Having seen how quick people are to throw the fledgling democratic impulse in Iraq onto the ash-heap of history causes one to wonder: does Democracy spontaneously combust, or is Democracy like a fine wine that develops with time? If it is the latter, is it like a red wine that takes longer, or is it like a white wine that turns to vinegar if it isn't consumed fairly quickly?
It could be argued that England's first steps toward democracy began with the Magna Carta in 1215 and coalesced in the Commonwealth at the end of the 17th Century before going dormant again until World War I. So somewhere between 5oo and 700 years roughly with much bloodshed along the way. The United States in turn had a Revolution, an officer's offered coup and two expressions of democracy, again with alot of bloodshed in the war and some struggles between 1775 and 1791.
France has had a dubious relationship with democracy in its past. An extremely bloody civil war/revolution, dictatorial leaders at times preceeding the beating they took at the hands of the Franco-Prussian War as well as the continued pastings they got from Germany throughout the first half of the 20th Century. Bloody, repressive support of colonial regimes and arms sales that still couldn't rival the US but certainly impoverished many other nations. I think France still struggles to deal with its bloody formation in the 1790's. Germany had democracy imposed after two horrible World Wars (to the victors...) and as you look at other nations, how about the damage to democracy our own Civil War had on our nation.
Democracy is a fragile thing. The matrix of understanding and creating democracy is difficult. Is it restricted to Western culture? To suggest so is to be ethnocentric. Yet, can a system of governance be imposed? In Germany and Japan democracy was imposed and thrived, but it was less successful in Spain and Italy, occuring but with many birth pangs.
Given history suggests a cultural matrix of understanding and indigenization is necessary, what factors need to occur before democratic impulse can thrive in the Middle EAst?
Lebanon's tender coalition is an interesting model. Will it survive the present situation? Will it revive after the present situation ends?
Posted by Griffon on :
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln stood on the Gettysburg battlefield to utter these words. For a person who wasn't known for his eloquence, Lincoln could also sign these words into law:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States." January 1, 1863
Good words, wonderful ideals, even if some would contend these very words, had they been enacted into law before the rebellion, would have bankrupted the Southern states. And the war came, testing our fabric as a nation. It has been eloquently argued that the reall issue was states' rights but the real issue was a way of life: could one person own another? Could a person of color be a full and free citizen in this Republic?
But I have to ask do those words mean anything as we near 150 years after the fact and our Southern neighbors of all ethnicities and both genders are often living in abject poverty? If our neighbors throughout the land endure the hardship and oppression of systemic poverty, are we truly free? Pretty words but do they mean anything when a century later, in 1963, the man who said this from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial:
Delivered on the steps at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on August 28, 1963. Source: Martin Luther King, Jr: The Peaceful Warrior, Pocket Books, NY 1968
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.
One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land.
So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition. In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.
This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.
So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights.
The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. we must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" we can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!!!"
So I ask, are we even at the point where democracy reaches every person in our "free" nation?
Posted by Griffon on :
well, all, gotta go. Hope we can catch up tomorrow for more good dialog on the issues of the day!
Posted by T e x on :
lol
"all"
griff? you're the only one on-thread, until this post.... Posted by T e x on :
lol
"all"
griff? you're the only one on-thread, until this post.... Posted by Relentless. on :
he must love the pitty pat sound the keyboard makes.
Posted by Griffon on :
Good to see you all
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Democracy can't be forced on anyone.
Posted by Griffon on :
GB said: "Democracy can't be forced on anyone."
It was "forced" on people in every case where it exists. Look at history GB. In the US only 33% supported the war. Washington's troops tried to make him king. We fought a Civil War to decide "whether any nation conceived in liberty could long endure." Our flirtation with cults of personality centering around generals demonstrates this as well. Democracy is not "inate." Political structures of every "-ism" become indigenized, they do not spring up.
In England bloody Civil War and the Commonwealth; while in France we saw bloody revolution as democracy asserted itself. Look at the struggles in Italy and Spain over democracy.
All political systems are an imposition of will flowing from what Nietzsche rightly called "the Will to Power." Thus are all political systems inherently flawed. Replication is impossible, but indigenization and contextualization will eventually triumph. That is precisely why I have not advocated a system of winning the peace through imposition of political system, but through what? Building hospitals, sanitation systems, infrastructure, schools, universities and culture centers where victims of colonial and Cold War powers can collect and learn from their own experience and develop their own identity. It is a price colonial and Cold War profiteers should pay for the exploitation of indigenous peoples around the world.
Posted by glassman on :
those are not occupying forces griffon....
occupation is the key word....
the Dems have been seeking to send a message of non-occupation while Bush says we are staying forever...
you can attempt to intellectualize this all you want... in the end? its about GUTS....
Posted by Griffon on :
"the Dems have been seeking to send a message of non-occupation while Bush says we are staying forever..."
Neither of your assumptions is correct Glass. Dems have labeled it an occupation which is an accurate assessment of the situation on the ground and some have called for its end, and Bush is saying we will stay until the Iraqi government is equipped to deal with the duties of governance.
Posted by glassman on :
Bush is saying we will stay until the Iraqi government is equipped to deal with the duties of governance.
no, you are just hearing what you want to hear Bush say....
Bush has no intention of ever leaving and that is why the action is the way it is.....
i can pull you dozens of quotes that say clearly that Bush never considered US withdrawing at all...drawdown? yes, but NEVER withdrawl..
peaceful occupation buddy.... that's what Bush was hoping for... that's what the Iraqi's are pissed off about..
now? show me an occupation that was successful long-term OTHER THAN Japan and Germany... cuz that's what Bush keeps throwing up as an example to compare to....
Posted by bond006 on :
We never had democracy after our revolution, as we know it today we did have a document of written law that was flexable enough to allow us to evolve into a democracy as we know it now, and we are still changing. Look at what the rights were and for the most part who got them. And if you look at history our founding fathers were anything but men of peace and some weren't Christians. When they were talking about freedom were the slaves that over half of them owned were they to have it in this new Government?
Some rights were blanket rights for every body,thank you Daniel Shay and your army of veterans. All thouth i wish he would have hung the bunch of them. But at least we got the bill of rights out of his efforts.Again the threat of violence worked.
But I believe that you are right Griffon. I think people have to want it bad enough to struggle for it peice by peice and when it gets there they are aware of what they have and for a generation or two they chreish it after that it becomes more diluted and forgotten about also taken for granted.
Posted by glassman on :
and believe me...we NEEDED to re-enact it...
Posted by bond006 on :
You are right Glass we are building some wheres in the neighborhood of 13 new bases I have heard in Iraq I have heard Bussh says there will be American presence there for another 50 or 60 years. Take a look at Germany after WWII and that is what Bush wants for Iraq
Posted by Griffon on :
"now? show me an occupation that was successful long-term OTHER THAN Japan and Germany... cuz that's what Bush keeps throwing up as an example to compare to...."
I wouldn't even call the German and Japanese occupations successful.
"peaceful occupation buddy.... that's what Bush was hoping for...that's what the Iraqi's are pissed off about.."
agreed, but where did I say it was peaceful? The objective I am suggesting is an Iraqi government that will stand on its own. To be honest, I am not sure it will stand on its own as a single, sovereign nation. I think we have another Yugoslavia, conflicting tribal groups whose identity as Iraq is nominal at best. The mandate system exacerbated the tribal tensions to make for easy rule. So I think the more accurate model is the break-up of the former Soviet Union into semi-confederation of independant states.
But as I have said before, if we had an exit strategy from the leader of this coalition, it would compel the leaders in Iraq to get serious about preparing or breaking up. Til then, petty factionalism turns into huge factionalism.
It looks like the two models I have presented: Yugoslavia and the so-called CIS, more than Germany and Japan and the potential for genocide if we leave now is great. Personally, I like CashCowMoo's suggested 1 year departure timeframe because it tells those leaders to get their country under control with our support or face the fire after. Is that acceptible if the latter is chosen? The American people will have decided by then.
Posted by glassman on :
The objective I am suggesting is an Iraqi government that will stand on its own
and the plan of the neo-cons was a puppet govt...that they held the strings to...
chalabi was the puppets name...
Posted by Johnwayne on :
You mean for the next two years he's not planning a full withdrawl? I can agree with you there Glassman. After that it's irrelevant what Bush's hopes where. I think he probably assumes after he leaves office his effect on foreign policy will be greatly diminished.
And how stupid would it be to have a rapid reaction force in Iraq to deal with Iran? Not stupid at all.
Now if had this master plan to get bogged down in Iraq, why the quick victory in Afghanistan? Why not employ the same strategy, or better yet, not even go into Iraq, and just have the bogdown occur in Afghanistan?
I believe Afghanistan and the Phillipines are another example of what you are looking re occupations correct?
Posted by glassman on :
why the quick victory in Afghanistan
because the CIA ran that... they were not under Cheney's control... that is why the Plame affair happened...
And how stupid would it be to have a rapid reaction force in Iraq to deal with Iran? Not stupid at all.
Iran knows this too... but Bush and his buddies didn't even know that there was a Sunni/Shia split...
Posted by Johnwayne on :
George Tenant ran the CIA then right?
Posted by glassman on :
I believe Afghanistan and the Phillipines are another example of what you are looking re occupations correct?
i am talking about thru all of history...
if you don't have the dirt in your blood? you have no real reason to keep fighting...
Posted by bond006 on :
Why did we need the womens sufferage movement in this country. And that ended in 1920 with women given the right to vote.Why did this country need the civil rights movement. And today we have another battle going on the gay rights movements. Not only the struggle for the gays rights before the law and protection under it but we have to stop a man from amending the constatution to make new laws that target them for discrimination. .No America is about no matter what somebody eles thinks of anothers life style and preferences that the person in thought should not have there rights taken away if we ever let that happen to one groupe it will happen to all.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: George Tenant ran the CIA then right?
yes. and now the CIA has been politically "bashed" for 911...
another example of rove putting the party before the nation...
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Gays are protected under civil rights no? I believe they should be protected and have same rights as everyone else, with the exception of marriage. Adopting, insurance, yeah I guess that's ok. I'm not real familure with insurance laws, is there a law saying you can only put a spouse on your insurance? I really don't have a problem with gay people, I believe it's a sin, but we all are sinners. But state sanctoned gay marriage, no thank you.
Posted by Griffon on :
"and the plan of the neo-cons was a puppet govt...that they held the strings to..."
perhaps but I am not a neo-con. Personally, my reason for posting this thread was to show in a sense both sides that Democracy doesn't form over night and never without struggle. I really think England's history shows that better than ours because you see the step-by-step progression, the peaks and valleys, better. Course that might be because they have been around like 1000 years longer than us.
To the neo-Cons that said, we'll get in, get out, set up a government and democracy will thrive, I wanted to say look folks democracy is a long process in any culture and at some point there must be a nucleus of action when a precipitating event arises. It is not enough to initiate that event. Chalabi is not George Washington, and given the factionalism in Iraq, there is no such persona right now, thus no nucleus of action. In American history, 33% of the people supported the war, 33% were opposed and 33% didn't care but the support was mixed throughout the country. That is not so in Iraq. That is lesson 1 from history about democracy.
To the Democrats who label the effort to form a democracy in the Middle East a failure, I would point to the same events mentioned above and say that it is too soon to measure that. We won't likely know how this will shape the imaginations of the next generation. Maybe they grow up saying: Democracy will never work, maybe they grow up saying "I have a dream." In fact, Glass, you and I will likely not see the end political result of ending Saddam's regime in our lifetimes. I say that because I for one do not intend to see 100 years.
At this point, the main thing we need to be doing is offering a stabilizing influence between conflicting factions and a partner in forcing a settlement in Israel/Palestine where both will be equal, non-provocative, non-aggressors, and partners in building an economy for both nations.
But let's come back to plans for Iraq. I have a wedding to perform in 5 hours so I need to go for awhile. Let me ask you a few questions about Iraq within the framework of this conversation and if you have time offer your vision for Iraq.
Assuming we leave Iraq in the next year what should our objectives be in that time?
Is democracy a realistic goal for Iraq at this time?
What would you like to see Iraq look like on July 31, 2007?
What is your hope for the Iraqi people?
How do we deal with Iran's plans for the region including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Israel?
We may disagree, but I do want to hear your views. As Cornell West said, we, starting with I, need to start listening to each other, and that is a skill we must always practice to improve.
Posted by glassman on :
What is your hope for the Iraqi people?
this goes to the core of what i've been trying to tell you....
how about asking them?
you won't like the answer...
Posted by jordanreed on :
maybe the iraqi's want us to leave them alone?...
as for people who are gay.. Why would it bother me if they get married or not?..not my business..
Posted by Johnwayne on :
So Tennant was telling the truth and Rove was lying for political purposes? Thus Tenant gets thrown under the bus?
Posted by bdgee on :
Tennent was lying to gain faavor with dubya..
Rove just lies to lie.....one reason dubya can trust him....they are kindred liars.
Posted by bond006 on :
I believe with Glassman on the subeject of what I want for Iraq.
If I am to believe what Bush has said that we went there to remove a threat and to give the people of Iraq the right to determin there own future and give them the gift of liberty. Its simple just ask them what they want, And if they say we want freedom from you we go and let them live. If that is our real reson for being there the should be no ther answer to the problme.
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Than who is right here? Bdgee or Glassman? Glassman says the CIA was not under Cheny's thumb. Bdgee says the director of the CIA was trying to impress Bush. So he was not under Chenes thumb but was trying to impress Bush. If he is trying to impress Bush, how is he not under Cheney's thumb? Did Bush and Cheney have different agendas? How can he think he is going to impress the president by not being under the Vice President's thumb? How can you buck the vice president and still try to curry favor with the President? Is the vice president not an extension of the president? Doesn't make sense to me but I'll let you two work it out I guess.
Posted by glassman on :
How can you buck the vice president and still try to curry favor with the President? Is the vice president not an extension of the president?
what IS the vice president supposed to be? NOTHING but a stand-in...
don't tell that to Cheney...
Posted by bdgee on :
JW,
Since when is what Glass... and I said in opposition.
1) Glassman says the CIA was not under Cheny's thumb.
2) Bdgee says the director of the CIA was trying to impress Bush.
Please be so kind as to explain in detail to us terribly poor logicians how either the statement in 1), proposed by Glassman, or the statement in 2), propossed by bdgee, contradicts the other. I am finding your suggestion that they are opposing ideas and one must be wrong a bit difficult to justify, if not plain silly. So, as requested, specifically show how they are so. Of course, I could be wrong.
Me thinks you are so enthralled with any and everything far right and pro-republican you have lost touch with reason.
Posted by glassman on :
i agree bdgee...
he thinks he can rove us here...
Tenet, not Tenant, was hung out to dry by Bush and Cheney...he fell on his sword... i'm sure there's some deal already set up for him worth millions...
otherwise? he'll publish a 10 million dollar book after Bush leaves office....
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes, he thinks we think like the Limbauugh nation, only by directive from and according to Rush.
Posted by Johnwayne on :
Very much in correct fellas. You cannot impress the president by bucking the vice president, as you claim Tenant was doing. They are #'s 1 and 2 in the administration. They have the same agenda. Taken as individual statements they both are plausible. Saying both are true is implausible, unless you are saying Bush and Cheney don't speak to eachother and aren't on the same team. You said that Tenant is not towing the administration line (by following Cheney's wishes)and he is trying to impress the President. How can you not tow the administrations line and simoultaniously impress the leader of that administration?
If I'm going to impress the boss, I can't go against his wishes can I? Even if his wishes are spelled out to me by his assistant, I know if I'm going to impress the boss, I do what he wants. Pretty simple thinking you don't try to impress the boss by not following his wishes. Unless you are arguing that Cheney is really the boss.........
Posted by glassman on :
JW? you are so far behind the curve i don't even know where to start....
do you think the veep's desk is outside the oval office door or something? LOL
Cheney has taken more power and been more involved in policy than any VEEP in history...
and it's mostly blown up in our faces...
you really are quoting directly form limbaughs playbook..
Dubya was NOT a neocon... Cheney IS... Jeb IS...
you have made the mistake of believing that Bush even had a plan at all...
the neocons were hoping Bush would just ride his mountainbike in Crawford for eight years while they robbed US (and any other country they could take over) all blind...
HISTORICALLY? the veeep is not the executive officer.. he is not part of the "chain of command".... he is there to sit at the senate and cast a tie breaker vote and he is there to replace the President in an emergency...
this country has gone to hell-in-a-bucket because of people like you that don't even understand what has really happened, and are happy that it has...
more...
Posted by glassman on :
Powell and Tenet both waged "war" with Cheney....
it's well documented... turn off rush or savage or whoever it is that's been telling you this is how it is
Posted by glassman on :
think back.....
way backkkkk when there was still some sanity....
Cheney walked Tenet to Capitaol Hill himself...
Cheney, Tenet brief Hill leaders on Iraq Lott: Information is 'interesting and troubling'
September 5, 2002 Posted: 4:43 PM EDT (2043 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With Democratic leaders expressing unease over the prospect of a military attack against Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA Director George Tenet delivered a classified, intelligence briefing about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to a select group of congressional leaders Thursday.
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, called the information passed along in the 90 minute briefing "interesting and troubling" and said it would give lawmakers -- many of them critical or skeptical of the administration's planning --
"a lot more to think about."
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, who had called on the administration to release more information about the Iraqi threat, said Tenet and Cheney answered "many" of the questions he has had.
"What I'm going to do is talk to my colleagues a little bit. It was a very helpful briefing, and we were in a position to ask a lot of good questions," said Daschle, who told reporters he will have "more to say about it later."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, also attended the briefing, which came in the wake of comments from some lawmakers that the administration has failed to provide fresh evidence about the threat posed by Saddam, nor explained why a military strike might be needed at this time.
On a fund-raising trip in Louisville, Kentucky, Bush said he welcomed the "dialogue on Iraq," but declared, "I'm not going to change my view."
That view, as expressed in a series of comments and speeches by Bush and other administration figures, is that there must be a "regime change" in Iraq and Saddam is a threat to peace. In a letter delivered Wednesday to congressional leaders, Bush said he would do "whatever is necessary" to deal with Saddam.
The White House accuses the Iraqi leader of amassing weapons of mass destruction in violation of U.N. resolutions ending the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Lott said some GOP senators were "already meeting" to discuss the wording of a possible resolution of support.
But House Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, who attended a meeting Wednesday at the White House with other congressional leaders, said she was not convinced that a military strike was warranted.
"There is no question, of course, that Saddam Hussein is an evil person, does terrible things, is a threat in the region, and we'd like to see him removed from power," Pelosi, D-California, said. "However, what is the threat that he poses to the United States and before we ask the American people to put our children in harm's way, I think we have to have some answers. What is the threat? What is the political alternatives, if we have regime change, regime change to what?"
And former President Jimmy Carter weighed in, arguing against a U.S. attack on Iraq. image QUICKVOTE Is President Bush's mind made up on attacking Iraq?
Yes No View Results
Writing in The Washington Post, Carter argued that Iraq poses no current threat to the United States. He said Washington can't ignore its development of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, but "a unilateral war with Iraq is not the answer."
"In the face of intense monitoring and overwhelming American military superiority, any belligerent move by Hussein against a neighbor, even the smallest nuclear test (necessary before weapons construction), a tangible threat to use a weapon of mass destruction, or sharing this technology with terrorist organizations would be suicidal," Carter wrote. "But it is quite possible that such weapons would be used against Israel or our forces in response to an American attack." Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle: "It was a very helpful briefing."
Before the classified briefing, Daschle said he hopes Bush would get "the kind of support from the U.N. that his father did" before making any move against Iraq.
"If the international community supports it, if we can get the information we've been seeking, then I think we can move to a resolution," he said. "But short of that, I think it would be difficult for us to move until that information is provided and some indication of the level of international support is also evident."
Congressional hearings on Iraq are expected next week, and congressional leaders said a vote on a resolution could come as early as October.
Speaking in Kentucky, Bush said he welcomed the debate. "I want there to be an open discussion about the threats that face America."
The White House stepped up its public relations effort for a "regime change" in Iraq after lawmakers returned from an August recess, with many of them expressing doubts about the wisdom against launching a strike against Iraq.
In response, Bush summoned top lawmakers to the White House Wednesday and told them he would "seek approval" from Congress "at the appropriate time" on what to do about Saddam.
The president is also making his case on the international stage. He's invited British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Camp David for talks this Saturday. (Full story) He also plans discussions with other world leaders, including the presidents of France, Russia and China. And Bush will outline the case against Saddam, whom he called a "serious threat," in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly next week.
Daschle said Bush's speech to the United Nations next week would be a "major test" for whether the administration could rally support for any action against Iraq.
While Bush has stopped short of saying explicitly he wants to launch a military strike against Iraq, he made it clear Wednesday that he wanted the United States to act.
"Doing nothing about that serious threat is not an option for the United States," Bush said.
In Wednesday's letter to congressional leaders, Bush said he would "seek congressional support for U.S. action to do whatever is necessary to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime." He said Congress can "play an important role" in building a consensus for action. (Text of letter)
Lawmakers said they want to know Bush's timetable for a military offensive, how many troops and how much money would be involved, the feasibility of pursuing such a strategy without support from a coalition of other nations, and whether the administration would accept a new round of weapons inspections in Iraq.
--Capitol Hill Producer Dana Bash and Pentagon Producer Mike Mount contributed to this report. Posted by glassman on :
On a fund-raising trip in Louisville, Kentucky, Bush said he welcomed the "dialogue on Iraq," but declared, "I'm not going to change my view." Posted by bdgee on :
JW,
Where being logical is concerned, you are hopeless. There is NOTHING in either of those statenments that dictates that the other be true, that the other be false, or that both be false, only that itself be true. They are logically independent!
You are so busy timing your goose step with "The Leader" you have forsaken any chance of being reasonable.
What on God's green earth would make,
"Saying both are true is implausible, unless you are saying Bush and Cheney don't speak to eachother and aren't on the same team."
be true or even have anything to do with facts or what Chaney or Tenat did or why?
Consider this nonsensical query,
"How can you not tow the administrations line and simoultaniously impress the leader of that administration?"
It is quite simple, you claim, falsely, that the CIA has confirmed the truth of Bush's claims of WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion. Tennet lied , but what the hey, Bush was lying in the first place.
Maybe you think that, like negatives, the product of two lies is a truth?
Posted by glassman on :
From the Knight Ridder article linked to below:
Posted on Wed, Mar. 10, 2004
CIA chief rejects assertions of Iraq-al Qaeda links
CIA Director George Tenet distances himself from Vice President Dick Cheney‘s remarks about Iraq cooperating with al Qaeda.
BY JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight Ridder News Service
WASHINGTON - CIA Director George Tenet on Tuesday rejected recent assertions by Vice President Dick Cheney that Iraq cooperated with the al Qaeda terrorist network and that the administration had proof of an illicit Iraqi biological warfare program.
Tenet‘s comments to the Senate Armed Services Committee are likely to fuel friction between the White House and intelligence agencies over the failure so far to find any of the banned weapons stockpiles that President Bush, in justifying his case for war, charged Saddam Hussein with concealing.
Tenet at first appeared to defend the administration, saying that he didn‘t believe the White House misrepresented intelligence provided by the CIA.
The administration‘s statements, he said, reflected a prewar intelligence consensus that Hussein had stockpiled chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nuclear bombs.
REVERSES POSITION
But under sharp questioning by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Tenet reversed himself, saying there had been instances when he had warned administration officials that they were misstating the threat posed by Iraq.
‘‘I‘m not going to sit here and tell you what my interaction was . . . and what I did and didn‘t do, except that you have to have confidence to know that when I believed that somebody was misconstruing intelligence, I said something about it,‘‘ Tenet said. ``I don‘t stand up publicly and do it.‘‘
Tenet admitted to Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee‘s senior Democrat, that he had told Cheney that the vice president was wrong in saying that two truck trailers recovered in Iraq were ‘‘conclusive evidence‘‘ that Hussein had a biological weapons program.
Cheney made the assertion in a Jan. 22 interview with National Public Radio.
Tenet said U.S. intelligence agencies still disagree on the purpose of the trailers. Some analysts believe they were mobile biological-weapons facilities; others think they were for making hydrogen gas for weather balloons.
Levin also questioned Tenet about a Jan. 9 interview with the Rocky Mountain News in which Cheney cited a November article in the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, as ‘‘the best source of information‘‘ on cooperation between Hussein and al Qaeda.
The article was based on a leaked top-secret memorandum. It purportedly set out evidence, compiled by a special Pentagon intelligence cell, that Hussein was in league with al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. It was written by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, the third-highest Pentagon official and a key war proponent.
‘‘Did the CIA agree with the contents of the Feith document?‘‘ asked Levin.
‘‘Senator, we did not clear the document,‘‘ replied Tenet. ``We did not agree with the way the data was characterized in that document.‘‘
Tenet, who pointed out that the Pentagon, too, had disavowed the document, said he learned of the article Monday night, and he planned to speak with Cheney about the CIA‘s view of the Feith document.
DISPUTES
In building the case for war, Bush, Cheney and other top officials relied in part on assessments by the CIA and other agencies. But they concealed disputes and dissents over Iraq‘s weapons programs and links to terrorists that were raging among analysts, U.S. diplomats and military officials.
They also used exaggerated and fabricated information from defectors and former Iraqi exile groups that was fed directly into Cheney‘s office and the Pentagon. Those groups included the Iraqi National Congress, whose leader, Ahmad Chalabi, was close to hawks around Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the White House, but who was distrusted by the CIA and the State Department.
Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the military‘s main intelligence arm, said that ‘‘some‘‘ information provided by defectors had checked out, but that they also gave material that was ``fabricated or embellished.‘‘ Posted by glassman on :
Levin also questioned Tenet about a Jan. 9 interview with the Rocky Mountain News in which Cheney cited a November article in the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, as ‘‘the best source of information‘‘ on cooperation between Hussein and al Qaeda.
Weekly Standard?
Founder? William Krystsal... New American Century? same dude...
seems like he became the head of American Intelligence under Cheney....
Posted by john wayne on :
Bdgee - "Tennet lied" than why should I think he is being truthful now in the things you post Glassman?
If he says the things the above articles claim, he sure as hell isn't trying to impress the boss.
And Bdgee - let me simplify- How can you be trying to impress the boss and not following his wishes? If Cheney relayed the administrations wishes, and Tenent did not follow them he did not try to impress the boss.
Glassman- so, is Tenant now telling the truth, and how can you tell? Are you now saying that Tenant is the truth teller here?
Posted by glassman on :
once somebody lies they are always a liar? why do you believe Bush anymore? cuz you want to...
Posted by bdgee on :
JW,
You "choose" to believe the lies you "choose".
Among the things we know beyond question. (Even though you and Rush keep trying.)
Bush Lied.
Chaney Lied.
Tennet lied.
And you keep claiming they are to be trusted.
You maybe are playing the part of a fool?
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
you could fill an ocean with the tears of soldiers who weep behind closed doors.
thats all you need to know
Posted by john wayne on :
No guys I can concede that The amount of WMD's if any, did not constitute invasion, I can concede that the admin probably used exaggerated claims. I may try once in a while to argue the case differently, but for the most part I agree with you there.
But here is the problem. You notice how Bdgee is hanging like a tiberian bat onto the "tenant lied" line? He has to to say that because he is smart enough to know that in Tenants CIA report Tenant makes the case that their was evidence Saddam was developing WMD's, both satellite and human intelligence said Iraq had, wanted or was capable of restarting their WMD program. Also that there was plenty of periferal evidence to support that line of thinking. Thus Bdgee says he must be lying. Same with David Kay. See the argument against these guys has switched. At first it was enough to say, we didn't find any WMD's. But that is not enough now for some, now they are trying to prove that there never was a hint of WMD"S, and Bush knew it.
In Tenants testimony, it appears the authenticity of the CIA report was not entirely thrown out or even disputed. Now assuming Glassman and I are both correct about one lie does not make you a liar, please click on the link to Tennants CIA report about WMDS's
"My provisional bottom line today: Iraq intended to develop Biological Weapons. Clearly, research and development work was underway that would have permitted a rapid shift to agent production if seed stocks were available. But we do not know if production took place – and just as clearly—we have not yet found biological weapons" - Tenant
Now you have Bdgee saying tenant is liar, you have Glassman quoting him so you must put some faith in his testimony, what do you two make of this report? I know Bdgee will say it's all a pack of lies, but Glassman what is your take on this?
Posted by glassman on :
'04? he was campaigning for Bush....
like i said? there is a great deal of money to be made...one way or the other...
a few months later? in July? CIA officials denied that Tenet quit or was pressured to leave because of criticism of U.S. intelligence over the failed search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or missed clues to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist plot.
yeah right.....
LOL...
Posted by john wayne on :
Look basically what I'm trying to say is that mistakes, exxagerations did happen. Flat out ruthless lying to promote an evil agenda. I don't think so. I'm sure Tenant was pressured to leave, somebody had to take the fall and that's politics. At the end of the day I believe Bush does deserve the blame for the mistakes, because he's the guy at the top. But to accuse him of every conceivable crime, no I won't go that far. There was enough intelligence for him to make that leap, add a little fluff and present it to the public.
Posted by john wayne on :
That is the problem with the democratic argument. it's always, "this guys a liar" "this guy campaigned for the President" "taken from the RNC playbook" "Rove must have gotten to him"
Very little on facts, long on accusations, shadow conspiricies, and ignoring of evidence. And to be truthful, if roles were reversed repub's would be the same way.
Posted by glassman on :
JW? you are a trip...
that's politics? sheeyit man... people are dyin' and people are cryin... and your answer is "that's politics"... i am ashamed to be in the same species...
i have shown you papers written by Cheneys freinds at the Weekly Standard, and proving that Cheney was a signatory member of the PNAC and you say it's politics?
it's money buddy, money, money, money...
Cheney has gone from being a power line worker in Wyoming, to worth about 50 million dollars... and he has only been in the privat sector for about 5 years during the Clinton administration...
now you tell me the GOP wouldn't fry any Dem that did that? and the Dems will fry him if they ever get back in power...
Posted by bdgee on :
JW is a member of the dedicated far far right wing religious fanatic republican shrubbery. They live their life to attempt to hide lies dubya and crew tell. It doesn't matter how fantastic the story must be to cover for the gap from fact and truth, they will gleefully create a cover.
What's sad (and sick) is that they think that them believing they have manufactured tales suffucient to hide reality means that we are required (or so simple minded) to believe their tales do that too.
Posted by glassman on :
very little on facts..... heeehaw...
fact? Geroge Senior knew it was best to leave sadam in charge of his country....
and we enjoyed the cheapest energy prices EVER (when you factor inflation) before Bushjunior invaded Iraq...
no matter how you slice it? the only justification woulda been if sadam had NUKES or something as bad as smallpox....
even if sadam still had some old sarin shells and other stuff we helped him get to use on Iran laying around? the cost benefit ratios don't add up......
Posted by john wayne on :
That's politics? i can't find where I say that?
"no matter how you slice it? the only justification woulda been if sadam had NUKES or something as bad as smallpox...."
In your opinion yes. See guys no matter how hard you twist and spin and tip toe, you still have no proof. You know what information Tenant ploppped on Bush's desk, and it destroy's the "tin foil hat" crowd's wet dream. Pull out the proof boys. Cause since this whole thing started you have provided not one shred of proof that any conspiracy existed. And this New American Century Thing? I am reading through it now, whew,. It's awful hard for me to believe that a bunch of people smart enough to pull off 9/11 would be dumb enough to put it in a publication a year in advance, but I'll give it a shot. Prove it. This is a perfect example of the evidence you guys use, innuendo, leaps of faith, jumping to conclusions.No proof.
Here is the thing guys - burden of proof lies with the accuser. Take off the tin foil hats and prove it. Actual proof, not black helicopter stuff, prove it. I know, did the Evil doctor Rove destroy all the evidence? Or was it mad scientist Cheney? You guys are a hoot. I didn't know people clung to this so dearly. Put some proof on the table. Where's the smoking gun? Did Tenant hide that too? At some point in all of this you guys need some sort of proof!
And one more thing. If Bush had no plan in this invasion, stop blaming him.
Posted by john wayne on :
I tell you what guys. PM me the smoking gun. Show me the proof. Cause if you proove it to me, you can convince anybody. I'm very interested to see you guys actually come up with something more than black helicopter stuff. At some point, you have to provide proof to keep this going. It's not my side's job to disprove you, prove it to me!!!
Posted by glassman on :
you seem to have me confused with other people...
i am not a proponent of pull off 9/11 from inside the US...
i am simply showing you that the war in Iraq was planned in advance..proving it actually... and nobody has ever denied it... except you seem to be denying it or something...
Posted by Griffon on :
"you could fill an ocean with the tears of soldiers who weep behind closed doors."
Having an uncle that survived Vietnam and three cousins that fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, you are exactly right Cash. And I would add from experience, pastors weep as many or more for varied reasons.
I do appreciate your witness on here. It is good to disagree with a person and demonstrate we can still have respectful, humanity affirming dialog. It's obvious the language that leads to two sides lobbing bombs at each other. So I appreciate your willingness to discuss topics. We will not agree and that's okay. I am not threatened by disagreement.
I will always believe Saddam had to go under the Convention on Genocide for what happened in 1988. I will always believe there was a better way to get him to leave than the option chosen. However, I also have to minister to the families and honor the fallen, visit the sick and dying. And I cannot in good conscience say, "well I oppose everything you fought for," outside their room, and then say, "but I support you." To me, that is a lie. We may disagree on that too, but as a person of deep conscience, I cannot live that dichotomy.
I know people try to paint it every other way, but it comes down to this: you cannot divorce the two actions from each other. Either you support the troops, pray for their well-being, write to them, send packages to them and work to bring them home, or you say, "everything you are fighting for is a lie." The difference between those positions is that the former expresses the love and appreciation of a nation, the other seeks political gain from an horrific situation.
Posted by john wayne on :
" am simply showing you that the war in Iraq was planned in advance" Who do you propose planned it?
Posted by glassman on :
I know people try to paint it every other way, but it comes down to this: you cannot divorce the two actions from each other.
that is textbook fascism....
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by john wayne: " am simply showing you that the war in Iraq was planned in advance" Who do you propose planned it?
JW? were you born yesterday?
Posted by bdgee on :
Yep, facism......
And these clowns want to justify it!
Posted by glassman on :
you both are practicing up for the campaigns this fall aren't you? LOL...
it is desparate isn't it? i'm not a big fan of impeachmnet myself...
but if the GOP doesnt keep control? Bush will have to start writing up all those get out of jail free cards fast.....
the situation is desparate... extremely desprate...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by john wayne: " am simply showing you that the war in Iraq was planned in advance" Who do you propose planned it?
Rumsfeld,Wolfowitz, Cheney,Cahalabi...
you do remeber that Cheney was the SECDEF before right? under GW Bush?...and he worked for Rummy....
Posted by john wayne on :
Well let me ask it another way Glassman. How far in advance....... (cue suspensful music)
Posted by Griffon on :
"that is textbook fascism...."
No, it comes from a higher authority than that Glass:
James 2:14-17
What good is it, my brothers and sisters,a if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
Luke 10:25-37: Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.a “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”
But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii,b gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
To follow what God says in helping my neighbor to help him/herself is fascism huh? Given that you support what Warren Christopher said I think you need to reflect a bit on these stories. And you need to study the argument presented to you because you have not done so with understanding of what I said.
Posted by glassman on :
oh, i dunno, maybe as soon as Bush got in office...
Richard Clark says they were ready to go on 9-12... said they had hard targets...
they woulda been dreaming before 911 tho...
they needed a way to get people upset...
there's a memo floating around thats as reliable as youre memo about Carter (the one written by Haig) this memo suggests Bush was gonna try to get sadam to shoot down a UN marked plane to justify it...
you boys think the whole world has conspired against Bush don't you?
Posted by john wayne on :
No not at all. Just the black helicopter crowd. But that is the price you pay, in this internet society. Alot of kooks out there. Look at the inmpeachment poll. The kooks are quite simply more dedicated. And Bush brought some of it on himself.
Posted by glassman on :
some of it?? that's highlarious...
read New American Century..its writen by Cheney Rummy Wolfowitz.... they lay it all out in '98, in a letter to Clinton asking him to invade Iraq...... you guys must live inth ewoods with no TV or something...they have this thing called CSPAN now... it's actually real....
Posted by john wayne on :
I already told you I'm reading through that drivel. Hey Glass do you ever take off your tin foil hat and read the non conspiracy side of the story?
Posted by glassman on :
no way.... any time two people get together? there's a conspiracy... and you know what? they are alwyas trying to figure out a way to get my secret decoder ring that i got when i was 6... but i have it very well hidden....
this is the letter to Clinton in 98...
Rumsfeld and Bolton signed this one.... thats the UN and the SECDEF...
others are signed by Jeb, Cheney, Wolfowoitz (the asst SECDEF)... BUT? none by Dubya that i ever found...
"there's a memo floating around thats as reliable as youre memo about Carter (the one written by Haig)"
yeah, the Carter Haig memo only came from the NSA upon request but you go on believing the conspiracy Glass.
Here's the whole thing, you conceed everything I said about it taking Democracy time to grow and that it may not be the indigenous choice. Good. You concede that we are involved in entangling alliances that draw us to actions we would not otherwise choose. You concede Warren Christopher's remarks had racist consequences. You concede that Carter got us started with Saddam. You concede that Saddam was evil. We pretty much agree on everything but the details.
Conscientious stands on opposing sides but at least we figure out what we agree upon. Good dialog!
Posted by glassman on :
it's not about Party...
do you concede that the American people NEVER would have agreed to go to invade Iraq this way if there were no WMD?
no friggin way... the lies had to be told....
i'm all for restricting arms flows FAIRLY...
i'm all for nukular non-proliferation... in theory they are great...
but i gotta tell ya? it's all wishes...
Posted by john wayne on :
Please keep it up Glassman-
2004 on my part it was total rage and anger at their tactics that made me want to crawl on my hands and knees if necessary through a mile of broken glass to vote for Bush.
Posted by Griffon on :
oh we're agreed on all this too, except errors are not lies. But really it is not an issue with me. Bush lost me over the war, the Democratic leadership giving in to genocide drove me away from them. But really it's been a long time coming. The Dems are not the same party of human rights concerns they were under Kennedy, Johnson and Carter. See Glass, I think a president like Carter could have found a way to get Saddam to step down into exile given the chance. Bush could never do that, would never have wanted to do that. Carter would never have created GITMO. And there was a time when the Democratic Party would have stood up in loyal opposition to this war and forced the issue. What happened to that party?
Posted by bdgee on :
JW,
You are a very sick joke. Not the funny kind, though.
You are doped on Party line lies and willing to spread them even though they are obviously lies and obviously unsupportable.
These guys are pure facist and you are the exact kind of party worshiper that let them take over Germany and Itally once.
Party be damned. This isn't the United States of Republicanism.
These guy openly admit that they base their whole approach to anything on the notion that the Constitution is not enforceable against the last guy to win an election if he chooses to declare that to be the case.
That is the same as declaring that this is NOT a government of laws, but of Party.
That's all and the sum total of everything you say.
Posted by john wayne on :
What was that article I read yesterday.... you can tell which side is losing a debate because they bring up Hitler first.
Posted by Griffon on :
See Glass, in labeling me a Bush fan, you miss my point entirely and the Democrats are heading for another defeat on this issue: every time we have one party that is weak, our nation suffers because both parties end up corrupt and weak.
The Democrats lose because they let the Republicans shape the debate. Look at our posts in these threads. The one who gets the other to adopt their agenda wins, and the other resorts to name-calling. That is happening at the national level today, because the Democrats bought into the Republican notion that the people want to talk about the Republican agenda and don't care about social issues.
And the Democrats, after what 50 years controlling the Congress were beset in the late 80s and early 90s with scandals. Thus when the Republicans set the agenda in 1994, the Democrats could not assert themselves to take back the dialog on agenda.
See, I do believe the Democratic leadership, especially Howard Dean, have learned the wrong lessons from 1994, and if they figure it out the Dems will recapture the momentum. They are too confident right now, wait and see.
They could have slowed this process down and prevented this war as the unified loyal opposition, not to the war per se, but to not rush into war. I mean there was a near lynching when some Democrats said, let's slow down and think this through. That is a party that failed to get their message out, failed to be responsive to what was right and listened too much to polls.
Part of being a leader is sometimes taking unpopular stands. Sometimes you have to be willing to risk political capital for what you know is correct. And there was a time, like the Civil Rights movement, when the correct thing to do was to stare down fire hoses and dogs until the will of the opposition broke.
The time for that Democratic Party has come again, but we won't look up from the polls to look around. It serves no one but our enemies to have a side of the political debate weak. Go back and listen to King and ask yourself "who is that person for today?" I think you will find him in Barak Obama, a voice that will swing votes and take back the momentum. That's what we need!
Posted by glassman on :
that was the article written by the fascists....
Posted by john wayne on :
Well if I'm a party liner by admitting Bush brought some of this on himself, Bush was wrong about WMD's, Bush was wrong in his handling of Katrina, that Iraq is a mess, than the party liners are more level headed than you are willing to admit.
Posted by glassman on :
They could have slowed this process down and prevented this war as the unified loyal opposition, is this supposed to be funny?
i am GOP.... i was FOR the war.. i thought sadam had nukes; Cheney told me they had 'em: i posted the EXACT quote.... i was watching the show when and where he said it... i also thought they had weaponised smallppox from the russkiy lab... just another scare tactic they employed...remeber the "vaccine shortage"
Cheney never had any grounds to make those assertions PER the Senate Intel commission...
as far as your proposal that we invade countries to "better" them? that is hypocritical as i've pointed out to you over and over ad infinitum...
don't become the monster you fight?
cash cow moo was there... i woulda been there... if i was 18-25.... my eldest's friends are enlisting now, and i'm not telling them not to..
BUT? the culpable parties in our govt need to be held accountable...
do you really believe in justice? i don't see any happening here...
di dyou see McCain's son just enlisted in the Marines??!!!??
now that's what i call a campaign promise...
McCain might even go in and hold some of those bozo's accounable if he wins... he did it with Abramoff....
that would be a friggin TREAT!! GOP cleaning house?
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes, wrong.....and he knew that when he claimed there were WMS, i.e., LIES!
I have yet to hear you speak against them usurping the Constitution, in fact, you claim it is ok.
You refuse to allow disapproval of both their secret and non-secret concentration camps without insulting whoever mentions them and you speaak in favor of their torturing prisoners.
You admit to accepting anything they do and when they admit violating the Constitution, you argue for them. That is unamerican....unpatriotic.....unforgivable.
Posted by john wayne on :
Well,, hmm hmmm I think the Senate intelligence committee was Deaned. I have no proof of that, nor do I need proof. if you cannot disprove it, it becomes fact. If you disprove it, I will say Dean intimidated parties involved.
And if you read the first post Griffon made, he said democracy takes time to bear fruit. Now how do you feel about that? We have kind of gotten off topic here and I think you guys conspired to do that LOL!
Posted by bdgee on :
I don't care what Griffon posted concerning democracy, what will turn out in Iraq is an intense hatred for democracy.
And why should it not be the case? By its very definition, it is something that can't be shoved down the throats of a people. Guess who tried exactly that? Guess who resents that invasion of their will?
Posted by Griffon on :
"is this supposed tobe funny?"
This is exactly what's wrong with this country right now. Your post seems to suggest the loyal opposition is impotent. That's simply untrue.
"as far as your proposal that we invade countries to "better" them? that is hypocritical as i've pointed out to you over and over ad infinitum...
Boy you continue to miss my point ad infinitum, ad nauseum as well. I do not encourage invasion, I encourage "Buy outs." Big difference. I do however favor stopping genocide in Rwanda and Sudan like situations any way necessary. Are you suggesting that the UN Convention on Genocide is wrong? Are you suggesting we do nothing in the face of genocide and ethnic cleansing because it is an indigenous conflict? In that case 2,000,000 African families over the last decade might wish to disagree with you.
"don't become the monster you fight?"
Glass, I have posted a plan that involves non-violent removal of people like Milosovic, Saddam, the Sudanese leaders, and so forth. Genocide simply cannot continue as rulers' means to keep power. Do you have an issue with that statement as far as it goes? I am not becoming a monster, I am a flawed human being trying to work my way through to a place where I can give my life to peace. War is not my prefered path to peace, because it is not peace at all.
But we cannot surrender to genocide. Buy them into retirement, provide the financial means for the indigenous tribes to thrive in their own culturally determined way.
"do you really believe in justice? i don't see any happening here..."
Then read the convention I refered you to because it does explain justice. Check out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well. That is the threshold we must apply, not unilaterally, but as a world community.
Posted by john wayne on :
I wonder how Germany and Japan feel about democracy today? It was shoved down there throats no? I wonder how they felt in 1948? It's a long term battle Bdgee, and it is off to a rough start. I do not support any president breaking the constitution. I will wait for more information to come out regarding the signing statements. I will not support that. You have my word on that. But it needs to be a pretty convincing case, not the usual slop you guys throw out there.
Posted by bdgee on :
"Boy you continue to miss my point ad infinitum, ad nauseum....", In spite of your posting it ad infinitum.
Maybe it wasn't missed, but dismissed.
"Then read the convention I refered you to because it does explain justice."
What makes you so sure you know more than everyone else and so you should provide a "definiotion" to help out the dodos?
Oh, yeah, it's that oh so much greater education you got in semenary. I had forgotten.
Posted by john wayne on :
"What makes you so sure you know more than everyone else and so you should provide a "definition" to help out the dodos?"
Gee Bdgee... isn't that kind of like the pot call ..... ah never mind.
Posted by bdgee on :
You may be right.......after all, I ain't got no semenary degree at all.
But, too, how on Earth would you know?
Posted by Griffon on :
"You refuse to allow disapproval of both their secret and non-secret concentration camps without insulting whoever mentions them and you speaak in favor of their torturing prisoners."
Read my words:
See Glass, I think a president like Carter could have found a way to get Saddam to step down into exile given the chance. Bush could never do that, would never have wanted to do that. Carter would never have created GITMO. And there was a time when the Democratic Party would have stood up in loyal opposition to this war and forced the issue. What happened to that party?
and again:
"Again you proceed from a false assumption, as that was not why the thread started. Since I have already demonstrated I do not support Bush, suggesting regime change was needed has been my agenda since 1988 when Saddam gased Kurds. Do you believe we should obey the treaties we signed Glass? In the face of an already posted UN Convention on Genocide of which we are signatores, Articles 2-7 lay out the responsibility of every signatore to end genocide.
If you believe in obeying the treaties we sign, we were compelled in Iraq in 1988 and before if you follow other treaties, Rwanda in 1994, and Sudan by 1995. That is if you believe we are bound by treaty. Now if you believe we can ignore our treaties, then you are in the same boat our current president is with his violating international law at GITMO.
See, it doesn't work both ways. You don't get to say we can ignore international treaties when it comes to genocide, but the president should be held accountable for GITMO because of international treaty. What you are trying to apply is a logical inconsistency that sounds an awful lot like political opportunism. My point is the US is engaged in entangling alliances that make us responsible for ending genocidal regimes within the broader world community and we are also bound to demand an end to the illegal practices at GITMO."
That put's that to bed Bdgee. I am on record explaining exactly what I think of GITMO. It's a violation of international law. Check the facts before you assume bdgee.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
