OK, fine, one more Anti-VV post
Another one sent to me was this genius treatise on something or other, written possibly by a Pirate, entitled: AARRRGGGHHH! The hypocrisy! (Iran v. China and other thoughts) . It has all the intellectual heft one would expect had they read its progenitors.
First of all, what exactly is different between Iran and say, oh, CHINA, with whom we are VERY VERY VERY close economically? When it comes to international trade, they maintain “most favored nation” status despite killing THOUSANDS and injuring up to tens of thousands of their own people during the Tianamen Square protests. Like Iran, China is not a democracy.
Trivia Question Ms Picard (please insert joke about “number two” here): Which Republican President was it that hammered that one through? Answer: Bill Clinton. Also, it is no longer called “MFN” as over 50% of countries were “most favored” making it a bit like calling someone “my favorite girlfriend” when you are dating half of women 18-33 in the mid-Atlantic region.
MOREOVER, HOW ARROGANT is it for AMERICA to declare whether or not the winner of ANOTHER country’s election is legitimate or not? A body of the Iranian government decided the results were valid (sound familiar?) and that THE PEOPLE would have to deal with it.
Dude, what with the CAPS? And why is “ANOTHER” capitilazed? I would have gone with LEGITIMATE and RESULTS, but that’s me. If you really want to make a point, juSt starT raNdomLy putTing capS in mId worD. And, haven’t you guys been talking shi’ite about the Iraqi and Afghan leaders? Who is VV to be declaring whether they are legitimate? But, let’s move on to the dramatic ending:
OH, OH, and then McCain says on Larry King that it is important that Congress be recognized as a co-equal branch of the government (to the President). While I totally agree (because technically, in a broad sense, the executive and legislative branches ARE co-equal), I am just wondering why this wasn’t an issue under the last REPUBLICAN President, whose Administration was the most expansive in presidential history? Funny how under a Democratic president they decide to freshen up on their Con Law. I just hate partisan politics. Both sides do it, I am just ranting about the Republicans b/c I am sick of the war-mongering.
What is this “they” shit? I’m against any and all expansion of the Executive as well as the Legislative and Judicial, and this blog has been arguing that from Day 1. As far as I remember, Congress had the right to vote on anything they wanted, and as memory serves, they decided to take a pass on most of this crap. As for that “I just hate partisan politics”, excuse me while I whip this out….
Carissa Picard is a licensed attorney and the creator and President of Military Spouses for Change (MSC), a non-partisan, non-profit membership organization that seeks to promote and protect the rights, interests, and needs of service members, veterans, and military families by educating the public and empowering military spouses. She is also on the Government Affairs Committee for the non-partisan, political advocacy organization, Veterans and Military Families for Progress.
The very non-partisan VMFP endorsed 27 Candidates in the last election, what say you look at those names and point out those who are not Democrats. Go ahead Carissa, I have all day. Non-Partisan my aching ass. Yet another phony veterans group strikes again.
UGH. (If this post doesn’t make sense, it is b/c I have a migraine right now and I am not going to re-read or edit it.) End of rant.
Thanks, I have one now too. UPDATE: Now with more video. After the jump!
I got this while I was researching another VoteVets blogger for a series I am starting tomorrow tenatively entitled: “Better know a non-partisan VoteVets blogger who is a veteran and don’t you dare check it.” BTW- Did Obama eveh show up? (More after the jump)
Category: Politics
I think this is a typo: ”She is also on the Government Affairs Committee for the non-partisan, political advocacy organization, Veterans and Military Families for Progress.”
Should be..
”…Veterans and Military Families for Progressives.”
FIFY…
Wolf
Progressive; definition = a liberal who is ashamed to be known as a “liberal.”
TSO,
I think that a good follow up might be to bundle up copies of these posts and forward them to Congress.
1. Whether it is still called MFN or not, the point I made remains valid. We maintain normal trade relations with China (whose MFN status was made permanent in 2000) as if it wasn’t an oppressive, sometimes violent, totalitarian regime. Consequently, there is no reason to distinguish between the governmental behavior of Iran and China. If we want to penalize one, then we should be consistent and penalize the other.
2. I support any member of Congress and/or presidential candidate and/or P E R S O N (in all caps AND with spaces for your enjoyment) who fully fund programs that address the increasingly complex needs of our military families and veterans. I believe wars do not end when service members come home; that is just the beginning of the end. When the service member returns from combat, we have to MEANINGFULLY undertake the social, psychological, and physical evaluation, treatment, and reintegration of that service member into peacetime society.
You will not find anything partisan on the Military Spouses of America website, which is http://www.militaryspousesforchange.org.
1. I agree. We should bomb the Chinese back to the stone age.
2. Also agree. And if my command makes me go back for one more anger management class I will go out and punch a kitten.
Carissa, you are as partisan as the day is long.
NAME ONE Republican you have VOCALLY, in PUBLIC, supported last year; name one you have voted for. Name one that your ORGANIZATION has done the same for.
Cat got you tongue???
Wolf
Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Chuck Hagel.
Chuck Hagel- Nebraskan “Republican” Yeah…there is your bi-partisanshipness for you. I did NOT vote for Chuck, and yes- I am from Nebraska. What does Chuck Hagel believe in: On August 18, 2005, Hagel became the first Republican U.S. senator to publicly criticize the Iraq war and to call for withdrawal. He has compared the war to Vietnam, openly mocked Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that the Iraqi insurgency was in its “last throes,” and called for a withdrawal of troops to begin “within the next year.” [1] In November of 2005, Senator Hagel made a much-publicized statement saying “To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic.” This was in reference to the increasing amount of debate surrounding the Iraq War, and his assertion that the United States should withdraw its troops. In December of 2005 in reference to Bush the GOP and the Patriot Act’s erosion of civil liberties, Hagel made a much-publicized statement saying “I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn’t take an oath of office to my party or my president,” [2] On Friday, July 28, 2006 Hagel made another public statement against the war when he referred to it as “an absolute replay of Vietnam.” In an interview with The World-Herald, Hagel stated that the Pentagon is wrong to increase the number of American troops Iraq. He also said that American soldiers had become “easy targets” in a country that has turned into “absolute anarchy.”[3] [edit]Opposition to President Bush’s troop “surge” On January 24, 2007, Sen. Joe Biden’s resolution against a troop “surge” passed in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a 12-9 vote. All eleven committee Democrats supported the measure, along with Sen. Hagel. During the committee hearings, Hagel gave a passionate speech against the “surge.” The following is an excerpt: “There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They’re real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we’re doing,… Read more »
Chuck Hagel last ran in 2002, are you sure you want to use him as your example?
My issue with most Republicans is that they want to overfund military actions while underfunding veterans care. I believe if you send our men and women to war, you have to take care of them accordingly when they return if they are suffering the effects of that war. Period.
I am not anti-war, but I believe in fighting SELECTIVELY. I believe there is a difference between patriotism and nationalism. Being anti-IRAQ war does not = being anti-war overall.
I have a problem with pro-war Republicans who have not served in the military and/or neither are their children. I have a problem with hypocrisy.
Violence cannot be the solution to every international dispute. Nor can we be afraid of resorting to violence when necessary. We simply have to be wise when resorting to violence–not for the sake of other nations, but for the sake of our own nation. Military resources are limited. The U.S. cannot act like an angry drunk picking fights with ten different countries at once. That is not proof of military superiority, that is proof of military stupidity and that is why we try not to do it.
Fair enough, but how do you reconcile saying you hate the partisanship while being on the Government Affairs Committee of an organization backing only Dems?
Do you want to go through the veterans budget with me on who is championing what? For instance, tell me how much of the DIC/SBP offset is addressed by the Democrats DoD funding bill this year.
For the record, I agree with most of what you wrote, I question however whether you actually do, or if you realizes how that relates to a real life budget.
Also, for clarification, “Pro-war” republicans with no service are not allowed to back it, what about Anti-business Democrats being allowed to vote on bills which impact small businesses if they never owned one? Is that okay? What about any Rep who is not a doctor voting on health care issues? For that matter, what about tax cheats voting on Tax bills? Or are Republicans the only ones exempted under your form of representative democracy?
“The U.S. cannot act like an angry drunk picking fights with ten different countries at once.”
Carissa, I can totally see how you view the US as an angry drunk. I mean, poor Iraq. We only gave them dozens of chances to violate UN resolutions! We really should have used more diplomacy. Surely, Saddam would have listened if we had invited him over for a hot dog party! And as far as taking care of veterans, I know I am sooo happy with the VA and I can’t wait to see what they can do with even more tax dollars. Perhaps mandatory PTSD care? That way, none of us can get jobs in law enforcement or any other possiton of trust. Oh, and politicians who have never served? You are so right. Jack Murtha and John Kerry are way more qualified to comment on military matters. Especially when it comes to accusing Marines of murder!
Some folks need to understand that when the hole reaches a certain depth, they ought to stop digging.
Respects,
“I have a problem with pro-war Republicans who have not served in the military and/or neither are their children. I have a problem with hypocrisy”.
Wow, where to start? How about all of the dems who haven’t served, or their offspring? Hell, the CiC couldn’t have qualified for a security clearance in the military, considering his past habits and associations. Where’s the outrage against that hypocrisy? How about the dems who attach a bail-out for the IMF in a war funding bill, where’s the outrage against that hypocrisy? But, they’re dems, so no outrage, right?
How about having a president with NO executive experience?
I would think that a governor is a much better choice for a president than some community organizer.
But that’s just me… 🙂
Aw1Tim, he ran his campaign, that was all the “executive experience” he needed. Or, so we were told. And, he’s certainly demonstrated his abilities in spending money. And siding with Hugo Chavez, when the Supreme Court of Honduras told the military that their president was the one, who in fact, was staging the coup in the first place. Unfortunately, now the United States is on the same side as a tin-pot dictator, and I’m sure the 0 will nod sagely, and tell Hugo that he can intervene in Honduras, because the 0 has deemed what happened “illegal”.
Regarding VMFP:
I do not speak on behalf of VMFP. I am not authorized to speak on behalf of this organization. I have to make sure this is clear. Matt Cary is the President of VMFP.
All I can say, however, is that VMFP actually has an established endorsement procedure that candidates running for office must go through before it will endorse them. I do not know if I am at liberty to explain the process so I won’t, but I can assure you that BOTH party’s candidates are given the opportunity to be endorsed.
Also, endorsement is based solely on the candidates’ positions on coming home issues. VMFP does not take positions on military actions.
ah ha. OK. So if I started a veterans group, and only scored one vote, the one for Speaker of the House, that would be okay, provided I allow both party candidates to submit paperwork on it? If a criteria in fact excludes 100%, wouldn’t that be a de facto “partisan” thing? I don’t know the argument seems a bit weak.
But what about my other comments?
Either way, I do appreciate you coming here, and appreciate the service of your husband. My argument with you is political, not personal like it is with Soltz, who I think long ago abrogated a responsibility to care for his troops.
I have a problem with anti-military activists who do not live under an Islamist or Communist tyrrany. Okay, I guess a Third or Fourth world TPLAD mihgt also suffice.
And I’m not too keen either on allegedly well-meaning activists who “support” the military, but only as a source for creating supplicants and clients for goverment social programs. I favor fewer casualties via aggressive overwhelming force with superior equipment. Democrats always seem to favor any measure but the one currently under consideration.
Carissa, I have a problem with anyone who hasn’t served making any decisions for this country. I think that service should be mandatory- in one form or another, for all citizens. I would make it a mandatory prerequisite to being able to vote.
Let’s see- I am for getting our asses out of Iraq right now, since it doesn’t seem like this president wants to win, let’s get out before he kills more young people in uniform.
I am for turning Pakistan into a glassy parking lot…well…at least the northern part, unless they turn over the AQ leadership.
I’m for taking out the enemy before we loose 3,000+ people in a sneak attack.
Dutch508, I’m from Nebraska, too (originally). And I couldn’t disagree with you more concerning your opinions about mandatory service, etc. I thought you guys were conservatives here. Obviously not.
Deb, what part? Panhandle myself.
What’s wrong with service to the state? I thought that was groovy for the DEMs.
let me refine- service to the state comes in many forms. Not all has to be military as there are those who truly are against violence.
Why not work in the forestry service or a similar program?
So, is she going to side with President Bobo on Honduras, or with the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress? I ask that since she has said we need to stay out of other country’s elections.
TSO,
“MOREOVER, HOW ARROGANT is it for AMERICA to declare whether or not the winner of ANOTHER country’s election is legitimate or not?”
ANOTHER was capitalized to refer back to Chimpy McShrub’s illegal election of 2000. You see, we can’t even keep our own elections fair.
Please re-read your talking points…
Carissa: you have said this:
“I have a problem with pro-war Republicans who have not served in the military and/or neither are their children. I have a problem with hypocrisy”.
Ok, then by your criteria; Bill Clinton should have stayed out of Bosnia and Kosovo, no one in Congress, that is not a Veteran or does not have children in the military, should be allowed to vote for any military action. Does that include any President, or Presidential candidate? Because, by your own requirements, 95% of Congress would not be able to vote for any military action, thereby leaving the voting process to a select few.
Do you have a problem with pro-war democrats? I noticed you only mentioned republicans, which leads me to believe that you are a tad bit biased against republicans in general. Or, do you think that only republicans are “pro-war”? Now, please define what you mean by “pro-war”, since you stated that you are not “anti-war”.
Not to put too fine a point on it; but you are all over the map with your statements, Carissa, and your bias is showing.
Just another dem trying cloud the waters. She’s all over the map because the dems haven’t issued the talking points for Tuesday yet.
“VMFP actually has an established endorsement procedure”, but she can’t/won’t explain it. I’d be willing to bet that the first requirement is: Dems only need apply.
The Right Brothers / The List!!!!!
Dutch508,
I’m from the other end of the state – Fremont, about a half hour from Omaha. Left in 1976 for the Army and never went back.
You ask, “What’s wrong with service to the state? I thought that was groovy for the DEMs.” Yes, your view on that is something that you have in common with most of my left-wing friends – they were always advocating that kind of thing, too, and I always opposed it. National service is fine if it is voluntary, but to make it mandatory in any fashion, violent or not, is simply contrary to the principles of freedom. Of course, unfortunately, that is true of many things that have evolved in our society.
I noticed that Military Spouses for Change now calls themselves Military Spouses for America…interesting. Why the “change”?
Change isn’t what it used to be, now it is stay the course, all will be fine, listen to me play my fiddle, these aren’t the droids you’re looking for…
Same with Blue Star Families for Obama. They are TOTALLY non partisan now. When they aren’t posting cock ring user reviews on their mommy blogs.
I am crapping you negative.
REGARDING GOVERNORS BEING MORE QUALIFIED AS PRESIDENT: The Governor Versus the Senator Posted on September 4th, 2008 by Carissa Picard Read 1,347 times. I had the honor of seeing Governor Sarah Palin accept the Republican Vice Presidential nomination last night at the Xcel Center in St. Paul. Gov. Palin was everything she needed to be and then some. In fact, she was so charismatic that even I began wondering why I wasn’t voting for her. Charm aside, however, she made a statement that really bothered me. She said that she has been attacked by the “media” because she was not part of the “Washington elite.” I wish that were the case. I don’t consider myself part of the “media” per se; nor have I been attacking her (I don’t care about her personal life), but I have been critical of her lack of exposure to national and international affairs. Although he is healthy today, the fact remains that McCain is an elderly man who has had several bouts of skin cancer. If anything happens to him, his Vice President will have to be prepared to immediately take over as the President of the United States. No one can question Senator Joe Biden’s ability to do this. Can they say the same of Governor Palin? Palin’s supporters keep saying she has “executive” experience because she is a state Governor. With all due respect, being governor of a frozen tundra for a year and a half doesn’t cut it—not when we are electing a war President during an economic recession. Moreover, this “executive” experience at the state level may prepare her for inter-branch politics but it doesn’t prepare her for national AND international politics, pressures, or law—all of which suddenly become extremely important when one is the executive not of one state but of ALL the States in the Union. Being a U.S. Senator can, on the other hand, prepare a candidate for these pressures and issues because the Senate was created to consider the best interests of the nation as a whole as well as those of the individual states. This… Read more »
CLAYMORE:
We dropped the Change b/c everyone thought we were associated with Obama’s campaign and if you followed us during the presidential election, we did not endorse any candidate and we put the military and veteran positions of ALL major candidates on the website, as taken directly from the candidates’s campaign sites (verbatim) with direct links back to the sources.
I personally had a chance to be a part of Blue Star families for Obama and I turned it down. Why? Because I was the president of a non-partisan organization that wanted to provide information equally about all the candidates.
Upnorth: I am neither empowered nor authorized to speak on behalf of VMFP. If you truly want to know about the candidate endorsement process–instead of just making assumptions of bias–I would encourage you to contact the President, Matt Cary.
Carrisa, I want to comment on the article you wrote and posted in #35: I think you have a few things confused and I will try to help you understand a few things about who is qualified and who isn’t. Granted, these points are mute, since Obama was elected, but it has a bearing on future candidates. #1: As Governor of Alaska, she is the CIC of the Alaska National Guard, which put her in a position that Obama was not; sending troops to war. #2: Alaska is part of the early warning net, which means the Governor, whomever it is, is involved in that aspect of international exposure and, as such, has a security clearance, something Obama probably couldn’t get due to his associations with radicals, shady businessmen, etc. In fact, he couldn’t get the security clearance that I had, when I was in the military; yet he is more able to be CIC than someone who has already had experience at having to not only send people to war, but has spent much more time with them in their enviroment? #3: Out of the grand total of 2 years in the Senate, Obama had 144 days total time as a US Senator and of that time, he spent most of it campaigning for President. So I wonder where you get his “experience” credentials. #4: Obama didn’t debate as much as some people would like to believe. During the Georgia situation, it took him 3 days to formulate an answer after consulting with many, many “advisors”. So, I don’t think he has anything to hang his hat on as far as “international” anything. #5: We now see that he is out of his element, when it comes to pretty much everything, but especially when it comes to anything involving the military, or international relations. Besides his total lack of regard for the military, as shown when he blew off visiting our wounded warriors in Germany when he was there for a campaign stop (which makes me wonder why he would go to Germany to campaign for President of the… Read more »
I really like what you guys are up too. This sort of clever work and reporting! Keep up the amazing works guys I’ve you guys to blogroll.