Russ Feingold: Latest Idiot Hero to the Militant Left, Useless In Washington

[PittsburghAfterDark]

The Feingold Resolution and the Sound of Silence
By Dana Milbank
http://usera.imagecave.com/smoothsailing/milbankpic.jpg
Wednesday, March 15, 2006; Page A02

Democratic senators, filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday, looked as if they'd seen a ghost.

"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters -- an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.).

"Ask her after lunch," offered Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire.

In a sense, they were. The cause of so much evasion was S. Res. 398, the resolution proposed Monday by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) calling for the censure of President Bush for his warrantless wiretapping program. At a time when Democrats had Bush on the ropes over Iraq, the budget and port security, Feingold single-handedly turned the debate back to an issue where Bush has the advantage -- and drove another wedge through his party.

So nonplused were Democrats that even Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), known for his near-daily news conferences, made history by declaring, "I'm not going to comment." Would he have a comment later? "I dunno," the suddenly shy senator said.

Republicans were grateful for the gift. The office of Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) put a new "daily feature" on its Web site monitoring the censure resolution: "Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0."

Many of Feingold's Democratic colleagues agree that Bush abused his authority with the NSA spying program. And they know liberal Democratic activists are eager to see Bush censured, or worse. But they also know Feingold's maneuver could cost them seats in GOP states.

Hence the elaborate efforts to avoid comment. Five Democratic senators called a news conference yesterday to talk about the Bush budget's "dangerously irresponsible priorities" -- but three of them fled the room before allowing questions. The other two were stuck.

"Was it a good idea for Senator Feingold to bring up this resolution?" came the first question, from CNN's Ed Henry.

"He brings up some very important issues," Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) ventured.

Henry was unsatisfied. "So do you support censure, or not?

Stabenow took another stab. "It needs to have hearings," she said.

http://www.wardsmythe.com/stabenow.gif

Mary Landrieu (La.) pursed her lips. "Senator Feingold has a point that he wants to make," she said. "We have a point that we want to make, talking about the budget."

"Senators," an aide interrupted, "we need to go."

Next in the Senate TV gallery came Schumer. An aide hung up a poster showing a port. The senator called the ports situation "extremely troubling." The aide hung up a poster of an Exxon cartoon. "Obscene profits," decreed Schumer, equally passionately.

CNN's Henry asked the Feingold question. Schumer ended the news conference.

Outside the Democrats' lunch downstairs, the senators were similarly agile. The number two Democratic leader, Richard Durbin (Ill.), darted out of an elevator and into lunch when he thought nobody was looking.

"I haven't made any judgment," said Jeff Bingaman (N.M.). Two minutes later, he reappeared. "I will support an alternative that would call for an investigation," he amended.

The one Democrat happy to talk was Feingold, who, in a pre-lunch chat with reporters, seemed to enjoy his colleagues' squirms. "I'm concerned about the approach Democrats are taking, which is too often cowering," he said.

Feingold, seeking liberals' support for the 2008 presidential nomination, said he wasn't motivated by politics. But then he slipped. "If there's any Democrat out there who can't say . . . the president has no right to make up his own laws, I don't know if that Democrat really is the right candidate," he said of his likely primary opponents.

After an hour of closed-door negotiations, Democrats were no closer to resolving the Feingold rift.

"Most of us feel at best it's premature," announced Sen. Christopher Dodd (Conn.). "I don't think anyone can say with any certainty at this juncture that what happened is illegal."

Dodd must not have checked with Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa). "The president broke the law and he needs to be held accountable," he said. "Talk about high crimes and misdemeanors!" Harkin said he'll vote for the Feingold resolution -- if it comes up.

That gives Feingold two solid votes, including his own. The rest: avowedly undecided.

Schumer, leaving the lunch, still hadn't found his voice. " He's gonna talk about it," Schumer said, pointing to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (Nev.).

Reporters, as instructed, asked Reid where he stood. "It's a question that's been asked 33 times in the last few hours," he said. "And so, for the 34th time, I'm going to say the same thing: I'm going to wait . . .''
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401519.html)

Russ Feingold as represented in the animal world....
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b164/digger48/Animals/deadbeaver.jpg

[bmulligan]

Stabenow is a miserable excuse for a senator. I'm ashamed to say she is from Michigan. Although, Carl Levin is our other senator, so I guess it's just par for the course.

The evasion of every democratic senator on this issue is more proof that no one really wants this "domestic spying" program to end and they are just using the issue as political fodder.

[coffman]

Everything is being set up for the November elections. This will be a major issue. The Republicans are running scared, because there is a very real chance that they will lose control of both the House and the Senate. If that happens, goodbye Bush!

[Sarang01]

Everything is being set up for the November elections. This will be a major issue. The Republicans are running scared, because there is a very real chance that they will lose control of both the House and the Senate. If that happens, goodbye Bush!

I don't really give a ratfuck since both of these parties are fronted by the same, scandalous money. The media just PLAYS it so the Democrats look cleaner than the Republicans when that's their deliberate attempt to disenfranchise Republicans with the Liberal Media schtick, the same goes with the Corporate Media bit. It's done deliberately to keep Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans and Moderates divided. Also to really make sure they don't vote for the other party or the 3rd you throw in some Swing issue to keep them divided when one of the top issues EVERYONE in the Middle and Lower are probably united about which is job security. Coff the elections are just a nice, elaborate play. Look back in history and see where we lost economic, and in the process, TOTAL control of our country. The Media even subtly tries to tell us how something ain't right, remember them mentioning the "98% wealth, 2% people"? That's a clue right now.
Also check this one persons prediction for the primaries and see who actually gets it: Mark Warner/Hillary Clinton, McCain.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Sarang gets it right.

There are no clean politicians, or should I say few.

Unless you're a John Heinz, John Corzine or Rockefeller you really are dependent on other people's money.

I do believe that there are a handful of Democrats and Republicans that are saintly clean. I believe the overwhelming majority of Congresscritters take questionable money to flat out illegal money that has somehow been funneled to them and washed. Do I think they're aware of this? No. If you're relying on a staff and doing 2 fundraisers a week 52 weeks a year and receive countless thousands of individual donations from them, the internet, organizations you may or may not know even exist you'll never be truly aware of how each and every dollar arrives in your campaign or PAC funds.

Of course I think there are the ultra corrupt politicians, Rusty Cunningham as an example, that you know are on both sides of the aisle. I think their peers know who is and isn't clean but protect them like mafia type Omerta. Every now and again someone has to be made a sacrificial lamb to be thrown overboard. ABSCAM, the House Bank/Post Office scandals are a couple of recent historical examples. Congress once every 5-7 years sacrifices one of their own to try and appear clean.

Everything is being set up for the November elections. This will be a major issue. The Republicans are running scared, because there is a very real chance that they will lose control of both the House and the Senate. If that happens, goodbye Bush!

Wishful thinking.

There's no way terrorist eavesdropping is going to swing votes.

Every single poll that has the "public" supporting or favoring Democratic control of Congress needs to be taken with these facts in mind.

1 They're not weighted by districting, they're national.
2. The age old axiom in politics; it's not my Representative or Senator that's the problem, it's that guy in the other district/state I can't vote against.

Never, ever underestimate number 2.

[mykevermin]

Never, ever underestimate number 2.

QFT. You're on today, aren't you?

I'm not so certain that I'm upset with Feingold; it's the rest of the weak-kneed ninny-fucks who won't stand with him.

My position on this issue doesn't need to be debated in this thread. Instead, I'd just like to point out how disappointingly weak-willed many Democrats can be when it comes time to stand up for something they believe in. That is a major area that the Republicans are vastly superior to Democrats on.

Which reminds me, there was a hilarious sketch with Paul Hackett on The Daily Show last night; I'll post it if I can find it online. If not, I highly recommend watching one of the 7 replays that are on today.

[Msut77]

Sarang gets it right.

There are no clean politicians, or should I say few.


Fair enough, but there have no politicians as bad as W and his cronies in several lifetimes.

[Cheese]

So Paddy, very nearly every legal expert around has said that, yes, the president broke the law. If he did, shouldn't he be at least reprimanded for it? Or are you weak on crime? Senate leaders are stopping every effort to do a serious investigation leaving even fellow Republicans with opposing views out in the cold. Is the president above the law, or at least is a Republican president above the law?

My real question is: Why did he do it in the first place? The FISA court is a rubber stamp (some 20,000 cases in 30 years, 6 refusals) that can be accessed 72 hours after the fact. That seems more then reasonable. NSA needs to listen to TERRORIST ALPHA today or he'll blow up the world? Fine, just remember to call the office and have them send a lawyer over to FISA to get approval in a few days. It's not really that hard. They also say that at any given time there were between 500-1000 people being tapped. Wait... There are 500-1000 people so connected to terrorist groups that we had to urgently break the law to listen to their phone calls running around the United States? Hey, I got an idea, arrest them! Or were they not all terrorism connected? Perhaps they were just unAmerican. Like say, the ACLU. What is the administration trying to hide?

[Cheese]

PS - Funny how the right was offended when Milbank wore that outfit, now they love it. And Paddy should mention that the Stabenow poster has been edited.

[evanft]

Democrats = Spineless pussies. At leat Russ Feingold has some balls and is willing to stand up for what he believes in.

[coffman]

Wishful thinking.

There's no way terrorist eavesdropping is going to swing votes.

2.

Even when there is mounting evidence that the eavesdropping extends beyond terrorists?

[Ace-Of-War]

That is a major area that the Republicans are vastly superior to Democrats on.
I gotta disagree. While I think everyone in Congress does what a politican does, equivocate to win elections, I must say at least compared to the Democrats in Congress the Republicans have shown absolutely no back bone in defense of any real conservatism at all. While President Bush certainly has his share of blame in high-jacking the conservative movement, this generation of Republicans really seem to be populists in disguise. You can rest assured that as angry as liberals are with the Democrats, the conservatives are with the Republicans.

[mykevermin]

I gotta disagree. While I think everyone in Congress does what a politican does, equivocate to win elections, I must say at least compared to the Democrats in Congress the Republicans have shown absolutely no back bone in defense of any real conservatism at all. While President Bush certainly has his share of blame in high-jacking the conservative movement, this generation of Republicans really seem to be populists in disguise. You can rest assured that as angry as liberals are with the Democrats, the conservatives are with the Republicans.

I suppose that's true, but only with those who support ideas of fiscal conservatism, or those who consider fiscal responsibility (in the conservative sense) to be of higher priority than the social agenda of the right wing. OTOH, when it comes to certain issues (particularly, but not exclusively social issues), the Republicans are willing to vote on those.

My concern is this: disdain for the NSA spying program is pretty consistent throughout the Democratic party, including those in Congress. So, when they get a chance to go on record in an attempt (and let's be clear here, this had no chance of passage) to censure the president (which I believe is merely an official record "spanking" for bad behavior with no legal repurcussions), they all jump off the bandwagon and hide. I can't see Republicans doing that (then again, they haven't been in that position - congressional minorities - since 1994, so what can I say?).

[bmulligan]

I'll say that the Democrats are either morally bankrupt cowards for evading this issue or morally bankrupt liars. They either are afraid to stand up for their principles or they are lying about their principles.

Democrats: your so-called leaders have abandoned you long ago.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Republicans have shown absolutely no back bone in defense of any real conservatism at all. While President Bush certainly has his share of blame in high-jacking the conservative movement, this generation of Republicans really seem to be populists in disguise. You can rest assured that as angry as liberals are with the Democrats, the conservatives are with the Republicans.

Amen brother. Bush is, has been and never was a Conservative. Compassionate Conservatism was a phrase for "we'll spend less than liberals for the same big government ideas". There hasn't been a Conservative to run under the (R) banner since 1984. Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush... none of them count. None of them were Conservative. The options of Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry were so unpalatable as far as options go Conservatives were really left with no option.

The 1994 COA gave me great hopes. Having Newt, Kasich, Armey in the House and the mandate given that Freshman class was overwhelming. They completely blew their potential. There have been no Conservative giants in the Senate, Phil Gramm was close and he was a converted Democrat for chrissakes. George Allen talks the Reagan line but frankly he's invisible as a Senator.

I haven't voted for a President yet. I've just voted against the other guy. Same is true of my Senate votes. Specter turns my stomach and Santorum is just a poster boy for idiot quotable politicians, right up there with what Dean spouts off.

I'm almost tempted to split my vote this year and vote for Casey. His father was an honorable man who the DNC screwed over time and again at convention time due to his being pro-life. He may be a Democrat but at least I know he wouldn't be an abject embarassment like Santorum.

[bmulligan]

Speaking of Howard Dean, where is he during this censure debacle? Conspicuously absent, IMO. Especially considering his constant rhetoric of the president being a criminal and a liar.

[Metal Boss]

This guy was just pointing out that the man cheney shot was wearing the certified hunters orange in that picture.

[Cheese]

From my Inbox; from Howard Dean and the DNC:

Dear PAD,

Russ Feingold is a traitor.

That's what Republicans want you to think.

They are so scared of having a legitimate debate about Iraq or national security that they have only one reaction to news of their failures or calls for accountability.

On Monday, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation to censure the President for breaking the law by creating a secret domestic spying program. Agree or disagree with his proposal, as a Senator -- and as an American -- he has the right to speak his mind and express his views without Republican Senators questioning his patriotism.

But that's exactly what happened. This week Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, in an interview with Fox News radio, said in response to Feingold's action that he has "time and time again [sided] with the terrorists".

So he's saying he didn't go along with it. Nice going Wayne Allard, thanks for the save. "Yes, Russ Fiengold, you and many others believe the president broke the law, that aligns you with THE TERRORISTS!!!" Russ's response should be, "Go Fuck Yourself."

Paddy, will answer my question? If the president needlessly went around the FISA court, violating federal law, shouldn't there be some repercussions? I mean, Clinton lied about a blowjob and got impeached. This seems a tad worse.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

The FISA court is a RELIC.

It is not a Constitutionally established court. It was a stopgap measure put in place by a liberal Congress and the worst President in modern history, Jimmy Carter, to curtail the power and sphere of influence of the NSA.

In a matter of national security I will trust the judgement of the CIC over a court any day of the week. That applies to any President, not just this one.

[Cheese]

I'll put it more simply...

If. he. broke. the. law. should. he. be. penalized. question mark.

Also if the FISA court was a relic, why wasn't it done away with already? Are you saying that you like the government having the power to listen in on your phone calls and emails without a warrant?

Also: What has this President done to garner your trust? Would you trust the same power in the hands of Jimmy Carter?

[usickenme]

The FISA court is a RELIC.



If the FISA court is a relic than Bush is really in trouble. Because he has been relying on it .

I see you've adopted Sen. Spector's talking points.

[Msut77]

The FISA court is a RELIC.

Because putting it in CAPS makes it true.

Either way its still the law.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Would you trust the same power in the hands of Jimmy Carter?

:rofl: Carter is a castrated bull. He doesn't have the sack to offend a fly, hence, the point is moot.

He delivered and gave birth to the modern world wide terrorist movement. You think he'd want anything to do with killing his creation????

OH FUCK NO!

:bouncy:

[evanft]

Because putting it in CAPS makes it true.

Either way its still the law.

Pffffffffft... did LAWS prevent us from getting attacked on 9/11? Nope. Laws do nothing but stand in the way of justice, and you're a coward for supporting them.

[Cheese]

Ahem...


I'll put it more simply...

If. he. broke. the. law. should. he. be. penalized. question mark.

Also if the FISA court was a relic, why wasn't it done away with already? Are you saying that you like the government having the power to listen in on your phone calls and emails without a warrant?

Also: What has this President done to garner your trust?

So you trust THIS CiC, but not others.

[Msut77]

:rofl: Carter is a castrated bull. He doesn't have the sack to offend a fly, hence, the point is moot.

He delivered and gave birth to the modern world wide terrorist movement. You think he'd want anything to do with killing his creation????

OH FUCK NO!

:bouncy:

Oddly enough Reagan was the one who funded Terrorists.

[elprincipe]

Which reminds me, there was a hilarious sketch with Paul Hackett on The Daily Show last night; I'll post it if I can find it online. If not, I highly recommend watching one of the 7 replays that are on today.

QFT back at you. That was a great one!

[coffman]

The FISA court is a RELIC.

It is not a Constitutionally established court. It was a stopgap measure put in place by a liberal Congress and the worst President in modern history, Jimmy Carter, to curtail the power and sphere of influence of the NSA.

In a matter of national security I will trust the judgement of the CIC over a court any day of the week. That applies to any President, not just this one.

I believe the title of worst president in modern history now belongs to George H. W. "Mission Accomplished" Bush.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Get back to me when unemployment hits 10%, Prime is floating at 18%, inflation is in double digits, American embasies are overrun and staffs taken hostage and our primary nation state challenger to power is invading foreign countries and our response to military conquest is to boycott the Olympics. Oh and while you're at it when these things are happening deny that the military needs upgrading or to be better prepared, taxes need to be raised and the American people are responsible for the state of the nation.

When all that happens we can seriously debate the title of worst President ever.

[dennis_t]

Cheese has asked the central question, and not a single conservative here has the stones to respond to it:

If Bush has broken the law, should he be penalized for it?

[Cheese]

I'll put it more simply...

If. he. broke. the. law. should. he. be. penalized. question mark.

Also if the FISA court was a relic, why wasn't it done away with already? Are you saying that you like the government having the power to listen in on your phone calls and emails without a warrant?

Also: What has this President done to garner your trust?

Paddy? Paddy?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

If he has broken the law?

Well, I'll paraphrase Bill Clinton's legalese. It depends on what your definition of "if" is.

[evanft]

And PAD with the deflection!!! That's his 21323rd of the season, folks. He's really looking for the nutjob forum conservative MVP trophy this year.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Face it fellas. No President is ever going to face criminal charges, ever, from actions in office. The point is moot.

Even if forced to resign the pardon from the successor is inevitable.

It's a pointless discussion, not a deflection.

[Ace-Of-War]

Amen brother. Bush is, has been and never was a Conservative. Compassionate Conservatism was a phrase for "we'll spend less than liberals for the same big government ideas". There hasn't been a Conservative to run under the (R) banner since 1984. Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush... none of them count. None of them were Conservative. The options of Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry were so unpalatable as far as options go Conservatives were really left with no option.

It's what makes me so frustrated with those liberals who antagonize you as a Bush drone or something just because you agree with one or two things he does. National security is, without a doubt, the most important issue we will ever face. This man wants to do something about it, and that, in my mind, trumps every other issue I don't agree with him on.

I believe the title of worst president in modern history now belongs to George H. W. "Mission Accomplished" Bush.

George H. W. Bush is former President Bush. :roll:

[Cheese]

National security is, without a doubt, the most important issue we will ever face. This man wants to do something about it, and that, in my mind, trumps every other issue I don't agree with him on.

But what has he done for our national security? Ports and borders are a mess, we caught very few Top Al-Queda guys, he invaded a country completely for ideological reasons on trumped up/cherry picked/completely phony WMD charges blaming the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc., leaving our intelligence agencies with egg on their face, lessened civil liberties and returned us to government deeply intertwined with the military industrial complex to the point where billions of dollars disappears and no one questions a thing. The one thing I will give him might be the creation of the Homeland Security Dept., which on it's face is a pretty good idea, but of course will soon be ruined (ie the previously discussed DHS God office).

PADDY!:
well, I'll paraphrase Bill Clinton's legalese. It depends on what your definition of "if" is

"if" = If a congressional investigation finds that his bypassing the FISA law is in fact a crime.

Should he be impeached? Censured? Is there another thing Congress can do to slap him on the wrist? Tarred and feathered? Forced to eat pretzels? Forced to let his dog go duck hunting with Cheney?

[Metal Boss]

Damn, pad got rolled, lit and smoked in this thread.

[dennis_t]

Feingold, in his news conference Thursday:

I think that the press decided immediately that somehow this was
a bad thing for Democrats and a good thing for conservatives. The
facts don't bear it out. You don't have the polls to prove it. The
way my colleagues are responding to me suggests to me they're thinking
about this, that they feel that there has to be some accountability.

So the instant decision about what the story is, actually, I
think is going to backfire on those who made up the story. I don't
get the feeling that I had on Monday about this -- yes, people were
concerned -- I'm not getting that.

And if the right wing really believes in this country that --
Rush Limbaugh and others -- that they can somehow turn the president's
reputation around by saying, "You're darn right he violated the law,
and it's a good thing," I think they're just as confused as they are
about their Iraq politics. People aren't buying it anymore.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006316.html

[dennis_t]

Face it fellas. No President is ever going to face criminal charges, ever, from actions in office. The point is moot.

Even if forced to resign the pardon from the successor is inevitable.

It's a pointless discussion, not a deflection.

Okay, then....presidents have been successfully censured.

If, as legal scholars have said, Bush violated the law, should he face censure as a penalty?

[bmulligan]

Get back to me when unemployment hits 10%, Prime is floating at 18%, inflation is in double digits, American embasies are overrun and staffs taken hostage and our primary nation state challenger to power is invading foreign countries and our response to military conquest is to boycott the Olympics. Oh and while you're at it when these things are happening deny that the military needs upgrading or to be better prepared, taxes need to be raised and the American people are responsible for the state of the nation.

When all that happens we can seriously debate the title of worst President ever.

It's no use PAD. This was well before most of them were born. They don't remember waiting in lines for gasoline, wondering if dad was going to get laid off again, or eating spaghetti day after day becuase it's cheap. All they really know is whether they want a lexus or a scion for their graduation present.

[Msut77]

It's no use PAD. This was well before most of them were born. They don't remember waiting in lines for gasoline, wondering if dad was going to get laid off again, or eating spaghetti day after day becuase it's cheap. All they really know is whether they want a lexus or a scion for their graduation present.


Ignorant wrong headed patronizing.

Delicious.

[Drocket]

Well, the first polls (http://americanresearchgroup.com/) are out on the censure issue, and its looking like Feingold isn't QUITE the left-wing kook that PAD would like to portray him as: Voters favor censoring the president by 48% to 43%.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Who the fuck is the American Research Group? They have a one page website, no reports of methodology or sample creation and....

No track record of proven accuracy. BTW, their question was misleading and innacurate.

Nice try, where the hell did you find them, back of a pack of Bubble Yum?

BTW, Feingold is a kook. What happened when Bill Frist said, "Okay, let's vote!"?. The entire Democrat caucus put bags over their heads and wanted nothing to do with it. Who signed on with this? Barbara Boxer, Queen of the Moonbats.

I know you think this is high stakes political poker. I know you think that this is a serious attempt at wel, something. What, I have no idea. However it proves every accusation against Democrats is completely accurate; they would rather have a political issue over the conduct over a war as opposed to running it, winning it or maintaining a strong upper hand.

Hey, I love the guy. I love the measure. I want a vote on it. I want the House Democrats to begin an impeachment movement. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, would please me more.

Kook? Bring it on D's, bring it on. Let's draft the measure, turn on the cameras and microphones, have a passioned Kook Concerto and get down to a vote that will fail as miserably if not worse than the 2/3rds drubbing the Democrats took when the Patriot Act was renewed. Oh, that after Harry Reid's applause line, "WE KILLED THE PATRIOT ACT!" which met with rousing ovation from the Kool Aid drinkers seated after their go through on the purple punch bowl line.

The fact that you don't know how this measure is playing in the mainstream proves..... you're also a kook.

It's okay, we love you, we need more of you. Please email, call and fax your Representative and Senators and tell them you're behind Russ Feingold and the House Democrats that wish to impeach the President.

Please Drocket, make this dream of mine a reality.

[evanft]

Pffft...polls are a liberal invention, just like opinion.

[Drocket]

Who the fuck is the American Research Group? They have a one page website, no reports of methodology or sample creation and....
Yeah, they have a pretty crappy website. Although they're not the biggest or most respected polling company, they're not a fly-by-night organization either. Which is to say that there IS a fair amount of support for the measure, regardless of what you choose to believe.


BTW, Feingold is a kook. What happened when Bill Frist said, "Okay, let's vote!"?. The entire Democrat caucus put bags over their heads and wanted nothing to do with it. Who signed on with this? Barbara Boxer, Queen of the Moonbats.
Actually, I think Frist's reaction shows how worried they are about this. They wanted to skip normal debating proceedure to prevent any real discussion of the measure, while he could guarantee that the Republican majority would vote against it. Now that its out and public, people are talking about it. Its brought attention back to Bush's illegal wiretapping, which numerous other polls have shown the majority of the public to be unhappy about. Toss that in with the growing evidence that the illegal wiretapping was targetting poltical opponents and not just 'terrorist suspects'...

It IS a shame that the majority of Democrats are too spineless to stand up and fight for this. Public opinion is already roughly tied for and against measure, despite the fact that there's been absolutely NO leadership on the pro side. With a few decent speakers on the Democratic side clearly articulating the arguments against Bush, I have absolutely no doubt that his current ~34% approval rating would be much lower.

Still, though, the debate has been started. This one isn't going to die out as fast as you or Frist would like.

[mykevermin]

Who the fuck is the American Research Group? They have a one page website, no reports of methodology or sample creation and....

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?

How would you reword it to be more fair? Do you think it's loaded, or asking a "double" question?

They have...no reports of methodology or sample creation and....

Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide March 13-15, 2006. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time.

Care to recant that last criticism?

[Ace-Of-War]

But what has he done for our national security? Ports and borders are a mess, we caught very few Top Al-Queda guys, he invaded a country completely for ideological reasons on trumped up/cherry picked/completely phony WMD charges blaming the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc., leaving our intelligence agencies with egg on their face, lessened civil liberties and returned us to government deeply intertwined with the military industrial complex to the point where billions of dollars disappears and no one questions a thing. The one thing I will give him might be the creation of the Homeland Security Dept., which on it's face is a pretty good idea, but of course will soon be ruined (ie the previously discussed DHS God office).

Sure, let's do some political dick sucking.

There have been no attacks since September 11th to this country by any terrorist organization thanks to the President's solid efforts against terrorism. We've set up a completely soverign republican form of government in Iraq, a place that hasn't ever seen democratic ideals in the history of the country. Always plauged by oppressive dictators or monarchs from foreign lands, the area can now proudly boast an election process with a turnout upwards of 70% of the population. The Iraqi people cheer and praise our soldiers for the work they've done and it's becoming increasingly common place for these people to turn their backs to religious extremists in favor of a safer, modernized way of life. There has yet to be, nor will there ever be if progress continues, a civil war in Iraq despite how badly the left wants it to happen. The Iraqi army grows everyday and continues to bolster experience and creditentals good enough to fight any enemy they should encounter.

So ease up Cheese, I can spit out rhetoric just as good as any of ya'll can.

[alonzomourning23]

Sure, let's do some political dick sucking.

There have been no attacks since September 11th to this country by any terrorist organization thanks to the President's solid efforts against terrorism.

The U.S. went from february 27th 1993 (95 if you count mcveigh, but that's a different form of terrorism than bush is fighting and is having an effect on) to september 10th 2001 without a terrorist attack. Bush still has a bit to go before equaling clintons record, or any other 2 term president.

We've set up a completely soverign republican form of government in Iraq, a place that hasn't ever seen democratic ideals in the history of the country. Always plauged by oppressive dictators or monarchs from foreign lands, the area can now proudly boast an election process with a turnout upwards of 70% of the population.

You can't be completely sovereign when there are soldiers in your street that another country controls.

An elected Iraqi parliament first formed following the establishment of a constitutional monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy) in 1925 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1925). The 1925 constitution called for a bicameral parliament whose lower house, the Chamber of Deputies (Majlis an-Nuwwab) would be elected based on universal manhood suffrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_manhood_suffrage). The upper house, the Senate (Majlis al-A`yan) was appointed by the king. Ten elections took place between 1925 and the coup of 1958.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_National_Assembly

The Iraqi people cheer and praise our soldiers for the work they've done and

?

it's becoming increasingly common place for these people to turn their backs to religious extremists in favor of a safer, modernized way of life.

Psstt, Saddam ran a secular government.

There has yet to be, nor will there ever be if progress continues, a civil war in Iraq despite how badly the left wants it to happen.

Bush wants to bomb children.

The Iraqi army grows everyday and continues to bolster experience and creditentals good enough to fight any enemy they should encounter.

The number of Iraqi army battalions judged by their American trainers to be capable of fighting the insurgency without U.S. help has slipped from one to none since September, Pentagon officials said Friday.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-25-iraqi-army_x.htm

Good rhetoric is factually accurate.

[Cheese]

I'll put it more simply...

If. he. broke. the. law. should. he. be. penalized. question mark.\

Is that crickets I hear? Answer the motherfarking question already.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

The U.S. went from february 27th 1993 (95 if you count mcveigh, but that's a different form of terrorism than bush is fighting and is having an effect on) to september 10th 2001 without a terrorist attack.

On June 25, 1996, a terrorist truck bomb exploded outside the northern perimeter of Khobar Towers, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, a facility housing U.S. and allied forces supporting the coalition air operation over Iraq, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH. Estimates of the size of the bomb range from the equivalent of 3,000 to more than 30,000 pounds of TNT. The Task Force estimated that the bomb was between 3,000 and 8,000 pounds, most likely about 5,000 pounds. While U.S. Air Force Security Police observers on the roof of the building overlooking the perimeter identified the attack in progress and alerted many occupants to the threat, evacuation was incomplete when the bomb exploded. Nineteen fatalities and approximately 500 U.S. wounded resulted from the attack. (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/downing/unclf913.html)

For the Clinton team, desperate times called for the usual measures — a poll. Dick Morris noted in a memo a few days after the bombing:

SAUDI BOMBING — recovered from Friday and looking great
Approve Clinton handling 73-20
Big gain from 63-20 on Friday
Security was adequate 52-40
It's not Clinton's fault 76-18 (http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200311030753.asp)"

Foreign bases under any visiting forces act the U.S. signs and agrees to with host nations make those facilities U.S. territory.

80 killed in US embassy bombings.... The bombs exploded within five minutes of each other, first in Dar es Salaam in Tanzania where seven deaths have been reported, and then in the heart of the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, while embassy workers were having their mid-morning coffee break. At least 74 people died in Nairobi where more than 1,600 were injured. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/08/08/wbom08.html)
President Clinton condemned the bombers as "inhuman" and promised every effort to hunt them down.

U.S. Embassies are soverign American territory and have the legal standing of invading or bombing Ohio.

In response, the U.S. launched cruise missiles on Aug. 20, 1998, striking a terrorism training complex in Afghanistan and destroying a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Khartoum, Sudan, that reportedly produced nerve gas. (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/newsfacts-sudanstrikes.html)

Of course launching $120 million worth of Tomahawk missiles at tents did nothing. The nerve gas facility turned out to be an aspirin factory. Clinton lied, people died. There were no WMD's. Where were the marchers and the outraged American left?

On October 12, 2000, USS Cole came to the harbor of Aden, Yemen for a routine fuel stop. Cole completed mooring at 09:30. Refueling started at 10:30. At 11:18 local time (08:18 UTC), a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 40-by-40-foot (12 m-by-12 m) gash in the ship's port side. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing)
President Bill Clinton declared, "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable"

U.S. warships and flagged commercial vessels are soverign American property and territory.

Well, so much for that argument.

[Cheese]

Sure, let's do some political dick sucking.

There have been no attacks since September 11th to this country by any terrorist organization thanks to the President's solid efforts against terrorism. We've set up a completely soverign republican form of government in Iraq, a place that hasn't ever seen democratic ideals in the history of the country. Always plauged by oppressive dictators or monarchs from foreign lands, the area can now proudly boast an election process with a turnout upwards of 70% of the population. The Iraqi people cheer and praise our soldiers for the work they've done and it's becoming increasingly common place for these people to turn their backs to religious extremists in favor of a safer, modernized way of life. There has yet to be, nor will there ever be if progress continues, a civil war in Iraq despite how badly the left wants it to happen. The Iraqi army grows everyday and continues to bolster experience and creditentals good enough to fight any enemy they should encounter.

So ease up Cheese, I can spit out rhetoric just as good as any of ya'll can.


An election that will undoubtedly vote for the already written constitution that supports a theocratic government. Yay us. We've turned a (granted) ruthless secular dictatorship into an west hating religious government. We win? More modernized is what they had under Saddam, and that is by no means a Saddam supporting statement, just a statement of fact. If Iraq votes for the current constitution it is a huge step back for civil right in that country. The civil war in Iraq has been going on a limited scale for some time now, secular Sunnis vs. Islamic shias. It's not a fabrication of the 'Liberal media' (former interim Prime Minster Allawi has been screaming this for some time, but no one has listened). Check out the daily reports from Iraq, one day a Sunni police station gets blown up, the next a Shia temple, the next a Sunni market, the next a Shia neighborhood. It's there, recored daily. Add to that the government sanctioned squads going out and killing anyone who speaks up, mostly professors, ex government insiders, librarians. They're killing the intellectuals, much like Pol Pot's Kamir Rouge did. These are the first steps, unless somethign drastic happens, it will sink into madness.

PS - I just saw the Pogues and am more then a little drunk, so excuse some typos and what have you.

[Cheese]

What PADDY neglect to mention that blame on both those attacks wasn't laid on Al Queda until after Clinton left office in 2001. And that Clinton, in one of his last acts in office, sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan, violating Pakistani airspace (which they were pretty ticked off about) trying to kill Bin Laden, he missed him by 30 minutes.

[Cheese]

I'll put it more simply...

If. he. broke. the. law. should. he. be. penalized. question mark.

And he still didn't answer.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

What PADDY neglect to mention that blame on both those attacks wasn't laid on Al Queda until after Clinton left office in 2001. And that Clinton, in one of his last acts in office, sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan, violating Pakistani airspace (which they were pretty ticked off about) trying to kill Bin Laden, he missed him by 30 minutes.

Last act in office? So he was off the job on August 20, 1998? Well technically he was off the job the day Drudge broke Monica. So maybe you're not all wrong.

Um yeah, we completly ignored their claims immediately. We had no idea it was them..... :roll:

It took exhaustive research.

[Sarang01]

Fair enough, but there have no politicians as bad as W and his cronies in several lifetimes.

So you think but I remember hearing when Clinton was in office Russia was being looted by the people he's with. Look at the people who are darlings with the media, Republican and Democrat, and you have your answer who's dirtiest and in with the scumbags who bring you groups like Hamas and Iran's possible PLANT of a President.
Look at our country and how it's being flushed down the toilet for the Globalists and you do the math. The real people in power are afraid what would happen if we took back our country therefore they try to effectively demolish any factory, industry in America as much as possible, they wish to infantize us, to have the world to care for us so if we do finally take back our power we're crippled because our industry is gone. Tell me how practical it is for almost EVERY product we're buying to be imported, it isn't anything but a practical way to destroy an economy slowly but surely. Oh btw China will be our replacement country for people to hate since they'll get the "power".
People need to pay attention, every truly sustaining country, or one's they must think have a real chance to throw back control and become independent and self-sustaining they seek to cripple: Africa, the U.S. and China are the three that come to mind. If we united and shirked off these organizations and the people behind them Europe would eventually be free of them as well.

[Msut77]

There have been no attacks since September 11th to this country by any terrorist organization thanks to the President's solid efforts against terrorism.

Do you mean successful attacks in this country?

That is not to say countless Americans havent died because of terrorism, just that Ace feels his fat trailer living ass is safe.

Clinton had nothing as big of a monumental screwup as 9/11 on his watch.


BTW I have a tiger repelling rock for sale.

[Msut77]

So you think but I remember hearing when Clinton was in office Russia was being looted by the people he's with.

So Clinton personally looted all of Mother Russia?

Now ive heard everything.

[alonzomourning23]

On June 25, 1996, a terrorist truck bomb exploded outside the northern perimeter of Khobar Towers, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, a facility housing U.S. and allied forces supporting the coalition air operation over Iraq, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH. Estimates of the size of the bomb range from the equivalent of 3,000 to more than 30,000 pounds of TNT. The Task Force estimated that the bomb was between 3,000 and 8,000 pounds, most likely about 5,000 pounds. While U.S. Air Force Security Police observers on the roof of the building overlooking the perimeter identified the attack in progress and alerted many occupants to the threat, evacuation was incomplete when the bomb exploded. Nineteen fatalities and approximately 500 U.S. wounded resulted from the attack. (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/downing/unclf913.html)

For the Clinton team, desperate times called for the usual measures — a poll. Dick Morris noted in a memo a few days after the bombing: (http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200311030753.asp)

SAUDI BOMBING — recovered from Friday and looking great
Approve Clinton handling 73-20
Big gain from 63-20 on Friday
Security was adequate 52-40
It's not Clinton's fault 76-18 (http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200311030753.asp)"

Foreign bases under any visiting forces act the U.S. signs and agrees to with host nations make those facilities U.S. territory.

80 killed in US embassy bombings.... The bombs exploded within five minutes of each other, first in Dar es Salaam in Tanzania where seven deaths have been reported, and then in the heart of the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, while embassy workers were having their mid-morning coffee break. At least 74 people died in Nairobi where more than 1,600 were injured. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/08/08/wbom08.html)
President Clinton condemned the bombers as "inhuman" and promised every effort to hunt them down.

U.S. Embassies are soverign American territory and have the legal standing of invading or bombing Ohio.

In response, the U.S. launched cruise missiles on Aug. 20, 1998, striking a terrorism training complex in Afghanistan and destroying a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Khartoum, Sudan, that reportedly produced nerve gas. (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/newsfacts-sudanstrikes.html)

Of course launching $120 million worth of Tomahawk missiles at tents did nothing. The nerve gas facility turned out to be an aspirin factory. Clinton lied, people died. There were no WMD's. Where were the marchers and the outraged American left?

On October 12, 2000, USS Cole came to the harbor of Aden, Yemen for a routine fuel stop. Cole completed mooring at 09:30. Refueling started at 10:30. At 11:18 local time (08:18 UTC), a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 40-by-40-foot (12 m-by-12 m) gash in the ship's port side. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing)
President Bill Clinton declared, "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable"

U.S. warships and flagged commercial vessels are soverign American property and territory.

Well, so much for that argument.

And u.s. bases haven'y been attacked under bush's watch? Besides, if civilians or civilian buildings aren't targetted then it's not a terrorist attack. The embassy bombing is debatable, but the attack on the u.s.s. cole and the military base are not terrorism.

Besides, these things occur in areas that other countries control. I assume he's referring to attacks that occured on u.s. territory, meaning in the 50 states. Driving a truck bomb to a place in saudi arabia heavily involves the failure of the saudi's to detect and stop it. If they were to accomplish such an event in california then you'd have a point.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Dumb ass, we're in a declared or state of war now. Of course we're going to be attacked. How GD stupid are you? Do you wake up in the morning and just huff glue so you appear to be extra stupid when you post about politics?

The embassy bombing is not debatable. Diplomatic missions are soverign national territory. When you drive up to the British embassy and walk in the lobby, legally, you might as well be in the middle of Picadilly Circus. U.S. law does not apply. Do you know anything about this or are you just learning as you go?

Attacks on military bases and the Cole are acts of terrorism. Pure and simple. There was no war footing. If you want to act they were "legitimate" targets fine, but it's either terrorism or an act of war. Without a state it can't be an act of war, it's terrorism.

Get back to sniffing your glue.

[Msut77]

we're in a declared or state of war now


When did we officially declare war?

[alonzomourning23]

Dumb ass, we're in a declared or state of war now. Of course we're going to be attacked. How GD stupid are you? Do you wake up in the morning and just huff glue so you appear to be extra stupid when you post about politics?

State of war or not, military bases are still u.s. territory and they have been attacked. You could say "u.s. territory not involved in a war has not been attacked since sept 11", but the argument usually refers to the 50 states.

Though, as msut said, there's no officially declared war. Sure, its been mentioned, but it's not technically official.

The embassy bombing is not debatable. Diplomatic missions are soverign national territory. When you drive up to the British embassy and walk in the lobby, legally, you might as well be in the middle of Picadilly Circus. U.S. law does not apply. Do you know anything about this or are you just learning as you go?

Attacks on military bases and the Cole are acts of terrorism. Pure and simple. There was no war footing. If you want to act they were "legitimate" targets fine, but it's either terrorism or an act of war. Without a state it can't be an act of war, it's terrorism.

Get back to sniffing your glue.

I didn't say they weren't u.s. territory, I said attacks on military targets were not terrorism.

The embassy bombing is debatable depending on how the term terrorist is defined. By the definition used by many states practically every group that ever fights them is a terrorist.

And attacks by non governmental rebel or militant forces are rarely considered terrorism unless they target civilians.

[Metal Boss]

Dumb ass, How GD stupid are you? Do you wake up in the morning and just huff glue so you appear to be extra stupid when you post about politics?Get back to sniffing your glue.


Aww, did the little fatty wake up in his own excrement again?


You can tell when he's flustered, he uses the same insult twice in his long winded, short minded rants.

[Cheese]

I'll put it more simply...

If. he. broke. the. law. should. he. be. penalized. question mark.


Yawn...

[Metal Boss]

Yawn...

Dumb ass, How GD stupid are you? Do you wake up in the morning and just huff glue so you appear to be extra stupid when you post about politics?Get back to sniffing your glue.

[Ace-Of-War]

An election that will undoubtedly vote for the already written constitution that supports a theocratic government. Yay us. We've turned a (granted) ruthless secular dictatorship into an west hating religious government. We win? More modernized is what they had under Saddam, and that is by no means a Saddam supporting statement, just a statement of fact. If Iraq votes for the current constitution it is a huge step back for civil right in that country. The civil war in Iraq has been going on a limited scale for some time now, secular Sunnis vs. Islamic shias. It's not a fabrication of the 'Liberal media' (former interim Prime Minster Allawi has been screaming this for some time, but no one has listened). Check out the daily reports from Iraq, one day a Sunni police station gets blown up, the next a Shia temple, the next a Sunni market, the next a Shia neighborhood. It's there, recored daily. Add to that the government sanctioned squads going out and killing anyone who speaks up, mostly professors, ex government insiders, librarians. They're killing the intellectuals, much like Pol Pot's Kamir Rouge did. These are the first steps, unless somethign drastic happens, it will sink into madness.

I hope you're having fun with this one.

MY POLITICS CAN BEAT UP YOUR POLITICS!!

How many theocratic governments give their people freedom of religion? Yay indeed, yay for freedom. Besides, we're talking baby steps, if we put our foot down and told the government how to run their country you'd just yell puppet government at the top of your lungs. If that nation is doing anything but killing itself you're going to whine and moan about how it isn't a perfect representation of a democratic state, which is grasping at straws to exponential levels. No government is perfect, not even ours. You think a nation that's lived under brutual totalitarian rule for God knows how many years is just going to up and be perfect in a couple? That's naive and stupid, but I guess you'll say anything to bash Bush at this point. The Iraqi economy is booming after years of burning oil fields and needless aggression proposed by Hussein. There were more than 30,000 new businesses starting up in the fourth quarter of 2005, and per capita income has doubled since 2003. Over 3.5 millions cell phones suscribers from Iraq, men and women can now go and buy things they like and enjoy. Modernized? Fuck yes. Either way, you can beg and wish for a civil war all you want, but the Iraqi parliament is handling these issues like a civilized, diplomatic government should. They will not surrender to insurgents, like the American left is more than happy to do for them with their media to score political points.

We can do this for weeks Cheese, back and forth political rhetoric. Don't expect me to let you get away with your lies when you started this.

[elprincipe]

Alonzo, the embassy bombings are certainly not debatable. They clearly are acts of terrorism directed at innocent diplomatic civilians. Embassies are not used for military operations.

But I do agree with you that the attack on the Cole was not terrorism, even though it was carried out by people who are terrorists. That was a military attack.

And whoever was debating Clinton's last days in office and his actions, it's plainly obvious his last days and last acts were absorbed with issuing pardons to scum campaign contributors like Marc Rich.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

No, Cheese maintained that an attack on August 20th 1998 was one of Clinton's last acts as President.

If true, that means Clinton did shit the last 2 years and 5 months in office.

I'll argue he didn't do shit for 8 years but if Cheese just wants to say 2 years and 5 months, we'll go with that.

[Msut77]

Who wants to take bets that PAD jumped to cry wag the dog when Clinton dared to bomb Bin Laden?

[Drocket]

Speaking of Wag the Dog... (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174448,00.html)

[elprincipe]

Speaking of Wag the Dog... (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174448,00.html)

I guess in your world of military tactics they should just sit back and do nothing while insurgents bomb mosques and civilians. See, they can't win with you. If US forces sit in their bases, they are "watching while the country descends into civil war." If they take actions like Operation Swarmer, it is a "waste of time and money, and insulting to the Iraqis."

[Drocket]

I guess in your world of military tactics they should just sit back and do nothing while insurgents bomb mosques and civilians. See, they can't win with you. If US forces sit in their bases, they are "watching while the country descends into civil war." If they take actions like Operation Swarmer, it is a "waste of time and money, and insulting to the Iraqis."

Yeah, I'm really glad that we're preventing Iraq from decending into chaos by having our troops take leisurely tours of peaceful farming communities.

The problem is that this was a complete non-story, yet is was MASSIVELY hyped by the pentagon - air strikes! Biggest operation since victory was declared! Gonna get all them terrorists! Not a single one of those was remotely true. When it just HAPPENS to take place during a time period when the president is in political trouble...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I guess in your world of military tactics they should just sit back and do nothing while insurgents bomb mosques and civilians. See, they can't win with you. If US forces sit in their bases, they are "watching while the country descends into civil war." If they take actions like Operation Swarmer, it is a "waste of time and money, and insulting to the Iraqis."

Don't argue with the mentally ill. Just get out of the way and just let them keep talking, let their leaders keep talking for them and let them have unfettered access to all media outlets.

The results of these sentiments will show how effective the are. Mass dennis_t absenteeism will follow the harvest of their results.

[Cheese]

I'll put it more simply...

If. he. broke. the. law. should. he. be. penalized. question mark.

I'm sorry I dragged this off topic.

[Msut77]

Don't argue with the mentally ill.

I dont, thats why I just keep calling you and your ilk dumbfucks.

[Cheese]

I hope you're having fun with this one.

MY POLITICS CAN BEAT UP YOUR POLITICS!!

How many theocratic governments give their people freedom of religion? Yay indeed, yay for freedom. Besides, we're talking baby steps, if we put our foot down and told the government how to run their country you'd just yell puppet government at the top of your lungs. If that nation is doing anything but killing itself you're going to whine and moan about how it isn't a perfect representation of a democratic state, which is grasping at straws to exponential levels. No government is perfect, not even ours. You think a nation that's lived under brutual totalitarian rule for God knows how many years is just going to up and be perfect in a couple? That's naive and stupid, but I guess you'll say anything to bash Bush at this point. The Iraqi economy is booming after years of burning oil fields and needless aggression proposed by Hussein. There were more than 30,000 new businesses starting up in the fourth quarter of 2005, and per capita income has doubled since 2003. Over 3.5 millions cell phones suscribers from Iraq, men and women can now go and buy things they like and enjoy. Modernized? Fuck yes. Either way, you can beg and wish for a civil war all you want, but the Iraqi parliament is handling these issues like a civilized, diplomatic government should. They will not surrender to insurgents, like the American left is more than happy to do for them with their media to score political points.

We can do this for weeks Cheese, back and forth political rhetoric. Don't expect me to let you get away with your lies when you started this.

How is the Shia law ridden Iraqi constitution freedom of religion? Here's a question for you, if after all is said and done, the Iraqi people freely decide to install an Iran like shia religious state, is that a better for 'freedom' (not to mention American intrests) then a version of the secular government they had before? Iraq was chosen because neoconservative ideologues thought that we'd be welcomed with open arms and the government would stay as a secular state, not because of it being the largest threat in the region, Syria or Iran are much better candidates for that title.

I don't see anyone begging for a civil war. Paint the left as much as you want but no one is saying, "Civil war! Fuck yeah!" What you might hear is a lot of "I told you so." A limited civil war is already happening. Is it like our civil war with uniforms and skirmish lines? no. But there are back and forth bombings, political assassinations and massive internal conflict. All these things predicted by the experts on the region before the invasion. This is the reason Bush 41 didn't go into Baghdad, he knew the mess it would create will last decades. It's sad that no one in the administration listened to, well, anyone besides themselves before running with this whole debacle. And now with the recent reports of the political death squads and the hunting of outspoken intellectuals (on both sides) it's really just getting nasty.

I am also in no way saying anyone should surrender. Please don't paint me as I am. Was the invasion a purely ideological one that should never have happened? Yes. Has the handling of it been FUBAR since the drawing board? You bet'cha. Now that we are there, is pulling out an option, especially during the escalating internal violence? No. Withdrawal will only create more chaos that we'll be feeling the repercussions of for decades to come and do more to embolden our enemies in the region (Iran). Should we have stayed in charge there longer and weaned them into a westernized democracy? Most likely, but too late now.

What are our options? Fuck if I, you, PADDY, the Iraqi people, Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Clinton, Dean, Kerry, McCain, Allen, Rice, Rudy, Robertson (Bill or Pat), Limbaugh, Olberman, O'Reilly, Blitzer, Carlson, Scarborogh, Hume, Crystal, Pearle, Powell or the ghost of Ronald Reagan have any idea how to come out on top of this. Staying the course isn't working and was retarded in the first place, we need a new plan. Is it picking a side? Do we side with the secular Sunni minority that is more aligned to our ideals, or do we side with the majority religious Shias who will very likely install a Iran like religious state? Do we start considering a 2 or 3 state solution (my choice)? And if so, how do we go about instituting it after three years of pushing for a one state solution? I am honestly concerned about how this story ends, it's completely obvious to a great many people that this administration has dropped the ball from day one, and with approval ratings as low as theirs (100% by their own creation), I don't need to score political points, it's only the Kool-Aid drinkers like Paddy left, and he's a wingnut.

And when I said modernized I mean in political thinking, I guess I should have said 'westernized' not modernized like y'know, cel phones. That was inevitable once trade sanctions were dropped anyways. Lastly, besides my drunken misremembering of the Clinton missile timeline, I haven't lied, so please don't call me a liar.

[alonzomourning23]

I don't see anyone begging for a civil war. Paint the left as much as you want but no one is saying, "Civil war! fuck yeah!"
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/695/cavuto2006022412wy.jpg
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/7552/cavuto2006022428bq.jpg

[Cheese]

Well of course Neil Cavuto, he loves the terrorists.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Boy you fuckers are stupid.

You can't even post a picture of Neil Cavuto without not knowing the picture you posted isn't even Neil Cavuto.

Just how much glue do you have to sniff to be this fucking stupid all the time?

http://www.foxnews.com/images/1300/13_21_450_cavuto_081205.jpg
Neil Cavuto

http://www.foxnews.com/images/1251/12_21_350_asman_david.jpg
David Asman Host of Forbes on Fox

Okay, back to your huffing sessions. Or is it Kool Aid season.

Whatever. You just keep getting dumber by the day.

[alonzomourning23]

I didn't say it was cavuto, I just wanted a conservative.

Though, except the hair, I can't tell them apart. Then again I've never been good with faces.

[Cheese]

Goodbye Fourth Amendment, it was nice knowing you. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20060318/wl_usnews/theletterofthelaw;_ylt=Ak.CI84sK.Rntb_1.vjtbTe63q8 F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)

In the dark days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a small group of lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department began meeting to debate a number of novel legal strategies to help prevent another attack. Soon after, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to begin conducting electronic eavesdropping on terrorism suspects in the United States, including American citizens, without court approval. Meeting in the FBI's state-of-the-art command center in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the lawyers talked with senior FBI officials about using the same legal authority to conduct physical searches of homes and businesses of terrorism suspects--also without court approval, one current and one former government official tell U.S. News. "There was a fair amount of discussion at Justice on the warrantless physical search issue," says a former senior FBI official. "Discussions about--if [the searches] happened--where would the information go, and would it taint cases."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To paraphrase, "The Fourth Amendment is a RELIC."

[Cheese]

Those are two different guys? Huh.

Oh and Paddy...

If it's found that President Bush broke the law, should he be penalized?

C'mon, one of you guys answer this already!

[Ace-Of-War]

How is the Shia law ridden Iraqi constitution freedom of religion? Here's a question for you, if after all is said and done, the Iraqi people freely decide to install an Iran like shia religious state, is that a better for 'freedom' (not to mention American intrests) then a version of the secular government they had before? Iraq was chosen because neoconservative ideologues thought that we'd be welcomed with open arms and the government would stay as a secular state, not because of it being the largest threat in the region, Syria or Iran are much better candidates for that title.

I don't see anyone begging for a civil war. Paint the left as much as you want but no one is saying, "Civil war! Fuck yeah!" What you might hear is a lot of "I told you so." A limited civil war is already happening. Is it like our civil war with uniforms and skirmish lines? no. But there are back and forth bombings, political assassinations and massive internal conflict. All these things predicted by the experts on the region before the invasion. This is the reason Bush 41 didn't go into Baghdad, he knew the mess it would create will last decades. It's sad that no one in the administration listened to, well, anyone besides themselves before running with this whole debacle. And now with the recent reports of the political death squads and the hunting of outspoken intellectuals (on both sides) it's really just getting nasty.

I am also in no way saying anyone should surrender. Please don't paint me as I am. Was the invasion a purely ideological one that should never have happened? Yes. Has the handling of it been FUBAR since the drawing board? You bet'cha. Now that we are there, is pulling out an option, especially during the escalating internal violence? No. Withdrawal will only create more chaos that we'll be feeling the repercussions of for decades to come and do more to embolden our enemies in the region (Iran). Should we have stayed in charge there longer and weaned them into a westernized democracy? Most likely, but too late now.

What are our options? Fuck if I, you, PADDY, the Iraqi people, Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Clinton, Dean, Kerry, McCain, Allen, Rice, Rudy, Robertson (Bill or Pat), Limbaugh, Olberman, O'Reilly, Blitzer, Carlson, Scarborogh, Hume, Crystal, Pearle, Powell or the ghost of Ronald Reagan have any idea how to come out on top of this. Staying the course isn't working and was retarded in the first place, we need a new plan. Is it picking a side? Do we side with the secular Sunni minority that is more aligned to our ideals, or do we side with the majority religious Shias who will very likely install a Iran like religious state? Do we start considering a 2 or 3 state solution (my choice)? And if so, how do we go about instituting it after three years of pushing for a one state solution? I am honestly concerned about how this story ends, it's completely obvious to a great many people that this administration has dropped the ball from day one, and with approval ratings as low as theirs (100% by their own creation), I don't need to score political points, it's only the Kool-Aid drinkers like Paddy left, and he's a wingnut.

And when I said modernized I mean in political thinking, I guess I should have said 'westernized' not modernized like y'know, cel phones. That was inevitable once trade sanctions were dropped anyways. Lastly, besides my drunken misremembering of the Clinton missile timeline, I haven't lied, so please don't call me a liar.
guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans.
Try looking it up before making it up. Iraq was choosen because Hussein had legitmate ties between Al-Qaeda, was prone to invasion and starting wars with other soverign entites, and had used weapons of mass destruction to slaughter thousands. It is becoming the beacon of hope in the region, those with any foresight can tell you that, even the terrorists understand that this is a very important global goal in a stand against Islamic facism. The reason there is still little bouts of fighting and bombing that occur within the nation is because terrorist sects realize that if they lose this battle it will put them in a very weak position. Iraq will and is serving as a milestone for the history of the region as a nation that is advancing towards freedom and human rights at a blazing speed. It has already sparked fires in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, hell some would argue even the orange and rose revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia respectively.

There have been set backs, Lord knows there have been plenty of set backs, but the wonderful things we have done are undeniable. For a civil war to be assumed because some ex-politican who hasn't been briefed on security or military involvement in who knows how long, (does he even live in Iraq?) is flat out ridiculous. I'm not denying there are still attacks, but to call it a civil war is just wishful thinking for the American left. Thank goodness the people in Iraq have more belief in themselves than the entire Democratic party does here in America. I mean, you don't want me to call you a liar which is a fair request, but you'll have to earn your honesty by not making flagrant partisan statements for which you have no proof. To say this administration just jumped into war because they felt like it, or worse, that it was pre-determined, is a terribly desperate attack that definetely shows. That goes beyond disagreement, those are harsh accusations for which you have no proof beyond some socialist website full of anti-Republican conspiracy theories.

Personally I don't think you can talk at all, and neither can I, about how it is on the ground in Iraq. All we can do is trust one voice or another, and we're both going to naturally float toward the biases we deem correct, so it's really hard to argue one way or the other. To say the invasion shouldn't have happened is completely missing the point of the war on terror to begin with, which I don't entirely blame you for doing seeing as how the Democratic party is largely out of touch with what this administration's foreign policy consists of. There's this idea that if we just take our Osama Bin Laden or if we just wipe out the Taliban we have won the war on terror, but that's not how it is at all. You can argue that this isn't his goal at all, but President Bush's doctrine thus far has been to isolate states that harbor terrorism and take aggressive actions to get them to change their ways. That doesn't necessarily mean militarily, but it does mean not simply ignoring the problem à la former President Bill Clinton. You may not agree with it, you may think it's a stupid idea, but that's a different argument. This is his stated goal though, and Iraq perfectly fit the bill, there's no denying that. There's a chance other countries may have been more imminent, but there's also the fact that Hussein would not cooperate at all for over a decade, ignoring numerous U.N. resolutions and even kicking out weapons inspectors so that they wouldn't find what he was trying to hide so much. Granted, it was far from executed perfectly, but the invasion was inevitable especially after 9/11; we couldn't afford to take any chances.

As far as western ideals go, like I said: refer to the Iraqi Constitution. I agree it's not perfect and it has a religious undertone to it, but to ignore it like you are is simply idiotic.

[Msut77]

Ace

Bush misled this country into war and was not honest or forthright with the case he and his cronies made for war.

This is an undeniable fact.


Do you care?

[Msut77]

Iraq was choosen because Hussein had legitmate ties between Al-Qaeda

That isnt true at all.



was prone to invasion and starting wars with other soverign entites

Pot/Kettle?

Ace you are either a liar, or ignorant.

Pick one.

Until he does I suggest no one respond to him anymore.

[Metal Boss]

I didn't see much reason too in the first place...

[alonzomourning23]

Stop reading frontpagemag, Iraq did not have ties to Al Qaeda. There were a few terrorist camps in Iraq, but they were in kurdish territory out of the control of Saddam. Fact is, saddam was hated by the like of Al Qaeda since he ran a secular state. Any aid he provided could have been turned around and used on him.

And if Iraq is becoming a "beacon of hope", and if it's just "little bouts" of fighting, then we wouldn't have people like Allawi saying a civil war is already taking place:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4821618.stm



"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more.
"If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
Mr Allawi added that a national unity government may not be "an immediate solution" to the country's problems. Iraq is moving towards the "point of no return", he said, when the country would fragment.

Hmmm...... former PM of Iraq, or random poster who has a minimal grasp on reality anyway. Tough decision.

[Cheese]

I'm not going to get into a decade long argument about the ins and outs of every article of the Iraqi constitution, needless to say, I believe, the way it is written, leaves open to interpretation the ability of the state to enforce religious and morality laws as they do in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. And I wouldn't put it past the Iran influenced shia's to push for a stricter interpretation of morality laws leading to an Iran like government. I do give them kudos for the free health care and education, I wouldn't mind seeing some of that over here.

Every investigation into the events of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq found limited, if any, connection between anyone in the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. I've heard of some low level meetings between members and third party contact that resulted in the Al Qaeda guys getting the cold shoulder. Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Al Qeada are diametrically opposed philosophically, Iraq was a secular socialist state and Al Qaeda is an Islamo-Fascist organization. They couldn't even agree on a shared reason to hate the US. Any other military in the region could have kicked Saddam's ass and any chemical weapons he might have had during the Gulf War would have long been inert. Iraq was more then effectively contained and served as no threat to it's neighbors. Saddam wasn't popular, neither were his sons. It wouldn't have taken much to fund a democratic insurgency that we would have had little to do with (certainly less then the $250 bil. + it's cost us already), much like we're trying to do in Iran now.

I know people like to connect Lebanon's ousting of Syria to Iraq. But sorry, they're not. They had been looking for an excuse to kick Syria out and the assassination of their former Prime Minster was the trigger. The US administration, while being hard on Syria, never asked them to leave Lebanon. And didn't say a word until after the 'Cedar Rebellion' had already started.

A very strong argument can be made to the Iraqi invasion being planned well before it was implemented, back even to before the administration took office. Please look up the Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank started by William Kristol whose members included Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, John Bolton, Richard Pearle, Jeb Bush, Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney (to name a few). PNAC asked Clinton to invade Iraq in '98 for many of the same reasons they used 4 years later. Also look at the cases where just after the 9/11 attacks many of these same people who were running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to link the attack to Iraq. PNAC members know the largest issue of the next 100 years is what to do about the middle east, and believe that using America's military to topple various regimes is a completely legitimate solution. While that may be one way to go about it, it's certainly not the most diplomatic and does more harm then good to international relations, as evidenced by America's current international popularity. I'm not out of touch with this administrations foreign policy, I understand it completely, I just don't agree with it. I don't agree with the Pax Americana mentality, we're the worlds last super power, that gives us a tremendous opportunity to influence the world through means other then the barrel of a gun. They may take a little longer, but it's a lot less bloody and a lot less costly in international support and good will.

[Cheese]

Oh and Paddy...

If it's found that President Bush broke the law, should he be penalized?

C'mon, one of you guys answer this already!

Anyone? Anyone?

[bmulligan]

Stop reading frontpagemag, Iraq did not have ties to Al Qaeda. There were a few terrorist camps in Iraq, but they were in kurdish territory out of the control of Saddam. Fact is, saddam was hated by the like of Al Qaeda since he ran a secular state. Any aid he provided could have been turned around and used on him.

And if Iraq is becoming a "beacon of hope", and if it's just "little bouts" of fighting, then we wouldn't have people like Allawi saying a civil war is already taking place:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4821618.stm

Hmmm...... former PM of Iraq, or random poster who has a minimal grasp on reality anyway. Tough decision.

Yes, heads of state never say anything with political slant. You're also quoting a BBC news source which has never been kind to America's action in Iraq to begin with. You might as well just quote an Al Jazzera opinion on Iraq since most ex-BBC employees go to work there. Obviously Allawi is distrought that his country is awash in violent behavior and he is right in the middle of it. I'm sure he says a lot of emotional things just like Ray Nagin is still saying about chocolate city. I wonder how many people are killed in any American state with a comparable population of 25 million every day. 50?

Let's get the self proclaimed Google doctor on the task and find the murder rate in a state with a population compared to Iraq.

And since when was kurdish territory out of Saddam's control ? It's where most of the oil reserves are so I think Saddam had a handle on most of that territory. Especially since he campaigned to exterminate them and largly succeded.

[Msut77]

Yes, heads of state never say anything with political slant. You're also quoting a BBC news source which has never been kind to America's action in Iraq to begin with.

They turned out to be right and guys like you completely wrong.

Think you might learn the lesson.

[elprincipe]

And since when was kurdish territory out of Saddam's control ? It's where most of the oil reserves are so I think Saddam had a handle on most of that territory. Especially since he campaigned to exterminate them and largly succeded.

Nope, a chunk of territory in the north was controlled by the two major Kurdish parties and not Saddam in between the first Gulf War and the invasion. The US-enforced no-fly zone and the Kurdish militia, the peshmerga, kept control of the area in the hands of the Kurds and not Saddam.

[alonzomourning23]

Yes, heads of state never say anything with political slant. You're also quoting a BBC news source which has never been kind to America's action in Iraq to begin with. You might as well just quote an Al Jazzera opinion on Iraq since most ex-BBC employees go to work there. Obviously Allawi is distrought that his country is awash in violent behavior and he is right in the middle of it. I'm sure he says a lot of emotional things just like Ray Nagin is still saying about chocolate city. I wonder how many people are killed in any American state with a comparable population of 25 million every day. 50?

Let's get the self proclaimed Google doctor on the task and find the murder rate in a state with a population compared to Iraq.

Well, canada usually has 500-600 homicides a year with a population of 30 million. If it were to have 50 killed a day then 18,250 would die a year.

Also, the u.s. seems to average around 15k homicides a year
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/intproptab.htm



While I think it's obvious I don't agree with your opinion on the BBC, the quote appear self explanatory, and I can just get another news source if you're so adamant about it. Though I'm not sure what political advantage he hopes to gain by saying Iraq is in the midst of a civil war.

And since when was kurdish territory out of Saddam's control ? It's where most of the oil reserves are so I think Saddam had a handle on most of that territory. Especially since he campaigned to exterminate them and largly succeded.

The kurds were largely autonomous and out of his control after 1991, particularly because of past attempts to exterminate them.

It's ridiculous to suggest his attempt to exterminate the kurds largely succeded.

[Ace-Of-War]

Stop reading frontpagemag, Iraq did not have ties to Al Qaeda.

I don't think Cheese needs you to speak for him, but nevertheless:


Mr. Phares is one of at least four eminent Middle East experts to agree that the documents—published for the first time last week—demonstrate that Saddam Hussein collaborated with and supported Islamic terrorist groups, including the current terror nemesis in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The papers, obtained by Cybercast News Service (CNS) and released Oct. 4, "establish irreversible evidence that there were strategic relations between the Baathist regime and Islamist groups that became al-Qaeda," Mr. Phares said after reviewing them at WORLD's request on Oct. 6. In addition, the documents link al-Zarqawi-associated groups throughout the Middle East, including al-Qaeda, on Saddam's payroll and acting under his direct authority.


. . .


They include an 11-page memo, dated Jan. 25, 1993, listing "parties related to our system . . . expert in executing the required missions." The memo cites Palestinian, Sudanese, and Asian terror groups, and shows a developing relationship with groups affiliated with al-Qaeda, including Mr. al-Zarqawi, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar—figures who are now on the U.S. most-wanted list for ongoing assaults in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Jan. 25, 1993, memo also describes an intelligence service meeting with a splinter group led by Mohammed Omar Abdel-Rahman. Mr. Abdel-Rahman is a son of the blind Egyptian, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, accused of inspiring the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and arrested in 1994 for targeting New York landmarks. Pakistani officials caught the younger Abdel-Rahman last year, and say he helped lead authorities to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of the 9/11 attack planners.
A separate memo, dated March 18, 1993, asks intelligence officers to provide "details of Arab martyrs who got trained" in conjunction with post–Gulf War "committees of martyrs act." In reply another office supplied 92 names with nationalities, all "trained inside the ‘martyr act camp' that belonged to our directorate." In all, 40 are linked to Palestinian groups, 21 are Sudanese, and others range from Eritrea, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon, and Egypt. Most of the trainees completed a government-sponsored course on Nov. 24, 1990, and were sent on missions throughout the Arabian Peninsula.
Accompanying the memos are separate notations signed by Saddam Hussein's secretary, suggesting the president himself had reviewed and endorsed each action.
"Saddam was personally overseeing the details" of training terrorists and assigning their missions, Mr. Phares said. "From 1993 on, Saddam Hussein connected with Sunni fundamentalists in the Arab world. He was in touch with the founding members of al-Qaeda."


An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:


http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/img_bullet_orangedot.gif That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/img_bullet_orangedot.gif That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/img_bullet_orangedot.gif That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/img_bullet_orangedot.gif That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.


At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items.

. . .

A number of correspondences to check rumors that some members of al Qaeda organization have entered Iraq. Three letters say this information cannot be confirmed. The letter on page seven, however, says that information coming from "a trustworthy source" indicates that subjects who are interested in dealing with al Qaeda are in Iraq and have several passports.


The letter seems to be coming from or going to Trebil, a town on the Iraqi-Jordanian border. Follow up on the presence of those subjects is ordered, as well as comparison of their pictures with those of Jordanian subjects living in Iraq. (This may be referring to pictures of Abu Musaab al Zarqawi and another man on pages 4-6) The letter also says tourist areas, including hotels and rented apartments, should be searched.

ABC News and World Mag are a far cry from NewsMax or Front Page Mag. Documents are coming out every day now that the White House has released thousands of documents that were once classified, each one of the proving more and more that Hussein was far worse than the wonderful secular guy the left describes him as.

---
To Cheese now:

Of course you don't want to get into debate over the literal text of the document, because it proves your assertions wrong flatout. This country is making gigantic steps toward remarkable freedoms and liberties unheard of in almost every middle eastern country around. I'm sure it scares you too, it scares a lot of people on the left. To borrow a phrase made popular by one of my favorite guys, the left is invested in defeat. It pains me to say this, because this was once a proud political party with real noble goals about how to run this country that could be debated and discussed. Now it's goal is to convince people our military is a broken institution that only makes mistakes everyday. To call Republicans slanderous names and attack them personally instead of proposing new ideas to change this country. But most of all, the number one thing they can do is put a dark cloud over anything and everything positive about this country. Harry S. Truman, probably the greatest President in the 20th century, would be shamed out of the Democratic party of today (assuming he'd line himself with it to begin with.)

You think the Lebanese would've had the initiative to do so had America not stepped up and proclaimed it's intolerance toward these manical dictators who run these blood-thirsty regimes in various countries? You think the Lebanese would've stepped up had reform not been spreading across the entire Middle East as well as Ukraine and Uzbekistan? I think the revolutionaries were undeniably influenced by these things, and I think to disregard them as coincidences is either very partisan or very ridiculous.

Aside from your neo-conservative conspiracy theory, I believe your last paragraph does illustrate more knowledge and respect than I gave you credit for. While we may disagree of foreign policy in regards to the Middle East, you seem to give other approaches consideration as opposed to dismissing them outright. The primary reason I do not take stock in this staged Iraq war initiative is that I saw absolutely no signs of this prior to 9/11 from the Bush administration. The nation was focused on China for goodness sakes. I obviously cannot rule any possibility out of the equation, and to deny that the President had advisors whispering several ideas in his head would be dishonest and naive. The fact of the matter is people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, J. Bush, and Bolton were already close to the President despite any connection they might have had to a think tank. This President is reknown for selecting loyalty and friendship as important traits to fill his cabinet. Not to mention that these high level public positions are often given to men and women with such a laundry list of qualifications as these people have.

[Cheese]

First off, World magazine quotes Cybercast News Service for their information. Go check them out (http://www.cnsnews.com/) they are as rightwing nutjobs as frontpage, newsmax, etc., if not worse. I like the Uncle Sam ad on the right that proclaims, "Don't believe the liberal media lies!" Yes, very trustworty.

The ABC report, don't get all huffy about the Taliban visiting Iraq, they visited Texas too. Also look at the who they are quoting, An un-named Iranian told the Afghani consul, who was overheard by the guy identified as a number who told an Iraqi intelligence guy. You ever play Chinese Whispers? I think they might call it Telephone now. Regardless, why would an Iraqi intelligence guy need an Afghani to tell him that the Taliban visited Iraq? Wouldn't he know that?

I'll get to the rest later, I'm late for work.

[Msut77]

It took you how many days to find that garbage Ace?

[Ace-Of-War]

First off, World magazine quotes Cybercast News Service for their information. Go check them out (http://www.cnsnews.com/) they are as rightwing nutjobs as frontpage, newsmax, etc., if not worse. I like the Uncle Sam ad on the right that proclaims, "Don't believe the liberal media lies!" Yes, very trustworty.

The ABC report, don't get all huffy about the Taliban visiting Iraq, they visited Texas too. Also look at the who they are quoting, An un-named Iranian told the Afghani consul, who was overheard by the guy identified as a number who told an Iraqi intelligence guy. You ever play Chinese Whispers? I think they might call it Telephone now. Regardless, why would an Iraqi intelligence guy need an Afghani to tell him that the Taliban visited Iraq? Wouldn't he know that?
If any of the mainstream news networks would've touched Walid Phares with a ten foot pole, I would've been more than happy to post it. I guess that says a lot for the objectivity of your run of the mill mainstream news networks, but he's an important scholar nonetheless. For you to dismiss him is, unfortunately, to be expected, as anyone who doesn't seem to say what you want to hear would be troubling for you to take in.

Also, he's their (meaning Iraq's) Afghani informant according to ABC News. Take it as you will. I guess all these papers were just coincidences that just happened to connect the dots of the two specific groups that were suspected to be connected. They probably make up documents about secret meetings that never really happened all the time in most countries. I bet we could find some documents and sources in Zaire that connect their country to Iceland. They are being made for that special day when a Republican administration says they have connections so that everyone who doesn't agree with the administration can say what a stupid coincidence it was.

[Msut77]

If any of the mainstream news networks would've touched Walid Phares with a ten foot pole.

He works for a right wing think tank.

[Cheese]

I For you to dismiss him is, unfortunately, to be expected, as anyone who doesn't seem to say what you want to hear would be troubling for you to take in.

RE: Former PM Allawi:

Yes, heads of state never say anything with political slant. You're also quoting a BBC news source which has never been kind to America's action in Iraq to begin with. You might as well just quote an Al Jazzera opinion on Iraq since most ex-BBC employees go to work there. Obviously Allawi is distrought that his country is awash in violent behavior and he is right in the middle of it. I'm sure he says a lot of emotional things just like Ray Nagin is still saying about chocolate city.

------------


Of course you don't want to get into debate over the literal text of the document, because it proves your assertions wrong flatout. This country is making gigantic steps toward remarkable freedoms and liberties unheard of in almost every middle eastern country around.

I'd like to see a side by side comparison of the rights of the people in Iraq under Saddam and the rights of them under the new constitution. I just looked up the Ba'athist Constitution, which as a theoretic document seems pretty sound, in my quick review of it I found few things separated it from the current constitution: the current one has the previously mentioned religious undertones, and the Ba'athist one has an 'Arabs Only' overtone. So kinda a trade off. For the most part it seems it's the 'in practice' part that got screwed up.

Iraq under the Ba'athists already had more freedoms then most middle eastern countries, no religious police, freedom of religion, open Universities, equality for women, etc. It seems the biggest problems were: A) ruled by a minority. B) Headed by a family of nutty egomaniacs. But, that's why it was chosen as the first target in the PNAC plan. The thinking being if you cut off the crazy head, the rest of the body just might fall in line, and the idea was that turning it into a fully realized western style democracy wouldn't be so hard.

You think the Lebanese would've had the initiative to do so had America not stepped up and proclaimed it's intolerance toward these manical dictators who run these blood-thirsty regimes in various countries? You think the Lebanese would've stepped up had reform not been spreading across the entire Middle East as well as Ukraine and Uzbekistan? I think the revolutionaries were undeniably influenced by these things, and I think to disregard them as coincidences is either very partisan or very ridiculous.

We've always proclaimed intolerance to 'blood thirsty' dictators, while at the same time propping them up. The US has always been hard on Syria, but not so much to piss them off and risk them attacking Israel. The 'Cedar Revolution' had nothing to do with the US in Iraq, and besides some ProBush blogs, I can't find any evidence to the contrary.

Aside from your neo-conservative conspiracy theory, I believe your last paragraph does illustrate more knowledge and respect than I gave you credit for. While we may disagree of foreign policy in regards to the Middle East, you seem to give other approaches consideration as opposed to dismissing them outright. The primary reason I do not take stock in this staged Iraq war initiative is that I saw absolutely no signs of this prior to 9/11 from the Bush administration.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/

Bush began Iraq plan pre-9/11, O'Neill says
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff, 1/11/2004

WASHINGTON -- President Bush and his senior aides began plotting the invasion of Iraq just days after he took office in January 2001 and not, as the administration has indicated, after terrorists struck against the United States eight months later, according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who was forced from his post in December 2002.

In an interview scheduled to air tonight on CBS News' "60 Minutes," O'Neill derided what he considered the administration's intent from the start to remove Saddam Hussein by force.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told the news program, according to excerpts released yesterday. "For me, the notion of preemption, that the US has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

...

Still, O'Neill's comments provide a new window into the possible thinking of the president and his senior aides on Iraq. On the eve of the US-led invasion last March, two years after Bush took office, the president said all diplomatic avenues to avoid a conflict had been exhausted. O'Neill's charges raise questions about whether there was ever an intention to use diplomacy to deal with Iraq.

In the book, "The Price of Loyalty," O'Neill is quoted as saying that he was surprised that no one in the National Security Council in early 2001 questioned why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying `Go find me a way to do this,' " O'Neill told CBS.

The book also cites internal Bush administration documents from the first three months of 2001 that show the White House was looking at military options and planning for the aftermath of Hussein's overthrow. "There are memos," Suskind said in the "60 Minutes" interview. "One of them marked `secret' says `Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.' "

[alonzomourning23]

I'd like to see a side by side comparison of the rights of the people in Iraq under Saddam and the rights of them under the new constitution. I just looked up the Ba'athist Constitution, which as a theoretic document seems pretty sound, in my quick review of it I found few things separated it from the current constitution: the current one has the previously mentioned religious undertones, and the Ba'athist one has an 'Arabs Only' overtone. So kinda a trade off. For the most part it seems it's the 'in practice' part that got screwed up.

Iraq under the Ba'athists already had more freedoms then most middle eastern countries, no religious police, freedom of religion, open Universities, equality for women, etc. It seems the biggest problems were: A) ruled by a minority. B) Headed by a family of nutty egomaniacs. But, that's why it was chosen as the first target in the PNAC plan. The thinking being if you cut off the crazy head, the rest of the body just might fall in line, and the idea was that turning it into a fully realized western style democracy wouldn't be so hard.

While the old Iraq was stronger in terms of freedom of religion, equality for women etc. You have to look at how everything was put into practice. The reason Iraq today may be worse than before is due to the ongoing war. The functioning of the government in terms of freedoms, and respect for such freedoms, is superior overal today, primarily because of the way the previous constitution was enforced, or wasn't enforced, depending on what Saddam wanted.

[Ace-Of-War]

Former PM Allawi
That's the key point. Why don't we rely on former President Gerald Ford for advice on what to do in Iraq? They are out of the picture, they are private citizens. He has as much say in the issue as me or you. He has more experience, no doubt, but not anymore. When's the last time he's had a security briefing? Hell, does he even live in Iraq?

I'd like to see a side by side comparison of the rights of the people in Iraq under Saddam and the rights of them under the new constitution. I just looked up the Ba'athist Constitution, which as a theoretic document seems pretty sound, in my quick review of it I found few things separated it from the current constitution: the current one has the previously mentioned religious undertones, and the Ba'athist one has an 'Arabs Only' overtone. So kinda a trade off. For the most part it seems it's the 'in practice' part that got screwed up.

Iraq under the Ba'athists already had more freedoms then most middle eastern countries, no religious police, freedom of religion, open Universities, equality for women, etc. It seems the biggest problems were: A) ruled by a minority. B) Headed by a family of nutty egomaniacs. But, that's why it was chosen as the first target in the PNAC plan. The thinking being if you cut off the crazy head, the rest of the body just might fall in line, and the idea was that turning it into a fully realized western style democracy wouldn't be so hard.
alonzo made a good point, why would you side with a Constitution "protected" by a totalitarian before one representative of a unity, republican style government? To say Hussein and his party gave his people more freedom is astoundingly out of touch. I mean, equality for women? Some were rounded up and locked in rape rooms for days because government officials wanted some pussy.

We've always proclaimed intolerance to 'blood thirsty' dictators, while at the same time propping them up. The US has always been hard on Syria, but not so much to piss them off and risk them attacking Israel. The 'Cedar Revolution' had nothing to do with the US in Iraq, and besides some ProBush blogs, I can't find any evidence to the contrary.
Again, I guess it could just be an awfully big coincidence. They just happen to revolt for their freedom after almost 30 years of occupation. Hariri had a lot to do with it, but let's not be completely naive just because you're not a big fan of democracy.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/)
So what? You want me to pull out some Dick Morris?

[Cheese]

That's the key point. Why don't we rely on former President Gerald Ford for advice on what to do in Iraq?

Ford was President 30+ years ago. Allawi was PM, what? A YEAR ago? Bit of a difference. And yes, I believe he lives in Iraq.

alonzo made a good point, why would you side with a Constitution "protected" by a totalitarian before one representative of a unity, republican style government?

Wow, that's not what I said at all. I said they were comparable, that there were trade offs in spooky overtones and that the biggest difference seems to how it was practiced, abused.

To say Hussein and his party gave his people more freedom is astoundingly out of touch. I mean, equality for women? Some were rounded up and locked in rape rooms for days because government officials wanted some pussy.

Again, not what I said. I said under the Ba'athists women had more rights then most other middle eastern countries. And yes, governmental powers were abused, and I said as much. I just wonder with 'moral standards' and Shira law themes in the Iraqi constitution