Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 02/14/2005 View Sun 02/13/2005 View Sat 02/12/2005 View Fri 02/11/2005 View Thu 02/10/2005 View Wed 02/09/2005 View Tue 02/08/2005
1
2005-02-14 Home Front: Politix
Rangel belittles 'success' of Iraq vote
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-02-14 9:50:35 AM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 More quotable quotes from the man who truly says what the Democrat party thinks.

No.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-14 1:21:37 PM||   2005-02-14 1:21:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I spoke to Joe Lieberman at the Munich Security Conference.

LH is right.
Posted by True German Ally 2005-02-14 1:26:41 PM||   2005-02-14 1:26:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Well if that's the case, men, why is it that they can't get their Looney Tune wing to STFU?
Posted by tu3031 2005-02-14 1:36:31 PM||   2005-02-14 1:36:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Rep. Charles B. Rangel the sleazy french looking Congressman from Harlem who served in Korea called the vote "a success by Republican standards"

Does that mean no dead people, illegal aliens or felons voted?
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-14 1:37:27 PM||   2005-02-14 1:37:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I dunno, LH. I think the vast majority of people who vote Democrat are more like you. But, I think more of the party establishment are like him.
Posted by jackal  2005-02-14 1:37:33 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2005-02-14 1:37:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 nope, but the loony wing A. makes up almost half the party B. has long been the source of disproportionate numbers of activists. C. prior to '94, and to some extent for the rest fof the CLinton years, the moderates and the establishment had the lock on money - dems as incumbents got lots of big money - with loss of capital hill, and GOP puttingsqueeze on to "defund the "left"" this dried up = for a while silicon valley money was a substiute, and offset to Hollywood money. The dot com bust, mccain feingold, the loss of the WH, have all hurt that source. This leave internet fundraising, Soros, Hollywood, all sources that favor the left. And the establishment (reid, pelosi, the DNC, etc) lack the Cojones to take on the left in these circumstance.

Hillary MAY have the cojones, but we shall see.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-14 1:50:24 PM||   2005-02-14 1:50:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 "We’re fighting this war with other people’s kids," Mr. Rangel said.

You're the guy who proposed reinstating the draft, asshole. How's the hypocrisy treatin' ya?
Posted by Raj 2005-02-14 1:50:41 PM||   2005-02-14 1:50:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Not to overstate the case, but there is a substantial minority in the Democratic party that does think like this, and that segment is heavily represented in the activist and fund-raising wings these days. Dean, Pelosi, etc. are the beneficiaries of their power.

The actual voters are another story, but the people they will get a chance to vote for will be disproportionately selected by the first group.
Posted by buwaya  2005-02-14 1:53:40 PM||   2005-02-14 1:53:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 There's the Dem voter, and then there's the Dem party establishment. By their own pronunciations, the party establishment is squarely on the side of Rangle on this issue. The election of Howlin' Howard to head the DNC is proof positive. The Dem Party is learching hard left.....can their own constituency take it back to the middle? ..or will they look elsewhere?
Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-02-14 2:09:00 PM||   2005-02-14 2:09:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 "Americans don’t want their children to die for other people’s freedom." I wonder what he said about any other conflict that Amercian has fought for the freedon of others. Doesn't that pretty much sum up our 230 years of foriegn policy? Just about every conflict we have been involved in has been to spread freedom. yes we expanded out territories, but we have freed 100 times that acerage. Rangel is losing touch with reality.
Posted by Cyber Sarge  2005-02-14 2:37:09 PM||   2005-02-14 2:37:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 the clintons, reid and maybe Pelosi tried to beat Dean for DNC chief. The state chairs supported him, cause he charmed em, and promised bagloads of money for state parties. State party chairs are much more cognizant of empty party coffers than of national spokespeople.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-14 2:39:52 PM||   2005-02-14 2:39:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 LH -- If Rangel (et. al.) don't speak for your party, exclude him from the caucus and don't give him any more campaign cash.

As for Rangel:

Mr. Rangel, who mentioned his Korean War service in yesterday’s appearance, responded that Americans "don’t want their children to die for other people’s freedom."

I give you, ladies and gentlemen, lyrics from "The Battle Hymn of the Republic":

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Posted by Robert Crawford  2005-02-14 2:42:23 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-02-14 2:42:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Hey, man. Charlie don't dance, heh.
Posted by .com 2005-02-14 2:44:13 PM||   2005-02-14 2:44:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 i dont think Rangel needs any campaign cash from the DNC to win. If the House Campaign comm is giving $ to a dem to win a district that covers the Upper West Side and Harlem, when swing districts go begging, somebody in the establishment needs a brain transplant.

As for removing him from the party, that doesnt happen in either party. Does Ron Paul speak for the GOP? Or even Trent Lott? No. Rangel doesnt speak FOR the party, much less for the establishment, but he speaks for SOME in the party, a force that cant be drumrolled out, im afraid.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-14 2:50:22 PM||   2005-02-14 2:50:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Rangel's devotion to the military was demonstrated when he proposed reincorporating the Draft, not to make the military strong but to damage the military and score political points. He's a political hack, an anti-American (IMHO) asshole and a Democrat. But I repeat myself
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-14 2:56:54 PM||   2005-02-14 2:56:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Ah namecalling (implying all dems are hacks), isnt it a wonderful technique?
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-14 2:59:10 PM||   2005-02-14 2:59:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Let's see, by his own math if Mr. Rangel is right:

"I don’t believe that the American people think that it was worth the lives of 1,200 Americans and 25,000 men and women in the armed services wounded, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis dead," the New York Democrat said. ....

"We cannot afford to free people all over the world. We don’t have that many lives to give up," Mr. Rangel said...

Not to make light of the 1,200 dead from Iraq, God bless their souls, they are missed by each and every one of us, but his own numbers show the hypocrisy of his statement. Let's say there's 4-6 countries we need to "free" to protect ourselves (think: Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Saudi, heck, let's throw in Somalia and Sudan-Darfur (for human rights), and finally, Zimbabwe-just for Bob alone). I would argue that most of these (with probably the exceptions of N. Korea, Saudi and maybe Iran, if the internal young/pro-US don't rise up) would be easier to "free" than even Iraq was. Therefore, 6 countries x 1,200 (assumed) dead per country leads us to 7,200! Granted, every one of those deaths would suck, but considering we lost 3,000 innocents in 1 attack, I'd argue that would be worth it to prevent future attacks. We could even cut out Zimbabwe and Sudan and lower the number to 4,800. Granted, this is simple math, but shows the ridiculousness of the "1,200 dead isn't worth our future" groups, when we lost 2.5x that many on 9/11. Logistics, obviously argues against "freeing" this many countries (at least not all at once), but again, I'm just trying to show how ridiculous Rangel's appeasement is. Of course, I just noticed that he predicated his statement on "I don't believe that the American people think that it was worth 1,200...." If maybe the MSM would show those planes flying in to the WTC every once in a while (or even the train bombing in Spain, etc.) to remind the average American what we're up against, this would be a whole different story.
Posted by BA  2005-02-14 3:08:32 PM||   2005-02-14 3:08:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 apologies for the over-the-top, LH, but any party containing Rangel, Boxer, Dodd, Kennedy, et al deserves rebuke in my book
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-14 3:13:14 PM||   2005-02-14 3:13:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 and no, I don't support every Rep, and I make clear that McCain, Snowe, Specter, and other RINO's don't speak for me
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-14 3:17:37 PM||   2005-02-14 3:17:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 BA.. your math leaves out Afghanistan. I believe some number of Jihadis would have ended up there instead Iraq, so it's at least somewhat reasonable to include that in the average.

As for Rangel, "don’t want their children to die for other people’s freedom." So our troops are not adults? IIRC the oldest enlisted casualty in Iraq was 51 or 53. That's "someone's child"? If having parents is the test for being a child, then I presume Rangel is a child himself.
Posted by Dishman  2005-02-14 3:17:54 PM||   2005-02-14 3:17:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Dish / BA - I think Somalia might be the place where the Nuke-o-Matics can do their thing. Would anyone notice?
Posted by .com 2005-02-14 3:22:39 PM||   2005-02-14 3:22:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Dishman, I was just going off Rangel's numbers, which I assumed were for Iraq only. Even Rangel (AFAIK) hasn't spoken against Afghanistan. So, I was just saying if we average (and again, I don't mean to make light of the numbers...each and every loss we incur sucks) 1,200 dead per country "freed", then we get 7,200 dead freeing the 6 remaining countries I threw up for discussion (heck, I even argue dropping 2 of them). I would bet even the grunts would say 7,200 (or 4,800 if we drop Zimbabwe & Sudan) is worth it, if it keeps us from another attack (which, presumably would be worse than 3,000 dead, like 9/11). Obviously, like I stated, logistics/training/equipment would keep us from taking them all on at once, and many have argued here to save the best (Saudi) for last, so I'm open to other arguments. Was just trying to show how HIS OWN NUMBERS don't add up to it "not being worth the cost" argument, when the next attack would probably be well over 3,000.
Posted by BA  2005-02-14 3:25:38 PM||   2005-02-14 3:25:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 .com, I'd agree.
Posted by BA  2005-02-14 3:26:13 PM||   2005-02-14 3:26:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Liberal Hawk...give it up. Note from another thread this comment:

The speech was a collaborative effort. Mrs. Clinton sought input from a number of Americans in the forum, among others Richard C. Holbrooke, who served as her husband’s ambassador to the United Nations and to Germany; Samuel R. Berger, her husband’s national security adviser; Jeffrey H. Smith, the former general counsel at the C.I.A. when her husband was president; and Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser for the first President Bush

What a freak'n bunch of losers....no wait...not losers, but conniving power junkies who disdain good people like you, as tools to be manipulated for their political own use.

Face it. There is no good left in your party. You are better off to join the right, and attempt to moderate it's wing-nut influences than you are to attempt to breath life into the hollow, rotted out corpse that represents the remains of the left that you once knew.
Posted by 2b 2005-02-14 3:35:25 PM||   2005-02-14 3:35:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Oh, baby!

Now that's a love letter, Lh!

2B, if you weren't all hooked up, I swear... ;-)
Posted by .com 2005-02-14 3:42:54 PM||   2005-02-14 3:42:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Rangle doesn't speak for the party, but he does speak the party line. Nothing he is quoted as saying here differs significanlty from what we've heard form Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Kucinich, Kerry, Dean, Reid.... these are not the Ron Pauls of the Democrat Party - they are the standard bearers and they are destroying the
Democrat Party. But....maybe that's the plan in order to bring on Sir Hillary as the Grand Savior.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-02-14 3:43:06 PM||   2005-02-14 3:43:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Happy Valentine's Day, .com :-)
Posted by 2b 2005-02-14 3:44:45 PM||   2005-02-14 3:44:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Oh shit, I forgot. It is V-Day, isn't it!?!

I guess TGA's right, I'm just not a romantic. Sigh. I try, I really do, but I have this pain, right here, where I got stabbed with an icepick. And it kinda twinges when there's rain coming. And when it gets cold and the wind whips over me, it whistles, softly, a sad tune. And I can't go swimmin' anymore, cuz it just blub-blub-blubs away and I sink like a rock. Sad. Real sad.

Thx for reminding me, heh!
Posted by .com 2005-02-14 3:50:29 PM||   2005-02-14 3:50:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 there's still time! 1-800 Flowers.com You're daughter will never know that her favorite Valentine (gasp) forgot!!
Posted by 2b 2005-02-14 3:56:13 PM||   2005-02-14 3:56:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 your
Posted by 2b 2005-02-14 3:57:21 PM||   2005-02-14 3:57:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Dodd, i remind you, was, along with Barney Frank, on of the guys who blew the whistle on Eason Jordan.

And no, this is not the Dem party line.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-14 4:06:39 PM||   2005-02-14 4:06:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Dodd was also an architect of Sandinista power in Nicaragua, correct? Also a major proponent of the Boland Amendment restricting aide to Contras and El Salvador. That WAS the Dem party line. Repudiating Jordan was nice, but doesn't erase a lifetime of restrictions on America while aiding our opponents.
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-14 4:24:12 PM||   2005-02-14 4:24:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 True enough LH, but up until now those 2 have been pretty much invisible on Iraq - at least to the casual viewer of which I prolly have more in common with than most folk here at the U of Rantburg. If that's not the party line - then what is? Does one even exist? I certainly hope it's not the "I hate the Republicans, and all they stand for" plank, which for now it seems to be.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-02-14 4:27:03 PM||   2005-02-14 4:27:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Oh Please! While Frank indeed deserves some credit for not shrinking into the wallpaper, it was from another blogger that this story broke. And it's not like Dodd wanted to go public. After phone calls were made and teeth were pulled, he provided a measured response that didn't dodge the truth. Whoopie.

Go look again at who Hillary is surrounding herself with and tell me that this is a party that you are proud to identify with. But then, hey, what's a few top secret documents among National Archive friends?

Stop living in the past. Your party stinks with the hundreds of millions of dead that fell victim to it's failed ideas. Show some dignity, and move on.
Posted by 2b 2005-02-14 4:30:11 PM||   2005-02-14 4:30:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Frank - opposing US aid to the contras does make one a traitor, or a fan of terrorists. (time to reexamine the contras own take on the rules of war, I suggest) The contras were NOT democracy promoters, thank you very much. Nor was Somoza.

RM - there is no line, really. Iraq splits the Dems, Im afraid, and theres NO coherent line that they can all agree on.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-14 4:33:06 PM||   2005-02-14 4:33:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Communism supporters are not my cup of tea - where does the "mainstream" of the Donks stand on Cuba, eh?
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-14 4:35:55 PM||   2005-02-14 4:35:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Repudiating Jordan was nice, but doesn't erase a lifetime of restrictions on America

a restriction on the executive =s a restriction on America? Geez, James Madison, John Jay, and that gang in Philly in 1787 was sure a bunch of traitors, huh?
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-14 4:36:29 PM||   2005-02-14 4:36:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 It is the Dem party line. Love it or leave it.
Posted by Rock 2005-02-14 4:36:40 PM||   2005-02-14 4:36:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 opposing Somoza and the contras does not equal supporting the communists. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend, and not always someone I should support.

Sheesh!

And this is the party you want me to join?!?!?
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-14 4:38:16 PM||   2005-02-14 4:38:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Isn't this the point where Popeye Doyle would begin asking the perp if he picked his feet in Poughkeepsie? There was no right answer, of course. No matter what the guy said, Popeye would whack 'im.
Posted by .com 2005-02-14 4:40:26 PM||   2005-02-14 4:40:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 a couple of years old

"Proclaiming a new spirit of cooperation between the United States and Mexico, visiting U.S. senators said Tuesday that the two countries are gradually finding common ground on divisive issues such as immigration, drugs and Cuba.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said Mexico pledged to recognize human rights abuses in Cuba during a U.N. vote Wednesday in Geneva, although it would continue its policy of abstaining from the vote.

Led by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C. - who has pushed countries to condemn Cuban practices before the U.N. Human Rights Commission - Biden and three others from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are on an unprecedented three-day trip to Mexico City.
"
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-14 4:40:48 PM||   2005-02-14 4:40:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 exhibit #1: Jimmy Carter. Exhibit #2 - his guest at the DemConvention: Michael Moore. Should I go on?
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-14 4:42:36 PM||   2005-02-14 4:42:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Is the friend of a fool a fool too because he believes as the fool?
Posted by Sam 2005-02-14 4:43:19 PM||   2005-02-14 4:43:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Sheesh! And this is the party you want me to join?!?!?

No..go ahead and stay with the one you got. It's so much more impressive.
Posted by 2b 2005-02-14 4:45:51 PM||   2005-02-14 4:45:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 LH: if Iraq does have the Dems split - I wish I could hear more of that split coming out from someone other than Lieberman and Miller. Even then, they would have to get it past the MSM - tough to do. It might not be the party line - but I'm afraid that's the image that has gotten out. It's the perception = reality thingy.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-02-14 4:54:24 PM||   2005-02-14 4:54:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 or just maybe it could be reality = perception.
Posted by 2b 2005-02-14 4:56:07 PM||   2005-02-14 4:56:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 It ain't an image problem. It is who they are and what they believe. Rangel is a perfect spokesman. Is there a ear shattering roar from the Dems to correct what Rangel and his ilk have been saying for the last two years? That's their party, and they's mostly proud of it.
Posted by Rock 2005-02-14 5:01:57 PM||   2005-02-14 5:01:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Rangel belittles ’success’ of Iraq vote

Obviously his complaint is that unlike his election where he got a Saddahmesque 90%+, the top vote getter in Iraq was the Sistani alliance with 48%.... Not 2/3, not even an absolute majority.

I can understand why Charley belittles the vote...
Posted by BigEd 2005-02-14 5:38:56 PM||   2005-02-14 5:38:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 As for removing him from the party, that doesnt happen in either party.

Bull. David Duke tried to run as a Republican. The party refused to give him any campaign dollars and endorsed his Democrat opponent.

Do you have an example of the Democrats doing the same? The closest is Cynthia McKinney, except that once attention was off of her, she's back in. I'm 99% sure she's a Democrat again.
Posted by Robert Crawford  2005-02-14 7:00:26 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-02-14 7:00:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 WikiPedia on Charles B Rangel
I would like to point out to Rantburg readers that anybody can make/modify wikipedia entries....
Lots of people discussed here are not there and creators of an entry tend to get more editing clout on the entry.
Just something to think about...
Posted by 3dc 2005-02-14 7:13:36 PM||   2005-02-14 7:13:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Three years ago, Fred said that he didn't want Rantburg to degenerate into an "opinion" website. I find a direct correlation between gas-baggery and omission to post articles.

Check this out, funky soul brothers:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-2-2005_pg3_2
Posted by IToldYouSo 2005-02-14 8:12:58 PM||   2005-02-14 8:12:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Lemme see...

No articles posted by ITYS. Check.
Gass-baggery in ITYS posts. Check.

We have a match!
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-02-14 8:28:20 PM||   2005-02-14 8:28:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 And the Venezuelan Caudillo says the US is a "terrorist state."
http://www.excelsior.com.mx/index.php?ID=12129
Posted by IToldYouSo 2005-02-14 8:29:03 PM||   2005-02-14 8:29:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 And the Venezuelan Caudillo says the US is a "terrorist state."
http://www.excelsior.com.mx/index.php?ID=12129
Posted by IToldYouSo 2005-02-14 8:30:04 PM||   2005-02-14 8:30:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by 3dc 2005-02-14 6:47:38 PM||   2005-02-14 6:47:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by 3dc 2005-02-14 6:47:38 PM||   2005-02-14 6:47:38 PM|| Front Page Top

18:47 3dc
18:47 3dc
23:55 Phil Fraering
23:41 .com
23:38 Aris Katsaris
23:31 AzCat
23:16 Sobiesky
23:15 Penguin
23:04 Sobiesky
22:50 Jame Retief
22:49 Mrs. Davis
22:47 Jame Retief
22:47 Sobiesky
22:42 Alaska Paul
22:41 tu3031
22:40 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:40 Alaska Paul
22:40 Snump Huperesing6112
22:36 Alaska Paul
22:25 Cheaderhead
22:23 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:22 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:19 Cheaderhead
22:19 Sock Puppet of Doom









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com