Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:43 PM

Blimey - I think I've probably got "the knowledge" to make nuclear weapons... And that's without knowing too much at all. The same way I've got the knowledge to burn down the Houses of Parliament or assassinate Gordon Brown.

Just give me the resources of a national government, and I'm sure I could run up a basic Atom Bomb in a few years.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:20 PM

Bush recently made some statement that if Iran "had knowledge" of how to make nuclear weapons it would amount to the beginning of World War III. That's a pretty bizarre statement, because ANY government on this planet which can afford to employ a physicist or two or buy a couple of reference books HAS the knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon. Such knowledge is commonly known in the scientific community. Having knowledge of how to do it does not in any way indicate that a nation has the intention to do it...or the technical backup to do it...or feels able to allocate the huge amount of money and resources to do it, not to mention being willing to put up with the attendant risks of doing it.

As such, it appears to me that Mr Bush's statement was one of two things:

1. A very poor use of language by a very careless speaker.

2. A deliberately worded attempt to mislead an ignorant public through innuendo, conditioning them to think that Iran is most definitely building nuclear weapons in a clandestine fashion, and with the most deadly of intentions.

The truth of the matter is, in my opinion, that it is the USA...it is Mr Bush's administration which has those kind of deadly intentions, and it is waging a propaganda campaign, a war of false words, to prepare the American public for another unprovoked pre-emptive war, this time on Iran...or Syria...or both.

If so, the people planning that war have lost their minds, because the US military is already badly overextended as it is.

That's a far more serious matter than some dumb remark made by Mr Stark about George Bush. But, hey, one might as well milk the opportune "Stark remark" for all it's worth, right? It gets people's attention.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 12:47 PM

When it comes to hypocites, what can one say about someone who claims he's a "compassionate conservative" and then does the kind of things that Bush does?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 10:57 AM

That, too, observer...

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 10:16 AM

Bush was too much of a chicken shit when he was in the military to do any killing, so now he has troops killed to make up for it.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 10:12 AM

Context always matters. But in this case, though it was not a statement given in the context of a discussion on the war, the context does not alter the harsh meaning of the words.

Bravo, SINSULL! Well done.

MofH, Is there anything that you cannot rationalize by torturing the language? :^)

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Amergin
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 08:56 AM

I am sorry, but it this comment was true. It was not off base in any way shape or form. Bush has been enjoying himself, playing dress up on the flight deck and playing war president. It is about bloody time some one in Washington showed some spine.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 08:43 AM

Barry,

Yeah, I read the article in the Washington Post where Bush said that he is "relevant"... I thought that was real curious, especially in light of the fact that just the day before he said that if Iran so much as "knowledge" of how to make a nuclear weapon that would amount to the beginning of World War III...

This scares the dickens out of me... Of course, Bush is no longer relevant... His approval ratings are lower than any president in modern times... He has spent whatever political capital he thought he might have had... His own party has distanced itself from him...

This is a scarey man right now because he is a wounded animal and wounded animals don't think clearly...

...and there is nothing that Ann Coulter can do to change this reality...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 06:44 AM

"to ensure that I am relevant" has very much the same kind of implication as "for his amusement"

In both cases the words invite the listener to see the President as someone who is playing games in matters of life and death, in the one case to do with children's health, in the other case to do with war.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 12:48 AM

Thank You Joe Offer for your input without the spin.

Barry

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 12:46 AM

What's so wrong about Stark's comment about Bush sends troops to die for his amusement?
e just vetoed a bill that would provide children with health care because (here's something that'sin line with Stark from Harry Reid

"On Wednesday, President Bush was asked why he vetoed the CHIP legislation that would provide health care to almost ten million children. His response: "to ensure that I am relevant".

It is amazing that he thinks his relevancy is more important than health care for ten million children.

We already have 69 votes in the Senate, more than enough to pass the bill without the President, and the House of Representatives came within 13 votes of overriding his veto yesterday.

This is a tiny margin, and your efforts can help put us over the top.

Sign our petition to members of the House who oppose CHIP -- tell them our child

Now the President is saying "Why don't we sit down and compromise on CHIP?" How in the world does he think we got where we are? How did we get to 69 senators to support this legislation? Compromise.

We started with a cost of $70 billion, then went to $50 billion and finally compromised at $35 billion. For the President to come now and say, "Let's compromise," is completely disingenuous. Saving children should be more important to the President than saving face.

Here is the irony of the President's veto: This program was created by Orrin Hatch, a conservative Republican, and Ted Kennedy 10 years ago. Why? Because Orrin Hatch had two families come to him -- both families were working. They didn't qualify for Medicaid. They couldn't buy insurance. They didn't have the money. So in the finest example of bipartisan cooperation, conservative Orrin Hatch and liberal Ted Kennedy sat down and created one of our nation's most successful health care programs.

Now George Bush vetoed this bill simply to remain relevant. Ten million children are not irrelevant.

Thank you,

Harry Reid

Sign our petition to members of the House who oppose CHIP -- tell them our child

Barrywhothinksthattisadministrationwillnotstopatanyingfortheirownpleasures

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:20 PM

Sorry. I posted that before I read Ebbie's post.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:19 PM

John, I am failing to see what your problem is. You imply that people only see what's wrong with the right. Yet you post to a music forum whereon the majority of people are somewhat left leaning. You make shit remarks, snide: "John OTSC (who wonders if this would have come up at all, had he not posted it)." Maybe not, but it wasn't you who started the other thread about Coulter. So don't start with the 'holier than thou' crap.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:19 PM

Good point, ebbie.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:12 PM

JohnontheSunsetCoast- did you ever, have you ever started a thread about Coulter?

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:11 PM

Sunset John-

Joe spelled it out:    Coulter does her atrocities totally on purpose--and in quantity--after all it's her stock in trade--and it helps sell the offal she calls her books. Stark got carried away--obviously he was wrong to say what he did. But name one other time when he has done so. No problem giving a long list for dear Ann.

If you can't see the difference, it tends to support the idea that you are blinded by your own ideology. Unsurprisingly.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:32 PM

No, it probably would not have. Yes, I saw the remark, and yes, I emailed about it. Yes, I think Ann Coulter is a large piece of slime from an unmentionable orifice.

No, I didn't post anything about it here because I tend to stay the HELL away from politics on Mudcat. Discussing politics on Mudcat is sort of like trying to keep your ass clean when you have the trots. Just can't be done nicely. So I avoid it except in extreme cases such as this.

Go find a new rope.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:30 PM

.............And Coulter's remarks are, on their own, odious and should be treated that way.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:20 PM

First, I do not expect anyone to comment on something they knew nothing about, and I did not indicate that all liberals had heard it. But I would bet the farm that many Coulter critics at Mudcat had heard it before my post, but did not, themselves, post about it. It is not my purpose to criticize Stark (though I actually do), but to point out the double standard here. Don Firth is correct---Stark does not mitigate Coulter (if you believe her wrong), but his remarks are, on their own, odious and should be treated that way.
John OTSC (who wonders if this would have come up at all, had he not posted it)

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:57 PM

I also did not hear of Stark's comment until I saw this thread. And then I checked the video. Stark's remark was way off-base, and I indeed condemn it.

But I note that it didn't take the Republican opposition more that a few seconds to set the child health care discussion aside in order to attack Stark for his remark. Not unlike some troll on one of these threads trying to change the subject in order to avoid a serious discussion of the original issue. That, I believe, is called a "red herring." Stark made a double blunder. In addition to his remark being in atrocious taste, it provided the Republicans with the opportunity to rise up in outrage against him, thereby avoiding having to deal with the real issue.

I also note that John on the Sunset Coast loses no time in trying to cram all liberals who did not immediately condemn Stark into a pigeon-hole labeled "hypocrites"—even those who hadn't even heard of the incident yet.

Stark's ill thought out remarks in no way mitigate Ann Coulter's excesses.

Grasping at straws.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:57 PM

"diversion to gain or waste time" seems not an unreasonable way of summing up the present endgame in Iraq. Better to have used those kind of words rather than the ones he did. Best to be unambiguous in these things.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:20 PM

John, you got a 10-25 in the trou.

Do what many of us have already done and e-mail Stark from this Congessional site.....HERE

Then please take that sanctimonius attitude and make it all brown. Your boy is still an ass and Coulter is still an idiot. Why not write them as well and tell them that many Americans find them at the very least "offensive." They aren't helping your party at all. I've sent them each my comments on several past occasions, all very politely phrased, but alas, I get no response.......***sigh***...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:06 PM

Another distraction...

While what Rep. Stark said was certainly ill tought out, in the larger picture, it isn't a single grain of sand on a beach filled with the ill thought out stuff that Bush has pulled on our country and the world...

Bad, Rep. Stark... You ought to apologize...

Bad, Goerge Bush... You should be tried for war crimes and be given the same treatment as your buddy, Saddam, got...

B~

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:05 PM

No, it wasn't right for Stark to say it, but it doesn't stick out when it's viewed in context - click here for details and a video. He was talking about children's health care, and I think he got a bit carried away.

The Republican Spinmeisters were quick to jump on Stark's remark, and I imagine they'll milk it for all it's worth for the next week or so. John on the Sunset Coast, it seems you're using Rep. Stark's remarks as a defense of Ann Coulter's tactics. It looks to me like Stark kinda stumbled into his inappropriate remark. I don't think there's any comparison with Ann Coulter. Coulter does her deeds in cold blood. She knows exactly what she's saying, and she shoots to kill.

I suppose that's our culture - in our our legislative bodies, in our media, and even here on Mudcat, we seek to defeat our opponents by spin and character assasination and out-of-context quotes and all sorts of combative tricks that have little to do with resolving the issue at hand.

What? You don't think there's "spin" at Mudcat? - look at this thread title: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children. Now, I disagree with Bush's veto of the children's healthcare bill, but I certainly dn't believe for a minute that he wants to wage war on children. That's the strongest example I've seen lately, but there's lots of it here, so much that it's well-nigh impossible to have a reasonable discussion here at times. It's all about propaganda, folks. Isn't that a shame?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:53 PM

McGrath, you're correct. The definitions you cite INDICT Stark's comment all the more.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:46 PM

Mistyping by me there:

"Amusement" shouldn't be taken as implying "being amused", as in "how funny", it has other meanings. One definition of "amusement" in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is "diversion to gain or waste time"; another is "a pastime, play or game".

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: kendall
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:28 PM

Stark is dead wrong.
So was Bush when he said "Bring it on" and, "..this CRUSADE" The man is a fool, but not a sadist.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:26 PM

"Amused" shouldn't be taken as implying "being amused", it has other meanings. One definition of "amusement" in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is "diversion to gain or waste time"; another is "a pastime, play or game".

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:23 PM

As one who knows intimately an over the top remark, Stark was way out of line and I sent his office my own e-mail suggesting that he was out of line. Sins phrased hers better, but the idea was the same.

But John, make no mistake, Ann Coulter IS a piece of crap who deserves no respect by anyone in her own party, let alone the rest of the country. I would always defend her right to free speech but I will exercise mine by suggesting she go piss up a slack rope.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: skipy
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:13 PM

BRING THEM ALL HOME NOW!
Skipy

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: michaelr
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:09 PM

Ann Coulter has good days?

I think Pete Stark is wrong, wrong, wrong. Our soldiers are dying for Cheney's amusement.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:03 PM

First I've heard of it. However, I will echo SINSULL's e-mail. Ridiculous and disgusting thing for anyone to say.

That said, Ann Coulter is a wretched piece of garbage on one of her good days.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:53 PM

My email to Stark:
I am a life long registered Democrat. I have opposed the war in Iraq from Day 1 and am disgusted by the President's lies in getting us into this mess.
That said - your remarks are a disgrace. Retract and apologize. It is just this sort of crap that is going to cost us the election in 2008.
Mary L. Sullivan

Subject: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:47 PM

Now I know that most of you who have been condemning Ann Coulter must be aware of Rep. Pete Stark (D. CA) has opined that the President sends troops to die for his amusement

Where's your outrage at the honorable gentleman for such a blatant ad hominum and obviously unfair attack. There is none? Of course there isn't; a person of the left can be as outrageous as s/he pleases. Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y, here? Never mind, I spelled it for you.