Freewill
Platinum Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 31,158
- 5,072
- 1,130
- Thread starter
- #41
[quo
Oh sure, it's not like he's changing a law that's already been passed by Congress. Tell me, where in the law is he allowed to delay or amend a law as he so chooses? Perhaps the concept of checks and balances doesn't mean much to you, but it sure as heck means a lot to the rest of us.
"Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk" well yeah, he's a paraplegic who could run you and your liberal talking points under a table in 5 seconds flat. What a ridiculous thing to say about someone, given you have little else to debate with.
"The Senate has rules" you say? They HAD rules. As you can very well see, the rights of the minority party no longer mean much to the majority. Just remember, as Joe Biden once said of the Republican party: "You can't be the majority forever."
You look like someone who could use a better argument. It's funny too, you're accusing the republicans on this board of throwing tantrums like 3 year olds when you're the one who resorted to calling someone a 'stupid jerk.' How hypocritical.
Krauthammer is also one of these guys who insisted up and down that the Iraq War was a wonderful idea, proving that the disabled can be just as amoral, evil and remorseless as the fully-abled.
That he is even allowed to show his face in public after that fiasco, which for those playing along at home, resulted in a TRILLION dollars wasted, 5000 dead Americans and 100,000+ dead Iraqis, and has strengthened Iran's position in the region, is kind of a disgrace.
Do you ever, ever provide links to what you say people say? Ever?
Here is what he had to say about the war in Iraq:
In October 2002, he presented what he believed were the primary arguments for and against the war, writing, "Hawks favor war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is reckless, tyrannical and instinctively aggressive, and that if he comes into possession of nuclear weapons in addition to the weapons of mass destruction he already has, he is likely to use them or share them with terrorists. The threat of mass death on a scale never before seen residing in the hands of an unstable madman is intolerable and must be preempted."
"Doves oppose war on the grounds that the risks exceed the gains. War with Iraq could be very costly, possibly degenerating into urban warfare".
"I happen to believe that the preemption school is correct, that the risks of allowing Saddam Hussein to acquire his weapons will only grow with time. Nonetheless, I can both understand and respect those few Democrats who make the principled argument against war with Iraq on the grounds of deterrence, believing that safety lies in reliance on a proven (if perilous) balance of terror rather than the risky innovation of forcible disarmament by preemption."[25]
On the eve of the invasion, Krauthammer wrote that "[r]eformation and reconstruction of an alien culture are a daunting task. Risky and, yes, arrogant."[26] In February 2003, Krauthammer cautioned that "it may yet fail. But we cannot afford not to try. There is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the monster behind 9/11. Its not Osama bin Laden; it is the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic worldoppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism."[22] Krauthammer in 2003 wrote that the reconstruction of Iraq would provide many benefits for the Iraqi people, once the political and economic infrastructure destroyed by Saddam was restored: "With its oil, its urbanized middle class, its educated population, its essential modernity, Iraq has a future. In two decades Saddam Hussein reduced its GDP by 75 percent. Once its political and industrial infrastructures are reestablished, Iraq's potential for rebound, indeed for explosive growth, is unlimited."[27]
In a speech to the Foreign Policy Association in Philadelphia, he argued that the beginnings of democratization in the Arab world had been met in 2006 with a "fierce counterattack" by radical Islamist forces in Lebanon, Palestine and especially Iraq, which witnessed a major intensification in sectarian warfare.[28] In late 2006 and 2007, he was one of the few commentators to support the surge in Iraq.[29][30]
Charles Krauthammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You may not have agreed with the war in Iraq. Very unlike Hillary, Kerry and a lot of other democrats I would have voted no on war with Iraq. But they had the chance and they voted yes. But I seriously, seriously doubt that if Hillary is nominated you will have one problem voting for her.
You belittle the men and women, unlike YOU, who volunteered to go to war. You don't know you do but you do and you stayed home.