incapable of. Say someone IS labeled soft on terrorism or unpatriotic, why do we never hear a reasoned rebuttal as to why these actions were taken? No, we just hear talking heads throwing catch phrases around. I’m sure one of these days we’ll hear about Hannity and Colmes doing the “Less filling/Tastes Great” debate. And I’m sure the politicians will be just as worried about the outcome.
June 15th, 2007 at 7:21 am
simply put… any “peace” brought about by violent means is false and fragile.
“safety” at gunpoint is oxymoronic.
“freedom” to choose limited and given choices is illusory.
and “love” under these and any variation of these conditions is twisted and strained.
like peas…full circle.
June 28th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Keef, you know you’re one of my oldest and dearest friends, but I simply must take issue with the post above…
Keef Yourick: “simply put… any ‘peace’ brought about by violent means is false and fragile.”
Yeah, well, it’s an imperfect world. And non-violence isn’t a panacea either. Sure, Gandhi liberated India through a non-violent movement; but Neville Chamberlain tried to buy peace through non-violent means, and we all know how that worked out.
Sometimes there’s just no way to keep your hands clean. If you stand by and watch someone kill another person in order to maintain a strict code of non-violence, I submit to you that your hands are still dirty, because through inaction you contributed to the harm of another.
Keef Yourick: “‘safety’ at gunpoint is oxymoronic.”
Uh… I think a lot of police officers out there would beg to differ. Without the implied threat of force to back them up, I bet a lot of them would find their jobs even tougher than they are now.
Not everyone is filled with goodwill, Keef. An unarmed cop would be a lot less safe than an armed one.
Keef Yourick: “‘freedom’ to choose limited and given choices is illusory.”
No. There can be no liberty without justice. If I have the freedom to commit robbery, you don’t have the freedom to own property. Any society must set limits as a necessity. The question is what kind of limits. I believe our Founding Fathers got it right, at least in the abstract, with the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, we’ve stumbled a bit in practice over the centuries.
Keef Yourick: “and ‘love’ under these and any variation of these conditions is twisted and strained.”
If you’re referring to the morass in Iraq, I’ll agree with you there.