Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1 Chris Matthews: Sacrificing Men and Women to Save the President's Hide 
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Chris Matthews gets his priorities in order. He objects to "sacrificing men and women" to "save the President's hide." Oh, not Soldiers, Sailors, Marines or Airmen; they don't register. He's worried about Democrats.







    "Let’s go all the way down to the final stretch here. The corralling. You’ve got [John] Boehner trying to corral enough votes that he can at least dribble out a few of them, and Pelosi stuck with the challenge of a minority caucus where she has to deliver a majority vote. You’re watching Boehner there dribbling out a few votes here and a few votes there, as the clock ticks down to zero, and she has to make up the difference. If you have the Hastert Rule in effect, I don’t think you even have this vote, but apparently it won’t be in effect.

    So you’ll have minority Republican vote, and Pelosi’s going to have to make up the difference with the minority caucus. She’s going to have to come in with a supermajority of Democrats to support their Democratic President. This is a wicked position they have put her in. Maybe she can meet the standard. But I don’t know whether [Chief of Staff Denis] McDonough and the President walking along the south lawn the other day were thinking about the endgame where you know where it’s going to be played. The two corrals. Now which one would you rather be in?

    I think the Democrats are going to be forced to sacrifice men and women who really, really don’t want to vote for this. They’re going to have to vote for it to save the President’s hide. That’s a very bad position to put your party in."
    http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/c...ts-hide-video/






    Uh, hate to break this to you, Tingles, but the real bottom line is that the Democrats are going to sacrifice men and women who are going to have to put their lives on the line for this; they're going to be put in harm's way to save the President's hide. That's a very bad position to put your country and its military in. I realize that the lives of military personnel aren't as critical to you as Democratic majorities in the house and senate, but it would be nice if you had just a bit of perspective on this.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    ...but the real bottom line is that the Democrats are going to sacrifice men and women who are going to have to put their lives on the line for this; they're going to be put in harm's way to save the President's hide.
    Since the UN Secretary General has already taken a position that without us being directly attacked or having an approved UN military force resolution to work under would fall into the 'Waging Aggressive War' category, it would certainly render the legal status of any downed aircrew or captured ground 'Advisers' a pretty shaky proposition, with exposure to war crimes trials on top of all the normal risks inherent in such work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    Since the UN Secretary General has already taken a position that without us being directly attacked or having an approved UN military force resolution to work under would fall into the 'Waging Aggressive War' category, it would certainly render the legal status of any downed aircrew or captured ground 'Advisers' a pretty shaky proposition, with exposure to war crimes trials on top of all the normal risks inherent in such work.
    Well, at least our Justice Department will be prepared to weigh in on war crimes trials by the Syrians; I'm just not sure which side they'd weigh in on.

    BTW, yet another Democrat has made the case for going to war to protect Obama:

    Eleanor Holmes Norton, the D.C. delegate in the House, who doesn’t have a vote, baldly admitted in an interview Tuesday that if she could vote, she would consider supporting the resolution authorizing President Obama to attack Syria — just so Obama wouldn’t be embarrassed.

    “If he gets saved at all, I think it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage,” Norton said on The Bill Press Show.

    “At the moment, that’s the only reason I would vote for it if I could vote on it,” she said.

    So, my life and the lives of the people that I lead are to be put on the line so that Obama won't be shamed. Got it. I'm so glad that the Democratic leadership considers the lives of service members less important than Obama's self-esteem. I wonder how many of us she'd be willing to sacrifice to improve his golf scores?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    I'm so glad that the Democratic leadership considers the lives of service members less important than Obama's self-esteem. I wonder how many of us she'd be willing to sacrifice to improve his golf scores?
    I expect that would only be limited by the total number available.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,146
    Eleanor Holmes Norton, the D.C. delegate in the House, who doesn’t have a vote, baldly admitted in an interview Tuesday that if she could vote, she would consider supporting the resolution authorizing President Obama to attack Syria — just so Obama wouldn’t be embarrassed.

    “If he gets saved at all, I think it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage,” Norton said on The Bill Press Show.

    “At the moment, that’s the only reason I would vote for it if I could vote on it,” she said.
    Color me not shocked at her lack of honor. Carry on skank.

    Norton was elected in 1990 as a Democratic delegate to the House of Representatives...despite the last-minute revelation that Norton and her husband (both lawyers) had failed to file D.C. income tax returns between 1982 and 1989.
    What? Another Demopuke that doesn't pay their taxes. Again, not shocked.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,625
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •