The New Jersey state legislators today enacted a prohibition against the death penalty, even for the most heinous of murders. I salute them for their actions. Polling in the state indicated that a substantial majority of the people polled still wanted the death penalty for the worst offenders, but the legislative body, under the control of NJ Democrats, stuck with total elimination of the death penalty in the state.
I suspect that there are those of you reading this who are aghast and/or surprised at me casting my lot with the Democrats of New Jersey, but I've expressed my opposition to the death penalty in a previous post as well, just shortly after two New York State Troopers were killed. (See "Death and Life" - April 25, 2007).
Now if we could only give an unborn child the same protection as we're giving to convicted murderers, then our position on the sanctity of life becomes a great deal more logical.
Logic, however, must be an elusive concept for Speaker Pelosi. Outwitted, outFoxed (eat your heart out TF) and out-maneuvered at every turn, she resorted today to saying the "...Republicans like this war ..." Later, in an effort to recant and show remorse, she clarified her statement to say that she meant to say that "...they just support this war."
Imagine that. There are some Americans out there who support our troops and our objectives.
All sarcasm aside, here's where I think she and the rest of the Democrats have miscalculated. They misread their victory in the last election. Rather than an overwhelming desire to just quit and get out, the majority of Americans want the damn thing over, but they want it over with our objectives met.
So what does "objectives met" really mean? Though I hate to use such a simplistic characterization, for many of us I suspect it may be a simple matter of pride in our country; a belief that we went there as liberators not conquerors, and we'll leave when the Iraqi's are ready to take control. The surge would not be working if local tribal leaders were not cooperating in many areas, such as Al Anbar province. As would likely be the case in most countries, they would like us out of there as quickly as possible and will be only too happy to let us know when they think they're ready to assume full control.
In an effort to maintain my "glass is half-full" outlook on life, I believe that we'll begin to see the number of troops start to diminish as early as the spring of '08. If the politicians in Iraq can get their work done, we could see significant reductions in troop numbers in Iraq by summer. If the Iraqi politicians fail in their duty to their country and take their two month break next summer without accomplishing anything, then it will be time to start winnowing down the number of troops - regardless of the military situation on the ground.
As far as Speaker Pelosi is concerned, I know she misspoke herself, and even her clarification was lacking in tact, but she did not mean to infer that Republicans "like the war". There are those who would echo her initial sentiments with no reluctance at all, but most of us see it for what it was - a mistake.
I just wish she weren't such an apt apostle of the Peter Principle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Your comment
"If the Iraqi politicians fail in their duty to their country and take their two month break next summer without accomplishing anything, then it will be time to start winnowing down the number of troops - regardless of the military situation on the ground."
is close to the Liberal Progressive opinion. The difference is that we don't believe that the goals of invading Iraq in the first place was to liberate and bring Democracy to the Iraqis.
From the beginning it has been all about controling the oil for the Bush family & friends. It hasn't hurt the Cheney/Haliburton family either (but that is just a coincidence, right).
So, if the real goal is to control the oil, then its reasonable to assume that we will not bring the troops home until that goal is secured. The goal of installing a WORKING GOVERNMENT that will insure we maintain control of the oil.
That will never happen in Iraq. That's why we are building multimillion dollar permanent military installations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some of us are getting fed-up with Pelosi-Reid leadership too. It appears they lied about not knowing about torture and illegal wire taps. http://pissedonpolitics.com/
I too oppose the death penalty. When the cost of 25 years of appeals is stacked up against the cost of life in prison in solitary with no chance of parole, its a no-brainer. Frankly, for a lot of these a**holes, a final meal and a lethal injection is an easy way out.
As to Nancy...I'm sure the vast majority of Dems rue the day they elected this politically correct Left Coast woman who's responsibilties so far outstrip her abilities to the job. Think what they could have done with Rahm Emmanuel as Speaker! What really tickles me is the fact that 7 years down the road the Dems have still not gotten over the fact that Algore gave up too soon. If God itself had come down and placed the Starry Crown on Dubya's head, the Dems would still hate him for "stealing" the election in 2000. The real ugly truth is "W" didn't win it, Algore lost it!
On to the war... Let me start by stating that I did not serve, thus I am not permitted to voice an opinion on the war in a public forum. However, if I were so permitted, I would say that, like Vietnam, we f**ked this one up and we can't win, we can only lose less. If the big brains in the "W" Administration had listened to the pros, we'd've gone in with overwhelming strength, kicked ass in 6 months, turned the country over to the professional Iraqi military who, once Saddam was out of the picture, would have been on our side (we have the money and the toys)and would have gone on for 20 years. until the next dictator arose. Instead we let the pols pick the targets (just like LBJ) and now we've lost it. And while I'm on the topic let me say that anyone who ever flew the F-102 Delta Dart, even defending Texas against Mexico, is NOT a coward!
History is a wheel. We keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and over and , well you get the idea...
"From the beginning it has been all about controling the oil for the Bush family & friends. It hasn't hurt the Cheney/Haliburton family either (but that is just a coincidence, right)."
You folks need to get your news from somewhere other than Wonkette. I assume you also think that Jenna is pregnant and Laura is living at the Willard because Dubya is snorting.
Oh yes, definitely lets give a united sperm and ovum the same rights as a person in NJ. That is sound reasoning.
Leave Iraq when the Iraqi's are in control? Which Iraqi's would that be - the Sunni? The Shia? The Kurds?
Poll after poll have shown a majority of Americans want us out of Iraq and the sooner the better. Unfortunately those poll results aren't discussed on FOX news. Come to think of it, the Iraq War isn't discussed as much on FOX news as it is on other networks. Wonder why?
Chucklehead! (Love the name!) There have been Sunni, Shia and Kurds in Persia since Christ was a kid. As far as Fox News and Iraq, you've got to be kidding! Iraq and Natalee Holliway is all they talk about.
Sir Charles, ummmm, since Christ was a child? Sorry but I thought Mohammed was alive in the 6th and 7th centuries. Couldn't very well have been Shia and Sunni's before Mohammed died in 632 CE since those sects are all about who inherited Mohammed's "crown". Also try to remember that there was no Iraq prior to the 1920's. It's an artificial country composed of tribal groups that hate each other and always will. They always will hate each other because their hate is based on religion. There can be no deeper hate.
Go here and you will see that FOX covers Iraq war news half as much as CNN and MSNBC.
Why do I have to do all the research?
Well, Chuckle...like all Neo-libs, you avoid the point. Yes, indeed, The Prophet was a latecomer. The Christ was a kid remark was anobvious alliteration, not a historical reference. But no comment of Fox News vis a vis Iraq and Natalee? No thoughts on religious factions in Persia (not an artificial coutry)for over 1000 years?
Well, sir charles....like all wingers you make sophistic arguments.
Sophistic is a great word - had to look it up. Sophistic - plausible yet fallacious. Or to put it in laymen's terms, I hear what you're saying, it's possible, but I think you're full of shit.
Great link too Chucklehead - I've saved it under favorites. Some interesting info on MSNBC and NBC too. Interesting percentages as to how Iraq is covered, there and here, but it failed to identify one key element. CNN/NBC/MSNBC and others may have devoted more time, but my guess would be that the tone of their reporting differs greatly from that of Fox. I of course watch Fox more than I do the others, but I watch them as well because I feel like I need to know what the enemy is up to.
"Oh yes, definitely lets give a united sperm and ovum the same rights as a person in NJ. That is sound reasoning."
Your idea of sound reasoning is to let politicians determine when life begins? Sound reasoning dictates that the moment the sperm and ovum combine, barring any outside interference, life has begun and will come to fruition. It is the sophistic reasoning of liberals that allows you to fool yourselves into thinking you're not killing a human being. If it assuages your conscience, good for you. It also helps if you don't believe in God, because that way you don't have to worry about coming before Him on judgement day to explain why you murdered your child.
Sound reasoning Chucklehead - when it comes to abortion, liberals have no idea what logic or reason is - they only know what's convenient and expeditious so they can get on with their lives. Too bad their children aren't given that option.
Watson.....I really don't know what to say. When life begins.....are you imlying that the sperm and ovum are not alive before they unite? A biologist will tell you that they are. Life doesn't begin when they unite...what begins is a "potential person". What we are arguing about is how large a clump of cells does it take before we give the clump of cells "rights". I suppose you want to give voting rights to 18 year old frozen embyros. Maybe even conscript them into the military if the draft is reinstituted.
Next point, are you implying that only liberals get abortions. Do you think the occasional conservative ever gets an abortion? Does that conservative feel differently from a liberal when they get an abortion?
I wonder if god will have to deal with any conservatives come judgement day? Probably not....conservatives are the only ones that love god and follow god's rules....right? You good conservatives are all on god's side. Hopefully he is on your side too.
Yep, the sophistic reasoning continues but it looks like there is plenty of room all around for sophistic reasoning.
god bless you Watson as I'm sure he will since you are such a loving conservative.
Sophist Any of a group of professional fifth-century B.C. Greek philosophers and teachers who speculated on theology, metaphysics, and the sciences, and who were later characterized by Plato as superficial manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic.
I'll take it, Chuck. Much better than
spe·cious Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.
Deceptively attractive.
You neolibs are deceptively attractive.
CH:
I'll refer you to a July piece called "Someday". Briefly, I suggested that if any woman uses modern technology to view the fetus before she aborts it, then our primary concern should be helping her through what must have been a terrible decision. If, as Christ suggests, we leave the judging to God and tend to those in need, we're all better off. Conservatives/tradionalists can stop challenging Rove vs. Wade, and liberals/progressives can help all of us focus on the needs of all women, regardless of the choice they made. I cannot change how I feel about abortion or when life begins, it's the only option that makes sense to me, but I am willing to try and find any means that preserves as many lives as possible, while leaving the judging to God. Capital G as far as I'm concerned, but again, to each his own. If the thought of having to look at the life you're about to abort seems invasive to you; I honestly haven't been able to come up with any other compromise that might appeal to both sides on the issue. How about you? Any thoughts of compromise?
I'm more concerned about the unwanted child than I am about the mother. Sure, I'm willing to compromise. Let's pledge that every child born in the USA will be given affordable health care, an education system that works, vocational or college education after HS graduation and (if only we could) the right to a safe, happy, abuse-free childhood.
What penalty shall we place on the women who gets an illegal abortion? Afterall, she will be a murderer. I'm opposed to the death penalty, so lets just say life in prison?
You want to talk about apt apostles of the Peter Principle...how about commenting on G. W. Bush.
Post a Comment