DEMOCRATS FIDDLE WHILE CALI BURNS
Sen. Barbara Boxer was all over the media yesterday talking about how the war in Iraq was causing the California fire to burn out of control due to the lack of equipment and manpower available because of National Guard troop deployment. Of course the commander of the National Guard in Calinfornia said they had all the equipment they needed and have received everything they asked for. (I guess he’s a liar just like Petraeus?)
Sen. Harry Reid said global warming was one of the causes of the California fires and of course we all know thats Bush’s fault.
Have these people no shame? Can honest Americans look at this obvious politicization of a horrible disaster and not be disgusted?
A caller to Rush Limbaugh’s program said it best when he asked, Why are’nt the Democrats calling for withdrawl from the fire, just like Iraq? The situation seems similar. A raging fire being pushed by an unstoppable wind. There’s no way we can defeat the fire. Fires have been burning for thousands of years. All we are doing is occupying the fire’s native land. The fire was their first. We’re only there because real estate (oil). All we want to do is control this valuable commodity. GET OUT! Get out now. Our firefighters (troops) are being needlessly sacrificed in a battle they can’t possible win…I mean they’re the best firefighters in the world, don’t get me wrong, I support them 100%, but they are needlessly putting out small, innocent civilian fires, hundreds of them…and in some cases using water to torture the fires until they reveal where other fires are burning….ALL OF THIS APPROVED BY BUSH!….
While thousands of Marines stand-by in Camp Pendleton, waiting for orders to go out and fight the fire, Barbara Boxer wants to bring troops out of Iraq to fight the fire.
Brilliant Barbara, Brilliant!
The Other Side Says: October 25th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
buck thinks like the republican propoganda machine. if you repeat something enough, i.e. democrats suck, then it must be true.
nutslikebush Says: October 26th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Buck,
Surely you see how inept your analogy is. Poor analogies are the bread and butter of the Limbaugh crowd though.
Here is a more apt analogy that may help you see the issue more clearly. If we were sending firefighters in to fight by spraying gasoline on it, then it would indeed make sense to call for a withdrawal of the firefighters. In Iraq, our very occupation of the country and military operations are what fuels the insurgency and recruitment of foreign fighters. Nothing causes violence in the middle east, historically speaking, like a foreign occupation (and that includes Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, by the way. Read Sharone’s writings on the topic if you disagree with me.). SO yes, we should stop pouring fuel on the fire in Iraq but we should keep pour water and flame retardant on the fires in California. Get it now?
JACKSON Says: October 26th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I have read and seen the complainning about the California fire and basically, yeah they are trying to make it a political tug of war. That is just pathetic, like I said before I don’t support Bush and I am not entirely cons, but you can’t blame a president or atleast a political party for a natural disaster. It’s just stupid. Come on nuts you gotta admit sometimes it is really hard to have a conversation with a hard core lib. Not that it’s any easier with a hard core con either. But the cons win this one, it just seems like the libs or dems are always trying to say every disaster is the rep fault or bush’s fault or the wars fault.
I am a soldier, I am not a firefighter and this fire was freaken serious. Would you send me into harms way without proper trainning so I can die because I wouldn’t know what to do. A fire disaster such as this is devistating and sending more people wouldn’t be such a good idea. Last time I checked the firefighters were still in America.
I say again I don’t support either party, honestly really political people make my stomach churn, but enough already. This fire sucked, it isn’t the Terminators’ fault, it isn’t Bushs’ fault it not Disneylads fault. If we as a country keep pointing fingers we will never learn from our tragedies and mistakes.
Dan Says: October 27th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Hah, this article was great Buck, keep’em coming!
The Other Side Says: October 27th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
it was reported in may that half of the equipment the national guard needs is not in california because they are in iraq, other parts of the world or not funded. the general accountability office reported that the departments of agriculture, forestry and other agencies were woefully unprepared for fires. people had warnings that agencies were not equipt to fight potential fires but didn’t change anything. dana perino acknowleged the fact that the national guard supplies were in iraq and that (iraq) was more of a priority than california. the national guard shouldn’t be in iraq in those numbers in the first place because of the poor management of the war.
buck would rather take cheap shots at liberals and use horrible metaphors than to discuss real issues. facts are a mystery to these people but their utter distain for liberals is obvious.
Jordan Says: October 30th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Nutslikebush said, and I directly quote, “nothing causes violence in the Middle East like a foreign occupation.”
If what you mean by this is, “There is no media coverage on the violence in the Middle East, unless there is a foreign occupation there” - then yes, you’re right!
But if not, you’re utterly mistaken.
Woman were being raped and murdered (in front of their children) by Saddam Hussein and his regime loooong before the first war with Iraq. Democrats seem to only shun violence when it’s inflicted to bad people (i.e. Capital Punishment is “cruel and unusual” only because we’re killing killers). Democrats don’t care if the innocent are being killed. But the minute American’s swoop in to save the day - wrong, wrong, wrong. We’re the bad guys.
Oh well. I just distain liberals. Ain’t that right, The Other Side?
The Other Side Says: October 30th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
sounds right to me jordan. keep on keepin on.
nutslikebush Says: October 31st, 2007 at 2:54 am
Jordan,
If you look throughout the middle east you will discover that foreign occupations have triggered the most violence. As for Saddam’s violence, don’t you think that had a lot to do with the way the British organized Iraq after WWI? It is essentially three different countries that have major religious and ethic differences. Saddam was a secular Sunni occupying Shiite and Kurdish countries. So I think my point is still a valid one. Furthermore, according to reliable sources (e.g., Iraq Body Count) that track middle east violence, the violence under the US occupation of Iraq is far greater than that under Saddam. Don’t let your disdain for liberals prevent you from thinking or questioning your own assumptions. I would be interested in what you guys think a liberal is. I think of myself as non-partisan (I have major gripes with the Democrats. Ask me and I will list a few for you). But sometimes I think that anyone who doesn’t drink the conservative cool aid just automatically is tossed in the liberal category by you guys.
Jordan Says: October 31st, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Yes, they are, Nutslikebush. You speak truth. People who don’t drink the “conservative cool aid” are automatically tossed into the liberal category; similarly, so are people who don’t drink the “liberal cood aid.”
And yes, it would only makes logical sense that during a time of war there would be more violence - wouldn’t it? I mean, it would be a bit crazy to think otherwise. But the violence (between the allied US and Iraqi soldiers, and the opposing fanatical regimes) is necessary to instill the security and peace for future generations of Iraqis.
The war was meant to accomplish something good. Remember your history books? Liberals didn’t want us to go to war in World War 2 either… but could you imagine what would have happened if we hadn’t? Hitler would have dominated the world, and every race besides white people would have been wiped out. But then, like now, Republicans were the ones fighting for what was right - while liberals were simply a roadblock hindering the greater good.
I never called you a liberal - and I was only being sarcastic by saying that I distain liberals (in reference to a comment made by another user, The Other Side).
As a matter of fact, I would like to hear your gripes about Democrats - and about Republicans too! I too sit on the fence of non-partisanship - however, I just happen to support the war on terror.