Saddam had Nukes --- Sen. Carl Levin (D)

[mcelrah]

Whoa! Read the text of the Congressional resolution - nobody voted
for a war: they voted for the President to enforce UN resolutions
and to cooperate with the UN inspection agency. The chief UN
inspector comes back and reports no WMD, Bush can't get the UN to
authorize use of force, so he goes ahead and invades unilaterally.
Now that Iraq has turned into a bag of worms, he's complaining 'cause
he is getting criticized. Well, tough! Bush has demonstrated that
he's no statesman and needs a lot of stick and rudder from Congress
until his term is up and he can go back to something he's better
qualified for, like golf. - Hugh

[mcelrah]

Once again: the intel said (incorrectly) that Saddam still had bugs
and gas - no nukes. The administration "error" (willful distortion
of the truth through use of the term "weapons of mass destruction")
was in continuing to repeat that Saddam had nukes - which the intel
would not support. Nor was there any intel to connect Saddam's
regime to terrorists. Read George Orwell on language: as a British
propagandist in World War I, he invented the term "jackboot". What
is a jackboot? it's the same as any other soldier's boot, but it
sounds scarier as in "jackbooted Huns"... - Hugh

[Flying Lobster]

Whoa! Read the text of the Congressional resolution - nobody voted
for a war: they voted for the President to enforce UN resolutions
and to cooperate with the UN inspection agency. The chief UN
inspector comes back and reports no WMD, Bush can't get the UN to
authorize use of force, so he goes ahead and invades unilaterally.
Now that Iraq has turned into a bag of worms, he's complaining 'cause
he is getting criticized. Well, tough! Bush has demonstrated that
he's no statesman and needs a lot of stick and rudder from Congress
until his term is up and he can go back to something he's better
qualified for, like golf. - Hugh

True--but that was the "crack in the door" the administration was looking for to legitimize their zeal for invasion--so, directly or indirectly, Congress gave him want he wanted.

marcoDuelingBanjos

[Flying Lobster]

How about that Murtha--the hawkish dem who has come out of the closet? The Clintinoid LSD brainwashers must have finally got to him, now HE'S one of them pansy-ass-leftist-terrorist-loving-cut-and-run fairies dancing around in a pink tutu crying boohoo to further troop reductions through IEDs. Another traitor to add to the administration's ever-growing list of un-American Americans (I'm sure I'm a charter member).

marcoThousandPointsofNuclearLight

[deveil]

How about that Murtha--the hawkish dem who has come out of the closet? The Clintinoid LSD brainwashers must have finally got to him, now HE'S one of them pansy-ass-leftist-terrorist-loving-cut-and-run fairies dancing around in a pink tutu crying boohoo to further troop reductions through IEDs. Another traitor to add to the administration's ever-growing list of un-American Americans (I'm sure I'm a charter member).

marcoThousandPointsofNuclearLight

marc,
there was something about this piece that struck me as lyrical or something. i've broken it apart to facilitate the reading. (no, i never wrote or read a poem in my life - my ed. was in chemistry).' don't even know what is to be gained...it just struck me. gary

How about that Murtha--
the hawkish dem
who has come out of the closet?

The Clintinoid LSD brainwashers
must have finally
got to him,
now HE'S one of them

pansy-ass-leftist-terrorist-loving-cut-and-run fairies
dancing around in a pink tutu
crying boohoo
to further troop reductions through IEDs.

Another traitor to add
to the administration's ever-growing list
of un-American Americans
(I'm sure I'm a charter member).

[Flying Lobster]

How about that Murtha--the hawkish dem who has come out of the closet? The Clintinoid LSD brainwashers must have finally got to him, now HE'S one of them pansy-ass-leftist-terrorist-loving-cut-and-run fairies dancing around in a pink tutu crying boohoo to further troop reductions through IEDs. Another traitor to add to the administration's ever-growing list of un-American Americans (I'm sure I'm a charter member).

marcoThousandPointsofNuclearLight

marc,
there was something about this piece that struck me as lyrical or something. i've broken it apart to facilitate the reading. (no, i never wrote or read a poem in my life - my ed. was in chemistry).' don't even know what is to be gained...it just struck me. gary

How about that Murtha--
the hawkish dem
who has come out of the closet?

The Clintinoid LSD brainwashers
must have finally
got to him,
now HE'S one of them

pansy-ass-leftist-terrorist-loving-cut-and-run fairies
dancing around in a pink tutu
crying boohoo
to further troop reductions through IEDs.

Another traitor to add
to the administration's ever-growing list
of un-American Americans
(I'm sure I'm a charter member).

That's good!

I'm sure everyone's walking around in the White house muttering

"Why, that dirty Murtha Furka!"

[Marco Zee]

Whoa Hugh, you are incorrect when you stated: <<Whoa! Read the text of the Congressional resolution - nobody voted
for a war: they voted for the President to enforce UN resolutions
and to cooperate with the UN inspection agency>>

Let's read Sec 3 below which authorizes the use of the US Armed Forces as Bush, and Bush ALONE, not the UN Inspectors or IAEA, deems "necessary and appropriate".

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c ... c107HqeyED::

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

This is what Kerry and all those MISLED Dems voted for,........for Bush to use the Armed Forces as BUSH DEEMS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE..... not Congress, not the UN, not France or Germany, and not the IAEA,......and now they are trying to retroactively rewrite the language of the Authorization and rewrite history in general.....nice try, but just goes to prove my point that the Dems are stuck in 2003, with no vision of how best to proceed henceforth, and no positive contributions to the public discussion on how to improve the country or optimize the war effort. They are still fighting the 2004 campaign.

Perhaps the Dems have the same trouble as some of you in reading and comprehending the English language....at least that would be "excusable". But I don't think so.....it's simple political positioning as they are in conflict with their crazed left wing base who is rabidly anti-war and anti-Bush. This back-sliding on the war bye the "Misled Dems" is an effort to get back into their base's good graces. These Dem politicians are just a bunch of face-saving cowards and hypocrites.

Marco

[mcelrah]

I see nothing to suggest that the Democrats, by voting for this, are bound to publicly support whatever gooned-up approach Bush might elect. He was given a long leash, he neatly tied a noose and put it over his - and the nation's head - and as you have pointed out, that decision was his and his alone. - Hugh

>From: Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com>
>Date: Fri Nov 18 11:20:47 CST 2005
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Saddam had Nukes --- Sen. Carl Levin (D)

>
>Whoa Hugh, you are incorrect when you stated:
>
>Let's read Sec 3 below which authorizes the use of the US Armed Forces as Bush, and Bush ALONE, not the UN Inspectors or IAEA, deems "necessary and appropriate".
>
>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c ... c107HqeyED::
>
>SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
>
>(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
>
>(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
>
>(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
>
>This is what Kerry and all those MISLED Dems voted for,........for Bush to use the Armed Forces as BUSH DEEMS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE..... not Congress, not the UN, not France or Germany, and not the IAEA,......and now they are trying to retroactively rewrite the language of the Authorization and rewrite history in general.....nice try, but just goes to prove my point that the Dems are stuck in 2003, with no vision of how best to proceed henceforth, and no positive contributions to the public discussion on how to improve the country or optimize the war effort. They are still fighting the 2004 campaign.
>
>Perhaps the Dems have the same trouble as some of you in reading and comprehending the English language....at least that would be "excusable". But I don't think so.....it's simple political positioning as they are in conflict with their crazed left wing base who is rabidly anti-war and anti-Bush. This back-sliding on the war bye the "Misled Dems" is an effort to get back into their base's good graces. These Dem politicians are just a bunch of face-saving cowards and hypocrites.
>
>Marco

[Flying Lobster]

Whoa Hugh, you are incorrect when you stated: <<Whoa! Read the text of the Congressional resolution - nobody voted
for a war: they voted for the President to enforce UN resolutions
and to cooperate with the UN inspection agency>>

Let's read Sec 3 below which authorizes the use of the US Armed Forces as Bush, and Bush ALONE, not the UN Inspectors or IAEA, deems "necessary and appropriate".

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c ... c107HqeyED::

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

This is what Kerry and all those MISLED Dems voted for,........for Bush to use the Armed Forces as BUSH DEEMS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE..... not Congress, not the UN, not France or Germany, and not the IAEA,......and now they are trying to retroactively rewrite the language of the Authorization and rewrite history in general.....nice try, but just goes to prove my point that the Dems are stuck in 2003, with no vision of how best to proceed henceforth, and no positive contributions to the public discussion on how to improve the country or optimize the war effort. They are still fighting the 2004 campaign.

Perhaps the Dems have the same trouble as some of you in reading and comprehending the English language....at least that would be "excusable". But I don't think so.....it's simple political positioning as they are in conflict with their crazed left wing base who is rabidly anti-war and anti-Bush. This back-sliding on the war bye the "Misled Dems" is an effort to get back into their base's good graces. These Dem politicians are just a bunch of face-saving cowards and hypocrites.

Marco

Some of these cowards and hypocrites are decorated veterans who have actually seen combat in real war--unlike you, who I'm sure the closest you've ever come to real combat is waving a chickenhawk-special cap pistol while watching reruns of John Wayne movies.

MarcoFirstStrike

[Marco Zee]

Marc,

where did you get this <<the reason to get authorization to go to war--IF NECESSARY. Please reread that line: IF NECESSARY.>>

Is this "IF NECESSARY" from the Congressional Resolution? Or a quote from someone?

Marco

[Flying Lobster]

Never said it was a direct quote--but the "intent" behind the authorization for war was that all the UN conditions and other challenges would be failed and a clear and present danger necessisitated war. And this goes to the heart of the matter--the administration reasoned the mere authorization meant that they could go to war whenever they wanted as long as they could claim a clear and present danger was imminently threatening the nation. And that's where they cherry-picked--manipulated--call it whatever you like--the flawed intelligence--as well as ignoring contradictory evidence--and stampeded off to war.

marc

[Marco Zee]

As I stated previously: <<This back-sliding on the war by the "Misled Dems" is an effort to get back into their base's good graces. These Dem politicians are just a bunch of face-saving cowards and hypocrites. >>

Speaking of political cowards:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2 ... crats.html

Excerpt: <<Wanting to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq doesn't make you a coward. What does make you a coward is when you truly believe we should get our troops out of Iraq immediately, you have a chance to vote for doing exactly that, and you choose not to because you fear the political consequences of being on record revealing your position to the public. This was not a vote on some obscure provision of the budget, it was the most supremely important subject on which members of Congress have the privilege and duty to vote.

So hats off to Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York for having the courage to vote what they really believe. And shame on those who didn't.>>

At least these three are not crying that they were misled, and stand up for their convictions, unlike those spineless MISLED DEMS who cry and whine, but won't vote for immediate withdrawal.

Marco

[Flying Lobster]

As I stated previously: <<This back-sliding on the war by the "Misled Dems" is an effort to get back into their base's good graces. These Dem politicians are just a bunch of face-saving cowards and hypocrites. >>

Speaking of political cowards:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2 ... crats.html

Excerpt: <<Wanting to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq doesn't make you a coward. What does make you a coward is when you truly believe we should get our troops out of Iraq immediately, you have a chance to vote for doing exactly that, and you choose not to because you fear the political consequences of being on record revealing your position to the public. This was not a vote on some obscure provision of the budget, it was the most supremely important subject on which members of Congress have the privilege and duty to vote.

So hats off to Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York for having the courage to vote what they really believe. And shame on those who didn't.>>

At least these three are not crying that they were misled, and stand up for their convictions, unlike those spineless MISLED DEMS who cry and whine, but won't vote for immediate withdrawal.

Marco

Well, if it makes some pissant flag-wrapper neo-con feel better to denigrate a group of people (which they are better at anyway) while injuries and fatalities increase everyday on the eground in Iraq (and, by the way, just how many members of THEIR families are in Iraq??hmmm...who are the real cowards??) by pulling a transparent cynical stunt which obviously none of them had any intent on supporting--so what!! Better a coward than a mudering, lieing thief!!

I gotta laugh anyway! The axe gonna fall on your conservative fuckhead buddies anyway, just 12 months from now they're gonna loose control of Congress, and then eventually the White House will slip away too. The American people are seeing through all the smoke and mirrors--and a new age of optimism and prosperity for ALL will dawn soon!

marcoThey'reGoinDown

[Marco Zee]

Constructive criticism is a good and positive contribution to society. And conversely, destructive criticism is a bad and negative contribution to society.....and most Americans can tell the difference.

Unfortunately, the Dems are perceived as not being constructive, but rather as destructive, and actually harmful of the war effort.

Excerpt: Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00745.html

I take no particular joy in calling these folks political cowards, but I just call them like I (and an apparent majority of the country) see them.

I would encourage these pols to heed Joe Liebermans call for unity and constructive discourse, but I don't think the current crop of Dems can see the big picture thru their myopic, politically self-serving eyeglasses.

Instead of wasting so much time and effort re-arguing the 2004 election, everyone should be focusing their minds and energies on winning in Iraq and defeating these Islamic terrorists who are actively conspiring against all of us. Both parties have an obligation to place the interests of the people, the troops, and the country ahead of their own political self-interests.

Marco

[Flying Lobster]

Constructive criticism is a good and positive contribution to society. And conversely, destructive criticism is a bad and negative contribution to society.....and most Americans can tell the difference.

Unfortunately, the Dems are perceived as not being constructive, but rather as destructive, and actually harmful of the war effort.

Excerpt: Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00745.html

I take no particular joy in calling these folks political cowards, but I just call them like I (and an apparent majority of the country) see them.

I would encourage these pols to heed Joe Liebermans call for unity and constructive discourse, but I don't think the current crop of Dems can see the big picture thru their myopic, politically self-serving eyeglasses.

Instead of wasting so much time and effort re-arguing the 2004 election, everyone should be focusing their minds and energies on winning in Iraq and defeating these Islamic terrorists who are actively conspiring against all of us. Both parties have an obligation to place the interests of the people, the troops, and the country ahead of their own political self-interests.

Marco

Another example of the brilliant neo-con mind at work.

First, they hoodwink the world in the rush to war.

Then, they say its all the Dem's fault for not voting against "authorizing" intervention (which, of course, to the neo-con mind is absolutely identical to 'launch all missles NOW!').

And now that the troops are mired in a conflict that the administration has no discernable exit strategy, other than "when they can fend for themselves" they blame the Dems for the lack of a solution--and in the same breath accuse the Dems of not supporting the troops--as if they are complicit in their deaths and injuries in Iraq. In other words, "We fuck things up--you figure out how to fix 'em!"

This is just another sham which the public will see through. And while the neo-cons (if there are any left that are not under indictment) content themselves with denying responsibility for the conflict, I hope they can rest easy with every death and injury to our troops on THEIR conscience.

marcoEverybody'sFaultButMine

[mcelrah]

We elect representatives to do what is right for the nation and not to slavishly follow public opinion. If anyone thinks we are on the right track in Iraq and just need to keep trying, they need to check the ingredients in their koolaid. The right and responsible thing to do is to articulate the fundamental flaws in the adminstration's approach and argue publicly for a new one. Public opinion must be led, not followed. - Hugh

>From: Flying Lobster <in_a_cloud@hotmail.com>
>Date: Tue Nov 29 05:59:23 CST 2005
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Saddam had Nukes --- Sen. Carl Levin (D)

>
>
>Marco Zee wrote:
>Constructive criticism is a good and positive contribution to society. And conversely, destructive criticism is a bad and negative contribution to society.....and most Americans can tell the difference.
>
>Unfortunately, the Dems are perceived as not being constructive, but rather as destructive, and actually harmful of the war effort.
>
>Excerpt: Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00745.html
>
>I take no particular joy in calling these folks political cowards, but I just call them like I (and an apparent majority of the country) see them.
>
>I would encourage these pols to heed Joe Liebermans call for unity and constructive discourse, but I don't think the current crop of Dems can see the big picture thru their myopic, politically self-serving eyeglasses.
>
>Instead of wasting so much time and effort re-arguing the 2004 election, everyone should be focusing their minds and energies on winning in Iraq and defeating these Islamic terrorists who are actively conspiring against all of us. Both parties have an obligation to place the interests of the people, the troops, and the country ahead of their own political self-interests.
>
>Marco
>(end of quote)
>
>
>Another example of the brilliant neo-con mind at work.
>
>First, they hoodwink the world in the rush to war.
>
>Then, they say its all the Dem's fault for not voting against "authorizing" intervention (which, of course, to the neo-con mind is absolutely identical to 'launch all missles NOW!').
>
>And now that the troops are mired in a conflict that the administration has no discernable exit strategy, other than "when they can fend for themselves" they blame the Dems for the lack of a solution--and in the same breath accuse the Dems of not supporting the troops--as if they are complicit in their deaths and injuries in Iraq. In other words, "We fuck things up--you figure out how to fix 'em!"
>
>This is just another sham which the public will see through. And while the neo-cons (if there are any left that are not under indictment) content themselves with denying responsibility for the conflict, I hope they can rest easy with every death and injury to our troops on THEIR conscience.
>
>marcoEverybody'sFaultButMineNeo-ConGanja-BushMan

[Marco Zee]

Marc said: <<Another example of the brilliant neo-con mind at work. >>
Reply: Thanks for the compliment....I really don't consider myself as brilliant LOL. See, there are things we can agree upon LOL.

Marc said: <<First, they hoodwink the world in the rush to war. >>

Reply: We debated Iraq for most of 2002, passed the war resolution in 10/02, passed the UN Resol 1441 16-0 in 12/02, and finally attacked Iraq in 3/03.....does this constitute "RUSHING TO WAR"?....I don't think so. The invasion in March 03 was begun to avoid having the troops fighting in the very hot summer months.

Marc said: <<Then, they say its all the Dem's fault for not voting against "authorizing" intervention (which, of course, to the neo-con mind is absolutely identical to 'launch all missles NOW!').>>

Reply: Wrong. I never said it was "all the Dem's fault".....I simply stated that both the Dems and Repubs should be held accountable for their votes, and that the Repubs are not running and hiding from their votes, as the Dems are now, using the lies/misled/manipulated excuses to backpedal from their initial support for the war. Bush and the Repubs are standing by their votes and support, and are not writing op-eds saying that "if they knew then what we know now, I would not have voted for the war"...like John Edwards did last week. Even Joe L. & Hillary are saying to stay the course....another right-wing conspirator she is , right? Is Hill drinking cool-aid too?

Marc said: <<And now that the troops are mired in a conflict that the administration has no discernable exit strategy, other than "when they can fend for themselves" they blame the Dems for the lack of a solution--and in the same breath accuse the Dems of not supporting the troops--as if they are complicit in their deaths and injuries in Iraq. In other words, "We fuck things up--you figure out how to fix 'em!" >>

Reply: While the Dems are whining about an exit strategy (translation: lets get out before we actually win this war), Bush et al are pursuing a VICTORY STRATEGY by supporting the democratic process in Iraq, battling the old Baathist Saddamists, and killing foreign terrorists by the thousands, and are NOT MIRED DOWN in a quagmire. In a few short weeks, there will be another election in Iraq, thereby allowing the creation of a democratic government. This is historic, almost unprecedented stuff !
So, things are not F***ed up, and the Dems and the libs, as repeatedly evidenced, have no "solution" other than to "admit defeat, and withdraw immediately." Dems = defeat and retreat.

Marc said: <<This is just another sham which the public will see through. And while the neo-cons (if there are any left that are not under indictment) content themselves with denying responsibility for the conflict, I hope they can rest easy with every death and injury to our troops on THEIR conscience.>>

Reply: It is the Dems ( Murtha, Edwards, Kerry, et al) who are denying their responsibility for the conflict, not the conservatives or Repubs.
And it is the role of the military to attack and kill enemies of this country, which is exactly what they are doing. Changing history and defeating the forces of evil takes time and has monetary & human costs, which is unfortunate, but unavoidable, given human history.

MarcoStayingTheCourseAndProudOfIt

[Marco Zee]

Hugh, you stated: << I see nothing to suggest that the Democrats, by voting for this, are bound to publicly support whatever gooned-up approach Bush might elect. He was given a long leash, he neatly tied a noose and put it over his - and the nation's head - and as you have pointed out, that decision was his and his alone.
We elect representatives to do what is right for the nation and not to slavishly follow public opinion.>>

Reply: The old saying "a slave cannot serve two masters" applies here. The Dems, trying to appeal to moderates and conservative Dems, voted for the Authorization for War, but later, when their "blame America first" liberal base objects to the war, they "reconsider" their support, and seek excuses (lied/misled/manipulated) to justify their withdrawal of support.

Even Hillary, who continues to support the war, is getting heckled by anti-war protestors at her fundraisers!!! Oh thats right, ...she is one of the right wing kooks who support Bush on the war.

Even the former Dem VP Candidate, Joe Liebermann, is pleading with the Dems to support the war until victory is achieved, as opposed to immediate withdrawal, or setting arbitrary deadlines for troop withdrawal.

So, which will it be...are the Dems slaves to the antiwar liberals, or the pro-national security moderates and conservatives? It's hard to find much middle ground between these two positions. My guess is that they will continue down the anti-war path, just as McGovern did.

Marco