Skip to main content

But how many more deaths will be required to change John Carney's mind?

From Stars and Stripes:

Letter from doomed soldier helped change congressman's mind on Afghan withdrawal date

President Obama believes we can go on losing American lives for no particular reason for another two years.

John Carney says he has reservations about this, but is unwilling to break with his own President.

Moral leadership, Mr. Carney, means doing what's right even if there is some cost to you, or to your party.

Obviously you don't get that.

Comments

Anonymous said…
John Carney is the poster child for the egregious fecklessness of Congress. He is a disgrace to Delaware and a disgrace to the United States.
September 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Unknown said…
John Carney has displayed no ability for independent thought and analysis. He is a robotic, non committal example of everything that is wrong in DC today. If he could find a way to jolt his neurons into wakefulness, he may rise from his slumber and see the damage he is imposing on the American people and how completely redundant he is. John, stop sucking at the tax payer teat and give a damn!
September 22, 2012 at 8:42 PM
Anonymous said…
Steve, Representative Bill Young change of heart on Afghanistan represents a turning point. I expect to see both Republicans and Democrats in the months to come to break with the administration; in fact I would not be surprised to see the administration throw its hands up in despair and call it quits.

Hank
September 24, 2012 at 4:37 AM
Delacrat said…
If 11 years of catastrophe are not enough to persuade Carney to defund a needless and unjustified war, nothing will. Fact is, Carney is a war enthusiast who doesn't care if his vote gets you or your kid killed.
September 25, 2012 at 7:34 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...
70 comments
Read more

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...
31 comments
Read more