Replies: 49 Comments
Comment #1: REB 84 said on 11/7/05 @ 8:29pm ET...
This is good news! Finally, much of the other half of America is waking up. We need to re-focus on issues that affect the Lives, Liberty, and Happines of everyday Americans and take this country back.
Please encourage your colleagues to take a stand and stop the short-sited plans to drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness. We need alternative sources of energy, not business as usual.
REB 84
www.QuestionItNow.com
Comment #2: sanitysojourner said on 11/7/05 @ 8:34pm ET...
The poll numbers are encouraging because they reflect that good Americans around the country are becoming savvy to the two-faced, false piety of this administration.
However, the sad thing is that this administration remains completely undaunted. This admin does not care about polls; they care about their version of success, even if their goals are completely contrary to the will of the American people.
This administration ignored our brothers and sisters in NOLA. That woke up a lot of folks.
This admin is seeking permission to legalize torture, for heaven's sake. I never thought that in my lifetime that I would ever need to fight for the moral imperative that one should not condone torture. Ever.
In other words, we may be winning the polls. But this administration's actions? Untouched.
Comment #3: Bill_o_Carolina said on 11/7/05 @ 8:48pm ET...
http://tothebarricades.blogspot.com/
Comment #4: Bill_o_Carolina said on 11/7/05 @ 8:55pm ET...
A small part of the big PNAC picture is coming out but there's a long way to go.
But I agree with sanity. The Bushco is still rolling along.
Comment #5: GreyHawk121 said on 11/7/05 @ 9:26pm ET...
Perhaps this will help start uniting the country, and oust the current repugnant, feckless leaders:
Buglers at the Ready: TAPS to honor, and to save our nation
We've all hear the haunting, melancholic tune as the notes announce the passing of one of our brothers or sisters. TAPS is a uniquely recognizable tune, originally adapted from the call for "Lights Out". Its use now, to mark and honor the passing of another, symbolizes the extinguishing of a different kind of light - the light of a life.
Check out my DKos diary for an idea of how to use to - hopefully - signal the end of the NeoEmpire, and drive the Administration nuts out of office.
Comment #6: cali said on 11/7/05 @ 9:41pm ET...
great news but how do we get rid of the diebold machines and stop the fraud at the polling places?
Comment #7: Bill_o_Carolina said on 11/7/05 @ 9:53pm ET...
Hard for some republicans to stand by and let America go down I guess. At least I hope so anyway.
Here's a link where republicans can readand be even more proud.
http://harpers.org/RevisionThing.html
Comment #8: Viet Vet said on 11/7/05 @ 10:02pm ET...
We must IMPEACH Bush and all these crooks and Liars in OUR Whitehouse. We have alot of work to do in the year.... Exposing PNAC and the people responsible for taking OUR nation to war based on lies. Not to mention
Cheneys' obsession with torture. These traitors have to go.
Comment #9: Marilyn Conner said on 11/7/05 @ 10:12pm ET...
Italian tv report.
Italian media alleges US using chemical weapons against Iraqi combatants and civilians
by John in DC - 11/07/2005 05:43:00 PM
UPDATE: The English language video version of this story is online here. The part about white phosphorus begans at around 5:27 into the broadcast. Just finished watching much of the report, it's rather long (like 30 minutes, I think). This kind of stuff, true or not, does NOT help our image abroad. We look like animals.
The Italian media is reporting that US troops have used a chemical agent, normally used for lighting up enemy positions in the dark (and/or sowing confusion with billowing smoke), as a weapon against Iraqi combatants and civilians.
According to the Italian story, the chemical is called "white phosphorus," but the soldiers call it Willy Pete. According to the article, they say they interview former US soldiers and Iraqi civilians in the broadcast.
snip--
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/11/italian-media-alleges-us-using.html
Comment #10: noguns said on 11/7/05 @ 10:24pm ET...
#6 cali .... thanks ... we certainly have to "repeat this over and over and over again" till we have proof that we have been heard and the problem is UNDON !
the vote is the most crucial place to focus ... we have no hope at the polls as it stands today !
i sure hope i am wrong as i know nothing is being done that can be seen ...
there are those who say, well i can vote as i have a paper ballot, or i have a paper trail ... but what about the entire country ... the only hope is if all the voters can be positive that their vote is counted as they intended it to be ... and we are not there yet ...
so if we go to the polls with out that ... we will be legitimizing a fraud?
sorry to be so redundant ... i sure can't not be supportative anytime anyone else brings it up ...
meanwhile ... i so TRUELY respect the tone and intelligence and great educational and Patriotic experience this blog is ... you are great citizens and as much as Rep. Conyers is giving me hope, so too, are you who post here.
noguns sheehan, santa cruz, ca.
Comment #11: ljm said on 11/7/05 @ 10:34pm ET...
Please see what you can do to help Eric Massa who is running against Kuhl in Ny-29. There is a link to his webpage on The Stakeholder.
Comment #12: tahoebasha1 said on 11/7/05 @ 11:17pm ET...
#2 - Sanityjourner:
Dead on! NOTHING but nothing stops Bush & Co. from their "agenda" -- an agenda that they just keep forging ahead with, despite all else. And, sadly, they just continue to get away with whatever it is they wish to pursue and solidify.
Of course, the Senate and the Congress is "stacked," and our "outrage" is of no importance. I cannot help but to think of Cindy Sheehan and the over 200,000 people who went to Washington in September, and what coverage did we have of that event? And what impact was had on Bush & Co.?
Comment #13: REB 84 said on 11/7/05 @ 11:44pm ET...
Bill O'Carolina inspired me to dig into something I have heard about, but never read, the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton, urging him to invade Iraq. Following is a post I added to our Iraq blog this evening:
In a letter to President William Jefferson Clinton dated 1/26/1998, the neo-con leadership pleaded for a pre-emptive war to remove Saddam from power. Following is a brief excerpt (a link to the full text of the letter is provided in the title of this blog):
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams - Richard L. Armitage - William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner - John Bolton - Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama - Robert Kagan - Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol - Richard Perle - Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld - William Schneider, Jr. - Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz - R. James Woolsey - Robert B. Zoellick
Clinton was a bit distracted at the time. In an odd coincidence he declared to the media on the same date, "I want you to listen to me. I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. I never told a single person to lie, not a single time, never."
A couple years after President Clinton declined to "wag the dog" by entering into a pre-emptive campaign to invade Iraq, these neo-cons found their man in George W. Bush. The rest is an evolving history that is increasingly costing America lives, treasure, and good will around the world. When will America wake up from this self-inflicted nightmare?
REB 84
www.QuestionItNow.com
Comment #14: Ohiodem1 said on 11/8/05 @ 12:51am ET...
Sanitysouourner #2 - It appears obvious to me that if our nation endorses the practice of torture, with some legalistic gobbldeygook that intends to create a legal justification for these actions, the terrorosts have already won the "Global War on Terror".
If we as a nation permit this, then despite the legalistic dance the Bush admin is doing, the only way the Bush admin can stay out of jail or to be executed for war crimes is to stay in power for life. Does President for Life George W. Bush sound conforting to right wing America? How about King George the Second?
Congress has the DUTY to termiate any legal basis for torture. The Senate has spoken 90-9 on this topic. When the military appropriations bill hits the conference committee, this amendment needs to stay in the bill, with no modifications.
If the president vetoes the bill because it lacks the authority to torture, both houses of Congress needs to vote emphatically to override the veto.
If we take this moral low road and authorize torure, we have more to be concerned about from our own government than we do from al Qaeda. If our Congress votes to allow torture, in violation of the Geneva Convention, a ratified treaty, and by Article VI, Clause 2, then the Congress and the Executive are guilty of violating a ratified Treaty, which by the clause described above is "The Supreme Law of the Land".
The text of the clause follows:
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Congressional representatives of both parties need to think about this before authorizing torture.
Comment #15: Gerry Hiles said on 11/8/05 @ 2:06am ET...
Though at a distance, I WILL do everything I possibly can to help John.
Maybe I will yet be arrested for my views (by the Australian Feds).
"Bring 'em on." In the words of your lone rambo ... but, unlike that little shit, I know that the fight is nowhere near over ... well against such shits as him and "Boots" howard.
Boots? Yeah. little johnny is so far up the arse of dubya that all we can see are his boots.
Short of DU, chemical weapons, torture and actually killing the bastards who are destroying anything worth living for, use evry weapon we have against such as the neocon cabal.
Comment #16: Chemung said on 11/8/05 @ 3:06am ET...
To the Honorable John Conyers.
Thanks so much for your courageous leadership in opposition to the corrupt policies of this Republican administration that has abdicated the US Constitution and America's legacy.
The horrors of war, brutality, death, and violence are manifest in the world, thanks to this failed agenda.
Nothing can get this administration to change in any way. Bush has been described as "stubborn", which is an understatemet. It is clear that the neo-con cabal is fully invested in carrying out their imperialist vision to the end. They diffuse any expectation of accountability by saying that everyone was wrong and no one is to blame. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk saying that "the buck stops here". With this President and his Congress of sycophants,"the buck stops nowhere". It just floats around in a confusion of misinformation (propaganda) that is itended to keep everyone fearful and in the dark.
The criminality of this administration, and the abdication by congress of its oversight responsibility will be studied by historians as the greatest threat to freedom and democracy that this nation has ever faced. That will only happen if this natio survives this current treason.
Please keep up the battle to expose the lies and corruption, and to move in the direction of articles of impeachment. Our nation is at a perilous point and nearly lost.
Comment #17: jmatthan said on 11/8/05 @ 3:08am ET...
I wish I was so optimistic.
So long as US stays with the electronic voting systems out of control of an independent Election Commission, I do not give Congressman Conyers Jr. much hope.
I would love to see this wonderful Congressman as your President with Dennis Kucinch as his Secreatry of the Department of Peace.
Comment #18: Nolip said on 11/8/05 @ 8:22am ET...
“Tony Blair repeatedly passed up opportunities to put a brake on the rush to war in Iraq, a failure that may have contributed to the country's present anarchy, according to Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to Washington at the time, in his book DC Confidential, serialised in the Guardian from today.
Sir Christopher, highly critical of Mr Blair's performance in the run-up to the war, argues the prime minister and his team were "seduced" by the proximity and glamour of US power and reluctant to negotiate conditions with George Bush for Britain's support for the war.”
Blair's litany of failures on Iraq - ambassador's damning verdict
Comment #19: Nolip said on 11/8/05 @ 8:25am ET...
“In his press conference today, Harry Reid said, “I think the president should come forward now and say he's not going to pardon anybody.”
Not a moment too soon, because the conventional wisdom on Scooter Libby being pardoned is already starting to congeal:
“The president is going to pardon Scooter Libby,” Paul Begala predicted on CNN after Libby’s arraignment.”
Keeping the Pressure On: the Dems Should Demand a No Pardon Pledge
Comment #20: JC said on 11/8/05 @ 9:27am ET...
I agree that the Bush Administration will likely try to pardon Libby and any others indicted by Fitzgerald. I started a petition to the president demanding that he promise not to pardon them and have collected over 14,000 signatures. If you haven't yet, please sign the petition and send a message to the President that everyone in his administration must be held accountable.
Comment #21: GreyHawk121 said on 11/8/05 @ 10:26am ET...
Congressman - please comment on the following:
Josh Marshall at TPM reports attack on investigator
Comment #22: point of order said on 11/8/05 @ 10:47am ET...
response to comment # 13
U.S. Senate
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, October 9, 1998.
The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our concern
over recent developments in Iraq.
Last February, the Senate was working on a resolution
supporting military action if diplomacy did not succeed in
convincing Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations
Security Council resolutions concerning the disclosure and
destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This
effort was discontinued when the Iraqi government reaffirmed
its acceptance of all relevant Security Council resolutions
and reiterated its willingness to cooperate with the United
Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a Memorandum of Understanding
signed by its Deputy Prime Minister and the United Nations
Secretary General.
Despite a brief interval of cooperation, however, Saddam
Hussein has failed to live up to his commitments. On August
5, Iraq suspended all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA,
except some limited monitoring activity.
As UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler told us in a
briefing for all Senators in March, the fundamental historic
reality is that Iraq has consistently sought to limit,
mitigate, reduce and, in some cases, defeat the Security
Council's resolutions by a variety of devices.
We were gratified by the Security Council's action in
unanimously passing Resolution 1194 on September 9. By
condemning Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM
and the IAEA, by demanding that Iraq rescind that decision
and cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by deciding not
to conduct the sanctions' review scheduled for October 1998
and not to conduct any future such reviews until UNSCOM and
the IAEA, report that they are satisfied that they have been
able to exercise the full range of activities provided for in
their mandates, and by acting under Chapter VII of the United
Nations Charter, the Security Council has sent an unambiguous
message to Saddam Hussein.
We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take
heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous
Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that
without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM
and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute
its weapons of mass destruction programs.
In light of these developments, we urge you, after
consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq
sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's
refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Sincrely,
Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick
Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay
Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V.
Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.
Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K.
Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond,
Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck
Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
Comment #23: LeslieB said on 11/8/05 @ 11:19am ET...
Dear Rep. Conyers,
I sure do hope that Democrats retake Congress, that you become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and are able to launch much-needed investigations. Everyone I know in New York City, albeit a heavily blue city, is keeping their fingers crossed, and I'll rally them to help you in whatever way we can.
Regarding the war on terror and public perception about the Republicans versus the Democrats: It was a Democratic president that led us through the last world war. While the Bush administration has turned the war on terror into a disaster waiting to happen. Actually, not so much waiting to happen, since there has been an increase in worldwide attacks according to State Dept. figures, while US policy in Iraq is providing terrorist training. In NYC, which is al Qaeda target #1 after Washington, DC, Bush ignored pre-9/11 warnings, he's since emasculated emergency response, and boosted al Qaeda recruitment.
So I don't get why Republicans are perceived as stronger on national security?? It's a myth, and I'm so tired of Democrats buying into it.
Comment #24: okcitykid said on 11/8/05 @ 11:24am ET...
I can't wait - I wish it was tomorrow, it feels like Christmas.
Comment #25: Ohiodem1 said on 11/8/05 @ 12:02pm ET...
Point of Order #22 - It is interesting to note that President Clinton did not see cause to take actions based on the letter you quoted:
(snip_
"In light of these developments, we urge you, after
consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq
sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's
refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
(snip)
Note that the letter from the committee urged the President to "in consultation with Congress" and "consistent wtih the U.S. Constitution and laws" CONSIDER taking action.
Apparently, from the historical record, President Clinton did not feel that the threat from Saddam Hussein was sufficient to send America to War with Iraq when no Causis Belli existed. It appears that the threat was assessed, and a decision was made not to go to war on a pre-emptive basis.
In 2003, President George W. Bush was successful in returning weapons inspectors back in Iraq. The Weapons Inspectors, led by Hans Blix and Dr. El Baradi (sp?) were inspecting in accordance with the 13,000 page Declaration which was produced by Iraq. As it turned out, only a minor technical issue with the range on a medium sized artillery rocket was discovered to be non conforming to the Declaration, and these were destroyed by the Inspectors.
No reconstituted nuclear capability was found. No chemical or biological WMD was found. The administration continued to insist that the inspectors were leaking information regarding where and when they would perform their next inspections. The Administration insisted that the Saddam Hussein regime were masters of hiding stuff. The administration insisted that they had intelligence that would identify WMD sites. The inspectors requested that the administration share this information with them so that they could inspect these sites as well. The administration refused to disclose this information to the inspectors, on the excuse that it would compromise the intelligence agents, and their contacts.
When the inspectors requested more time to complete their job, it was the administration of President George W. Bush who told the inspectors to get out, lest they be killed or injured by the bombs. George W. Bush threw the inspectors out, not Saddam Hussein.
The claim that intelligence sources would be compromised seems to be the supreme irony, given the administration's eagerness to disclose an intelligence asset's cover and cover network to damage a critic and to silence the intelligence community. Remember the statement of Patrick Fitzgerald "Valerie Plame's cover was blown". Nothing more needs to be said, the absolutely clear implication supports the conclusion that the Bush administration was hell-bent for war with Iraq, intelligence or evidence was irrelevant to them, and they took America on this reckless adventure for which we as a nation have paid so dearly.
So, Point of Order, this attempt to distract and deflect attention to the Clinton administration and some Democratic members of the Senate, and somehow blame them for the War in Iraq, or to paint them as hypocrites because they urged Presdent Clinton to look at the problem by a constitutional process, is like all of your attempts at distraction an utter failure, just like President George W. Bush.
Comment #26: point of order said on 11/8/05 @ 12:19pm ET...
In order to understand the present we have to examine and understand the past, President Bush does not operate in a vacumn. That is why we have a transition period.Discussing what occured in the previous Administrations is imperative in understanding why we are where we are in Iraq.
Wednesday, July 23, 2003 Posted: 3:34 PM EDT (1934 GMT)
"Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq."
Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/
Comment #27: point of order said on 11/8/05 @ 12:35pm ET...
Response to comment #25
"It is interesting to note that President Clinton did not see cause to take actions based on the letter you quoted:"
I think you might be mistaken sir,The letter was written Oct,1998, Air Strikes were launched Dec 1998?
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/17/
Comment #28: Ohiodem1 said on 11/8/05 @ 12:58pm ET...
Point of Order - You are still trying to blame Clinton. The entire time Clinton was in office, we patrolled the No Fly Zones, and took out threats and command and control structures. I think there was a book called something like "Our 10 Year War against Saddam". What Mr. Clinton did not do was start pre-emptive war against Iraq.
The statement was that there were "unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Unaccounted for does not mean that they necessarily existed. The reason for them to be unaccounted for was that they were supplied to Iraq by the Reagan administration under the aegis of Mr. Donald Rumsfeld. We knew how much WMD materials we supplied to Iraq, we did not know how much was used, and if any remained in storage. Our weapons experts could make judgements regarding which were still usable because of known shelf-life and how much was potentially still usable based on shelf-life. The bottom line is that if we did not know how much was left, then it was "unaccounted for".
The Bush administration was in a position to verify the Iraqi Weapons Declaration, but chose not to and instead chose war with a nation that was not threatening the United States of America, nor were they belligerent.
Don't blame Clinton. Blame Bush. The Second Iraqi War happened on his watch, not Clinton's. That is the bottom line.
Comment #29: sanitysojourner said on 11/8/05 @ 1:21pm ET...
#22, 26, 27 Point of Order Is the argument now "Clinton made me do it?" That must go along with "the dog ate the Constitution."
Since history is important to you, indulge me while we go back just a little bit, sticking with the Bush administration because the current topic is the Bush administration.
The rationale for the preemptive war in Iraq was based on the Bush administration's claims that WMD's were present. This administration did not want to allow UN inspection for such weapons. Despite the lack of UN discovery of such WMD's, this administration moved forward anyway, still claiming the presence of WMD's. I signed on with the "Not in My Name" org because I believed the UN, not some people's opinions.
However, we now know that there were not any WMD's and that the evidence was manufactured. That is why this administration is plummeting in the polls: they lied.
Let's draw an analogy that might help you:
Let's say you have reason to believe that a school bully is stealing your little brother's lunch money, so you want to beat up the bully. Some tell you the bully is stealing; others tell you the bully isn't. A graduate of the school tells you that he believes this bully had stolen your little brother's lunch money too. Research, however, reveals that the bully is not taking your little brother's lunch money.
But you're really ticked at this guy. He's a jerk. He's a bully. So you decide to beat the crap out of him anyway.
That's fine. Your original reason for beating up the bully doesn't exist, but it's your risk. You can win or lose the fight. You deal with the consequences.
That's what this administration has done with Iraq. However, there is a significant spot where the similarity stops: this administration is not taking its own risks. It's using my dollars, my nephew, our country's resources, screwing the poor, lining its own pockets over something that is not the truth.
Had you gotten me to join you in beating up the bully because he was stealing your little brother's lunch money and I found I had been duped, I would be ticked at you. I might even agree with you that the guy was a bully, but I'm not into beating up on folks just because they are bad. I would only join up to protect your little brother.
That's what the polls are saying about this administration: the populace is ticked about the dishonesty.
You can go back as far as you like in history. I have no doubt that presidents and powerful people in the past have done bad things; indeed, I've witnessed some of those bad things.
However, it's Bush's poll slump that is the topic at hand. Bush deserves the slump and I hope that the trajectory continues. Bush and his cronies have earned it.
Comment #30: point of order said on 11/8/05 @ 1:22pm ET...
response to Comment # 28
You are wrong sir. I do not "blame" Clinton,nor do I "blame"Bush I lay the "blame" squarely where it belongs, at the feet of Saddam Hussien, much as Madeline Albright did in her Dec 1998 address. 17 resolutions ignored, 48 hours to get out of dodge. I supported Clintons actions against Saddam and I supported and continue to support our current Presidents actions, as did the majority of the House and Senate.
Comment #31: Gerry Hiles said on 11/8/05 @ 2:00pm ET...
Is POO from Planet Crawford?
No that can't be right, because even Bush no longer trots out some of the rubbish he does.
He is apparently unaware that Saddam Hussein is no longer around (whatever exactly POO blames him for ... perhaps being a US ally?)
He is also blissfully unaware that, even if this war was really about removing Saddam (which of course is nonsense) millions of Iraqis have been killed, injured and impoverished.
Yours was a good analogy sanity, but would have been better if you'd extended to taking out the whole school to "punish the bully" ... not "just" all the kids and teachers, but the building and supporting infrastructure (as per Falluja, for instance).
Clearly POO has no moral scruples about doing that sort of stuff, or at least vicariously getting his kicks whilst thosands of his fellow Americans also get killed, injured and impoverished. What's stopping him from enlisting I wonder?
Comment #32: point of order said on 11/8/05 @ 2:24pm ET...
response to comment # 31
Nov. 8, 2005 — The terror suspects arrested in Australia early today are part of a homegrown network that's been operating for more than three years and had been working to compile bomb making components identifcal to those used in last summer's London subway bombings, ABC News has learned.
After announcing the arrests, Australian authorities said they had foiled a major terror attack. The 17 terror suspects, ethnically Algerian, Morrocan, Pakistani, and Lebanese but all Australian residents, thought they were well on their way to completing the purchase of the ingredients needed to make an extremely high powered acetone based homebrewed explosive and use it against major targets in two cities.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1292176
Comment #33: Gerry Hiles said on 11/8/05 @ 2:57pm ET...
re#32
Point? Is there one?
Comment #34: Ohiodem1 said on 11/8/05 @ 3:14pm ET...
Finally, Point of Order - Your posts in this thread does what your posts normally do. You repeat the Republican Talking Point of the Day or week, in this case, others said that Iraq posessed or was suspected of poesssing WMD, and that if all these other people thought that Iraq had WMD, what is wrong with the Bush admin thinking the same thing, and by extension, they were operating with the same information set that all these other folks were as well, and Bush admin actions were ok because of this set of circumstances.
The administration primarily owns the means of collecting and dissemating intelligence information, with some oversight activity required by Congress, in the form of the Intelligence Committees. By the nature of the work, these committees must operate in secret, so even if those in these committees felt there were problems with the intelligence, or felt that the intelligence was being manipulated, they would be bound by their security clearances not to disclose this information.
The administration, through the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSC and the rogue intelligence outfit in the Pentagon under the direct supervision of Mr. Rumsfeld, are the gatekeepers of the intelligence pipeline. Thus, these bodies and the admin were charged with the responsibility to clearly dissemiate an accurate picture of the intelligence to Congress, the UN, our allies and the American people.
The gatekeepers are supposed to act in the interest of the American people because they have access to ALL the information, including dissenting or contrary views of those within the intelligence community. It appears from much in the public record that the administration failed in its duty to consider all views. They need to defend the American people from taking unnecessary or unwise actions, putting our military at risk unnecessarily, and to MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE that if intelligence iformation is being used as the basis for a decision to go to war, that the information is accurate. It is now, and has been for some time, abundantly clear that the Bush administration failed in this DUTY. A Congressional investigation into this gross dereliction of duty is being demanded by an ever-increasing number of Americans. If the administration has nothing to hide, they should welcome this investigation. Why are they fighting an accounting?
The second front in the "outing intelligence war from those who develop Republican Talking Points is that the "secret prison" leak and other events are now being called upon to be investigated by Congress, and this time the call for investigation is coming from the Right, and the aspersions are being cast upon Democrats.
That is, a presumed leak of the development of an illegal worldwide torture camp network, if it exists, is raising the demand for a Congressional investigation. Why doesn't Congress just wrap it up into the Treasongate investigation and get to the bottom of all intelligence leaks, including those that the administration does to support or bolster a poliltical position they hold. I say bring it on. What say you, Point of Order?
Comment #35: point of order said on 11/8/05 @ 3:38pm ET...
I concur, "bring it on" including all the surpressed Able Danger information.
Comment #36: LeslieB said on 11/8/05 @ 3:53pm ET...
The Bush administration's arguments for war in Iraq exceeded anything Clinton claimed. For example: Bush & Co. repeatedly implied and/or stated that Hussein had had something to do with the 9/11 attacks, that Hussein was affiliated with and supported al Qaeda and that Hussein had a nuclear weapons related activities program. Actually, Cheney, Bush & Rice et al implied that if the US didn't act against Hussein asap that he'd nuke us. Clinton never made any of these arguments. What the Clinton administration and Congressional Democrats were concerned about was ensuring Hussein was reined in and that UN weapons inspections would resume, as opposed to the Bush administration which wanted to wage war with Iraq before they even took office and have changed their rationale for that war with the weather.
Comment #37: point of order said on 11/8/05 @ 4:00pm ET...
correction to post #35, suppressed.
Comment #38: LeslieB said on 11/8/05 @ 4:02pm ET...
Oh, and by the way, none of the Bush administrations' three main arguments for war have turned out to be true: Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, Hussein wasn't affiliated with or support al Qaeda, he had no nuclear weapons and no intention of attacking the US.
Comment #39: point of order said on 11/8/05 @ 4:05pm ET...
response to # 38
none of the three things you sited were used as reasons for going to war.
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
Comment #40: Citizen J said on 11/8/05 @ 4:52pm ET...
POO, wrong again. All 3 of those reasons were used, and CONTINUE to be vomited by this Administration. Kerry and Congress were duped and lied to- their comments from that time supporting the vote don't prove nuffin', just like ALL of your posts. (apologies for length)
We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction ... In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, 6/20/2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, 8/26/2002
There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest.
- Ari Fleischer, 9/6/2002
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
- Condoleeza Rice, 9/8/2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, 9/12/2002
Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
- George W. Bush, 10/5/2002
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, 10/7/2002
After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
- George W. Bush, 10/7/2002
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.
- George W. Bush, 10/7/2002
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists ...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, 12/1/2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
- Ari Fleischer, 12/2/2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- Ari Fleischer, 1/9/2003
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
- George W. Bush, 1/28/2003
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
- George W. Bush, 1/28/2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
- Colin Powell, 2/5/2003
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling.
- Colin Powell, 2/5/2003
If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us ... But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.
- Colin Powell, 2/28/2003
Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
- Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George W. Bush, 3/17/2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly ... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
- Ari Fleischer, 3/21/2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
- Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
- George W. Bush, 4/24/2003
I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
- Colin Powell, 5/4/2003
It's going to take time to find them, but we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth. One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction.
- George W. Bush, 5/25/2003
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
- George W. Bush, 5/30/2003
No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored.
- Condoleeza Rice, 6/8/2003
Yes, they lied.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110805I.shtml
Comment #41: Ron said on 11/8/05 @ 5:02pm ET...
Point Of Order
First of all I take exception to the fact that you call Bush "Our President"
This scoundrel has yet to be fairly elected to that position. Until that time he may be your president, but he sure ain't mine.
Some folks find it a little more difficult to understand reality verses fiction. You Poo seem to be one of those people.No matter what the argument ,you seem to side with the people who have proven themselves to be extremely bad for America ,it's people ,and our ,yes yours too, constitution.
Either you do not understand reality per se, or you are one of those that does not respect humanity for what it is. If you classify yourself as one of those people who disrespect others because someone told you they are bad,and you did not try, even remotely to find the Truth about the statement,but just blared out sound bytes that some propagandist spoke , you are in deep trouble.It appears to me that you are simply repeating words that this pack of despicable murders and torturers have been barking.
You as a human being must distance yourself from this group, use your intelligence for the good of man,not to oppress him.
The folks that post here regularly are fighting to make our country ,and the world ,a better place. We Will
succeed. You have the opportunity to join us, or sink with the rats that you seem to support.
Comment #42: Ohiodem1 said on 11/8/05 @ 5:23pm ET...
Point of Order #39 - If you read what Mr. Kerry said, he does not say "let's go to war". He says he is voting to give the president the suthority to use force - if necessary.
He then goes on to say that Hussein should disclose and disarm, which he did, and inspectors were in the process of verifying. Mr. Kerry continued to talk of threats of WMD, not the fact of WMD. The second paragraph can be read two different ways, but in general Kerry says "distrust but verify". Mr. Bush threw the verifiers out.
Since your tactic is to dredge up words spoken some time ago by others, I challenge the other members of this blog to locate and quote Bush admin fabrications and misleading statements, that were later proven to be untrue during the runup to the war.
My three are "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." George W. Bush SOTU 2003.
"The high strenght aluminum tubes could only be used for nuclear weapons production". Condolezza Rice.
"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong"
--Dick Cheney, on NBC's `Meet The Press',
March 16, 2003
Comment #43: Ohiodem1 said on 11/8/05 @ 5:30pm ET...
I see that Citizen J took up my challenge while I was preparing #42 above.
Good work Citizen J. Anybody else want to contribute? I am asking everyone to come up with three statements made by the admin that have proven to be wrong.
This is why the President's approval ratings are going down, down, down. No one believes him or anyone who works for him. Plus the fact that they only seem to perform effectively when they are cutting taxes or shifting the burden of running the country to the poor and middle income families.
The culture of corruption, misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance is becoming apparent to all except Point of Order.
Comment #44: Ron said on 11/8/05 @ 5:49pm ET...
Greetings OD1
Here are THREE WHOLE sites to keep Point of disalusionment (POO) busy for at least 5 minutes!
LIES?
MORE LIES
GUESS WHAT? YOUR RIGHT,MORE LIES
Comment #45: Ron said on 11/8/05 @ 6:05pm ET...
Important Election Day Hotline
I have to hope that things will improve. We can't just throw our hands up in disgust and despair that any group of citizens can make a difference.
Voters in many states will be deciding important issues by voting Tuesday, November 8, 2005. No matter where you stand on any of the issues or candidates, all eligible voters should have the chance to cast their ballots effectively.
If you experience any problem casting your ballot -- finding the polling place, voter intimidation, accessibility issues, voting machine problems, provisional ballot issues, etc. -- or you witness anyone having voting problems, please immediately call 1-866-OUR-VOTE to report the problem.
Please let others know too... the same number works nationwide.
Verified Voting Foundation volunteers and staff have developed a new version of the "Election Incident Reporting System" (EIRS) to record all problems reported to 1-866-OUR-VOTE.
Since 2004, hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals in the United States have used EIRS to help protect our right to vote and assure that every vote is counted as cast.
If you'd like to know more about EIRS, please visit VerifiedVotingFoundation.org and Voteprotect.org
Remember: 1-866-OUR-VOTE.
To tell your friends:
Now go vote!
Comment #46: point of order said on 11/8/05 @ 6:57pm ET...
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Arizona (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq, but said he would have handled things "very differently" from President Bush.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/
Comment #47: point of order said on 11/8/05 @ 7:09pm ET...
here are some statements for you all to consider
The Democrats and Weapons of Mass Destruction
January 23, 2004
While many have called on President Bush to offer an explanation for his false claims about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, several Democratic presidential candidates have made similar claims. Here are candidate statements made before the occupation of Iraq:
JOHN KERRY: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? ... According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons ... Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents..." (Oct. 9, 2002) [See: www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm, www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html]
WESLEY CLARK: "He [Hussein] does have weapons of mass destruction." When asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark responded: "Absolutely." (on CNN, Jan. 18, 2003). On finding the alleged weapons Clark said: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." (on CNN, April 2, 2003) [See: www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html, www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html, www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/02/lt.08.html]
HOWARD DEAN: "[He and others] have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction." (March 17, 2003) [See: www.wtv-zone.com/Morgaine_OFaery/HDean4pres/deantrpswar.html]
JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." (August 4, 2002) [See: www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html, www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59538,00.html]
JOHN EDWARDS: "We know that he [Hussein] has chemical and biological weapons." (Oct. 10, 2002) [See: www.senate.gov/~edwards/statements/20021010_iraq.html]
http://www.accuracy.org/aboutus.php
Comment #48: Gerry Hiles said on 11/8/05 @ 9:38pm ET...
I feel a lttle inclined to redub POO "Pooh Bear", because he obviously has so little brain ... but the thing is that Pooh never had an ounce of malice ... that cannot be said of POO.
Comment #49: REB 84 said on 11/9/05 @ 12:08am ET...
And to think this thread began with a discussion of how Democrats are finally taking a lead in the polls. For a moment, let us enter the two dimensional world of the PNAC and the Bush administration and assume America has a devine right to impose her will on the rest of the world and turn rogue states away from their evil ways, fly the American flag, and turn them into stable democratic societies (leaving messy details like centuries of tribal tensions and rivalries out of the pricture).
Why would we as good neo-cons committed to Homeland Security and "fighting 'em there - so we won't have to fight 'em over here" select Iraq as the country most likely to bring a mushroom cloud to our shores?
Doesn't North Korea have a couple of "Nucular" weapons? Don't we have solid evidence of Iranian involvement in terrorist acts? Isn't Iran openly and actively pursuing a nuclear enrichment program? Is Pakistan a stable nuclear power? Are all of the nuclear weopons in the former Soviet Union accounted for? Where is bin Laden? Is China quietly biding its time while we trip over our own feet?
Why didn't our leaders ask these questions before we rushed into a war with no plan to maintain the peace. We are over-extended. God help us if we need to fight a third war!
On that note: I found this little bit of testimony from [H.A.S.C. No. 108–38]ARMY TRANSFORMATION HEARING
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES - HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS-SECOND SESSION-HEARING HELD JULY 15, 21, 2004 (pg. 62) Exchange between Representative Ed Schrock, (R) Virginia and General Jack Keane, UNITED STATES ARMY (RET.)
Mr. SCHROCK. "And I agree with everything you said, but the political process gets in the way of a lot of that. I believe your former boss General Shinseki made it clear that he felt when he was asked how many people he thought it was going to take to maintain after Saddam was toppled, how many people you would have in the country, and he was roundly criticized for that.
So it seems like that when Active Duty people at the higher ranks give their opinions on what they think based on the training they have had, they get criticized and removed. That is a problem as far as I am concerned, and now that you have all——"
General KEANE. "Well, with regard to the Reserves, the issue—where I guess it gets politicized…"
One of the main characteristic of pseudoscientists is their propensity to give elevated status and actively market any evidence that appears to confirm their pre-concieved notions, and discount, ignore, and attack any evidence contrary to their world vision. Psuedoscience is an extremely dangerous way to conduct US foreign policy. 2,000+ dead service people are evidence of this.
REB 84
http://questionitnow.com/iraqb/
