GOP Congressman: Cheney Will Rot in Hell

For the Iraq war. Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), the congressman who urged that French fries be renamed “freedom fries” as a slap against the uncooperative French, discusses his change of heart on the Iraq war. Jones represents a district that relies heavily on the military-industrial complex, so this is actually that rare case of a politician changing his mind for moral reasons only.

For just the Cheney part, click here.

http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

I prefer Cheney rot in prison first along with several others.
Franklin

So, Walt, should you also rot in hell for your initial ‘yea’ in support of the war? Or is this one of those occasions when some “honorables” were originally for it before they were gainst it? Or vice-versa for some others.

Should Lincoln rot in hell? Should Obama? Should Clinton? Bush the elder? Reagan?….
Tom’s page doesn’t have enough space to etch the entire “Gang of 44.”

And how about all those congressmen and cabinets who supported their forays, as well? It’s easy to call for a one-way ticket to Hades when it’s an unpopular figure. Taking shots at Cheney is shooting fish in a barrel. Much more difficult to come to grips with one’s own acquiescence to war crimes, with plenty of blame
to go around, now and throughout history.

Just another hypocrite.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

Did you watch the video?
Franklin

I had watched “for just the Cheney part.” I’m happy to watch the entire 50 minutes but will need to wait until this evening.
I don’t think this will change the thrust of my comments, Tom. Another comment for Walt, re a bill prosecuting a President for willfully lying and twisting intelligence, good luck with that ever being workable. Just more nudging at symptoms while the cancer grows.
Dave in Ann Arbor

Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones changing his mind on the question of war is almost like Norma “Jane Roe” McCorvey becoming a passionate opponent of abortion. Respect for those whose eyes are opened and do not shrink from the fact they were terribly wrong.
Anonymous

As a friend, I would remind you that “to forgive is divine”.
Franklin

Indeed. And I appreciate your clever juxtaposition of the adverb with the ‘infernal’ topic. Nicely done.
While the Walter Reed stories were heartbreaking and I believe genuinely felt, he’s not even-handed in his ire. He received the most enthusiastic applause for his “Cheney in hell” comment and that fired me up.

It was trite and hypocritical. And not particularly courageous. Does Jones say that Obama should “rot in hell” for Guantanamo, drones, Afghan maiming and murder, his own inept plodding and plotting according to Bush’s timeline rather than ordering a speedy (and I mean speedy) withdrawal in early ‘09, which would have ended in, oh, let’s say, early ‘09? Like ‘hell’ he will. You see, there’s courage, and then there’s COURAGE. He hasn’t the cojones nor the consistency to do that.

Am I thankful that Jones is leaning, not passionately enough, toward anti-war? Certainly. But I’m not naive; politicians know how to play to their audiences, and Cheney is an easy target. I didn’t hear Jones say, as plenarchist implied above, “And by God, let’s include a boatload of others!” Come to think of it, you might need a prison the size of Topeka.

The “rot in hell” was a crowd-pleasing cheap shot in its narrow singularity (although, admittedly, Lyndon Johnson also got a nod).

To Dave’s point above, yes, it’s honorable to change one’s
mind. We are all human and I won’t begrudge Walt for that alone. Rather, he’s a hypocrite because he’s happy to demand eternal damnation for the masses’ _singular_ villain, but others, I suppose, get a Purgatory pit stop.
There are plenty of bloody hands in this one, so why not play those
cards too? Sadly, just look at the HufPo’s happy reactions: “Good for Jones…it’s all because of that evil Cheney and Repubs!”

Should Jones have started listing every pro-war president and cabinet in history (which would be nearly all of them)? No, of course not. But does he ever, ever say that Obama should also “rot in hell”?

If he did, what would the HufPo hypocrites be saying then? I daresay that would have done much more for the Liberty movement, forcing the Big O’s blind followers to face their dreadful endorsement. Right now they’re gleefully high-fiving with a “See? Told ya so — it’s those nasty Republican leaders, and even they admit they were wrong. Lucky for us we’ve got the Nobel Peace Prizer.”

Sorry for the lengthy huffing and puffing, but I’ll temper my cynicism when Walt starts vociferously handing out more than just one bus ticket to Dante’s first stop.
Travis Province

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Rep. Jones. He is a shining example of repentance on the issue of war. Far too many who call themselves Christians have been all too vocal in their support for endless wars. The policy of the Federal government is not at all consistent with the Christian tradition and yet many Americans dare to say this is a “Christian nation”. Perhaps what we need as a country is the message of the Forerunner of the Lord, St. John the Baptist: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”
Anonymous

I appreciate your excellent manners. So rare in online banter (see Kinsella/Wenzel). Believe me, I share your disgust with our masters. But I guess I’m just happy to get half a loaf on occasion.
Luke Sunderland

Didn’t Bill O’Reilly ride the Freedom Fries bandwagon for all it was worth? I wonder if he’ll do the same with this.
Anonymous

I try to keep good manners, but I did fly off the handle recently (Wenzel/Tucker). If you knew what I know, you might’ve done the same. Oh well, you live and learn.

In terms of Jones the same is true, you can’t take back the past, you can only learn from it. If he sincerely has repented, then I applaud him for that. It doesn’t mean that I won’t have problems fully trusting him or that I won’t forget (I don’t know him well enough for that and he’s a politician), but it’s a step in the right direction.

Remember, Tom was once a neocon that supported the idea of foreign intervention. He has since publicly apologized and reproached himself for holding those beliefs. Luckily he never actually acted on those beliefs while he held them. I respect him for coming out the way that he did because he didn’t even have to do it, but he did it anyway, if only because it would probably eat him up inside if he didn’t.

Unfortunately, I did act on my beliefs. I served in the Navy, joining right after 9/11. If I had known then what I know now there’s no doubt that I would have done things differently, but then I wouldn’t know what I know now. Do I regret that experience? Yes and no. I regret the things that I was involved in, there’s no doubt about that. However, had I not had that experience from the inside, I would never have opened my eyes to the world around me as it actually is. It was a life-changing experience for me, one that will be with me for the rest of my life, and it will hopefully be a reminder to continually improve myself.

One of the hardest things to deal with is to learn how wrong you were, but it’s even harder to own up to it (esp. if there is no pressure to do so). This doesn’t mean that you should trust anybody that apologizes, because it really depends upon the circumstances, but you should really have respect for anybody that steps up to everybody and declares, “I was wrong, I deeply regret it, and I will never make that mistake again”. Only time will tell us how sincere the apology is.

There absolutely positively is no forgiving Cheney. That man is pure evil as far as I’m concerned.
Anonymous

Let’s not misunderstand… I meant forgive Jones, NOT Cheney. I figure you got that, but just wanted to be clear.
I am a LOT older than most you guys. I was a Goldwater kid in High School. (HIS old school, BTW).
Anyhow, I also heeded my country’s call and gladly went to “The ‘Nam” to defend freedom’s frontier.
Well, THAT turned into a life lesson, I can tell ya. After 3 tours, I was a basket case and was “invited” to leave the service.
I came upon a guy on Pacifica Radio in L.A. who called himself a “Right-Wing Anarchist”. I don’t know his name, but he’s my savior. I knew from then on what I was and what I continue to be.
Anonymous

I actually initially meant to reply to you only with that first paragraph, but sometimes I get an idea in my head, just run with it and go on a long-winded tangent. Most of everything after the first paragraph was more of my general feelings on the entire matter, not questioning what you said. Sorry for the miscommunication.

You’re cool with me Capn Mike, I rarely disagree with you. I’m sure I have at some point, but I don’t remember.
ugly american

hmm seems to me people are very fast to applaud around here , and even faster to condemn………

while it IS “nice” to find a pollition who knows wich side his bread is buttered on it seems to me it might be a little too soon to forgive and forget his past votes AND speaking of “votes”……..

@Tom Woods care to comment on Rands vote on Hagle’s ACTUAL confirmation?

you were prety fast to rip in to him for working with …………what he has to work with in the senate , he did his dad proud pulling off a masterfull bit of tight rope walking over that cess pit , his dad has at times needed to do much the same and Rands execution in this case was flawless.
frankly maybe next time he is manuvering in an obviously tight spot we should at least give the guy credit for having the voting record he has , rember what his STATED positions are , and trust that his dad raised neither a dummy nor a closet neocon, at least to the extent of waiting to see what the ACTUAL out come is before atacking the guy , given the slack extend to the freedom fries moron for his flip floping that seems only fair.

not saying at all that any politician even a promising statesmen like Rand deserves a blank check in the trust department , just that out comes and results are what matters and jigering the guys elbo with doubts wile he was STILL operating ESPECIALLY coming from someone as close to RP as you have been could not have helped!

LOL over at “the daily paul” there is a board titled “why doesn’t Rand ever fully smile”

good god! what has the poor sod got to smile about? if it is not the MSM hamering him over his “tea party” roots , it is the repubs pissing and moaning wile implying he is “unloyal” becaus he is telling them things they dont want to hear, and on top of ALL that he has to deal with “libertarians” skining him alive for having a real job he has to do that requires him to deal with the real world as it realy exists in the hear and now. all i can say is WTF?

all he did in suporting the filibuster was allow the debate to continue a bit longer …..

what real harm is there in debate?

was there any need to “rush” the vote?

was the debate going to have ANY effect the outcome?

answers: none , no and lmao HELL NO! (did we forget the dems. OWN the senate this term?).

all rand did was gain a little bit of “good will” somthing he desperately needs if he is to have any hope of accomplishing anything.
Anonymous

I am so proud of how much growth our Congressman has gone through! If I don’t end up as NCGOP Vice Chair, then I’m going to apply to be on his staff, and help to continue his growth in the correct direction.
Dave in Ann Arbor

I’m not so naive as to think Walter Jones has grasped the libertarian non-aggression principle and tomorrow is going to repent of statism in general. I mean, listen to the guy, he’s still a big-time statist and does not strike me as a particularly deep or reflective thinker. Well, surprise, he’s a politician.

But it does take balls to publicly admit you were wrong, and grievously so, and back that admission up with action. Especially, as Tom noted, when he “represents” an area that is awash in Murder, Inc. dollars.

The man at least has something recognizable as a conscience, which honestly, outside of Ron Paul, I didn’t think existed in the vile body we call Congress. Maybe his journey is not complete. Time will tell.
Anonymous

Every fork in the road takes you on a new journey, but it always takes some time to get to your destination. Not everybody knows the correct path to take in order to show up on time.

I was a statist once, but I hit that fork in the road and moved on.
yoiks!

I have to admit he had me going until the 40:55 mark.

“I’ll tell you this…Mr. Rangel wanted to put a billion to renew the draft…I think if he did it today I would probably support it. I would not at that time, because if that doesn’t do anything else but force the moms and dads to get word about a war and a draft…like the Vietnam war. Where is that energy? To say 55,000 have died, for what? We’re trading with them now..they’re our buddies. It makes no sense but we’ll see. I think there is a frustration in congress that we’re wearing out our military ….”

All this says about him is that he’ll “probably” support the indentured servitude of millions of American citizens in the US war machine. But he’s only doing it in order to show us dumb plebes the error of our ways in electing guys like him to office. With that statement, the guy just dropped an atomic bomb on his previous 40 min monologue.

He really just could’ve just absolved himself of his previous “regrets” by saying. “I supported the Iraq and Afghanistan “operations” in order to show the irresponsible American people just how costly these undelared wars of fraud of fiction can be! I hoped you learned your lesson. But if not, don’t worry. I’ll “probably” vote to enslave all or most of you the next time around!”

This guy’s moral compass is a long way from being properly aligned

Unfortunately he’s learned very little from Ron Paul and is likely attempting to re-ignite his political career as a future Libertarian party politician. He talks like he was abandoned by the GOP for being insufficiently sociopathic. So there’s that, at least…
Anonymous

What are your thoughts on Adam Kokesh, who as far as I know, discourages military service?

After coming to the conclusion that wars don’t begin in medias res, as most westerners view them; and that they indeed have a back story consisting of economic meddling and aggravating other nations, I’ve changed how I view the military and war in general.
Remembrance days, such as Anzac day in Australia, where we eulogise the needless deaths of thousands, for the folly of politicians; are the height of state exoloitation, where murder magically becomes honour and how we owe our freedom to the state.
None of this could exist without strident nationalism, which Doug Casey calls the lowest form of group think.
We can’t even begin to think about defence while politicians are still having there way with the public, and school text books teach the cult of democracy and its history of conquering the tyrants of the world.

Five years ago, I would have marginalised somebody with my views.
Franklin

I thought about this a great deal last night, and into the morning. I appreciated the bevy of thoughtful and articulate statements (no surprise at this site). Further, I was touched and humbled by the emotional and psychological weight of many commenters’ life-altering journeys. I too am a half-a-loaf guy, and many of you are correct — when it comes to peace, the only bad step is no step.
I shared the video with my 21 year-old son, who lives in the belly of the beast, only a few blocks from the Capitol, and thankfully he is questioning his young Republican soul. The 9/11 horror had an impact on him during some very formative years and (in spite of Dad’s attempts to explain the complexity of these acts and the irrationality of the political responses) the neo-con bug got under his skin. Well, it was under mine for much of my life too, so I shouldn’t be surprised. I’m proud of his self-awareness, his world awareness, and his own journey, which is leading him toward peace. This speech moved him even further away from the Bush Doctrine view of the world. All positive things here.

Not to be repetitive, but I often react when the cause of evil is traced to one person. And I despise oversimplified blame directed at one person. Not to meander into Socratic paradoxes, but evil… Well suffice to say, evil at this magnitude takes a village. Heh, sorry.

I am not a Republican by any stretch, but I stopped watching Jay Leno ages ago, after he ran skits illustrating Bush as a mental midget on a child’s playground. Piling on is easy when the audience is on your side, and even easier when there’s only one person to target. If Jones is going to use that level of vitriol (I mean,
really, “rot in hell”?), then why does he temper himself more carefully with the current band of bandits? He admits the present policy in Afghanistan is abhorrent, so does that warrant additional seats next to LBJ? I see no difference in civilians killed by
robots and soldiers killed for suspect rationales. And thus I see no moral difference, none whatsoever, between the current President/VP and the last.

As you say, Jones’ journey may not be complete and at least he’s aligned to the compass needle of peace. I hope. Perhaps under the suffocating ashes of statism, the faint ember of liberty glowed a bit stronger from his breath.
Dave in Ann Arbor

I admit I’m enjoying this Kinsella/Wenzel thing immensely. I read Wenzel’s blog every day and love a lot of what he does. At first it seemed to me Kinsella was being oafish, but last night I followed some old threads and saw that Wenzel hasn’t come up with a systematic pro-IP argument in four years, while continuing to take silly pot shots at Kinsella and Jeff Tucker. And as usual, I’m not convinced by the existing “arguments” for IP, which, as Kinsella himself notes, mostly take the form of ad hominem and question-begging. If Wenzel ever comes out with a book-length IP defense, I’d be interested in hearing his full argument. But honestly, I have yet to see any refutation of the Kinsella position on IP.
Franklin

I think Kinsella did (don’t know if he still does) himself a disservice with the “oafish” behavior you mention. I had the same reaction a few years back, when he seemed arrogant and too impatient in several mises.org discussions. Over time, I embraced his foundational constructs and his position, but his surliness (whether justified by exasperation or not) was off-putting. Hopefully it’s long behind him as I do I admire his work in this space.
Dave in Ann Arbor

Yes, I agree. But getting the back story provided some useful context for me. I know I would have a very difficult time being as gracious as, say, Ron Paul when being faced with the same snarky, sarcastic, and refuted-10,000-times-already “argument” from some wiseacre.
Anonymous

I don’t regularly listen to his podcast so I am not overly familiar with his views, but I do tune in if he has a guest that I like. I too discourage military “service”, but I won’t go into all of the details here as to why this is.

I think Adam is a pretty bright guy, he’s come a long way from when he first started. He’s not as articulate as some people, but then his target audience is really young, and they really don’t care about that. I think that he would benefit by smoking a little less dope and reading a little more, but that’s just my opinion. Not that I see anything wrong with smoking the ganja, but if I’m going to listen to a podcast about political economy, I’d rather that the host not be so obviously stoned.
Anonymous

You probably won’t see a good refutation of Kinsella’s argument, at least not from Wenzel. Kinsella’s postition is pretty rock solid on IP. In fact, whenever this is all over– who knows when that will be?– I think that Wenzel will actually adopt an anti-IP view, or at least something closer to it than his current view.

As for how they handle themselves in the public sphere, well that’s an issue that I’ve been looking at for a while.

Stephan writes for his own and other blogs, and most of his work in that realm is straight-forward political philosophy (or related disciplines). It is his FB page where he pretty much speaks his mind as if he’s sitting in a dodgy bar where he’s the owner. If you get on his nerves, he will block you. If you make a bad argument, he will mock you. If you get testy, he comes back tenfold.

It’s been like this for a while, but it definitely accelerated after Molyneux’s interview with Wenzel, and then even more after the attack on Tucker. I don’t much make a big deal about this because I see FB as pretty much the land of make believe, so I don’t take it too seriously.

Wenzel is a little different. He blasts people, but often hides the real content of what he is saying behind rhetoric. So while he won’t call you a particular name overtly in most cases (whereas Kinsella will), his words will generally have that same meaning when brought to their logical conclusion. Sure, he will often use somewhat strong language, but most of the real content is between the lines.

Other than the stuff that I was aware of going on behind the scenes, the reason that I went off on Bob over the Tucker thing was because he had been insulting Tucker over a series of posts (he even called him a “commie” and questioned his respect for Rothbard of all things), and then in a “woe is me” Mr. Innocent tone, he all of the sudden can’t understand why Tucker won’t agree to do an interview. I can deal with the insults and rudeness or whatever, but once somebody tries playing head games like that, I just can’t take it. I see it just the same as if somebody is lying to me directly.

I respect and have learned a great deal from all of these guys and I try to follow their work when I can. What can I say, I’m a devourer of ideas. But at the end of the day they’re just people like you and me, and we’re here observing all of the implications of that. I would think that I’ve had family/friend disputes that were far worse than the subject of IP.