All of the Behavioral Sciences adherents out there could give a series of long worded explanations as to why these losers love the sight of blood and death.
Freud talks about the death drive, which others refer to as the Thanatos drive.
They identify with the killers, and also our poor youth who are victims of W's crime against humanity, "Operation Iraqi Freedom", and are ecstatic to see others getting the boot to their neck or knife in the back. Why do you think
these ghouls are so extremely anti-abortion. Back in the 70s their were many books about this phenomenon with many big words. It could be summed up though as--they don't want the US government paying for welfare mothers to have abortions-even though they also hate welfare mothers getting bigger welfare payments for each child--which illustrates that they want bigger benefits for themselves, but want vengeance more! In their minds forcing kids to live in squalor was more painful to them than allowing them to be aborted. In a like manner, nowadays the suicide rate is at record highs by soldiers who are forced to return to Iraq because our youth in that predicament would prefer a peaceful, quick death rather than living in prolonged misery.
It all goes back to Marxism too. The unskilled, uneducated red stater doesn't want competition for jobs. If some of their youth die then they will have a better chance of getting a job that the illegal immigrants are incapable of
To put it bluntly the vile segment of our population with nothing wants to make sure that there is a class even worse off--a US version of the Indian pariah class, and this hatred of the down-trodden by the slightly less down-trodden, filters their perception of ideas.
Also, as Marx posited regarding religion being the "opiate of the masses" TV now is. They like seeing blood and death on TV as it takes their mind off of their own useless existence, a catharsis, and it makes them feel that someone else even has it worse! Their lives are futile wastes and misery loves company! Why do you think the never-ending bloodshed of "Law and Order" saturates TV.
The article "Republicans block measure to give troops a longer break between deployments." at
states "The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox lead with Senate Republicans blocking a measure that was thought to be the best chance lawmakers had to alter Iraq policy. Sen. Jim Webb's proposal would have mandated that active-duty troops couldn't be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan unless they were given as much time at home as they had spent in the war zone. Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, had a prominent GOP co-sponsor in Sen. Chuck Hagel but the proposal gathered support from only six Republicans, so it fell four votes short of the 60 necessary to prevent a filibuster. It now seems clear Democrats won't be able to get Republicans to support any measure that would affect troop levels in Iraq....
When Webb first proposed his measure in July, it surprised many when it gathered support from seven Republicans. But everyone notes that this time around the proposal clearly lost any chance of passing after Sen. John Warner, the other Virginian who is one of the most respected Republicans when it comes to military issues, dropped his support for the proposal. Despite everything that has happened, the vote "offered the most vivid evidence yet that the Bush administration still controls Iraq war policy," says the Post."
The GOP members are talking one thing and doing another-just as W does! Warner voted for it in July and then attacked Petraeus and then didn't vote for helping the troops! How is that possible? Is there some logic to that sequence of events?
Warner asked Petraeus whether the current strategy in Iraq "will make America safer." To which Petraeus initially replied, "I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."
Warner pumped him again and Petraeus admitted he hadn't thought it out! Of course he said that. Petraeus is concerned solely for the Iraq theatre of GWOT. He is not thinking about how this drag on our military is making the US less safe, and if he had he wouldn't admit that if it meant one less troop for Iraq. The man whose responsible that is, Admiral Fallon, has described Petraeus as a sycophant whose surge plan is doomed to failure and Fallon has stated that the US should be withdrawing huge amounts of troops from Iraq immediately.
"We have learned that the Republican Party is now openly advocating a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq that could continue for at least the next 50 years," Webb said in a statement.
Hagel said the White House also "has been very effective at making this a loyalty test for the Republican Party."
The September 19, 2007 "Opening Statement by Chairman Lantos at hearing :Assessment of the Administration's September Report on the Status of U.S. Political and Military Efforts in Iraq" at
has Chairman Lantos quoting Graham's statement to Petraeus to himself as "So you're saying to Congress that you know that at least 60 soldiers, airmen and Marines are likely to be killed every month from now until July; that we are
going to spend $9 billion a month of American taxpayer dollars, and when it's all said and done, we'll still have about 100,000 people there. (Do) you believe that it's worth it in terms of our national security interests to pay that price?"
How does Graham say that to Petraeus and not back a bill that would give our military time to recuperate between tours in Iraq? The Webb, Hagel legislation would only give equal time to recuperate as length of tour. Throughout our
history the recommended time off has always been twice as long as the tour of duty.
Lantos' opening statement also stated "General Petraeus is quoted as saying that he anticipates that by June of 2009, Iraq will reach what he calls "sustainable security."
Other military experts think that it will take quite a bit longer -- up to five years, says General John Abizaid, the former commander in Iraq.
And how about a, quote, "stable, functioning representative government?"
When asked when something like this might appear, Ambassador Crocker said last week that he would not even try to give a time line. And I note, Senator Graham, that in David Broder's column in this past Sunday's Washington Post, you are quoted as observing, "if we don't see progress on two of the three big issues -- oil revenues, de-Baathification, provincial elections -- in the next 90 days.... Iraq could be a failed state."
Graham had no ethical qualms-he lied to the Lantos Committee as other GOP goons have lied to all of us.
The GOP has been saying that this legislation is illegal, but Senator Webb cited numerous other occasions in which the identical legislation has been passed.
Richard Holbrooke also testified before the Lantos Committee and among other accusations he labeled the Petraeus Crocker presentations as being solely theatre and ridiculed the lies that their testimony wasn't choreographed to mimic W's wishes. The harshest words though were for the idea that Petraeus hadn't been concerned about the condition of the US military as a result of stretching them too thin in the Iraq theatre of GWOT.