California Congressmen Pete Stark owes American soldiers an apology v.ugh

6SpeedTA95 · 10-21-2007, 10:21 AM

There's a California congressman, a Democrat and classic northern California liberal, named Fortney Pete Stark who is always shooting his mouth off. But he may have done it this time.

During a debate on the children's health bill today in Congress, Stark stood to lecture Republicans and said the following:

"You don't have money to fund the (Iraq) war or children," he said. "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."

Translation if you missed it: Pete Stark thinks Bush sends American soldiers to Iraq to die for his amusement. Naturally, Republicans in the House objected. Actually they exploded — and they should have.

They demanded Stark's speech be declared beyond the bounds of supposedly civilized debate in the House. Naturally, the Democrat-controlled House rejected the GOP appeal. But I think the rest of us should pick up where the Democrats stopped discussion.

Stark ought to be condemned. He ought to be turned out of office. Someone should inquire if he were under the influence of something at the time he uttered this horrible charge. Maybe it's time to think about afternoons at the dog track for Stark.

Americans getting killed for the president's amusement? And you wonder why political discussion has become so rancorous in this country?

The problem is that Stark isn't the only one who feels that way. It's just that his saying what he said where he said it gives the go-ahead to otherwise marginalized loony Americans to take center stage with the same such garbage.

Somebody asked what is wrong with Kansas? Well, I want to know what's wrong with my home state. How can California continue to send a foot-in-mouth buffoon to debate the country's issues in Congress?

People say Bush doesn't have a grip on the language, but I haven't heard him say: Democrats amuse themselves with the tragedies of other people.

This is an editorial by John Gibson.

YouTube - Words from California Congressman Pete Stark

This is absolute insanity, this congressmen needs to resign and apologize to the american people, his constituents and most importantly the soldiers. He needs to grow up and get out of congress.

I also find it pretty telling/disturbing that this hasn't been mentioned by any major news network except for Foxnews and CNN radio.

Scrum · 10-21-2007, 10:28 AM

Are you kidding me? He's one of the only people speaking the truth.

Why should he resign? Why should he apologize to the soldiers? He said nothing wrong.

This is the same PC bullshit I hear you guys complaining about all the time.

6SpeedTA95 · 10-21-2007, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Are you kidding me? He's one of the only people speaking the truth.

Why should he resign? Why should he apologize to the soldiers? He said nothing wrong.

This is the same PC bullshit I hear you guys complaining about all the time.

Saying these soldiers are over there for the presidents amusement and that he wants to send our children to war to die is not a lie?

Scrum · 10-21-2007, 10:32 AM

More on this story.

“I’m just amazed that the Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal War in Iraq.
“”President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the War in Iraq. The truth is that that Bush just likes to blow things up – in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.

After Rep. Pete Stark made his harsh statements against the Republicans and Bush over the SCHIP veto, the right wingers are trying to change the subject again by feigning outrage against him. Stark also didn’t fall for the MoveOn ad outrage also. Good for him. CNN ran a small clip of him all morning. Here’s CNN’s poll. 88% say he shouldn’t apologize. What say you?
via emailer:
“The wingnutosphere, Drudge, John Boehner, Roy Blunt, Jeb Hensarling, the RNC, and the NRCC, on the other hand, have issued statements criticizing Congressman Stark. Republicans believe that creating a controversy around these marks will help deflect attention from their opposition to health care for children.”

In response to Republican attacks, Congressman Stark recently issued this follow-up statement:
“I have nothing but respect for our brave men and women in uniform and wish them the very best,” said Stark. “But I respect neither the Commander-in-Chief who keeps them in harms way nor the chickenhawks in Congress who vote to deny children health care.”

“I’m just amazed that the Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal War in Iraq.
“Where are you going to get that money? You’re 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 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.
“This bill would provide health care for 10 million children and unlike the President’s own kids, these children can’t see a doctor or receive necessary care.
“Six million are insured through the Children’s Health Insurance Program and they’ll do better in school and in life.
“In California, the President’s veto will cause the legislature to draw up emergency regulations to cut some 800,000 children off the rolls in California and create a waiting list. I hope my California Republican colleagues will understand that if they don’t vote to override this veto, they are destroying health care for many of our children in California.
“In his previous job as an actor, our Governor used to play make believe and blow things up. Well, the President and Republicans in Congress are playing make believe today with children’s lives.
“They claim we can’t afford health care and say the bill will socialize Medicine. Tell that to Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, and Ted Stevens, those socialists on the other side of this Capitol! The truth is that the Children’s Health Insurance Program enables states to cover children primarily through private health care plans.
“President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the War in Iraq. The truth is that that Bush just likes to blow things up – in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.
“I urge my colleagues to vote to override his veto. America’s children need and deserve health care despite the President’s desire to deny it to them.”

6SpeedTA95 · 10-21-2007, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

More on this story.

Because that somehow justifies what he said?

I heard the whole speech he's a rambling lunatic, nothing more. He throws US children, US soldiers, the president and the american people under the bus in an attemp to make a ridiculous political point.

edit: the guys whole speech was full of lies and if he didn't intentionally lie he definately shouldn't be in congress with some of the ridiculous comments he made.

Scrum · 10-21-2007, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Saying these soldiers are over there for the presidents amusement and that he wants to send our children to war to die is not a lie?

Yes!

This was a war of choice from the start.

Are you telling me we have troops over there to protect this country?

Scrum · 10-21-2007, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Because that somehow justifies what he said?

I heard the whole speech he's a rambling lunatic, nothing more. He throws US children, US soldiers, the president and the american people under the bus in an attemp to make a ridiculous political point.

And how did he throw anyone under the bus?

That's a ridiculous overreaction.

“I have nothing but respect for our brave men and women in uniform and wish them the very best,” said Stark. “But I respect neither the Commander-in-Chief who keeps them in harms way nor the chickenhawks in Congress who vote to deny children health care.”

What a monster.

JaJae · 10-21-2007, 11:07 AM

I don't care what he may have said in the past, present or future in relation to this speech. What he said was out of line, it was inappropriate and it clearly will be played over and over again on Al Jazeera. I find no reason to defend the ridiculous statements he made.

I understand he's upset the GOP wanted to keep the SCHIP Bill the way it has been for a while now instead of going to system that is a stepping stone to socialistic healthcare, and I can even understand a raving lunatic liberal might be upset by that. However, it has nothing to do with sending troops to Iraq to die, nor does it have anything to do with the money. He went off on a vile tangent and shot his mouth in an inappropriate way. Whether he should apologize for it is up to him. I doubt he will, based on his speech he does not seem to be a man of great integrity.

This is the kind of crap that got Air America shot out of the airwaves. Americans don't like this vile contempt, especially when it denigrates our soldiers and gives ammunition to Al Jazeerah. His speech was essentially a pussyhurt political cheapshot at the GOP, which served no purpose other than for him to vent. If he wishes to oppose the GOP on this bill he should have done so constructively and professionally. This is not the kind of rhetoric and vile crap our nation should accept in our government halls.

Politicians need to realize we are in a war with Islamic extremism not just on the battlefields, but in the media as well. That doesn't mean they can't hold whatever views they wish to hold, but when presenting their views they should do so professionally. Any politician from either side of the aisle who doesn't do that has no business working within our government. They are too irresponsible, immature and self-serving to do their job properly.

JaJae · 10-21-2007, 11:53 AM

I reread my post above and the raving lunatic liberal was a pronoun for Stark, not anyone who disagrees with the Democrat sponsored SCHIP bill. I don't believe anyone who disagrees is a lunatic liberal, just that I can understand how Stark, being a lunatic liberal, would disagree.

motivez · 10-21-2007, 12:00 PM

His remark is obviously inflammatory, and if it hadn't been for Republicans spending the last 7 years using the house floor to claim people who oppose the war in Iraq want the terrorists to win, etc, I'd say it's beneath the decorum that speech made there deserves, but if anything you should be saying he apologize to the President and Republicans in Congress.

When you go to war when it's not needed, when it's a choice, when it's not for defense of the country, I think someone can make a legitimate argument about whether it is for amusement to a certain extent.

Bush was certainly very eager to call himself a 'war president' when it all first began.. I don't think he gets amusement out of their deaths, but I think he wanted the power and prestige that comes with the phrase more than he cared about the safety of the troops being sent over there, or maybe he would have demanded some actual planning for the post-invasion occupation..

Also, is this an article by the same John Gibson who has a show on Fox News? If so, he has no fucking standing to criticize anyone for saying something "outrageous" ..

garbagemanlb · 10-21-2007, 01:18 PM

More false outrage.

I love politics. From Moveon, to Rush, now back to the Democrats.

7960 · 10-21-2007, 04:34 PM

-what he said was inappropriate
-he shouldn't be forced to resign
-i'd have more respect for him if he did resign
-it will be an issue in his re-election
-depending on his district that statement either guarantees his re-election or his defeat

RMNIXON · 10-21-2007, 04:52 PM

Nothing to see here move along.........................

A Democrat using the old "it's for the Children" bit is so old school. When the 94 congress actually got spending under control and balanced a budget the cries and screams from the left about "taking food out of the mouths of Children" were endless. Even Clinton came under fire with signing Welfare reform. All those "Children" who would be put out on the streets to starve! The only thing new is the voters who fall like idiots for this B.S. It is a SCAM to trick middle and upper middle income people to put kids into government heathcare.

From a recent George Will column:

Consider the controversy over the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which is up for renewal. Most Republicans favor extending it. Almost all Democrats, and some Republicans, favor expanding it in a way that transforms it.

SCHIP is described as serving "poor children" or children of "the working poor."

Everyone agrees that it is for "low income" people. Under the bill that Democrats hope to pass over the president's veto on Thursday, states could extend eligibility to households earning $61,950. But America's median household income is $48,201. How can people above the median income be eligible for a program serving lower income people?

Stylerod · 10-21-2007, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Nothing to see here move along.........................

A Democrat using the old "it's for the Children" bit is so old school. When the 94 congress actually got spending under control and balanced a budget the cries and screams from the left about "taking food out of the mouths of Children" were endless. Even Clinton came under fire with signing Welfare reform. All those "Children" who would be put out on the streets to starve! The only thing new is the voters who fall like idiots for this B.S. It is a SCAM to trick middle and upper middle income people to put kids into government heathcare.

From a recent George Will column:

Consider the controversy over the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which is up for renewal. Most Republicans favor extending it. Almost all Democrats, and some Republicans, favor expanding it in a way that transforms it.

SCHIP is described as serving "poor children" or children of "the working poor."

Everyone agrees that it is for "low income" people. Under the bill that Democrats hope to pass over the president's veto on Thursday, states could extend eligibility to households earning $61,950. But America's median household income is $48,201. How can people above the median income be eligible for a program serving lower income people?

Because Democrats buy votes with these types of legislation. Simple really.

Stark has been in office since 1973. Uhg.

JaJae · 10-22-2007, 01:36 AM

Crooks and Liars quoted Stark, but conveniently left out the inflammatory statements and then hosted a poll on polldaddy.com and asked if Stark should apologize... They got a lot of crap in their comments for their dishonesty so of course they deleted them, but the poll votes they couldn't delete.

Here is their poll:

Talk about a backfire...

David Octavius · 10-22-2007, 11:55 AM

So let me get this straight.....a person should resign over words - but being exceedingly inept at their position, shredding the constitution for his own agenda and continually and blatantly ignoring the will of the people is OK?

7960 · 10-22-2007, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

So let me get this straight.....a person should resign over words - but being exceedingly inept at their position, shredding the constitution for his own agenda and continually and blatantly ignoring the will of the people is OK?

Does the guy next to me going 80 mean I can go 80? Or are we supposed to measure ourselves against what's right and wrong and not think "What I did wrong isn't nearly as bad as what he did wrong so it's ok"?

David Octavius · 10-22-2007, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Does the guy next to me going 80 mean I can go 80? Or are we supposed to measure ourselves against what's right and wrong and not think "What I did wrong isn't nearly as bad as what he did wrong so it's ok"?

What on Earth does your example have to do with what I said? I was comparing two different actions, you are comparing the same...

Anyway..

I am not defending what Stark said, it was a bit out of line. However, many (it seems) of those that call for his resignation are the same ones who defend the President when it is clear that his Administration has done some very deceitful things that are much worse that Starks words.

Just seems very hypocritical to me