Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

When I ponder the vomit I hear spewed by the ultra-right pundits and campfollowers and compare it to what he said it is not out of place at all.
That it was said by a Congressman, shows how frustrated the Democratics are becoming. If I were a Republican I would not find that amusing. When they are pushed too far the Democrats will over-react. It is not in the best interest of America for either of the passions of the extremes to be envoked.
 

I'll repeat what I said at my place, in regard to Stark's use of the term "Illegal War..."

"...didn't the House and the Senate VOTE to send troops to war? Didn't Democrats insist on being allowed to vote on the measure to show their Patriotism? Did Congress then engage in an illegality? And judging by the magnitude of their vote, couldn't this be construed as a High Crime? Especially since they continue to vote to FUND the war!?"
 

EL, that's not what got people riled. This was:

"to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough ... to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
 

ELA asked: "...didn't the House and the Senate VOTE to send troops to war?"
The simple answer is NO! They didn't have enough courage to do that.
They voted to let the President use military force at his discetion.
In other words both parties passed the buck to the President.
The war may be illegal, but as the District Court said, Congress has to challenge the President on that subject before a court can even hear the case. Until that happens (if ever) then the "war" is just "not illegal" not "legal."
I expect when the Democrats have a real majority in the House and Senate they will pursue that point of law. Given the make up of the judiciary the outcome is a coin toss.
When you condemn the Congress don't forget to express how stupid they were for believing the lies told them by the administration.
 

Drlobojo gets it right in his response to ELAshley. That was one of the arguments made by Sen. Byrd from West Virginia - the Senate, Congress as a whole, was abdicating its Constitutional responsibility by passing what was, essentially, a non-binding, non-legal resolution granting the President the discretion to use force. The power to declare war, and therefore commit our national treasure, both human and material, is Congress' alone. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does not have the discretion to send troops willy-nilly around the globe, but is subject to the civilian control of the military that lies, not in the Executive, but Legislative Branch.

In regards his comments about "passion", I have no problem with Pete Stark's comments, and applauded when I heard them. Passions run high not just because of "Democratic frustration" (which is due to the weak-kneed non-leadership of their Congressional non-leaders), but because of the demagoguery of the Republicans on this, as on all issues. Also, there is nothing wrong with emotions running high over an issue as important as war, especially one that has been, from the very beginning, managed as shoddily as this one. Even if it were legal, I do believe there would be calls to end our current occupation of Iraq. The Americans are a wonderfully pragmatic people. We did the dirty work of ending tyranny; it is up to the Iraqis to sort out how they are going to run their government. The corporations who make the decisions, however, see it differently, so here we are, still.
 

Totally off-thread, good buddy, but I do a tribute to Porter Wagoner today. Check it out, and any comments, good or bad, will be welcome.

You can see I am expanding my appreciation for music, ER. I owe a lot of that to you.
 

Porter Wagoner was one of my first musical heroes!
 

First saw Porter Wagoner on his 15 minute TV program on Channel 3 out of Wichita Falls, Texas (KFDX?) back in the 1950's. There was this big breasted short little girl that sang with him. She sure grabed a young boy's attention.