It is Time for a Conservative Anti-War Movement

As the Ruling Class circles the wagons around Obama and determines upon war in Syria to pull Obama’s bacon out of the fire, the question becomes: what can we do?  My answer:  start an anti-war movement.

To be sure, the anti-war movement in the United States has heretofore been the province of leftists – and very often the most kooky of leftists.  The left’s anti-war activity has tended towards being anti-American in effect – and more commonly anti-GOP, because we see how invisible it is now that a liberal Democrat is proposing war.  But just because leftists kooks have been anti-war that doesn’t mean that being anti-war is wrong, provided your being anti-war for sensible reasons.

War is a terrible, cruel and nasty business and should be avoided if at all possible.  Some times it is, however, necessary.  War will come when it comes – and there may even come times when it is necessary for us to start the war.  But what we have here in Syria is a war that isn’t coming to us and which we have no need to start.  The United States is not threatened.  US allies are not threatened.  The two sides in the Syrian civil war are equally bad – think of it like the Spanish civil war of the 1930’s where communists and fascists battled it out.  What possible good would US intervention have done back then – we’d have either midwifed a communist or fascist dictatorship.  In Syria, we can back Assad’s hideous regime, or back the al-Qaeda-like rebels.  No good.

The problem we have today started a long time ago – when Truman criminally hurled us in to the Korean War without obtaining Congressional approval.  That is when the war-making powers of Congress first began to atrophy.  These days, we have plenty of people – including some who are not at all dumb – saying that the President has authority to launch military action in Syria based upon his powers as Commander in Chief.  That is an absurd reading of the Constitution – but it is entirely in line with practice over the past 63 years.  A conservative anti-war movement must have as its goal the reform of this pernicious doctrine – we must return war-declaring power to the Congress.

While getting 100,000 people in to DC by Monday next might short-circuit this war in Syria, I doubt much that such a crowd can be gathered on such short notice.  Looking for the longer term, we should be seeking a law which will specifically prohibit the expenditure of defense funds on offensive actions not authorized by Congress (it is the power of the purse which gives Congress its actual power).  No money can be drawn from the Treasury without Congressional authorization, so all military expenditures would be covered by a law which says that the money can’t be used for offensive operations until Congress declares war (and it is preferred that it be an actual declaration of war – not an authorization to use force). This would still allow the President to use military force to defend – to defend the United States and our allies.  But it would not allow the Syrian strike (nor would it have allowed the Libyan war…and for you liberals out there if you want a piece of this, it would have prevented Panama in 1989 and Grenada in 1983) unless Obama obtains a declaration of war against Syria, first.

This all fits in with the broader, conservative desire to reform government by re-limiting its powers as intended by the Founders.  Only a limited government is a free government – and if we don’t stop this sort of thing, we will find ourselves living in an unfree nation very shortly.

Advertisements

38 thoughts on “It is Time for a Conservative Anti-War Movement

  1. neocon01 September 3, 2013 / 2:08 pm

    time for a new party and TERM LIMITS

  2. neocon01 September 3, 2013 / 2:13 pm

    we will find ourselves living in an unfree nation very shortly.

    I’d say we have been there for 30 years, ask George Zimmerman, Randy Weaver, and the BD. then look at U tube and watch thehundreds of police out of control videos coupled with hate crimes and tens of thousands of armed federal police including the IRS.
    Heck I watched a show about the SPCA and animal enforcement dressed like ninjas with weapons on their sides…….Hitler would have been proud of the late great USA.

  3. bardolf2 September 3, 2013 / 2:23 pm

    Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, both GOP candidates for president have been anti-war for a long time. It was Eisenhower who warned against the MIC. It is actually an old conservative position to be against war.

    • M. Noonan September 3, 2013 / 2:43 pm

      Bardolf,

      And yet Ike was the progenitor of the Bay of Pigs invasion. Getting rid of Castro’s regime was a good idea – but he should have made the case for war, then asked Congress for a declaration of same. All Presidents since Truman have, to a greater or lesser degree, got this wrong…and now its time we fixed it.

      • bardolf2 September 3, 2013 / 5:30 pm

        The Bay of Pigs was a CIA fiasco of course and Ike supported it, probably thinking it would go as well as when the US helped overthrow the democratically elected government in Iran. The lesson seems to be that overthrowing governments doesn’t help in the long run for US interests.

        Still, the CIA is secret and so conservatives could at least pretend to be anti-war. That is both worse and better IMO than the constant wars the GOP goes along with nowadays.

      • Amazona September 4, 2013 / 10:50 am

        The way I understand it, under Ike the CIA had started to put together a plan to arm and train Cuban exiles, but I never heard that he had planned an actual invasion. The Bay of Pigs was four months after JFK was inaugurated and I was always under the impression that the whole plan was developed after he took office, even though he did have at his disposal a CIA trained group of exiles.

        Given Castro’s rapid shift to USSR support after he took over in Cuba, it seemed prudent to start developing some kind of potential response, but I always thought of the CIA working with Cuban exiles, under Ike, as advance planning in case something might arise where such a group would be useful. I suppose one might say that the very existence of this group was a “progenitor” of the Bay of Pigs, but unless there is evidence that Eisenhower actually started an invasion plan which he then handed off to Kennedy I think this is pretty presumptuous.

      • Amazona September 4, 2013 / 10:54 am

        As for your second paragraph, “Still, the CIA is secret and so conservatives could at least pretend to be anti-war. That is both worse and better IMO than the constant wars the GOP goes along with nowadays.” it reeks of a distasteful combination of paranoia and bias, strongly tinged with dishonesty.

        dolf, you seem to veer quite wildly between relative reason and utter unthinking goofiness. This post seems to be a product of the latter.

      • bardolf2 September 4, 2013 / 11:55 am

        http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB353/bop-vol2-part1.pdf

        Amazona

        You no longer have to trust your memory or the liberal media or what came up in conversations with friends. The CIA declassified all the materials on the Bay of Pigs invasion and Ike was certainly responsible for the Bay of Pigs more than Kennedy.

        As for CIA vs actual war, there is something to be said for at least not preaching that a bad thing is good.

      • Amazona September 4, 2013 / 7:33 pm

        “.. Ike was certainly responsible for the Bay of Pigs more than Kennedy.”

        Well, your link runs to more than 250 pages so maybe you can give me a hand here, me being so involved in merely chatting with friends and so on, and tell me where I can find the part where then-president of the United States, John F. Kennedy, ceded his presidential authority to his predecessor, the former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, so that Eisenhower could issue orders for expat Cubans trained by the CIA to invade Cuba.

        Or did JFK merely “inherit” an action already put in place, and found himself powerless to stop it.

        Tell us, dolf, why Ike, the brilliant war tactician and a man never known to be a coward in the face of danger or adversity, backed out on “his” commitment to provide air support for the invaders. It just seems so out of character for Eisenhower. And if this was Ike’s action, why did Kennedy issue the order?

        Even this link, which you seem to find so persuasive and in which you seem to have found proof that Eisenhower was “responsible” for an order issued by the Commander in Chief, JFK, states “Eisenhower’s anti-Castro program was dated 17 March 1906 ” Are you saying that Kennedy was so impotent as a leader that he lacked the initiative to take control of the military after his inauguration? That he was helpless to interfere in something started 13 months earlier by someone no longer in office?

        As usual it is hard to make sense of what you are saying.

      • bardolf2 September 4, 2013 / 10:35 pm

        Amazona

        I couldn’t find the point in the link where it says “Eisenhower’s anti-Castro program was dated 17 March 1906” I found where it says “Eisenhower’s anti-Castro program was dated 17 March 1960”

        You need to put your glasses on. The link is THE CIA writing about THE CIA. It’s like saying Amazona is an expert on Amazona.

      • Amazona September 4, 2013 / 11:02 pm

        Thank you for clearing that up for me, dolf. I had not realized that transposing a couple of numbers in a quote had the deeper meaning that a former President stepped in and took over the authority and duties of a current President. But then, I am blissfully free of what seems to pass for reason on Planet Dolf.

        But back to my question: You claim that Eisenhower was behind the Bay of Pigs. If you mean 13 months behind, I’ll give you that. But you have chosen snark rather than an actual answer to my question.

        So let’s try again: Where in this document does it explain how or why Eisenhower did this, or how or why Kennedy let him?

        I get it that “… The link is THE CIA writing about THE CIA….” What I am asking is where, in this explanation of the CIA by the CIA, is it stated that Eisenhower was responsible for the Bay of Pigs. Because I find 13 months between his establishment of an anti-Castro group and the Bay of Pigs, and I find 4 months between the inauguration of a new President and the Bay of Pigs. If the CIA, writing about the CIA, fills in those gaps with actual evidence, it might be pretty interesting.

        Or do you define “responsible” as believing “somebody ought to do this” if, more than a year later, somebody tries to do this. If that is the case, your assumption is not at all interesting, just more dolfing.

      • bardolf2 September 5, 2013 / 12:48 am

        Amazona

        If 4 months into a presidency makes Kennedy completely responsible for all actions taken by his predecessor … Wait, that sounds like Bush Derangement Syndrome. Did he ignore all those security briefings about 9/11 blah, blah blah.

        As I already mentioned, Ike allowed the CIA to plan the Bay of Pigs. That was his error. JUST like he authorized the CIA to help in the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Iran. Your inane questioning of why Ike wasn’t more brilliant in helping with the Bay of Pigs is like asking an expert meteorologist why he wasn’t better at predicting the weather a month in advance. Complex systems can’t be predicted beyond a certain point even if you wish really really hard that they could be.

        You not only transposed the numbers, you highlighted it to show off the fact that you don’t know how to use an editor. It’s dishonest to say you understood it was a CIA document. You write “this link, which you seem to find so persuasive” as if only I should find the CIA writing about the CIA persuasive.

        If you were interested and could read, you’d notice the link was vol 2 part 1. The entire CIA writing about the CIA and the Bay of Pigs is available, but you’d have to put down the Hunger Games for a day or so. If you’re too lazy to lay the blame for the Bay of Pigs at Kennedy’s feet and not at Eisenhower’s feet because you don’t have time to read actual history that just proves the adage about not being able to teach new tricks.

      • Amazona September 5, 2013 / 9:47 am

        dolf, thanks for the verbose acknowledgment that you can’t support your claim that Eisenhower “was responsible for the Bay of Pigs”. I knew you couldn’t but wondered just how deeply invested you are in the claim.

        So let’s take a look at your defense of said claim. I supposedly “don’t know how to use an editor” (?) something about the Bay of Pigs snapped you back into Bushland, and oh, yes, the link you gave to support your claim turns out not be the link at all but you’re pretty sure the support is in the homework your dog ate, or whatever relevance there is supposed to be in the missing link.

        Yeah, Ike started the anti-Castro group, and supported it. Because of Ike it existed. Think of it as a weapon, possibly loaded but just sitting there, as he moved out of office and Kennedy moved in. Then Kennedy picked it up and pointed it, though he flinched at the expected recoil and his shot went wild. So—blame the man who left it lying around, and not the man who decided to use it.

        And when the ridiculousness of this is pointed out to you, double down on it by launching feeble little snipes at that person, focusing on the transposition of two numbers.

        We call this “dolfing”.

        A great example is this: ” Your inane questioning of why Ike wasn’t more brilliant in helping with the Bay of Pigs…… ” Uh, duh, dolf, I not only asked no such question, I didn’t even hint that such a question was possible. What I DID say was that if Ike had REALLY been “responsible for the Bay of Pigs” his military history indicated that he would have done a better job of it. Poor baby, you just can’t process the written word, can you? But, as I said, this is a typical example of dolfing—–I make a statement to disprove what you say and you take it as a statement that I agree with what you say….and then load up on bitchiness and try to spin it into one of your silly little snipes.

        You know, your obsession with teen literature has tweaked my interest. Your repeated references to what seems to be quite a large part of your own reading interest make me wonder if you are recommending this kind of reading—“Twilight”, “Hunger Games”. Oh, I know you try to present it as a putdown, trying to ridicule me for doing something only you can pretend I am doing, but underneath it all lurks a fascination and acquaintance with these genres that I find intriguing. I wonder if you have better luck figuring out what the words mean when they are in teen lit. Hey, if this is your comfort zone, go for it. But you can drop the feigned sneering at those who do read it, as so far you are the one who keeps returning to it.

        I get it that you were trying to inject some more of your ageist bigotry into your little screed by your simpering reference to teaching (fill in the blank) new tricks, but you just can’t get it right, can you? I point out to you, repeatedly, that KENNEDY was the one responsible for the Bay of Pigs, while you keep pounding your little fists on the table and demanding that I admit it was really someone else, and then you are so giddy about your upcoming “insult” and so eager to get to it that you screw that up, too, and bleat ” If you’re too lazy to lay the blame for the Bay of Pigs at Kennedy’s feet and not at Eisenhower’s feet because you don’t have time to read actual history ….”

        Only you, dolf, only you………………

        You don’t know how old I am. You pretend that you do, so you can wallow in some of your various bigotries, and illustrate what kind of person you are by focusing on something like age, but you are just guessing. However, here is something you can take to the bank: I could be four times your age and still show much less indication of mental impairment than you do every time you post here.

      • tiredoflibbs September 5, 2013 / 4:55 pm

        Now Amazona, you know it is common and acceptable practice (among the proggies) to blame the previous Republican administration for all ills, incompetences and failures of the following Democrat administration. The blame starts at the top with the failing pResident and continues on down to the mindless drones.

        Look at the present…. Carville now BLAMES BUSH for the Syrian crisis. It is the standard playbook… balddoof is just following the proggy playbook.

      • Amazona September 5, 2013 / 9:04 pm

        I agree, tired, but you also have to take into consideration the fact that dolf is so antagonized about pretty much anything said by the Count or me that he experiences a knee-jerk oppositional reaction to anything either of us says.

        What is funny is watching him so caught up in weaving elaborate word plays in which he can deliver what he seems to think are devastating personal insults that he gets tangled up in his own spite and malice and ends up not just making no sense but actually contradicting his own earlier comments,

        It may not be kind to point and laugh,but it is hard not to.

      • Amazona September 5, 2013 / 9:19 pm

        tired, though there is a catty claim that I am lazy, AND can’t read, AND have a poor memory, I was able to remember something I read a few years ago when I looked into the Bay of Pigs fiasco, which is that the original plan was changed by Kennedy right before the action. The landing was supposed to be in a place where the patriots could quickly move into the mountains and take cover, but for some reason Kennedy changed his mind at the last minute and placed it at the Bay of Pigs, where the patriots had to come ashore across from a marsh, with no cover, where Russian tanks could sit back from the beach and savage them, and there was no cover.

        Knowing how fretful dolf would be if I merely referenced my memory, I looked up something about this. This is proof that the eventual action was NOT Eisenhower’s plan but was taken over and modified by the new president, Kennedy.’

        By DON BOHNING
        (MIami) Herald Staff Writer

        “Breaking a 35-year silence, the chief of the CIA’s planning staff for military aspects of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion says the effort was doomed from the day, a month before the operation, when President Kennedy ordered the landing site changed to one that would attract less attention.

        Jack Hawkins, a retired Marine Corps colonel, said in an interview that after he and his staff drafted the new plan, shifting the landing from the city of Trinidad, on Cuba’s south coast, about 80 miles westward to the Bay of Pigs, he had “decided this plan has no chance. It is going to fail.” He said efforts to convince superiors of that were of no avail.”

        http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/bay-of-pigs/site.htm

  4. tiredoflibbs September 3, 2013 / 7:16 pm

    Oh, how the rhetoric has changed when their own are in the White House….

    No policy….went to war unnecessarily….ill equipped (thanks to budget cuts and sequestration…..taking sides in a civil war???…..no plan??? …. incompetence of this administration????

    Wow, how soon this buffoon and his boss forgets….

    ….and predictably the mindless drones, who could not wait to attack Bush and still continue to do so, are ever so silent on this issue…. other than the token “I don’t agree with the President” (and only after continuous prodding).

    Pathetic.

    • M. Noonan September 4, 2013 / 12:54 am

      Every lie they said about Bush getting us in to Iraq is being used by Obama and Co right on down the line…if gassing your citizens is a cause for us to go to war, then the war in Iraq was justified by that, alone.

  5. dougq September 3, 2013 / 10:30 pm

    If your goal is to get back to a constitutional limited government as you state, then I wholeheartedly disagree with your tactic. I believe if that goal (and it’s a worthy goal) is of upmost importance then the solution would be for Congress to actually Declare War and in that declaration point out that the President does not have the authority to use force except through the Declaration of War.

    That is an actual course of action that is concrete and would most likely get to your STATED goal a whole lot easier than an ‘anti-war’ protest.

  6. 02casper September 3, 2013 / 10:51 pm

    We don’t need a Conservative or a Liberal AntiWar Movement. We need an American Antiwar movement.

    • M. Noonan September 4, 2013 / 12:53 am

      No, we need a conservative one – because the liberal anti-war movement was nothing but a bunch of hypocrite political posturing to score political points.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) September 4, 2013 / 10:40 am

        Any anti-war movement is political posturing.

        Doug,
        The Commander in Chief does not need Congressional approval to use the military.

        We are trying to parse his authority with the word “force” implying it means blowing things up and killing people. The force behind the US military has been used by Presidents for many reasons, and with the AUMF the President is required to explain or have his funding cut off.

        To attempt to hamstring future Presidents because this one is a buffoon is impractical and dangerous. Requiring a formalized Act of War is not in the Constitution so any bill passed by Congress which states that this and future Presidents are held to this new criterion wouldn’t be worth the value of a dimocrat’s pledge or a Tinker’s Dam.

        Perhaps we should instead fight for a Constitutional Amendment to remove a President from office on the grounds that the People elected a total douche-bag.

      • dougq September 4, 2013 / 11:45 am

        Count, the President’s unilateral use of the military was supposed to be to defend the country only and not to use it to attack without approval of Congress. When the Constitution was debated initially, the power to “Declare War” meant something other to the delegates that what we believe it does now. They went to that phrase from a different proposed one so that the President would be able to act in the country’s defense (or defense of it’s assets) without authorization if an attack was made. To them, Congress had to grant the President the authorization to make war in any other case.

        The War Powers Act, is what the law is right now and it is a very good interpretation by Congress after the Vietnam War of what the Constitution means. Congress has to give authorization or declare war, that is what the Act says. I doubt that it could be found unconstitutional as, in my opinion, it really does match what the founders wanted. Just like what the founders foresaw when they changed the term from ‘make war’ to ‘declare war’ the President still has the power, without Congressional approval, to defend from attack U.S. assets.

        The point about impeachment is a good one, however, they should have impeached Clinton after Kosovo, then you would have never had Obama’s Libya…..I believe the two cases since 1973 where the President has thumbed his nose at Congress and basically said ‘you don’t have the guts to stop me’.

        The ‘declaration of war’ bit would help move along what I think is the most serious threat to our Constitution when it comes to military use. That is the power of the President to go to the United Nations or NATO to start his wars, thus dragging Congress into the fight.

        The Presidents have basically been able to beat the war drums internationally to put pressure on Congress and use treaties to force the use of force, that needs to turn around.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) September 4, 2013 / 2:22 pm

        Doug,
        You’re right in many respects except for this; the founder’s understood the authority of the CnC and further understood that action may be needed before the Grand Debating Society had a chance to look at every action as a reason for endless chatting and equivocating.

        Our Marine friends know of the time they were sent by President Jefferson to the Shores of Tripoli when the president sent overwhelming force against the Barbary States absent any Declaration of War.

        Among his peers, Jefferson full well understood the necessity of Congress’ action in declaring war, but, and here’s the key, Jefferson acted based on the original directive to “protect commerce and chastise their insolence., then went to congress and asked for an authorization to use his military for offensive not defensive action.

        Congress has to declare war, which is true now as it was at the founding. The constitution does not state how or in what form that declaration takes place. Nor does it state that Congress may not transfer that authority to the Executive Branch. We have been involved in military action since the beginning of this country against foes the world over without such a luxury. Obama already has authority to use the military when, in his opinion American Interests are at stake; this includes defense of American property and life and has always been interpreted to include interests of commerce and abstract national security.

        I wish we hadn’t elected a buffoon as President, and I wish there were a mechanism to prevent a CinC from shooting off his mouth and getting our children killed in senseless wars. But elections have consequences and the CinC must first decide that it is our interest to commit our military; he can go it alone or wait for Congress to give him authority.

        In all cases the word comes from him and not a rabble shouting slogans on Pennsylvania Avenue.

      • dougq September 4, 2013 / 5:15 pm

        Count, the President can think he has the power to unilaterly use the military where he wants to devise a national security interest – but constitutionally he really doesn’t have that power (well, he does sort of, he doesn’t have the constitutional authority is more like it). That authority solely lies with Congress and they can easily take it back through the power of impeachment. The President only has the unilateral power to defend American assets and your Barbary Pirates incident is a good example of that.

        There are many instances in the past where the President has acted prior to authorization, but they were similar to the Barbary pirates – black and white cases where American assets were under attack and the use was defensive, with authorization prior to moving to an offense. The change to national interest is relatively new and the President wants to be able to make that jump but there isn’t that authority. Congress should have impeached for Kosovo and for Libya, they screwed up in the first case because they couldn’t impeach Clinton after the Monica affair, and so now a new baseline has been established where the President supposedly thinks they just have to declare it’s in the national interest prior to using the military for something other than to protect American assets.

        That is not the intent of the Constitution, in the same manner that just because a state thinks it is in the state’s best interest to confiscate everybody’s personal and real property and give it out to a select few, it really isn’t the intent of the powers granted.

        In the case of Libya, the President should have used the military in defense of the embassy, however, beyond that, when it came to government overthrow, that required Congressional action.

        The problems we are getting into now and more and more in the future, is the President going to the UN or NATO to get authorization, forcing Congress’ hands.

        You are right, any anti-war protest would be political, and I think in the case of conservatives doing it would be laughed at. However, I agree with Mark in that there is a need to take back the Constitution as far as military use is concerned.

        In this case, I think a declaration of war kills two birds with one stone —– thumbing our nose at the use of NATO or the UN, and thumbing our nose at the Presidency at their recent unconstitutional actions. A protest isn’t going to do anything beyond saying the conservatives don’t want to back this President’s decisions.

        It would be best to throw it back at him, prosecute an actual war and when you get a surrender you are done. There is no unlaughable defense of national interests involved here. It is simply shaping a region to help shape the environment our nation has to deal with in the future. There is no way that Obama has the constitutional authority to use the military in this situation without Congressional approval. Problem is Congress is full of a bunch of snails who won’t do anything about it if he does.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) September 4, 2013 / 7:28 pm

        Doug,
        Except that Congress can not/will not pass a declaration of war against Syria since Syria has done nothing of an aggressive nature toward the US, her allies or interests. This is a civil war and there is nothing in the precedence from former declarations to guide Congress toward this end.

        The only way congress could logically take up the question is if the President asked for it, or Syria declared war on the US; short of that Congress would be in very dangerous territory by endorsing an imperialistic act. A declaration of war without cause would be far worse than a rogue president threatening reprisal with no logical reason to do so.

        The War Powers Act gives the president to engage the military first, then ask permission later. By making him Commander in Chief of the Military and having full authority over foreign affairs, which includes the use of the military to those ends.

        The War Powers Act is the Law; unless and until someone can challenge the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, he has the constitutional authority to use the military in ill-advised adventures.

        Whether we like it or not.

  7. neocon01 September 4, 2013 / 3:51 pm

    the donk blind leading the blind.

  8. neocon01 September 4, 2013 / 3:57 pm

    count
    a buffoon would have been biden…..this man IS the deadly Manchurian pResident who will lead to our downfall along with a leftist compliant drooling media and the CPUSA…AKA democRAT party.

  9. tiredoflibbs September 4, 2013 / 5:26 pm

    What is hysterical are the mindless drones who post at the Hating Blogs for Victory blog. Casper is sucking down the koolaid regurgitating the dumbed down theme of mitchie’s that we “are against war in Syria because we simply hate obama”.

    What a pantload!!

    These two drones mindlessly regurgitate the talking points of “an unnecessary and unauthorized war” and the like. They are shouting from the rafters with criticism for our opposition to the pResident more so than they are criticizing the pResident for wanting to takeg us into war with Syria.

    Now 0bAMATEUR is saying that he did not draw a line in the sand with Syria…that his credibility is not on the line (but Congress’ is). What is more pathetic is that his sycophants and
    mindless drones, like cappy and mitchie, will regurgitate the stupidity along with defending the pResident (though they will claim to “disagree” with the pResident on war – while their disagreement is not hatred only ours) against any criticism.

    • percybeezer September 4, 2013 / 7:07 pm

      “Hating Blogs for Victory Blog”???

      Is that something you are required to read?

      if not, then why would you???

      • tiredoflibbs September 4, 2013 / 7:27 pm

        Percy, I read it for pure comic relief!

        Since they are too afraid to post here and have their hypocrisy thrown back at them, I go there to see what they are thinking and saying. They can’t debate without resorting to deflection, personal attacks, constant harranging and throwing hissy fits when they lose. There, they freely post their true emotional screed and illogical regurgitation of dumbed down talking points they hear from their pResident, politicians, talking head “journalists” and the like.

        As I said, pure comedy gold!

      • percybeezer September 4, 2013 / 7:44 pm

        Forgive me but … what on earth made you think they’d be anything but hypocrites?

        Of course if we disagree with Obama we’re racist haters, but if they agree with us they’re free thinking intelligentsia.

        I also don’t see they humor in their thinking; they make demeaning remarks about homosexuals and accuse others of hating. Is that what passes for debate in their sad angry world?

        I may never forgive you for sending me to that awful site; I can’t un-see those images.

        I sure am glad the moderators decided to keep their sick-little minds off of this blog.

  10. tiredoflibbs September 6, 2013 / 7:55 am

    The proggy hypocrisy and lies continue…..

    Apparently, Biden was against war with Syria before he was for it…..

    http://o.dailycaller.com/thedailycaller/#!/entry/flashback-biden-accused-romney-of-wanting-war-with-syria,5228bedcda27f5d9d017a0e7

    Of course, the mindless drones will continue to defend the pResident while forgetting their posturing of just a few short months ago. Eleanor Holmes Norton said she would vote (if she could) for action against Syria just for the reason that obAMATEUR wants it.

    Wow….. I guess she doesn’t want to be perceived as hating the pResident if she opposed him – at least that is the reasoning of mitchie and cappy at their hate blogs for victory blog. They both have stated that Republicans are opposed to action against Syria just for the simple reason we “hate the pResident”. Mitchie was dumb enough to try and deny it claiming I lied about his position. I can’t post there since I was banned because I would oppose (i haven’t posted there yet but he stated that my wordpress profile has been flagged) his twisted and distorted opinions (while he was banned here for personal attacks when his pathetic debating skills were easily refuted).

    What a coward. He can’t even be truthful with himself.

    Back to the point…. Biden used Syria as an attack on Romney with a LIE. Now it is policy from the obAMATEUR and yet there is no mention of this. Plus, the left was chummy with Assad, are we seeing any pictures or footage like we did with Rumsfeld and Hussein?

    Nope the sychophants are circling he wagons to protect obAMATEUR regardless if it exposes their mindless partisan politics.

    • Amazona September 6, 2013 / 8:29 am

      tired, the stench of the vicious and the insane has faded from the blog, so please don’t track in any of their droppings by bringing them up again. They are the rejects who are now claiming the lunchroom table by the bathrooms and the garbage can is really where the cool kids sit, and we ought to just leave them there to sniff each other’s butts and wallow in their own bile. casper and rico and even GMB are drawn to spite and malice—please don’t be one of them. They’re gone, we’re glad, move on.

  11. Amazona September 6, 2013 / 8:43 am

    There’s a lot of hand-wringing and fretting about what kind of message we will send to “the world” if we don’t back Obama’s silly “red line” posturing.

    First, “the world” has already made up its mind about Obama, and one token flutter isn’t going to change that.

    Two, why should we charge in to mitigate some or any of the fallout of electing the moron in the first place? As people keep saying, AFTER THE FACT, elections have consequences. Yeah, they do. And we should just let this play out, and let every bozo with an Obama sticker on his car be the focal point of contempt for helping put us, as a nation, in this position.

    I don’t believe that “the world” conflates the United States with its inept figurehead in the Oval Office. “The world” has to think that about half of us are either pathetically stupid or just blindly gullible, but even given that our national profile as a nation which has a tendency to defend itself is still there, though lurking in the background behind all those American flags that have been taken off the presidential podium.

    I expected nothing but problems the first time the guy was elected, and was one of those who predicted that being dumb enough to hand him the position for a second time, with no reelection coming up to keep him at least a tiny bit restrained would lead to even more.. With Obama, it’s never been “will he screw up” but “what screw-up will he hand us THIS week?” I don’t blame Obama. He is what he is, and he is so proud of what he is that he kept telling us even though his handlers tried to rein him in.

    No, I blame each and every person who voted for him.

    And I think it is not only too late to save ourselves from the consequences of that foolishness, it is not worth the trouble to try, I think every talking head ought to say, loud and clear, “Sure this is utter insanity, but then so were the last two elections. X number of Americans wanted this, they won, so this is just more of what they have imposed on the country.”

    So instead of trying to find a way to mitigate the damage he has done and is doing to our nation in things like his international blundering, I suggest that all our of our voices, political and talk show and us out in the heartland, make a point of saying a hearty “THANK YOU” to every Obama voter, and making it clear that we know who put us in this position. It was not Obama. It was those who put him where he is, and we can’t forget that, or let them forget it.

    • dougq September 6, 2013 / 5:06 pm

      Aye, Aye, and that includes the whole GOP establishment who thrust Obama-lite unto us through the primaries, guaranteeing an Obama win…..Just to be clear, yes, I am blaming the GOP establishment and it’s enabler bloggers and media pundits who rammed Romneycare down our throats for the reason Obama was re-elected. I don’t blame a good portion of the voters, heck they really didn’t have a choice it was either the Big Government Romneycare that they didn’t know or the Big Government Obamacare that they did know.

      • Amazona September 8, 2013 / 11:36 pm

        Surely you don’t really believe that the election hinged on “…a choice it was either the Big Government Romneycare that they didn’t know or the Big Government Obamacare that they did know.”

        But wait—–maybe you are. After all, you say “…..just to be clear, yes, I am blaming the GOP establishment and it’s enabler bloggers and media pundits who rammed Romneycare down our throats for the reason Obama was re-elected. ”

        This, of course, is utter nonsense. Whatever ideas Romney may have had about federal interference with health care were so seldom addressed and so lightly covered, I never had the impression that this made any impact at all. You seem to be saying that the possibility of another approach that MIGHT be better, if it existed at all, was scarier than what was REALLY “rammed down our throats”.

        You also seem to be saying that the president is so powerful that if he, Mitt Romney, wanted to have a nationalized health care system he could, without the approval of Congress.

        This is truly a bizarre post from beginning to end.

      • Amazona September 8, 2013 / 11:38 pm

        And yes, every person who voted for Obama shares the blame for every mess he creates. “…they really didn’t have a choice…!?!?!?!”

        Really? You going to stick to that claim? The only comparison you could make between Romney and Obama was that Obama had been responsible for a really terrible Affordable Care Act, which is neither affordable nor about care, and that Romney had once upon a time supported a state health care system in Massachusetts? And that the two plans were so similar that there was really no choice between them?

        And that an alleged national health care plan allegedly supported by Romney was “rammed down our throats”?

        You seem to be lowering the bar for the lo-fo crowd. Next you’ll be fretting about Romney’s “war on women” or declaring that the GOP might have had a chance if Paul Ryan didn’t want to ban birth control.

Comments are closed.