posted
At the begining of the Iraq war, literally everyone in the world KNEW that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction. He said he had them. Foreign intellegence said he had them. Our own intellegence said he had them. Noone debated that point. He had used them in the past on both military and civilians.
HE HAD THEM.
The fact that no large caches of WMD's were found has made many criticize the motivations for the war. But even the ISG, multinational researchers, stated that Saddam fully intended to rebuild his arsenal once the sanctions were lifted and work towards nuclear weapons had he not been stopped.
you are still repeating propaganda.
the fact is the intelligence reports were cherry-picked by Cheney and Rumsfeld and Tenet.
the Congress authorised Bush to wage war to disarm Sadam.
however, many Senators and congressperson never even read the reports prepared by Bush because everybody beleived Sadam had WMD....
but why did they beleive? i've actually read the presidential and the senate reports on the intelligence failures.. the beleif was all based on three basic stories that were passed around and reverifed by the sources that leaked them...
saying that the world beleived them is not true... if the world beleived them, then Bush would not have had to bypass the security council...
Terroism affects all nations. Russai had the Chechens, and China does not support terrorism either.
OK, so Congress passes a resolution
The resolution passed by the House authorizes Bush to commit U.S. troops to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring that Iraq give up weapons of mass destruction. It requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce those resolutions have failed.
Sadam responds by allowing US to send inspctors...
which is what EVERY Congressperson and Senator voted for.
inspectors go to Iraq.. they actually follow up on Bush's intelligence reports that he had presented to congress and some of them had read...
the inspectors report that they have been sent on a wild goose chase...
Bush responds by telling them to leave
Posted 3/17/2003 5:40 AM Updated 3/17/2003 1:16 PM
Inspectors advised to leave Iraq Bush: Monday 'moment of truth' Blair calls emergency cabinet meeting Poll: Most back war France threatens veto War may realign world Allies: France is in the way U.S. workers told to leave Mideast Protesters race the clock Forces ready for action Israel does not fear attack Saddam warns of world war Jordan troops keep low profile Aviator's dual missions
U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.
huh? i though the vote was designed to get the weapons inspectors into Iraq or else?
now we get to Bush's actual speech:
March 17, 2003. Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will. Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours. In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.
see? inspectors must leave Iraq?
that's when i knew something was wrong.... up to that point i assumed that if Hillary had voted for the war? then they had something cuz she would never go along with Bush on political thing...
but when Bush told the inspectors to leave? he pretty much violated what he had told the American people which was that we needed more inspections..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
All thought is a belief or non-belief in something and our belief shapes our values and attitudes toward life ... religion is a faith based belief system --- spirtualiy is an awareness based belief system - secular is a non god belief system - etc...
What should we run our country from? From a secular belief system when majority are christian?
I find that is insulting and oppressing to the majority...and every christian needs to speak up ...
So- all neeed a grip - we all have values, beliefs,,,,and thhis country was found on judeo/christian beleifs---
So, if you say run a country not from a bible but secular than the minority is oppressing the majority --
I find it oppressing that our schools are secular YET the majority is Christian --- I think all should educate kids as we want as long as within law of the land -but belief or non-belief of god is not to be supported by state...currently, non-beleif is sanctioned by state --- Secular should not be norm for society since christians and all religions are oppressed -
It is amazing when folks scraem no bible in govt but secular is ok? Both are only beliefs/values/attitude towards life...
And, what is interesting, the majority is being oppressed by the minority in this country --- The secular folks want no religion but no religion is simply another way of life just as religion is -- and at last note - religion and god are not the same thing - but the state should remain neutral and have an education sytem where parents send kids to schools of choice - All should have same rights and priviledges as the secular folks -
Currently, there is no choice --state sanctions secular, non-beleif schools and the majority in this country should be ashamed for this status quo -- Why should the secular folks have their values/beliefs- sanctioned in schools???
All, should have equal access to free education and not be discriminated --- The secular folks have their values sanctioned but the christians are discriminated because their values are oppressed in schools and secualr values are sanctioned ---
So, yes as a christian, I rather have the Bible in schools vs drugs, sex, and violence and killings ---
And, if parents can send kids to any schools, i doubt public schools can compete..most parents would send private -- yet , most have accepted the secular beleif system in schools at the detriment of our kids and our society ---
Life is as IS - beliefs shape values and attitudes and laws and religion/spirituality/ atheism /etc are all beliefs and I just dont get it why secualr beleifs override christian ----
And, dont say constitution says sepearation of state and religion because God is not same as religion and schools were not state owned when constitution was written -
posted
Someone needs to tell a lot of these guys that are so against the stuff being here and growing, that off the streets of NY City and Boston and similar places, it is a natural growing native plant and likes to propagate in patches, not needing the aid or intent of human consideration or assistance.
It may have been year since I kept up with any locations, but in younger days I kept a record of some patches as they are an excellent place to bag a limit of doves. Pushed to do so, I'd bet I could go out and locate at least one such non- human developed patch today.
quote:Originally posted by bond006: An the way you get to his kingdom is to care about god
Survey says...
XXX
According to the Bible:
The only way to Heaven is believing that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins, and excepting him as your personal Saviour.
John 3:16 -
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Galations 2:20 -
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
2 Thesselonians 2:16-17 -
"16Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
17Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work."
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Considering what republicans have done to the Constitution, our society, and world peace over the last 30 years or so, I MUST hold that aginst them.
Hmm...
So, you're saying no dems ever sided with republicans over major issues voted on in the House and Senate involving our constitution.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Considering what republicans have done to the Constitution, our society, and world peace over the last 30 years or so, I MUST hold that aginst them.
Hmm...
So, you're saying no dems ever sided with republicans over major issues voted on in the House and Senate involving our constitution.
A little twisted comment there bdgee.
I expected better from you.
Nope, I never said anything similar to what your twisted imagination is declaring I did..
posted
there are no statistics to show that partial birth was anything more than a very rare medical oddity...
here's an interseting stat: Unsafe abortions The vast majority of abortions — 35 million — were in the developing world. And nearly 97 percent of all unsafe abortions were in poor countries. Worldwide, one in five pregnancies ends in abortion.
The study defined unsafe abortions as those performed either by people lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimum medical standards.
In eastern Europe, there are more abortions than live births: 105 abortions for every 100 live births, the research found. In Western Europe, there are 23 abortions for every 100 live births.
In North America, there are 33 abortions for every 100 live births, while in Africa, where abortion is illegal in most countries, there are 17 abortions for every 100 live births.
highest child mortality rates worldwide? all in Africa... go figure?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Considering what republicans have done to the Constitution, our society, and world peace over the last 30 years or so, I MUST hold that aginst them.
Hmm...
So, you're saying no dems ever sided with republicans over major issues voted on in the House and Senate involving our constitution.
A little twisted comment there bdgee.
I expected better from you.
Nope, I never said anything similar to what your twisted imagination is declaring I did..
And I expect better of thee.....
I appologize for being incorrect, I thought you were speaking negatively of the republican party and that you believed that they are solely responsible for making the Constitution, our society, and world peace take a step backwards instead of forwards.
I didn't think you were crazy. I'm glad you cleared that up.
Bdgee,
What have republicans done to the Constitution, our society, and world peace over the last 30 years or so, that you MUST hold aginst them?
Also, was what you speak of done without any approval from democrats?
The republican party has made every effort to absolutely destroy the Constitution and it is not an effort that has been engaged in by the democrats, in spite of the lies republicans flood the airwaves and print media with incessantly.
Now, I am bored with trying to get honesty out of a republican who knows that the tale he spreads is a lie and this is the last word I will offer you on the subject.
Go spread you "faith" to some other person that chooses to ignore the facts. There are plenty of them here, you might start with PM.
IP: Logged |
posted
Now, I am bored with trying to get honesty out of a republican who knows that the tale he spreads is a lie and this is the last word I will offer you on the subject.
Changes to the Constitution, our way of life, generally involve a vote of some sort in the Senate and House by both Republican and Democrats. No one party is correct all the time, thus Republicans can not be solely responsible for what the media does. Democrats and Republicans are both responsible for this.
Have the Repubs damaged this country? Yes
Have the Dems damaged this country? Yes
Why can't we all just get along...
As long as we all have free choice, there will be a difference of opinion. I don't see freedom of choice ending anytime soon, unless there is some major national calamity/tragedy that were to occur that would leave our government in absolute ruin.
posted
"Changes to the Constitution, our way of life, generally involve a vote of some sort in the Senate and House by both Republican and Democrats."
That it party line B.S.put out to convince the heep i is ok to vote for the fascist.
"Have the Repubs damaged this country? Yes
Have the Dems damaged this country? Yes"
Yes, of course, but have the democrats damaged the Nation via a planned and coordinated effort to destroy the Constitution?
No they have not.
Have the Republicans?
YES!!!
A difference of opinion that allows one party to hide violation of the law, is violation of the Constitution and is aimed at destruction of the Constitution in order to instill fascism.
Your lies an worship of fascism, promoting its invasion into our society, is insulting and dangerous for the entire world. You preach a onme party rule and it is sickening.
Now, before you go off on another figned claim of honor an supporting a difference of opinion, get this into your thick skull. I once had deep feelings for the Republican Party, but what acts in its stead today (and for the last few decades) is simple one party fascism and nothing else. It must be eliminated if the United States of America is to remain viable entity anything like that envisioned by the founding fathers. I've heard all your arguments to the contrary and they don't hold water, not a single molecule of it. They are based on lies and more lies.
Go peddle you crap at a secret meeting of the John Birch Society, because it isn't fit for consideration in a free thinking marketplace of ides.
Your one party first lies and other party line crap isn't simply boring, it is an insult to my Country and a danger to the world.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peaser: So then, please explain our demise, solely as a result of the republican party.
You're wasting your time, Peaser, if you think you'll get anything resembling an actual answer to your question. Bdgee is just here to vent his anger at the Repubs and 'right wing' Christians. It's far easier to launch vague attacks than to actually show you a specific constitutional changing event\vote to support his claim. If he accepts by admittance of fact that the Dems are just as culpable to our current mess then he loses his anger target.
(shrug)
I would suggest 'discussing' it with Mach. At least he's usually specific in his myopia.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli: That's odd... I didn't see us invading Iran or North Korea knowing they really have true WMD's that are true threats to the U.S. Unlike Iraq whose so called puny WMD's couldn't even reach us...
Oddly enough I do not see us also going into Rwanda, Sierre Leon, Darfur etc. when there is Genocides there... could it be that the Iraq war was really about something else and not WMD's or morality? ... Could it be profiteering or other motivations? ... makes ya wonder...
So, Mach, what are you suggesting the world do when events like those you've mentioned arise? Stick our heads in the sand and tell our selves that it isn't happening? Hide underneath our covers and simply be thankful it isn't us...yet.
Nearly every tyrant, dictator or opressor had their 'building' time. If something had been done by the powers that be during said time much pain and death could have been avoided. But for too long the idea that deaths in other countries weren't anyone elses concern have allowed evil free reign undtil things like the world wars to occur.
I would love to hear your position on Russia's current slaughter of Georgia to see if you think we should just sit back and watch.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: you are still repeating propaganda.
the fact is the intelligence reports were cherry-picked by Cheney and Rumsfeld and Tenet.
the Congress authorised Bush to wage war to disarm Sadam.
however, many Senators and congressperson never even read the reports prepared by Bush because everybody beleived Sadam had WMD....
And this is why I didn't want this to become another discussion on whether the war was justified or not. We're just going to go yet another round of offering the same things back and forth.
Saddam had shown his attempts to hide his true abilities in the past...
Regardless of whether you believe they are propoganda or not, I would ask you one question...do you believe that there has been ANY war that the U.S. has been involved in that hasn't had it own share of propoganda?
IP: Logged |
posted
actaully SF, legal scholars of both parties agree that Bush by himself has done more specific damage tot eh constitution than anybody.
he has pressed Presidential powers right to the limit and beyond... In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts.
After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress.
The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ''shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself.
Bush had placed similar limits on an inspector general position created by Congress in November 2003 for the initial stage of the US occupation of Iraq. The earlier law also empowered the inspector to notify Congress if a US official refused to cooperate. Bush said the inspector could not give any information to Congress without permission from the administration.
all of these issues have been discussed here before, it becomes somewhat annoying when people say that since these "changes" don't affect me in specific they don't matter.
the whole notion of cherry picking foreign territory to transport prisoners to in order to bypass the constitution shows lack of moral character and an intense search to discover ways to avoid operating within the bounds of the constituion.
the Dems tried to re-interpret the constitution too.. the second ammnedmnent in specific... the problem is? when they did it? we stood up to them, not based on party line, but based on our beleifs.
where Bush has tried to redefine presidential powers, few have stood up to him, Dem or Republican... and that is not good. because Presidential Powers are expanded during time of war? War becomes a power play and a matter of convenience for the President. What is the worldwide war on terror? why is it that we need to have the military fight it when the CIA won a much harder battle? The fight for peace in the cold war. Isn't it more likely that a president wanting to maintain War Powers is less likely to find a peaceful solution when his/her powers are based in war?
When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The provision was included because lawmakers feared that Bush appointees were intimidating nuclear specialists so they would not testify about safety issues related to a planned nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada -- a facility the administration supported, but both Republicans and Democrats from Nevada opposed.
When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement declaring that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower protections. Bush's statement did more than send a threatening message to federal energy specialists inclined to raise concerns with Congress; it also raised the possibility that Bush would not feel bound to obey similar whistle-blower laws that were on the books before he became president. His domestic spying program, for example, violated a surveillance law enacted 23 years before he took office.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
He particularly doesn't want you to find any. If you should stumble on any, he'll claim it isn't a right, but a privilege and only a true blood parroting republican can be so privileged.
IP: Logged |
posted
well, this whole notion that the White House doesn't have to answer to the Call of Congressional Oversight just shows a lack of basic understanding of why the Founders set up the System of Checks and Balances...
they were in fact responding to King Georges system of governemnt. In particular the fact that colonies had no legislative power whatsoever...
just because it's not a crime to fire US Attorneys doesn't mean no crime has been committed... the system of checks and balances requires that the House holds discovery committee meetings,and refusing to respond to them is not an option.
when Monica Goodling took the 5th? she forced the House to assume laws had been broken...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Bush's so-called legal team has lost most every case it's had: ---------
White House Loses Boumediene Case: Supreme Court Sides Against Bush, Protects Habeas Corpus --------- White House Loses Appeal to Keep Visitor Logs Secret
By Jason Leopold and Alan Breslauer The Public Record ----------------
In yet another loss for the Bush Administration in the case of accused Rep. William Jefferson, the United States Supreme Court today denied its appeal on the issue of the constitutionality of its raid of a congressional office.
The Court’s denial of review in U.S. v. Rayburn House Office Building Room 2113 (07-8160) is a major blow. The Court tends to take cases involving inter-branch disputes, particularly after the government has lost in a privilege claim — as here, with the Speech and Debate Clause. Previously, a three-judge panel ruled that papers seized by the FBI “exposed legislative material to the Executive and accordingly violated” the speech-or-debate clause. The panel ruled that the FBI is barred from “a location where legislative materials [are] inevitably to be found,”
-----------------------------
the number of Constitutional intervention court cases lost by Bush is actually mind-boggling... it's so hard to sort them all out that i won't even bother, instead i'll ask SF to find us a few that he won...
i bet it's less than five...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
If there were dozens, it wouldn't mean SF could find any. He can only tell you what goes for fact in ultra conservative circles of hate. He doesn't lie, because he actually believes anything he gets via that misinformation mill.
Bush believes he "RULES", the republicans have insisted that is his right, and they insist that the Constitution can provide no deterrent to that divine right.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the number of Constitutional intervention court cases lost by Bush is actually mind-boggling... it's so hard to sort them all out that i won't even bother, instead i'll ask SF to find us a few that he won...
i bet it's less than five...
I'll take a bite at it if I get some time this week, Glass. I'd hate to say no to a challege just because it may be impossible.
Either way, the trouble with Supreme Court rulings are that they can be revisited by later Courts and overturned as opinions (read political motives) change...case in point: segregation.
1896 Plessy v. Ferguson was the infamous case that asserted that “equal but separate accommodations” for blacks on railroad cars did not violate the “equal protection under the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment. By defending the constitutionality of racial segregation, the Court paved the way for the repressive Jim Crow laws of the South. The lone dissenter on the Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan, protested, “The thin disguise of ‘equal’ accommodations…will not mislead anyone.”
Only to be 'overturned' 58 years later by...
1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka invalidated racial segregation in schools and led to the unraveling of de jure segregation in all areas of public life. In the unanimous decision spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court invalidated the Plessy ruling, declaring “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place” and contending that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Future Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall was one of the NAACP lawyers who successfully argued the case.
posted
Regardless of whether you believe they are propoganda or not, I would ask you one question...do you believe that there has been ANY war that the U.S. has been involved in that hasn't had it own share of propoganda?
this is hardly worth responding to. except that once again we are back in the territory of excusing bad behaviour with other bad behaviour...
what was it you said about good men failing to act?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
