The final nail in the coffin

[archangel]

Sorry, I amended the post to include a direct link to the full text of the memo. You will find the section quoted in the second full paragraph. Further on in the memo you'll find that it goed on to state that:

<blockquote> It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. <b>Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran</b>.</blockquote>

And golly guess what...North Korea is going to soon have the capability to mount their nukes on a balistic missile and Iran will soon have nuclear capability.

The only ones who have lifted and skewed anything are Dubbyuh and his merry band in their "fixing intelligence and facts" to support their policy of regime change in Iraq.

Whats up with this?If GW's administration attacked N/Korea or Iran...well you would just go on the attack asking why..what was the justification...I am truly bemused....

 

[William Joyce]

Bully, of course we were lied into war. Most folks get that. What too many don't understand is who did the lying: neocons, many of whom were Jewish (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Jewish media helpers), many of whom were not (Cheney, Rumsfeld), but all of whom sought to topple Saddam as part of a middle-east rearrangement meant to benefit Israel.

So, even if you're a pro-Israel sort, the war was fought for Israel's benefit, not ours. That's traitorous now matter how much you try to spin it.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

by Patrick J. Buchanan


The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers ... that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”

Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.

Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these “Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’” Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.” (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)

More...

 

[Bullypulpit]

Look at this in perspective, Bully. We coulda had Kerry and that hot babe who's money he married. He woulda given the country away to Europe by now. We woulda apologized to Iraq and Saddam and be giving Mexicans 10,000 a piece bonus to come help pick American tomatoes.

That's not the issue now...Is it?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Treaty obligations are not important and should be ignored. What in the hell does international law have to do with us???? They can stick international laws where they can't reach with their elbow. And as for lying to the public, I consider myself ignorant on a lot of issues, but I supected some of the things he was up to. And I like it!!!!!

Ahhh...So the US is a power unto itself, beholden to nobody, above all laws and free to do as it likes...Imperial America! Tell that to our creditors.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Define "rule of Law" and how it applies to US interests. Then tell me what UN Charter we breached considering it was the UN that presented the most damaging evidence against Saddam throughout the 90's. Finally, how was the Constitution "defied" when the Congress voted to grant the president the power to goto war?

If, as a nation, our leadership fails to adhere to even a minimum standard of conduct in accordance with international law...they turn this country into a rogue nation, no better than the petty tyrants the say they wish to supplant. As to the UN Charter breaches, strat at Chapter 1, Article 1 Para 1and read. You'll find where our government has acted contrary to the Charter in most of them. Being a signatory to the UN Charter, the treaty establishing the formation of the UN, the US is bound to abide by its provisions as it is th law of the land.

As for defying the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war and raise armies. Nowhere does it say that they may cede this authority to the executive branch.

Where are these lies? I have yet to see a one. No WMDs? Thats debatable with evidence showing that syria received many shipments pre-war that they could not have manufactured themselves. Saddam was waging genocide? Thats been proven by the mass graves found in Iraq. Protecting US security? Saddam was unfriendly to the US and was found to have communications with our current enemy Al Queda and Terrorists in general. With his possession of WMD's combined with his hatred of the US, an alliance could have and probably was made to attack the US through his subvergant allies.

Charle's DUelfers most recent, and final, addition to his report on WND's in Iraq concludes that there is absolutely no evidence that any waepons of any sort were transferred to Syria. In fact, you and Sean Hannity are the only ones who actually believe that still occured.

As for Saddam's genocide, we didn't really do much when he was gassing Kurds with chemical weapons and their precursors sold to him, by the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations now, did we? And isn't that Rummy himself shaking hands with his good friend Saddam in 1983?

<center><img src=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg></center>

And your links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda were dismissed by the 9/11 commission.

Such as? Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists as they are "non-uniformed combatants." Geneva only applies to opposing armies of states. Terrorists pose as non-combatants and attack crowds of civilians to inflict fear into a population.

Atricle 1 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions states:
<blockquote>The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in <b>all</b> circumstances.</blockquote>(<i>emphasis mine</i>)

The US is one of "The High Contracting Parties" and is thus bound to abide by the conventions in <i><b>all</b></i> circumstances.

Despite all the moaning and groaning, i have yet to hear or see a single case of a "US citizen" being detained against their will. I have seen many terrorists of foreign lands to which they have no official sanction being captured and questioned. Show me some proof since you seem to be hell bent on Impeachment. The seriousness of the charge will not do.

Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamedi

Now i think your allowing your true colors to shine through. Comparison of Vietnam and Iraq is what you and your kind have been after since day one. You need to equate the 2 in order to prove that your life has purpose. The only time aging hippies felt alive was during their protests of Vietnam. If they can convince people that Iraq is Vietnam or wors, then they feel their lives validated. More of a psychological problem on the part of the accuser then an impeachment statement for the accusee.

Yer reachin' here boyo. I was merely using the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which has since been shown to be a fabrication of the Johnson Administration, to contrast the rationales fabricated by the Bush administration for war with Iraq. I was still in elementary school when the Vietnam war ended.

For all your antics and speeches, i wonder if youv'e ever read the Constitution. You might learn a thing or 2.

Take your own advice...you've clearly either not read it or learned nothing from the reading.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Whats up with this?If GW's administration attacked N/Korea or Iran...well you would just go on the attack asking why..what was the justification...I am truly bemused....

Actually, had the Administration played its hand sensibly the situation with North Korea would not have reached its present state and we wouldn't have them test firing their missiles inot the Sea of Japan. But rather than deal with the situation, the Bush administration ignored it.

Had the Bush administration not marginalized the moderates in Iran, thus revitalizing the radical mullahs, we would not be facing the situation we are now in with them. Iran now feels that it has no choice but to develop nukes and thise quickly, before US troops come spilling over the Iraqi border into Iran.

So just continue being bemused. That's what sheep and cattle do...until they reach the slaughterhouse floor.

 

[insein]

Bully

If, as a nation, our leadership fails to adhere to even a minimum standard of conduct in accordance with international law...they turn this country into a rogue nation, no better than the petty tyrants the say they wish to supplant. As to the UN Charter breaches, strat at Chapter 1, Article 1 Para 1and read. You'll find where our government has acted contrary to the Charter in most of them. Being a signatory to the UN Charter, the treaty establishing the formation of the UN, the US is bound to abide by its provisions as it is th law of the land.

UN Charter, Chapter 1: Article 1:
"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;"

Seems to me the US has upheld the principle reason for the UN by removing a threat to the Peace.


Bully

As for defying the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war and raise armies. Nowhere does it say that they may cede this authority to the executive branch.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.j.res.00064:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:S.J.RES.23:

H.J.RES.64
Title: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Sponsor: Rep Armey, Richard K. [TX-26] (introduced 9/14/2001) Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: S.J.RES.23
Latest Major Action: 9/14/2001 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 420 - 1 (Roll no. 342).
Note: For further action, see S.J.Res. 23, which became Public Law 107-40 on 9/18/2001.

S.J.RES.23
Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Sponsor: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. [SD] (introduced 9/14/2001) Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: H.J.RES.64
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 107-40 [GPO: Text, PDF]

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/CongressionalRecordHJ64&LeeStmt.htm

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use
all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
persons, in order to prevent any further acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

Seems to me they declared war. This wasnt a blank check to go fight whoever. They specifically declared war on those that committed the acts on 9/11 and the countries that harbored them.



Bully

Charle's DUelfers most recent, and final, addition to his report on WND's in Iraq concludes that there is absolutely no evidence that any waepons of any sort were transferred to Syria. In fact, you and Sean Hannity are the only ones who actually believe that still occured.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/al-safir.htm
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

A syrian reported who defected to Western Europe sent the probable locations of the imported Iraq WMD's.

"Dear Nizar.

We received confirmations that the Iraqi weapons, which were moved to Syria by the help of General Zoul-Himla Chalich are now hidden in three places inside Syria:

First place: a tunnel dug in the mountain close to the Al-Baïdah village, which is roughly two kilometers from Misyaf village. This place is under the 489 Safety cipher Documents' office control .

Second place: the factory of the Air Armed Forces in the village of Tal Sinan, between the town of Hama and Salamiyyah. This factory is under the Air Force control.

Third place: the location of Shinsar, 40 kilometers south of Homs, two kilometers east of the Homs - Damascus road. There are underground tunnels there, controlled by Brigade 661 of the armed air Forces. It is a Brigade of air Patrol. The tunnels are several tens of meters deep.

The weapons were transported in large wooden cases and barrels, under the supervision of the General Zoul-Himla Chalich and the son of his brother Assef, who works at Al-Bachaer company.

The company is owned by the Assad family and has offices in Beirut, Damascus and Baghdad.

This company also undertook the illegal Iraqi oil importation in Syria, and supplied weapons to Saddam. I will try to send you all the new information as i get .

Take care and be safe."

Bully

As for Saddam's genocide, we didn't really do much when he was gassing Kurds with chemical weapons and their precursors sold to him, by the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations now, did we? And isn't that Rummy himself shaking hands with his good friend Saddam in 1983?

http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

Seems to me that Russia, France, and China were the chief arms dealers to Saddam throughout the last 3 decades.

As for Rummy, he was a special envoy sent by Reagan during the Iran-Iraq war of which we were an ally with Iraq. At the time, Saddam was the only ally in the region. Since then and even during the alliance, Saddam has shown that he was a sadistical tyrant that threatened the safety of the surrounding nations as well as many nations abroad with his advancing missile programs.

During WW2, FDR and Churchill met with Stalin to disuss plans to eliminate Hitler. Later (and probably during) it was realized that Stalin was worse then Hitler. Did that make the alliance a fraud during WW2? No it simply was a neccessary evil of the time.

Bully

And your links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda were dismissed by the 9/11 commission.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Go back and read page 62 of the report. Perhaps you missed the whole Bin Laden meeting with top IRaqi officials in 1994-95 over space for terrorist camps. Maybe the part about Bin Laden aiding Saddam in his efforts to remove the Kurds through "Ansar Al Islam", Bin Laden's organization at the time, slipped past your keen fact-finding ability.



Bully

Atricle 1 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions states:
<blockquote>The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in <b>all</b> circumstances.</blockquote>(<i>emphasis mine</i>)

The US is one of "The High Contracting Parties" and is thus bound to abide by the conventions in <i><b>all</b></i> circumstances.

I direct your attention to this article.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Notice the bold parts. Terrorists do not have identifiable symbols that declare them members of a militia or an opposing force. They do not carry their weapons openly. Often they strap bombs to themselves or conceal weapons while hiding amongst a civilian population. Above all, they do not conduct their operations in accordance to the laws of war. Therefore they do not require the Contracting party (The US) to respect them as members of the Geneva convention. IF they want to declare themselves a milita of a nation state and apply to said Convention, then provisions can be made to treat them in accordance.

Bully

Jose Padilla

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/dirty.bomb.suspect/

The verdict is still out but the methods are sketchy. I agree that apprehension of Padilla was careless. However it still appears that he has ties to terrorist cells. Evidence needs to be brought forth or his release needs to be made.

Bully

Yasser Hamedi

Hamedi was in Afghanistan fighting along side the enemy. While he was a US citizen, he was fighting with the enemy. Hamedi was a US citizen by proxy only. He was born here while his non-citizen parents were visiting. He apparently felt so strongly about his nationality that he decided to take up arms against her. He's a traitor and was treated like every other enemy combatant.


Bully

Yer reachin' here boyo. I was merely using the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which has since been shown to be a fabrication of the Johnson Administration, to contrast the rationales fabricated by the Bush administration for war with Iraq. I was still in elementary school when the Vietnam war ended.

Not you per se but the people you associate with. Their mantra from the begining has been to relate Iraq to Vietnam and renew their anti-war days of their youth with the freash blood of today.


Bully

Take your own advice...you've clearly either not read it or learned nothing from the reading.

Got one right here in my pocket just in case. I think its on my side against those who wish to use it as toilet paper such as yourself.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully

UN Charter, Chapter 1: Article 1:
"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;"

Seems to me the US has upheld the principle reason for the UN by removing a threat to the Peace.

Saddam posed no credible threat to anyone but his own people and, as seen in the memo, Blair's own people believed this to be the case.

Bully

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.j.res.00064:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:S.J.RES.23:



http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/CongressionalRecordHJ64&LeeStmt.htm



Seems to me they declared war. This wasnt a blank check to go fight whoever. They specifically declared war on those that committed the acts on 9/11 and the countries that harbored them.

It was authorization to use military force against those who perpetrated the events of 9/11 and their supporters. No credible evidence has been presented to show that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were ever involved with Al-Qaeda. It was not a cate blanche to pursue military action when and where ever the Administration feels the need support sagging poll numbers.

Bully

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/al-safir.htm
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

A syrian reported who defected to Western Europe sent the probable locations of the imported Iraq WMD's.

I'll accept the conclusions of Mr. Duelfer's, you know...Dubbyuh's own weapons inspector, report until credible proof is provided of these weapons tranfers.

Bully

http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

Seems to me that Russia, France, and China were the chief arms dealers to Saddam throughout the last 3 decades.

As for Rummy, he was a special envoy sent by Reagan during the Iran-Iraq war of which we were an ally with Iraq. At the time, Saddam was the only ally in the region. Since then and even during the alliance, Saddam has shown that he was a sadistical tyrant that threatened the safety of the surrounding nations as well as many nations abroad with his advancing missile programs.

During WW2, FDR and Churchill met with Stalin to disuss plans to eliminate Hitler. Later (and probably during) it was realized that Stalin was worse then Hitler. Did that make the alliance a fraud during WW2? No it simply was a neccessary evil of the time.

Again, you missed the point...Saddam was a monster of our own making. Our governemnt under the Reagan Administration created him with its support of his regime during its war with Iran. Not wanting all the shit from that cesspool to come floating to the surface, our goverment did nothing. Dubbyuh continues the tradition by cozying up to the government of Sudan, which did support bin Laden and is actively pursuing genocide in Dharfur.

Bully

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Go back and read page 62 of the report. Perhaps you missed the whole Bin Laden meeting with top IRaqi officials in 1994-95 over space for terrorist camps. Maybe the part about Bin Laden aiding Saddam in his efforts to remove the Kurds through "Ansar Al Islam", Bin Laden's organization at the time, slipped past your keen fact-finding ability.

You're obviously engaging in confabulation. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Libya are all mentioned on pg. 62 of the report, but only for their attempts to shut down bin Ladens operations. There is no mention at all of Iraq.

Bully

I direct your attention to this article.


Notice the bold parts. Terrorists do not have identifiable symbols that declare them members of a militia or an opposing force. They do not carry their weapons openly. Often they strap bombs to themselves or conceal weapons while hiding amongst a civilian population. Above all, they do not conduct their operations in accordance to the laws of war. Therefore they do not require the Contracting party (The US) to respect them as members of the Geneva convention. IF they want to declare themselves a milita of a nation state and apply to said Convention, then provisions can be made to treat them in accordance.

Article one clearly states that the signatories to the Conventions are bound to adhere to them under ALL circumstances.

Bully
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/dirty.bomb.suspect/

The verdict is still out but the methods are sketchy. I agree that apprehension of Padilla was careless. However it still appears that he has ties to terrorist cells. Evidence needs to be brought forth or his release needs to be made.

Padilla is just a stupid ex-gang banger with delusions of grandeur. He poses a threat to no one but himself with his stupidity.

Bully

Hamedi was in Afghanistan fighting along side the enemy. While he was a US citizen, he was fighting with the enemy. Hamedi was a US citizen by proxy only. He was born here while his non-citizen parents were visiting. He apparently felt so strongly about his nationality that he decided to take up arms against her. He's a traitor and was treated like every other enemy combatant.

As a US citizen, he is entitled to face his accusers at a trial by jury...Just like John Walker Lynnd. The Bush administration cannot simply strip a US citizen of his or her rights on their say so. That is a tactic of totalitarian regimes.

Bully

Not you per se but the people you associate with. Their mantra from the begining has been to relate Iraq to Vietnam and renew their anti-war days of their youth with the freash blood of today.

Bully

Got one right here in my pocket just in case. I think its on my side against those who wish to use it as toilet paper such as yourself.

The only ones using the Constitution for toilet paper are this Bush Administration and its slavish supporters...such as yourself. It is blatant hypocrisy to wrap oneself in the Constitution only to turn a blind eye to abuses and violations of its precepts.

In this manner, the adminstration, as well as yourself, are like a self-professed christian who goes to church every Sunday after screwing his neighbor's wife the night before.

 

[insein]

Usually why i avoid trying to have an intelligent argument with you. You have your own opinions and refuse to see it from any angle other then "Bush = evil." When presented with reasons to the contrary, you make every attempt to distort the facts surrounding the case. Such as page 62's mention specifically of High level Iraqi officials meeting with Bin Laden to discuss land for camps and his collaboration with them in the war against the Kurds.

So you continue your inane impeachment attempt based solely on conjecture and hearsay and i'll focus on the hear and now.

 

[sitarro]

Saddam posed no credible threat to anyone but his own people and, as seen in the memo, Blair's own people believed this to be the case.




It was authorization to use military force against those who perpetrated the events of 9/11 and their supporters. No credible evidence has been presented to show that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were ever involved with Al-Qaeda. It was not a cate blanche to pursue military action when and where ever the Administration feels the need support sagging poll numbers.





I'll accept the conclusions of Mr. Duelfer's, you know...Dubbyuh's own weapons inspector, report until credible proof is provided of these weapons tranfers.




Again, you missed the point...Saddam was a monster of our own making. Our governemnt under the Reagan Administration created him with its support of his regime during its war with Iran. Not wanting all the shit from that cesspool to come floating to the surface, our goverment did nothing. Dubbyuh continues the tradition by cozying up to the government of Sudan, which did support bin Laden and is actively pursuing genocide in Dharfur.



You're obviously engaging in confabulation. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Libya are all mentioned on pg. 62 of the report, but only for their attempts to shut down bin Ladens operations. There is no mention at all of Iraq.




Article one clearly states that the signatories to the Conventions are bound to adhere to them under ALL circumstances.



Padilla is just a stupid ex-gang banger with delusions of grandeur. He poses a threat to no one but himself with his stupidity.



As a US citizen, he is entitled to face his accusers at a trial by jury...Just like John Walker Lynnd. The Bush administration cannot simply strip a US citizen of his or her rights on their say so. That is a tactic of totalitarian regimes.








The only ones using the Constitution for toilet paper are this Bush Administration and its slavish supporters...such as yourself. It is blatant hypocrisy to wrap oneself in the Constitution only to turn a blind eye to abuses and violations of its precepts.

In this manner, the adminstration, as well as yourself, are like a self-professed christian who goes to church every Sunday after screwing his neighbor's wife the night before.

I'm curious Bully ,
Were you calling for the impeachment of Bill Clinton when he sent our military to Haiti ? How about when he sent them to Kosovo ? What about the time he fired off hundreds of cruise missles at an aspirin factory in Iraq? I'm trying to get some perspective here for all of your bullyshit against the Bush administration . Did this anti military action just start for you with the current administration or have you always had a problem with it when Republicans are in power .
How about Mary Jo Kopechne's constitutional rights , did you call for the arrest of Ted Kennedy for what he did to her ? How about Grand Wizard Robert Byrd and the idiocy he has taken part in over the years?
Your poorly thoughtout criticisms taken directly from students on Pacifica radio are hypocritical at best and just plain stupid at worse . Nobody has all of the intell that was used to make any of these decisions except for the man that made them . You can speculate and quote anyone that appears to know and not have an agenda but that is a bit naive . Stop drinking from the bedpans Bullhead.

 

[OCA]

Ahhh...So the US is a power unto itself, beholden to nobody, above all laws and free to do as it likes...Imperial America! Tell that to our creditors.

Yep it sure is! First and foremost one must look out for its own interests above all else, if you go around worrying about what everyone else thinks nothing ever gets done.

Also on the U.N.....are you speaking of the same U.N. which was on the take with Sadaam the whole time? Alterior motives, you must remember these.

Your stupidity is at times truely staggering.

 

[OCA]

Also just so everyone knows, the 9/11 commission was nothing more than a political witchhunt, with no more credibility than a roll of shit paper.

 

[OCA]

Here is the real problem in Iraq: George Bush is to blame not for going to war there because that has been proven time and time again to overwhelmingly have been the right choice but rather he is to blame for pussyfooting around and fighting the war from the oval office and according to opinion polls instead of letting the generals loose and smoking some terrorist ass in massive numbers. If we would just surround a town, give the citizens 24 hrs to gather their belongings minus weapons and tell us where the scumbags are or face the leveling of their town this would've been finished a long time ago minus many American deaths.

Can somebody honestly tell us what our tactic is right now? Does anybody have a clue other than being sitting ducks?

 

[no1tovote4]

Saddam posed no credible threat to anyone but his own people and, as seen in the memo, Blair's own people believed this to be the case.

Agreed, but even the threat of attack has calmed many of the leaders of the countries in those areas from the open payment to and support of terrorist organizations.

It was authorization to use military force against those who perpetrated the events of 9/11 and their supporters. No credible evidence has been presented to show that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were ever involved with Al-Qaeda. It was not a cate blanche to pursue military action when and where ever the Administration feels the need support sagging poll numbers.

Now this is total and utter garbage; and an attempt to rewrite history to boot. Every single Senator that voted for that knew that action would be taken against IRAQ and NO OTHER Country at the time. To say it was against those who perpetrated the events of 9/11 and their supporters is simply inanity and is mixing up the vote for action in Afghanistan with the vote for action in Iraq, they were not one and the same.

This is simply being deliberately ignorant in order to keep up the idea in your head that nobody supported the attack in Iraq.

Senator Campbell, during a speech after he had decided to retire, explained that the Senate and Congress have access to their own Intel and sources of intel within the same Intel Agencies. He also explained that many Senators were deficient in the duties as they simply took NO ADVANTAGE of their sources. We should also remember that when that vote was taken the Democrats still had control of the Senate after Jefford's little jump to "Independant".

I'll accept the conclusions of Mr. Duelfer's, you know...Dubbyuh's own weapons inspector, report until credible proof is provided of these weapons tranfers.

Again, you missed the point...Saddam was a monster of our own making. Our governemnt under the Reagan Administration created him with its support of his regime during its war with Iran. Not wanting all the shit from that cesspool to come floating to the surface, our goverment did nothing. Dubbyuh continues the tradition by cozying up to the government of Sudan, which did support bin Laden and is actively pursuing genocide in Dharfur.

And again you missed the point, the US policy for regime change was set in 1998 when the Congress passed and Clinton signed it into law....

That a President worked toward actual US Policy as set by the Congress and signed by the Executive Branch seems to be a good thing. And amazingly the Policy was set then for the same reason that the current Administration attacked.

You're obviously engaging in confabulation. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Libya are all mentioned on pg. 62 of the report, but only for their attempts to shut down bin Ladens operations. There is no mention at all of Iraq.

Article one clearly states that the signatories to the Conventions are bound to adhere to them under ALL circumstances.

Padilla is just a stupid ex-gang banger with delusions of grandeur. He poses a threat to no one but himself with his stupidity.

As a US citizen, he is entitled to face his accusers at a trial by jury...Just like John Walker Lynnd. The Bush administration cannot simply strip a US citizen of his or her rights on their say so. That is a tactic of totalitarian regimes.

The only ones using the Constitution for toilet paper are this Bush Administration and its slavish supporters...such as yourself. It is blatant hypocrisy to wrap oneself in the Constitution only to turn a blind eye to abuses and violations of its precepts.

In this manner, the adminstration, as well as yourself, are like a self-professed christian who goes to church every Sunday after screwing his neighbor's wife the night before.

I agree the man should have his day in Court...

 

[mrsx]

I love the clarity of your strategic thinking. Liberate the s*** out of 'em! Sorta like the Romans in Jerusalem or the Nazis in Warsaw.

We had the perfect opportunity to try your gambit when we had bin Laden surrounded at Tora Bora. Alas, we had sent so many of our guys to liberate Iraq that we had to hire the local warlords to guard the back door. Much to our chagrin, the shifty bin Laden had hired them first so he escaped into the arms of our close ally, Pakistan. Oh well.

We tried your tactics in Fallujah and it didn't work there either. We leveled the place without finding more than a couple of dozen dead jihadis. Shucks! the pesky varmints got away again. The entire fiasco was quite a public relations coup for the U.S. and our brave partners in the Green Zone. "I wish you wouldn't use the shotgun on them moskiters, Pappy. I know you got one, but the fly swatter ain't so hard on the cabin walls!"

 

[OCA]

I love the clarity of your strategic thinking. Liberate the s*** out of 'em! Sorta like the Romans in Jerusalem or the Nazis in Warsaw.

We had the perfect opportunity to try your gambit when we had bin Laden surrounded at Tora Bora. Alas, we had sent so many of our guys to liberate Iraq that we had to hire the local warlords to guard the back door. Much to our chagrin, the shifty bin Laden had hired them first so he escaped into the arms of our close ally, Pakistan. Oh well.

We tried your tactics in Fallujah and it didn't work there either. We leveled the place without finding more than a couple of dozen dead jihadis. Shucks! the pesky varmints got away again. The entire fiasco was quite a public relations coup for the U.S. and our brave partners in the Green Zone. "I wish you wouldn't use the shotgun on them moskiters, Pappy. I know you got one, but the fly swatter ain't so hard on the cabin walls!"

Ooooh would you like some salt and pepper and a beer to wash down that liberal propaganda your so eagerly swallowing?

Fallujah was an overwhelming success, a couple dozen dead? How about more than a couple hundred or is the truth to bitter a pill to swallow?

Be careful also to how you respond to me.

 

[musicman]

Also just so everyone knows, the 9/11 commission was nothing more than a political witchhunt, with no more credibility than a roll of shit paper.

Thank you! I can't believe anybody even brings up a bullshit topic like the 9/11 commission.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hows about waging wars of aggression in defiance of the US Constitution, the UN Charter and the rule of law?

The US Constitution gives the President and Congress to declare war. The President and Congress did declare war. Hence there was nothing illegal about it. That is how you declare war in the United States.

Or perhaps, lying to the citizens of the US, Congress and the UN in providing false rationales for war?

There was no lying. Bully, please, simply repeating "Bush lied" over and over again does not make it true. Even if it did, I am not sure lying to citizens or congress is an illegal act unless done under oath and hence would not be impeachable, although its definately not a good idea if you want to be reelected.

Still not enough...? Rejection of, and withdrawal from, treaties protecting protecting peace and human rights.

The US is allowed to reject and withdrawal from any treaties we want Bully. We are a sovereign nation. We decide what nations we relate to internationally and which was we relate to them.

You want more...? Abrogation of habeas corpus through the indefinite detention without charge and without legal representation of US citizens.

Prisoners of war don't get legal representation. I'd like you to find a law that says they do.

Still more...? How about sending our troops into harms way on a tissue of lies that make those about the Tonkin Gulf, promulgated by the Johnson Administration, look like an innocent, little white lie.

Bully, there were no lies! until you establish there were you can't claim he lied. You have been whining about Bush lying for several years, but have yet to provide any evidence of him lying.

No matter how you want to slice it or dice it, Dubbyuh and his merry band have violated their oaths to support and defend the Constitution and are unworthy to hold the offices they now occupy. They are the "enemies of the Constitution" you spend so much time prattling about OCA. The more patriots who come forward with more evidence of the duplicity involved in the run up to this war, especially here in the US, the sooner we can put paid to these traitors.

No, no matter how you want to slice it, trying to name call or whine without anything to support yourself just makes you look dumb and helps those who want us dead cause division. Grow up Bully.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ahhh...So the US is a power unto itself, beholden to nobody, above all laws and free to do as it likes...Imperial America! Tell that to our creditors.

Yeah, we are a power unto ourself. We determine our laws. We govern ourselves. We are a sovereign nation. We determine what laws we subject ourselves to. We don't allow foreigners to determine our law. Hence why we are a republic and not a subsidary of a foriegn power.

 

[wolverine]

And golly guess what...North Korea is going to soon have the capability to mount their nukes on a balistic missile and Iran will soon have nuclear capability.

Do I really have to ask who made that 1994 deal with NK that gave them the capability to produce nukes?