"You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
-Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)

Source

YouTube video of Stark's comments on the floor on the U.S. House

"You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
-Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)

Source

YouTube video of Stark's comments on the floor on the U.S. House


No, I would say that's a fair assessment.

Spot on

It was bad PR to say Dubya sends American soldiers to their death for his own amusement, though as an antisocial swine, he probably digs it. 

See here, Mr. Stark is talking about a man who as governor of Texas mocked on national television a woman he was about to have put to death.  I don't think what the congressman said was terribly far-fetched.

I would have preferred Stark to say these soldiers are dying for oil executives and international capitalists, none of who give a flying hoot about this country, human life, or anything else except short-term profits.  If Stark had said that, the national media (owned by the same folks) would have called a fat-wah on him.
::)

if bush stopped blowing off people's heads for his own amusement, you guys would probably have to hear a lot fewer comments like this.

the repubs are really grabbing onto this video as though there were something unfair or exaggerated about it, but i have a funny feeling it's gonna backfire on em.

It took guts for stark to do that, I admire him in that matter.  I also find it so much like a old school Republican to call him a clown before really thinking about the matter.

It took guts for stark to do that, I admire him in that matter.  I also find it so much like a old school Republican to call him a clown before really thinking about the matter.

If Bush himself was an old school Republican, we wouldn't be stuck in Iraq in the first place and Stark would be out of a comment!
::)

If Bush himself was an old school Republican, we wouldn't be stuck in Iraq in the first place and Stark would be out of a comment!
::)


Bush consider himself a political party therefore the old school republican thing does not apply.  I was talking about Stark's colleges.  I find it so interesting how when someone verbalizes what a majority of people are thinking he's called "a clown"

No, I would say that's a fair assessment.


Agreed...  Stark is also the only openly atheist member of the House.  To this I say...  rock on.

EDIT:  Here is the full quote...

"Republicans sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement."

Damn straight....

If Bush himself was an old school Republican, we wouldn't be stuck in Iraq in the first place and Stark would be out of a comment!
::)


Very true again...  Old school conservatives were isolationist and truly for smaller government.  In other words, they were sensible conservatives.

This is an email a friend of mine sent to Nancy Pelosi.  He was kind enough to send me a copy

How dare you condemn Pete Stark for daring to speak for tens of millions of Americans in saying what we all know about George W. Bush, namely that he is a sadistic cretin who lied us into war and could care less how many Americans soldiers are slaughtered in Iraq, or how many children die for lack of health care.



I am sick and tired of Democrats who suck up to this corrupt administration and who cower before the Republican minority.  I make this pledge.  No Democrat will receive my vote next year unless they grow some balls, and that includes Hillary Clinton.  You can correctly assume that I will not vote Republican, but if you think Democrats can rely on my vote just because they are not Republicans, think again.  Any Democrat who wants my vote will have to earn it by standing up to Bush and his party.  I will not vote for Democrats who act as accessories to the Bush Administration's high crimes and misdemeanors by giving in to them.



Thank you Peter Stark.  I do so wish I lived in your district so I could vote for you.



Sincerely,



Jerry Policoff



cc:

Peter Stark

Stenny Hoyer

Rahm Emanuel

Harry Reid

The thing that I find funny about a lot of the current neoconservatives is that they claim the media and our society is so liberal.  Yet, as Reynolds's post shows here, too many Democrats present a very weak version of liberal opposition to Bush.  If they were anymore apologetic and appeasing, they'd have to join the Republican party as a "moderate wing."

As Tia and a few others have said, the pendulum has swung so far to the right on most issues in America that the left just seems watered down these days.

Still, I think it's quite clear that a liberal backlash is going to come down very soon on this government and society.

The thing that I find funny about a lot of the current neoconservatives is that they claim the media and our society is so liberal.  Yet, as Reynolds's post shows here, too many Democrats present a very weak version of liberal opposition to Bush.  If they were anymore apologetic and appeasing, they'd have to join the Republican party as a "moderate wing."

As Tia and a few others have said, the pendulum has swung so far to the right on most issues in America that the left just seems watered down these days.

Still, I think it's quite clear that a liberal backlash is going to come down very soon on this government and society.



My friend Jerry is a lot like me.  We like a politician with guts, and isn't weighed down by not wanting to offend.  I don't think it will be a "liberal backlash" persee.  I will be people saying that they can't stand B.S. politicians anymore . . .be they Republican or Democrat.

At hardly matters which party controls which branch of government.  As long the power of corporations is not reigned in, the visions of Reagan, Gingrich, and Cheney will rule.  The word is fascism.  That's why Ron Paul is a relief even for those who don't agree with him on most things.  He is at least willing to speak up against the military-industrial complex. 

If you want truly "smaller" government, then you have to curb corporate influence on foreign and domestic priorities.  Otherwise, the corporations will assume the role of "big government," and they are accountable to nobody but their shareholders.  Customers?  We're at the point where customers don't tell businesses what they want, businesses tell customers what they want!
::)

I find it so interesting how when someone verbalizes what a majority of people are thinking he's called "a clown"


I think some are confusing opposition to the Iraq war and Pete Stark's comments.  The majority of American people think Iraq was a bad idea.  I said myself recently Iraq is a failure.  But the majority of Americans definitely do not think Bush is amused by U.S. soldiers' deaths.

Let the democratic nominee say the exact same thing that Stark said in October of 2008 and watch how fast that candidate loses the presidential election.  

Pete Stark can only get away with comments like this because of his district.

I think some are confusing opposition to the Iraq war and Pete Stark's comments.  The majority of American people think Iraq was a bad idea.  I said myself recently Iraq is a failure.  But the majority of Americans definitely do not think Bush is amused by U.S. soldiers' deaths.

Let the democratic nominee say the exact same thing that Stark said in October of 2008 and watch how fast that candidate loses the presidential election. 

Pete Stark can only get away with comments like this because of his district.


You're right, Bush probably isn't amused by the soldier's death.  However I do think Bush expect a "blind faith" response from the American people regarding Iraq.  Kind of a trust me, don't question me sort of deal.

I think Obama came pretty close to saying that.

Let the democratic nominee say the exact same thing that Stark said in October of 2008 and watch how fast that candidate loses the presidential election.  


Stark isn't running.  It's going to be Hillary, and Hillary would never say a thing like that.  After all, the b!tch voted for the war, didn't she?
:-\\

At hardly matters which party controls which branch of government.  As long the power of corporations is not reigned in, the visions of Reagan, Gingrich, and Cheney will rule.  The word is fascism.  That's why Ron Paul is a relief even for those who don't agree with him on most things.  He is at least willing to speak up against the military-industrial complex. 

If you want truly "smaller" government, then you have to curb corporate influence on foreign and domestic priorities.  Otherwise, the corporations will assume the role of "big government," and they are accountable to nobody but their shareholders.  Customers?  We're at the point where customers don't tell businesses what they want, businesses tell customers what they want!
::)


Very true...  Some would even argue that they aren't accountable to their shareholders until after the fact, like the Enron debacle, for example....

I think some are confusing opposition to the Iraq war and Pete Stark's comments.  The majority of American people think Iraq was a bad idea.  I said myself recently Iraq is a failure.  But the majority of Americans definitely do not think Bush is amused by U.S. soldiers' deaths.

Let the democratic nominee say the exact same thing that Stark said in October of 2008 and watch how fast that candidate loses the presidential election.  

Pete Stark can only get away with comments like this because of his district.


Amused is probably the wrong word.  "Profits from" would be a more accurate phrase to use.

At hardly matters which party controls which branch of government.  As long the power of corporations is not reigned in, the visions of Reagan, Gingrich, and Cheney will rule.  The word is fascism.  That's why Ron Paul is a relief even for those who don't agree with him on most things.  He is at least willing to speak up against the military-industrial complex. 

If you want truly "smaller" government, then you have to curb corporate influence on foreign and domestic priorities.  Otherwise, the corporations will assume the role of "big government," and they are accountable to nobody but their shareholders.  Customers?  We're at the point where customers don't tell businesses what they want, businesses tell customers what they want! ::)


And corporations are motivated only by profit.  Therefore, the only way to curb corporate influence on foreign nor domestic "priorities", you have to make the contracts for those priorities not worth buying.

Otherwise, all you'll end up with is a different set of corporations carrying out the role of big government, and the government is accountable to nobody but the lobbyists for their campaign contributors.  Taxpayers?  We're well past the point where taxpayers don't tell the government what they want -- lobbyists tell the government what they want.  The taxpayers don't enter into the equation at all.

At least I can buy shares in Halliburton, Chevron, Lockheed-Martin, and other beneficiaries of the current Administration's policies.  If I could buy shares in Jesse Jackson's shakedown racket, believe me, I would.  Until the size of government itself can be shrunk, the only way to get a return on our tax dollars is to invest in whoever's getting the pork, and for us little fish without "connections", we tend to go with the more accessibly-profitable of the two evils. 

I'm dumb enough to still have a day job, which means I don't have time to spend all my waking moments doing fundraisers, so I can't schmooze my way to the top of the local government-funded 20-person, $1M/year non-profit boondoggle.  But I do have time to click on a mouse and buy stock in a 20000-person company that's obviously positioned itself in a place where it's guaranteed that $1B/year contract...

(Cthulhu/Hastur '08.  I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, too.)

Otherwise, all you'll end up with is a different set of corporations carrying out the role of big government, and the government is accountable to nobody but the lobbyists for their campaign contributors.  Taxpayers?  We're well past the point where taxpayers don't tell the government what they want -- lobbyists tell the government what they want.  The taxpayers don't enter into the equation at all.
This I agree with.

At least I can buy shares in Halliburton, Chevron, Lockheed-Martin, and other beneficiaries of the current Administration's policies. 

You go ahead and do that, but remember, you dance with the devil, the devil always leads.
::)

 

You go ahead and do that, but remember, you dance with the devil, the devil always leads.
::)





http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/thumbsup.gif

And corporations are motivated only by profit.  Therefore, the only way to curb corporate influence on foreign nor domestic "priorities", you have to make the contracts for those priorities not worth buying.

Otherwise, all you'll end up with is a different set of corporations carrying out the role of big government, and the government is accountable to nobody but the lobbyists for their campaign contributors.  Taxpayers?  We're well past the point where taxpayers don't tell the government what they want -- lobbyists tell the government what they want.  The taxpayers don't enter into the equation at all.

At least I can buy shares in Halliburton, Chevron, Lockheed-Martin, and other beneficiaries of the current Administration's policies.  If I could buy shares in Jesse Jackson's shakedown racket, believe me, I would.  Until the size of government itself can be shrunk, the only way to get a return on our tax dollars is to invest in whoever's getting the pork, and for us little fish without "connections", we tend to go with the more accessibly-profitable of the two evils. 

I'm dumb enough to still have a day job, which means I don't have time to spend all my waking moments doing fundraisers, so I can't schmooze my way to the top of the local government-funded 20-person, $1M/year non-profit boondoggle.  But I do have time to click on a mouse and buy stock in a 20000-person company that's obviously positioned itself in a place where it's guaranteed that $1B/year contract...

(Cthulhu/Hastur '08.  I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, too.)


Well, there is another option.  Move to Canada.  I'll likely be living in Toronto or Edmonton in about 5 to 10 years.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/thumbsup.gif


Why invest in Haliburton when you can buy shares in Hell itself.  It's been popular retirement community for the past 6000 years!
That's right, time shares.  Your time, Eternity!
:o

Why invest in Haliburton when you can buy shares in Hell itself.  It's been popular retirement community for the past 6000 years!
That's right, time shares.  Your time, Eternity!
:o
dag, i need to watch more lou dobbs. i totally didn't get the heads up on the Minion of Satan, LLC IPO. that must have been a real feeding frenzy!

Why invest in Haliburton when you can buy shares in Hell itself.  It's been popular retirement community for the past 6000 years!
That's right, time shares.  Your time, Eternity!
:o


Maybe they will start selling shares for those companies at Wal-Mart and really give the working American a kick in the teeth.

Just gotta start thinking more like Foo-Bar.  Who would you rather have as a broker?  Jesus or Lucifer?
8)

You go ahead and do that, but remember, you dance with the devil, the devil always leads. ::)


Yup.  No matter who you vote for, the government always wins. 

Corollary:  Since nobody who counts is gonna offer a solution, why not at least make a buck off the problem?

Yup.  No matter who you vote for, the government always wins. 


Especially when big business and big government are one in the same.  That's known as fascism and that's what we've got!

Especially when big business and big government are one in the same.  That's known as fascism and that's what we've got!


Well, plutocracy is more accurate.  Fascism is what we'll have if the Religious Right gets their way.

Well, plutocracy is more accurate.  Fascism is what we'll have if the Religious Right gets their way.

Nope, this right here is the textbook definition of fascism, which Mussolini said should more appropriately be called "corporatism."

Anyway, Stark said he was sorry, so fuggum.  He also said, "I hope that with this apology, I return to being as insignificant as I should be."  'the hell kinda talk is that?  Now he sounds like your crazy, drunken old Uncle Al when he's pandering for a hug after he smashed all your knick-knacks! 

When they demanded an apology he should have quoted another crazy old man, I mean eccentric senior citizen, from our legislative branch:

"NO!"

--Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK)

And he gave an apology because Pelosi and Boehner (Baner, Beener, Boner, whatever his name is) demanded he give it?  WTF?  I wouldn't give either of them directions to the outhouse!
::)

He should not have apologized!  (And the bozos applauded.)
peace ...Lee 8-P

Tearful Pete Stark Apologizes

Embattled Democrat Pete Stark has just publicly apologized to "the president and his family."

He took the floor after his fellow Democrats successfully killed a motion to censure him in the wake of his remarks last Thursday asserting that American troops were fighting in Iraq to have their "heads blown off for the president's amusement."

"I want to apologize to my colleagues, many of whom I have offended," Stark began. He then apologized to "the president and his family" and "the troops."

"I hope that with this apology, I return to being as insignificant as I should be," he concluded though a voice cracking with emotion.

Link

Even he can admit he was wrong while some on the far-left fringe can't.

Tearful Pete Stark Apologizes

Embattled Democrat Pete Stark has just publicly apologized to "the president and his family."

He took the floor after his fellow Democrats successfully killed a motion to censure him in the wake of his remarks last Thursday asserting that American troops were fighting in Iraq to have their "heads blown off for the president's amusement."

"I want to apologize to my colleagues, many of whom I have offended," Stark began. He then apologized to "the president and his family" and "the troops."

"I hope that with this apology, I return to being as insignificant as I should be," he concluded though a voice cracking with emotion.

Link

Even he can admit he was wrong while some on the far-left fringe can't.

See...
Now you think he's an assh*le,
and I think he's an assh*le!

At least before he was running 50/50!
::)

See...
Now you think he's an assh*le,
and I think he's an assh*le!

At least before he was running 50/50!
::)


Well put, Max... :o
peace...Lee

Well put, Max... :o
peace...Lee


Yes, Max...Stark has turned out to be a typical modern Dem assh**e...buckling under pressure and forgetting what he supposed to be doing up there in Washington! :(

peace...Lee

just once i'd love to see a democrat stick by his guns. if all the democrats in the house and senate went through their pockets, you think they might find a single pair of testicles among the entire lot of them? at least that would be a start, if they did.

that said, there are two things in stark’s original comment that i really disagree with:

1. he seems to be implying that the war was bush’s decision, when it obviously fit into an existing political agenda of a far right conservative political coalition, and 2. he seems to be implying that the architects of the war are acting out of inscrutable blood lust, when it seems pretty obvious they were actually motivated by the promise of political and financial gain. the republicans run on war, so they really can’t have a republican in office without starting one, it would be political suicide. i just dare say they probably hoped this one would turn out better than it has.

stark missed a nice opportunity to redirect his original comment without backing away from its emotional content. instead he decided to be a gutless loser like most of the rest of the demos in congress. “could you pretty please attach some timelines to this 150 billion dollar blank check for war we’re giving you? no? okay, sorry i asked. :(  “

The Republicans wanted to censure Stark but didn't have quite enough votes in order to do it. 

particularly reprehensible was his comment that "now hopefully i can be as insignificant as i should be." if the republicans are smart they'll quote this over and over in the 2008 campaign when they portray the democrats, accurately, as a bunch of feeble, trembling asskissers.

i'm sorry, this really makes me mad.

particularly reprehensible was his comment that "now hopefully i can be as insignificant as i should be." if the republicans are smart they'll quote this over and over in the 2008 campaign when they portray the democrats, accurately, as a bunch of feeble, trembling asskissers.

i'm sorry, this really makes me mad.


I don't think anyone in the Democratic party has the guts to say what they really think.  Stark did and Nancy lambasted him.  Yep, it's asskissing at it finest. 8-P

Tearful Pete Stark Apologizes

Embattled Democrat Pete Stark has just publicly apologized to "the president and his family."

He took the floor after his fellow Democrats successfully killed a motion to censure him in the wake of his remarks last Thursday asserting that American troops were fighting in Iraq to have their "heads blown off for the president's amusement."

"I want to apologize to my colleagues, many of whom I have offended," Stark began. He then apologized to "the president and his family" and "the troops."

"I hope that with this apology, I return to being as insignificant as I should be," he concluded though a voice cracking with emotion.

Link

Even he can admit he was wrong while some on the far-left fringe can't.


Admitting fault is one thing.  Caving like a little wuss is another.

just once i'd love to see a democrat stick by his guns.

Dennis Kucinich is your man, then.  I may not always agree with him, but he's got balls.

Dennis Kucinich is your man, then.  I may not always agree with him, but he's got balls.
i think kucinich and ron paul should start their own damn party. hell, i think they should start their own damn COUNTRY. :P i disagree with ron paul on a lot of his policy points and kucinich i think is too idealistic but... for instance, kucinich is the only elected representative to ever mention "chemtrails," which is scary cuz i think he was on the house intelligence committee for a while.

no, really. why don't kucinich and ron paul ditch the two-party system and go over to the reform party? what's the reform party up to these days, anyhow? i was listening to an interview with ron paul today and someone asked him why he didn't go independent and he said, not inaccurately, that you can't get any viability as a third-party candidate. of course, as long as good iconoclastic candidates don't step up and lend their credibility to third parties this whole republicrat/demoblican hegemony will keep being unshakable...

i actually still really like joe biden as a mainstream candidate. i don't think he'd ever cave in like this stark character. but i'm waiting t be disillusioned, i usually am eventually. :(

Dennis Kucinich is your man, then.  I may not always agree with him, but he's got balls.

Karma +1
With one caveat, as I say about him and Ron Paul, if either man got anywhere near the nomination, the wheeling and dealing would begin.  Piping hot resolve would turn to tepid compromise.  That's politics 4ya!

But that's what I don't get about Stark.  He's an old fart of a Bay area Democrat.  He's not aspiring to higher office, what's he got to lose?

Something, obviously.  It has dawned on me that he got a late night phone call from KRIA (Karl Rove Intelligence Agency):

"Hello, Mr. Stark, we suggest you say you're sorry and call yourself a loser."
"Huh?  Who the hell is this?"
"You just make no never mind about that.  Just remember, we've got the pictures."
"What pictures?"
"You know...the frat rush pictures, the ones of you with the goat.  So what's it gonna be, goat boy!"
:D


particularly reprehensible was his comment that "now hopefully i can be as insignificant as i should be." if the republicans are smart they'll quote this over and over in the 2008 campaign when they portray the democrats, accurately, as a bunch of feeble, trembling asskissers.

i'm sorry, this really makes me mad.

I hear you loud and clear, my friend, and I'm right with you!

i think kucinich and ron paul should start their own damn party. hell, i think they should start their own damn COUNTRY. :P i disagree with ron paul on a lot of his policy points and kucinich i think is too idealistic but... for instance, kucinich is the only elected representative to ever mention "chemtrails," which is scary cuz i think he was on the house intelligence committee for a while.

The only problem is...  They are polar opposites on economic policy and opposites on many social issues as well (like abortion).  The main things they have in common are their distrust for corporations and their antiwar stances.

Granted, I'd still love to see both of them boost their respective 3rd party interests.  Kucinich would make a fine candidate for the Greens (along with Nader), and Paul has gained enough popularity and funds now that he could easily give the Libertarians a major boost if he went back to being one.

no, really. why don't kucinich and ron paul ditch the two-party system and go over to the reform party? what's the reform party up to these days, anyhow? i was listening to an interview with ron paul today and someone asked him why he didn't go independent and he said, not inaccurately, that you can't get any viability as a third-party candidate. of course, as long as good iconoclastic candidates don't step up and lend their credibility to third parties this whole republicrat/demoblican hegemony will keep being unshakable...

Yep... 100% agreed.  We need a multiparty system like Canada and the U.K.  I wouldn't mind a parliament as opposed to a Congress either.

i actually still really like joe biden as a mainstream candidate. i don't think he'd ever cave in like this stark character. but i'm waiting t be disillusioned, i usually am eventually. :(


Biden is weird.  In some ways, I like him.  In other ways, he seems like he's posturing.  He also has a habit of saying really funny things by accident (like Bush).  Remember when the Daily Show quoted his infamous, "they don't ask if you're gay in those holes" remark?  lol

With one caveat, as I say about him and Ron Paul, if either man got anywhere near the nomination, the wheeling and dealing would begin.  Piping hot resolve would turn to tepid compromise.  That's politics 4ya!

Very true... but so far, neither of them have done that while representing their districts.  Paul has voted against more legislation than probably any other Congressman to ever hold office.  Kucinich hasn't sold out to any corporate interests.

Very true... but so far, neither of them have done that while representing their districts.  Paul has voted against more legislation than probably any other Congressman to ever hold office.  Kucinich hasn't sold out to any corporate interests.

For sure.  I'm just saying the presidency is a whole different ballgame.

You know, when I listened to Dennis Kucinich in person...there was such honesty and sincerity in this guy's presentation of his ideas...I was... enthralled...(I like that word,  :D)  I can't even look at anyone else, seriously...they're all (Except for Paul and Gravel) such a bunch of losers.    I particularly find Hillary Clinton very repugnant.  8-P

peace...Lee

You know, when I listened to Dennis Kucinich in person...there was such honesty and sincerity in this guy's presentation of his ideas...I was... enthralled...(I like that word,  :D)  I can't even look at anyone else, seriously...they're all (Except for Paul and Gravel) such a bunch of losers.    I particularly find Hillary Clinton very repugnant.  8-P

peace...Lee


If I get the chance to see Kucinich speak in person I certainly will. 

Hillary grosses me out too, but when you refer to the mainstream (for lack of a better word) candidates as "a bunch of losers," you might be impugning "politics" as we know it.  Of course, it richly deserves to be impugned.  In national politics we find all candidates fighting so hard to please all that they end up pleasing none.
::)