The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: SirPeale on January 21, 2005, 09:16:33 am
-
http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/1695
Discuss.
-
and we aren't invited..... :(
some of that money belongs to US.... :P
-
(http://www.oliverwillis.com/images/bf00afb2cc96f6da46f042050045309a-1712.jpg)
(http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050120/i/r2807300559.jpg)
Personally, I find it extremely ironic that Bush chooses to mouth platitudes about freedom, in an area with a 30 mile no-fly zone, anti-aircraft guns, roof-top snipers, and military barricades. He's also headed an administration that has given us the Patriot Act and pushed for a constitutional amendment to restrict the rights of a broad swath of Americans.
I also found it to be in extemely bad taste to have such a lavish celebration when we've got people dying by the day in Iraq because they are forced to use unarmored humvees. There is no two-ways about it, I would have had so much more respect for Bush had he contributed a portion of that money to support the troops fighting in *his* war. As much as I'd like to see Kerry send loads of money, it wasn't Kerry that ultimate put these men/women in harms way and it wasn't Kerry wining and dining his fat-cat friends in Washington last night.
Furthermore, why does he talk about Democracy as if it's some kind of disease, like small pox, that can be spread throughout the world. Democracy is a particapatory system, and as we're learning in Iraq, is *not* something you can force upon people with the barrel of a gun.
I also, personally despise the notion that he would seek to divine the word of God, and purport to use that as a foundation for his policies. I fear we're going to see an even further erosion of the highly essential seperation of church and state.
All in all, everything he mentioned in his address seemed vague and unrealistic, just like his promises in every other address he's ever given. Does anyone remember the loads of money we were going to pledge to fight aids in Africa? What about the development of fuel-cell driven automobiles? or going to Mars? Oh, and the horrible nemesis we face in Steroid abuse?
*Some of this I posted in another thread, but I feel it's worth repeating.
-
From Dictionary.com--
plu
-
************************************************
************************************************
************************************************
************************************************
************************************************
************************************************
************************************************
************************************************
************************************************
************************************************
************************************************
************************************************
************************************************
-
[Nelson]Ha Ha![/Nelson]
More lefties whining in their wheat germ. The inauguration was paid for with private funds. If you'd like to add up how much of that could be going to tsunami relief or humvee armament, why don't you whine after the Golden Globes, the Grammys, the NFL, NBA, NHL and anyone else having a good time with millions and millions of dollars changing hands. American goes forward, life goes on, hippies wail. It's all good.
-
Why is Optimus Prime standing behind Pat Sajak?
-
It's Ok to throw a party, but as a token of good will, he should of said, a portion of money used to throw his party will be donated to our troops or tsunami relief of something
-
Is this an unusually expensive inaugeration party? I haven't seen anything that compares it with the usual amount spent (admittedly, I haven't looked). By the way, I think the city or Washinton DC is being required to foot the $12 million bill for security for the gala. That would be tax payer money.
-
Yep. A tad too much decadance for a president that has thousands of his countrymen in military action methinks.
The last thing Bush needs is to party. :P
-
If he didn't spend enough, his critics would say he was trying to sneak in, didn't have enough support to throw a big party, or he doesn't care enough about the job to make a big deal about it.
-
Complains also imply Kerry would not have done the same... prove it.
-
This was a big win for the USA and world, his inauguration is reflecting how much he appreciated our support.
Well...if you want to get technical if you judge a win as, say, getting what you want it was actually a pretty small win in the USA and an overwhelming loss for the world. But...you say potato I say putawto, I suppose.
As to the other stuff...unless the usual cost for these things is like $2 million or something, I think this is just whiny democrats. Don't get me wrong, the guy is awful -- in just about every conceivable way -- but, he's the President of the United States. If the most powerful man in the world wants to throw a party to celebrate maybe the most important thing that's ever happened to him, he gets to do that.
-
If the most powerful man in the world wants to throw a party to celebrate maybe the most important thing that's ever happened to him, he gets to do that.
You seem to be missing the point that he's doing so during a war, that he started, which is going remarkably badly. But I guess it'd be easy to forget since Bush didn't mention "Iraq" one single time in his entire speech.
mrC
-
I guess. I think it's dispicable to not mention Iraq in his speech, but to expect him to not have a big inaugeration party because of Iraq strikes me as a bit of a stretch. I mean, I try to hate as much as I can about the guy, but I can't hate him for eating cold cereal in the morning.
-
I think it's dispicable he didn't mention Bobby Brown in his speech. i mean damn, the guy used to be the Sheet and now he's a crackhead.
-
I think it's dispicable he didn't mention Bobby Brown in his speech. i mean damn, the guy used to be the Sheet and now he's a crackhead.
Yeah, 'cuz you know, dudes seeing their buddies being blown to bits in unarmored humvees during Bush' War of Choice is so much less important than snide comments from a lame apologist.
mrC
-
I think it's dispicable he didn't mention Bobby Brown in his speech. i mean damn, the guy used to be the Sheet and now he's a crackhead.
Yeah...that's absurd. The war in Iraq should be the MOST important thing to the President and it's crass for him to omit any mention of it to the American people when they have just handed him their trust (especially since it was by far the stickiest issue for his reelection prospects). He should have sent a message of reassurance. It's his inaugeration speach where he sets the tone for the next four years. His speechwriters were irresponsible. At the very least he should have kept with his usual tactic of insisting that everything there is going swimmingly.
-
I think it's dispicable he didn't mention Bobby Brown in his speech.
-
Actually, what I'm saying is that I'm sick of hearing it. Write to him, not us.
-
Actually, what I'm saying is that I'm sick of hearing it. Write to him, not us.
YOU SUPPORT BUSH...THEREFORE YOU SUPPORT THE WAR AND NOW YOU DON'T WANT TO *HEAR* ABOUT IT?? Disgusting. You didn't have to say anything, but you chose to make a terribly incensitive remark about a highly controversial subject. A *lot* of people carry a LOT of rage about what they perceive as NEEDLESS death and destruction, and I can't imagine anyone specifically asked for your opinion, so why did you bother then?
Next time you get tired of hearing about IRAQ, think of this (I can't get it out of my mind personally):
This picture is of an Iraqi girl whose parents were apparently mistakenly killed by American soldiers at a checkpoint just the other day. Her parents blood coats her little hands. I'm sure she's tired of hearing about the war too.
Edited by saint. See below for why. Image removed, link to image left instead.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/welshman01/Iraqchild.jpg
Reason for edit: I'm comfortable with the debate here, it's an important topic. I think grown people who support the war should see the cost and consequences of the war. That's not to say the war isn't justified (nor is it saying that it is), just that there is a cost and if you support it you should know the ramifications.
However, people who don't support the war, and much more importantly, younger children who do visit this web site, do not deserve to be exposed to shocking images without warning. It's the same line of reasoning that gets me mad when I see a news channel show a video or still image of something along those lines without warning when my children are roaming around the house. If there's a warning, I can protect my children from being exposed to an image I do not think they are mature enough to handle. If there's no warning, I don't have that chance.
No shock pictures please on these forums. Link to them if you choose, but don't spring them unexpectedly. Thanks.
--- saint
-
Well, from what I understand, W. probably wouldnt' of had to go to war if tricky Bill had taken care of business in the first place and got the Taliban when he had the chance. Then he (W.) wouldn't have inherited the problem.
And so what if he throws a party to celebrate. Most of it was donated anyway. It's not like it was all tax payer $$. Is he gloating? Come on.
How much did that damn library of clinton's cost? Alot more than $40 mil! Don't talk to me about gloating. Sore losers seems more like it.
And did you see Kerry standing a bit away from the podium? Waving at the crowd like he's somebody? Gag. Thank God it wasn't his speech. If it was he would've had us all bent over already, just waiting for it like the damn French.
-
Well, from what I understand, W. probably wouldnt' of had to go to war if tricky Bill had taken care of business in the first place and got the Taliban when he had the chance.
Then you understand wrong, because Saddam/Iraq has nothing to do w/ the Taliban or 9/11.
-
Yeah...that's absurd.
-
Reassurance to who?
Not you. You don't need it. In fact, you'd rather not think about it. Just because you support this atrocious war doesn't mean you need to hear about it, right?
Go to sleep..sweet apologist. When there is a draft, I hope they draft Republicans first.
-
Well, from what I understand, W. probably wouldn't of had to go to war if tricky Bill had taken care of business in the first place and got the Taliban when he had the chance.
Then you understand wrong, because Saddam/Iraq has nothing to do w/ the Taliban or 9/11.
Whatever
-
And frankly it's about time we defended ourselves.
15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq. Your point?
I'm not afraid of anyone. Especially someone who has no idea what they are talking about.
-
Reassurance to who?
Not you. You don't need it. In fact, you'd rather not think about it. Just because you support this atrocious war doesn't mean you need to hear about it, right?
Go to sleep..sweet apologist. When there is a draft, I hope they draft Republicans first.
I'd go in a SECOND. To defend my Country along side my BROTHER who also happens to be my best friend. Just so people can have the right to sit back here and throwe mud at me (him)
-
And frankly it's about time we defended ourselves.
15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq. Your point?
I'm not afraid of anyone. Especially someone who has no idea what they are talking about.
You'll never get it..... :(
-
Not you. You don't need it. In fact, you'd rather not think about it. Just because you support this atrocious war doesn't mean you need to hear about it, right?
Go to sleep..sweet apologist. When there is a draft, I hope they draft Republicans first.
Rock on little you.
I'm not republican, but if the duty called, I'd be there.
There is no reassurance that is going to be offered by him talking about the war during the innaguration. I hear about the war every day. I don't think the President has to say something about it every single time he opens his mouth.
Are you going to complain if he sleeps with his wife in a warm bed, instead of sleeping outside in the cold with bombs and bullets wizzing by? Silly question. Of course you would. He should be getting busy with an intern instead (wonder how much thought process was devoted to dark things happening in our world during those moments) . :P
A second term in office as President of the United States is no small thing, and if he wants to take a day and really celebrate it, then good for him. You guys were going to complain about him no matter what he did, so really what does it matter?
-
I'd go in a SECOND. To defend my Country along side my BROTHER who also happens to be my best friend. Just so people can have the right to sit back here and throwe mud at me (him)
I have family and friends over there too. Point to one instance of someone on the left "throwing mud" at a soldier?! Critizing the war is NOT the same as critizing those asked to fight it. I imagine your caught up in the debunked myth of people spitting on returning Vietnam Vets. Never happen. I respect our soldiers, they just do what they are asked. It is what they have been asked to do that is in question. Don't try to vilify the left simply because you refuse to accept their dissent.
You should be mad at Bush, who in his moment of "celebration" didn't think your BROTHER and his sacrifice in IRAQ was worth mentioning. "Leftist" like myself don't believe in throwing valuable soldiers like your brother into a danderous situation unless ABSOLUTELY necessary. Lives are worth too much. A Soldiers sacrifice shouldn't be used on a whim. Osama Bin Laden is the man behind 9/11...he's the reason Bush sent your brother into the wrong country. Ask yourself when was the last time you heard your Dear Leader mention Osama's name?
-
You should be mad at Bush, who in his moment of "celebration" didn't think your BROTHER and his sacrifice in IRAQ was worth mentioning.
Yeah, since he never bothers to mention our brave troops. ::)
The other day I saw him breathe, and nothing about Iraq came out. I bet our troops, who overwhelmingly support Bush, were pissed about that one.
-
A second term in office as President of the United States is no small thing, and if he wants to take a day and really celebrate it, then good for him. You guys were going to about him no matter what he did, so really what does it matter?
That's absolutely NOT true. There are many things he could do that would gather no criticism from us "leftists" (as if I can presume to speak for an entire group). There are even many things he could do that what elicit praise from myself and others on the left.
The fact is, Bush has don't none of it.
The really pathetic thing is that you act like Iraq is something that accidentally *happened* to Bush. "Oh, it's not his fault, he doesn't have to mention it if the poor boy-king is tired", or "WAH! Kerry voted against the armor!" Well, screw that....He made a choice to go into Iraq, he should be proud enough to mention it. Bush made a choice to initially send them *without* the proper equipment.
Is the whole thing going so badly that you'd just expect him to "take a break" from mentioning it? Pretty telling, if you ask me.
-
A second term in office as President of the United States is no small thing, and if he wants to take a day and really celebrate it, then good for him. You guys were going to about him no matter what he did, so really what does it matter?
That's absolutely NOT true. There are many things he could do that would gather no criticism from us "leftists" (as if I can presume to speak for an entire group). There are even many things he could do that what illicit praise from myself and others on the left.
The fact is, Bush has don't none of it.
The really pathetic thing is that you act like Iraq is something that accidentally *happened* to Bush. "Oh, it's not his fault, he doesn't have to mention it if the poor boy-king is tired". Well, screw that....He made a choice to go into Iraq, he should be proud enough to mention it.
Or is it going so badly that you'd just expect him to "take a break" from mentioning it? Pretty telling, if you ask me.
Yeah, lets take a moment from our celebration to comfort the minority of the people. After all they have been so kind as to bash me every day of my term in office. While I'm at it, let me announce that I am a democrat. All the beliefs that I held as a republican are gone, and I now hold the ideals of the minority.
ooooops
My bad, that would be the other guy that does that sort of flip flopping.
He didn't inherit this war, and I never make any such claim or attempt to direct as such.
I support the war. I supported the reasons to go in, and when they turned to be bad intel, I still supported us being there. I think more good will have eventually come from us having done what we did, then would have ever come had we not.
-
Yeah, lets take a moment from our celebration to comfort the minority of the people.
53 million people.
No suprise that a Bush supporter would expect the president to care less about half the country.
-
My bad, that would be the other guy that does that sort of flip flopping.
Still using these old weak talking points? Shame on you.
I support the war. I supported the reasons to go in, and when they turned to be bad intel, I still supported us being there. I think more good will have eventually come from us having done what we did, then would have ever come had we not.
Then good for you. I REEEEEEALLY hope you get the opportunity to support the war effort by going over there to fight. I really do. Honest.
-
I'd go in a SECOND. To defend my Country along side my BROTHER who also happens to be my best friend. Just so people can have the right to sit back here and throwe mud at me (him)
I have family and friends over there too. Point to one instance of someone on the left "throwing mud" at a soldier?! Critizing the war is NOT the same as critizing those asked to fight it. I imagine your caught up in the debunked myth of people spitting on returning Vietnam Vets. Never happen. I respect our soldiers, they just do what they are asked. It is what they have been asked to do that is in question. Don't try to vilify the left simply because you refuse to accept their dissent.
You should be mad at Bush, who in his moment of "celebration" didn't think your BROTHER and his sacrifice in IRAQ was worth mentioning. "Leftist" like myself don't believe in throwing valuable soldiers like your brother into a danderous situation unless ABSOLUTELY necessary. Lives are worth too much. A Soldiers sacrifice shouldn't be used on a whim. Osama Bin Laden is the man behind 9/11...he's the reason Bush sent your brother into the wrong country. Ask yourself when was the last time you heard your Dear Leader mention Osama's name?
Nope never will. By the way OUR leader.
-
This was a big win for the USA and world, his inauguration is reflecting how much he appreciated our support.
actually , it's a bunch of politicians patting themselves on the back for winning 4 more years , it really has nothing to do with the people.
-
My bad, that would be the other guy that does that sort of flip flopping.
Still using these old weak talking points? Shame on you.
Weak talking points...
Did you forget what that weak point help do?
Let me remind you...
BUSH WON!!!
-
BUSH WON!!!
You're so smart. You get a Star! (http://www.thestickerfactory.co.uk/pages/metallic/images/goldstar.jpg)
-
And frankly it's about time we defended ourselves.
15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq. Your point?
I'm not afraid of anyone. Especially someone who has no idea what they are talking about.
You'll never get it..... :(
Then enlighten me, oh, informed one who doesn't even know who attacked us on 9/11.
The fact is, I understand your argument *completely* (even though you haven't laid out one iota of it), it's just that it's based completely on "faith". There are no facts to back it up. In fact, the news coming out of the region suggests that the plan is in dire straits and that we will leave the region w/ our collective tail between our legs once the "elections" are done. People like yourself, those that support the war, will continue to believe that it was the right thing to do, even after the newly elected leader of Iraq is assassinated and civil war breaks out. You will blame it on the people of Iraq, "they don't want freedom, they won't work for it", even though our armies have completely destroyed their infrastructure and killed *hundreds* of thousands of innocent civilians amongst the "insurgents". You will continue to believe that we are safer, even though CIA reports tell us that Iraq has become the new training ground for highly skilled terrorists. Surrounding extremist theocracies will obtain power over the remaining "elected" puppet government. They will obtain weaponry and support from surrounding "hostile" nations (Iran) after which they will enter the U.S. to strike a blow directly to our nation.
You will cover your eyes, you will cover your ears and you will wet your bed. It will feel like the end of the world. You will eat your cyanide tablet, shortly after you realize that Dear Leader Bush has failed you and that there is no God.
I know a lot. It's just that you wouldn't like to hear it! ;)
Sounds like fantasy?? So does your argument. Let see whose plays out over the next several months...
-
Well, from what I understand, W. probably wouldnt' of had to go to war if tricky Bill had taken care of business in the first place and got the Taliban when he had the chance. Then he (W.) wouldn't have inherited the problem.
Through out history, Presidents come and go every 4 or 8 years, but an enemy of the state is always there.
-
Well, from what I understand, W. probably wouldnt' of had to go to war if tricky Bill had taken care of business in the first place and got the Taliban when he had the chance. Then he (W.) wouldn't have inherited the problem.
His above statement also disregards the fact that is wasn't Bill Clinton that first drove Saddam out of Kuwait, refusing to conquer him in Baghdad, after we had fermented and supported a popular uprising among the Iraq population. Bush senior walked away from them when they needed us the most, when we had the support of the people and broad support from the U.N., leaving thousands to die as Saddam sought revenge on those who rebelled by using the very weaponry *we* had earlier supplied. Furthermore, we then proceeded to apply 10 years of sanctions and looked away blindly as hundreds of thousands more Iraqis died due to the very sanctions that were applied, seeding a deep mistrust inside the civilians and an immense hatred throughout the region.
This was George H. W. Bush, Dubya's father.
Junior seeks to put us in the middle of this heated battle once again, as he completely disregards the hunt for the real terrorists, Al Qaeda (of which there were NONE in Iraq pre-war), and specifically Osama Bin Laden (architect of the 9/11 attacks)
Clinton spent a microscopic fraction of what these two geniuses spent and he missed killing Osama w/ a cruise be merely an 1hr. The fact that he didn't catch him, while regrettable, DOES NOT outweigh the fact that Bush has had an army of 150,000 on the ground in the *wrong country* and hasn't mentioned Osama since the election.
mrC
-
And what is the whole reason for this war again? Certainly not WMD's..... so it would be resolve, hopes and dreams, selling oil or are we warring for the sake of being in a war?
-
First off, all the Money for the ceremony was private Money. Clinton's was about the same amount of money, more if adjusted for inflation. It's a tradition to do this, it proves that the US is a stable democracy. I don't care if Kerry had won, I think the celebration should be AS BIG and as AS GRAND as the US, every time.
President Bush signed the order to goto war, not Clinton.
Actually, it was congress that gives the power to the President to go to war in the US. It took a majority in both houses, and I believe the majority was like 95%.
Clinton spent a microscopic fraction of what these two geniuses spent and he missed killing Osama w/ a cruise be merely an 1hr. The fact that he didn't catch him, while regrettable, DOES NOT outweigh the fact that Bush has had an army of 150,000 on the ground in the *wrong country* and hasn't mentioned Osama since the election.
We don't know that yet. Do you believe that Saddam was NOT a terror supporter? What would be happening now if he Was in Power with the shift in power in Palestine? Should we have backed down and cowtowed like GB1 did? Is that what you are saying?
People like yourself, those that support the war, will continue to believe that it was the right thing to do, even after the newly elected leader of Iraq is assassinated and civil war breaks out.
You don't know that. There is that possiblity. There are a lot of negative possiblities. There is the possiblity that an asteroid will hit the country as well.
Furthermore, we then proceeded to apply 10 years of sanctions and looked away blindly as hundreds of thousands more Iraqis died due to the very sanctions that were applied, seeding a deep mistrust inside the civilians and an immense hatred throughout the region.
"We" being the UN also. No doubt the situation was getting worse for the people. NO Doubt. Now you are so good at speculating about the future of Irag Mr.C. Can you say what would have happened if we DIDN'T take him out and why?
Leftist" like myself don't believe in throwing valuable soldiers like your brother into a danderous situation unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.
That's the major point of contention. Was it necessary? Now we may not know.
Go to sleep..sweet apologist. When there is a draft, I hope they draft Republicans first.
I do believe that there were some leading Democrats who supported the war. Mr. Clinton, John Kerry, Evan Byah, Lieberman, etc. The UK threw in and backed up the war resolutions, etc. I guess they were fooled by their intel also, I guess EVERYBODY was mistaken and wrong.
Bush's vision is to divide the Middle East and put down Tyranical governments that openly torture and kill their people like the Taliban and Bathasts do.
In this war on terror we have swung Lybia out of the Arms race and we have held Pakistan on our side. Turkey is held back, but wavering somewhat. The whole region is a powderkeg. Bush's vision is to cut a path of freedom through the middle, minimize and divide the area so that we prevent "terrorist" armies from forming or being funded by governments.
Iran is a big problem, and getting bigger. Iraq was not dangerous now, but had the capacity to become a huge problem.
I agree that GB1 should have taken care of this problem for good back in 1990, but that didn't happen. His gamble that the people of Iraq would overthrow the government was abandoned, along with a lot of kurds who paid for that US defection with their blood. Not good, not good at all.
GW1 pulled back and Clinton didn't go back in. GWB had a choice not to go in after afgahnistan or to push his political capital to go. Risk Saddam being good and ineffective or clean up the problem while he had the chance for good.
Saddam could re-organize his military might pretty quickly. (3-5 years) A destroyed Iraqi government will take much longer.
Which is better? What do you think would happen if we just left them alone?
-
I don't care if Kerry had won, I think the celebration should be AS BIG and as AS GRAND as the US, every time.
I would have preferred the sentiment be as big and as grand as the spirit and conscience of the United States. I am so confident in the strength of our American ideals that I don't feel the need to have flashy celebrations without substance. I would have preferred Bush to have set an example of sacrifice in a time of war. I would have preferred he call on his rich buddies to send money to support our troops rather than on themselves. We just have a different opinion here. Whether you believe it or not, I would have been *just* as critical and angry if Kerry had won and spent that kind of money without matching support. I wanted Kerry to win and get to work. Not play action-figure President.
Which is better? What do you think would happen if we just left them alone?
Well to answer that question, it would have certainly been better to have flooded Afghanistan with so many g'damned soldiers that they be popping out from underneath donkey carts at every backwater sheep farm across that whole d*mned country. As for Saddam, even though he "expressed interest" in reconstituting his various weapons programs, there was no physical evidence supporting the idea that it was anything more than a threat. He *did not* have the resources to bring any viable threat in the time frame you suggest, and this whole, "are we to believe the words of a madman!!" argument is total B.S....we believe the words of madmen all the time...and it wasn't even a matter of that, we had the place crawling w/ inspectors that *weren't* being blown to bits by insurgents, so we had the capacity, given enough time, to actually PROVE, without firing one single shot, whether Saddam had WMD or not.
Finally, as for Democrats supporting the war, while I am certainly disappointed and I've held various members to account in my own way, they cannot, not matter how much you wish it, be held to the same standards as those responsible for "selling" the war, ie: Bush Administration.
What Bush/Powell/Condi/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Etc.. did to Congress and the U.N. was akin to running into a crowded theater and screaming "Fire!"...we'll there was no fire, but you can't fault those who ran. You don't have to agree w/ this sentiment, but that is close, I imagine, to what the 56% of Americans now shown to no longer support the war in Iraq probably feel.
I guess they were fooled by their intel also, I guess EVERYBODY was mistaken and wrong.
Yup. Personally, I support holding them all accountable. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, anyone who voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. But do it from the TOP DOWN. I wouldn't shed a tear if Kerry* was held accountable in some way for voting for the use of force (Even though I believe him when he says he felt Bush wanted to use the power to present a "viable threat" to Iraq, and not actually rush to war)...However, that is *ALL* predicated on the fact that they Bush be held to the highest account, because he's (as he CONSTANTLY feels the need to remind everyone, even by wearing cheesy flight-suit, and specially made CinC jackets) the frigging Commander-in-Chief. Even Spider-man understood that with great power comes great responsibility.
Why is this concept so hard for war-supporters to fathom? I thought the idea of attacking Iraq was wrong from word one (Not because I'm a some hippie-peacenik either, I'm not), so I don't have any blood on my hands. Maybe that's the problem. To admit it was wrong would be to accept responsibility, of sorts? I don't know.
mrC
-
According to this article http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm
Clintons' second inaguration cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.
-
Yeah, but there was not a single bad thing going on in the world at that time.
lol
-
Yeah, but Clinton is a cool guy.
-
Actually, what I'm saying is that I'm sick of hearing it. Write to him, not us.
YOU SUPPORT BUSH...THEREFORE YOU SUPPORT THE WAR AND NOW YOU DON'T WANT TO *HEAR* ABOUT IT??
I'm leaving the rest of his post alone, since clearly he's not thinking rationally.
Stop making assumptions about me. You're making very bad assumptions and have no idea you're doing it. I'll lay out some of my beliefs for you.
I do not support Bush nor do I like him. What I do support is the sovereignty of the United States of America. Kerry wanted to hand that back to the United Nations and Bush did not. Kerry wanted to put US military decisions in the hands of people from France, Germany, and 100 other nations that should have no say in what the US does or does not do. I do not give a DAMN what the leader of Cameroon thinks about anything. Bush has made a lot of mistakes but the split from the UN had to be done eventually. The UN is corrupt, it is obsolete, and it is irrelevant. The US is the first of likely many countries to act thusly and as the world leader we are it had to be us first.
I do not support the war. I do not think we should have gone in there, nor do I think we should still be there, but as it is the 'job' has to be finished. Some type of gov't has to be put in place or we will have created a vacuum that will seal itself with a larger threat than we eliminated. Many of the soldiers over there are my age and many of my high school friends are there. I have a few relatives my age there. I know the risks but I cannot come up with a better course of action given the current situation. If you can maybe you should run for office.
You know why I don't want to hear about it? Because I can't change it. You can't change it. We all know who can change it. Tell THEM. Write THEM. Run against THEM. Sitting in Cambridge bitching and moaning into your double foam latte isn't going to change anything, nor is bitching and moaning at us constantly. Take some kind of action that is a little more effective than a message board post.
-
Yeah, lets take a moment from our celebration to comfort the minority of the people. After all they have been so kind as to bash me every day of my term in office. While I'm at it, let me announce that I am a democrat. All the beliefs that I held as a republican are gone, and I now hold the ideals of the minority.
ooooops
My bad, that would be the other guy that does that sort of flip flopping.
He didn't inherit this war, and I never make any such claim or attempt to direct as such.
I support the war. I supported the reasons to go in, and when they turned to be bad intel, I still supported us being there. I think more good will have eventually come from us having done what we did, then would have ever come had we not.
I share the opinion of this poster, but I'd like to add that the intel wasn't bad. Sadaam made an agreement with the UN at the end of the first Gulf War to allow inspections. He immediately voilated this agreement along with any other that wasn't convienient for him.
Basically, by PRETENDING to have something to hide (still inconclusive since he had 6 months to stash them) he gave the UN every reason to believe he did... Particularly since he'd used chemical weapons in the desert killing his own people and Kurd's previously.
One thing that never seems to get mentioned is that the US civilians were supposed to be swimming in their own blood by now. Hussein was caught hiding in a hole, and Bin Laden is most likely doing the same thing. There hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil despite the promises, and a well organized underground of attackers. For this, Bush has my support.
It seems to me that some people got so wrapped up in the mess in Iraq that they kind of lost site of what led up to it. I think anyone who says Jr. is just doing it to appease his father or had an agenda is short sighted.
-
You know why I don't want to hear about it? Because I can't change it. You can't change it. We all know who can change it. Tell THEM. Write THEM. Run against THEM. Sitting in Cambridge bitching and moaning into your double foam latte isn't going to change anything, nor is bitching and moaning at us constantly. Take some kind of action that is a little more effective than a message board post.
I don't live in Cambridge. I live in the industrial area of Lowell. I don't drink coffee, let alone double foam lattes. I'm lived a lower middle-class life in the Detroit area until 2000, and after having put myself through college, moved to Boston for a job. I don't need anyone to help me direct my anger, and I will continue to express my opinion when I see fit, wherever I see fit.
You expressed your opinion, and I expressed mine. Don't like to hear these arguments, don't read the threads. If you don't want a response, don't post a comment. Simple. When someone makes a one-off comment that I find disrespectful and thoughtless, be it in public or be it on a specialized hobby site, and it angers me enough to respond...I will.
As for assumptions, based on the things you've said in the past, albeit you now seem to have been joking, I didn't think I was making assumptions. However, now that you've cleared up some of your positions, I'll take them into consideration next time I address you. Funny that you'd make a bunch of assumptions about me at the same time you chide me.
Also, thanks for the pointer about being an activist, but I already am. I actively work to further causes I believe in, in a multitude of ways. I've protested the war at various times in public, I've actively campaigned for Kerry, I'm working to push Howard Dean for DNC chair, I've donated money to various causes I believe in, I've donated time as well. I've written Congressmen/women, editors and anyone else I feel needs to hear what I've got to say. I will continue to do this as I see fit.
It doesn't hurt to sharpen an argument on a web forum... even though it may appear useless at times, I ultimately feel I come away with a stronger understanding of the other side.
mrC
-
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/01/continued_the_m.html#comments
this isn't the most expensive inauguration ever, once you adjust for inflation. In fact, all of the inaugurations since 1981 have cost about $40 million, between $36 million and $47 million.
This issue would be clearer if the
-
Ooohhh here's another one I've gotta say something about.
Calling a question about the money spent on the inaugaration party "flip flopping" is weak. You're making a comparison between a party thrown during peace time in a prosperous economy and a party thrown while our country is at war and suffering from a struggling economy.
If person A hits person B in the nose unprovoked, that's one situation. If person A hits person B in the nose because person B hit him first, that's another situation. One could reasonably condemn the first situation while condoning the second, even though the end result (person A hits person B) is the same. That's hardly being hypocritical.
What's that got to do with the inaugaration party? The parties are taking place in two different environments -- one prosperous and peaceful, the other in a hurt economy during wartime. Accusing someone of being a "flip flopper" because they object to one and not the other is a weak argument -- in point of fact, it's just silly.
Note: I have no objection to Bush's party. He won, let him celebrate. But I can understand the argument of those who object.
--- saint
-
that first cartoon is retarded. yeah i feel sorry for the troops fighting, but theres one thing.....
they are troops, they signed up to be in the army, marines, whatever. if you sign up for that crap and then get all pissy when you actually have to do something, then you got problems. i mean, dying isnt fun, but i dont think signing up to be in the army and to "protect" this country, is the best way to avoid dying.
"i cant believe we have to actually fight in a war! oh crap what are they thinking."
-
Funny that you'd make a bunch of assumptions about me at the same time you chide me.
That was irony. I did what I said you were doing, and did it in a way I knew to be producing assumptions just as poor. You seem to have missed that and taken it too literally.
-
they are troops, they signed up to be in the army, marines, whatever. if you sign up for that crap and then get all pissy when you actually have to do something, then you got problems. i mean, dying isnt fun, but i dont think signing up to be in the army and to "protect" this country, is the best way to avoid dying.
It's not the fighting that's the problem...it's not being equipped with proper safety gear that is. Having to scrounge for scrap to partially protect your vehicle? That's insane. Why aren't they amoured to being with?
-
"Why aren't they amoured to being with?"
Because people like John Kerry voted against it.
-
Because people like John Kerry voted against it.
IIRC he didn't vote against it, he was voting against something else, but this was a subset of a wider package.
-
MrC,
You are man who truly believes in your cause and I salute you.
-
No, I wasn't in the military. I tried for early enlistment when I graduated from high school (just before, actually) because I was only 17, and wouldn't be 18 for quite a few months. Parents wouldn't sign the release papers. After that I got busy on other things and pretty much forgot about it.
-
IIRC he didn't vote against it, he was voting against something else, but this was a subset of a wider package.
True
Still...
I blame all of our executive branch for this one, and not just Bush. I think as a whole, at a time when the troops really need DC's cooperation to get things done for them, that they, as usual, are all caught up in petty my side vs your side squabbles.
The fact that last year was very bitter election year, REALLY took a huge toll on our nation as a whole. So much could have been done, if instead of having to focus on fighting a ridiculous battle on our soil, they could have worked together and focused on the needs elsewhere.
That isn't the American way though.
-
Keep in mind that a large % of the humvees ARE armored... it's the old ones that you can't exactly fly home to the US for retrofitting that are not armored. I have noticed that the media has never mentioned that fact.
Also keep in mind that by 'armoring' the humvees by hard welding nonspec pieces to them, they are actually creating a problem larger than they are solving. They MAY save themselves the initial injury of the explosion, but then again they may NOT. What they are definitely doing is sealing off, with welded steel, their vehicle in a way that makes it impossible to get into to retrieve wounded soldiers. See how that works? If that armor does not save them, and often it will not, they've sealed themselves into a flaming steel coffin. THIS is why the military objects to them supplementing the vehicles on their own.
Where is the media mentioning that?
-
Where is the media mentioning that?
While they're at it, why don't they mention that Rumsfelds comment about the lack of armor being "essentially a matter of physics" rather than a "matter of money"...which is complete B.S. because shortly afterward, the largest supplier of humvee up-armor for our troops was quoted as saying that they could increase armor output by 50% and *no additional cost*, but they were never asked by the Pentagon.
To me it's a matter of absolute failure of leadership, not a matter of physics.
mrC
-
You are man who truly believes in your cause and I salute you.
Thank you. I've had a lot of decent debates with you as well and I respect your position as well.....when you're not commenting with *yawns*. ;)
At least we could play Robotron without complaining, and that's the American way.
Hehe. I think all the world's problems should be solved by video game challenges. High score tables would define a country's rank in the world. America would be on top too, we've got the Pac-man world champion!
mrC
-
To me it's a matter of absolute failure of leadership, not a matter of physics.
They said that to the media... but we have no way of knowing that they had ever said that to the Army. Given that producing 50% more product at no additional cost would cut dramatically into their profit margin, it is not likely that they would have. How many businesses do you see offering 50% more product at no additional cost?
-
Note: I have no objection to Bush's party. He won, let him celebrate. But I can understand the argument of those who object.
--- saint
the plain fact is that these are very bitter liberals with no life who hate bush and really don't need a reason to object to anything.
-
It's not plain to me at all. There are radical extremists on both parties, in any party, this is true. However, your perspective seems to be that you're either with us or against us, and that anyone raising an objection is one of them radicals. Is there any room for a middle ground?
Here's a frank and straight forward question for you: For the next four years, will anyone who raises a concern or objection to a Bush policy be a bitter, Bush hating liberal with no life?
--- saint
the plain fact is that these are very bitter liberals with no life who hate bush and really don't need a reason to object to anything.
-
By the way, here's an open question to anyone stating that Clinton's inaugural was more expensive when adjusted for inflation. Can you point out your sources please? I went looking but couldn't find the numbers to back that up. I *did* find some numbers though. Here they are, with my sources:
With different sources it's hard to easily analyze the numbers of course, but as near as I can tell the numbers on the left are "then" dollars, the numbers on the right are adjusted to 2004 dollars. Carter's seems kind of low though. The higher numbers came from Newsweek who expressly stated the numbers were adjusted for 2004 dollars.
1977 - Carter - $3.5 - $11 million
1981 - Reagan - $16 - $34 million
1985 - Reagan - $20 - $35 million
1989 - Bush - $30 - $46 million
1993 - Clinton - $25 - $30 million.
1997 - Clinton - $23.7 - $35 million
2001 - Bush - $35 - $43 million
2005 - Bush - $40 million
The winners being Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Draw whatever conclusions either side wishes to draw, but if you've got other numbers I'd like to see them.
Newsweek, January 24, Page 28.
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/wire.ssf?/base/news/1105698269144200.xml
http://blogger.xs4all.nl/steeph/archive/2005/01/15/22180.aspx
-
FYI, according to this article:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012105Y.shtml
President Carter budgeted $1 per guest for his inauguration, opting for a cash bar.
The article also lists other ways in which the current administration could have chosen to spend the money in less extravagant, more useful ways, check it out.
ARCADIAC!
-
It's not the fighting that's the problem...it's not being equipped with proper safety gear that is. Having to scrounge for scrap to partially protect your vehicle? That's insane. Why aren't they amoured to being with?
The vehicles are armored to the extent protection is capable of, while still maintaining the vehicle's purpose. The vehicles spoken of are HMMWV's. Hummers, more commonly. In case it isn't known, the description (all those letters - would you like to buy a vowel?) of an HMMWV is as follows:
High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle = HMMWV (http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/hmmwv/)
The first two letters are the reason for the armor, or percieved lack thereof, and the extent to which these vehicles are armored. These vehicles are outfitted with armor designed to be bullet resistant. The soldier inside of these vehicles naturally want as much armor as possible, more so than is on there already, and as such will search for this "scrap metal" to outfit their vehicle with. I would want it too.
Why are the first two letters important - as that didn't really describe it, you say? The HMMWV's purpose is to be able to move about quickly - to be Highly Mobile. Adding armor above and beyond the amount deemed necessary for protection makes this vehicle less mobile, leading to a reduced usefulness of its intended purpose. Add a BUNCH of armor to this vehicle, and you have a redundant vehicle, one which the army already has over there. It is called a "tank". It is NOT Highly Mobile, at least in comparison to the HMMWV. Thus the reason for requiring both vehicles there, the differences in outfitting each one, and your "why".
They also may have (in fact probably do) have HMMWV's with no armor in use. Why? Is it necessary for these vehicles to have armor when used in rear formations, where the chance for attack is slim to none? Not really. While the armed forces may think this wise, the men driving them around may feel a bit differently, maybe they don't have body armor for THEMSELVES, therefore they want a bit more on the vehicle they drive around.
It's the armed forces' environmental policy ;) More armor = heavier vehicle = more gas required to move it about = more vehicle emissions. We should applaud the environmental concern shown by our armed forces...we're saving millions of lives daily by doing our part re: ozone depletion ;)
The armor spoken of when referencing Mr Kerry's vote is body armor. The kind used to protect another item starting with "H". That item is known as a "Human". Two different kinds of armor.
The HMMWV and its armor fittings may have been in that bill, but the armor consistently referred to is body armor for Humans. Has been throughout the debates, and by both campaigns leading up to the elections.
-
By the way, here's an open question to anyone stating that Clinton's inaugural was more expensive when adjusted for inflation. Can you point out your sources please? I went looking but couldn't find the numbers to back that up.
Not giving this as "proof", as it doesn't matter to me how much Clinton spent, but this article mentions this amount, and also speaks of the amount the taxpayers were going to foot at Clinton's inauguration, as well, something that was much ballyhooed re: Bush's inauguration
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm)
This AP story seems to be the source for numerous quotes regarding this figure. I do not know what sources they used in reviewing inaugural expenditures.
FYI, according to this article:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012105Y.shtml
FYI, the minute I read an article titled "Inauguration: Lifestyles of the Rich and Heartless", it tells me this is going to be as far removed from a "useful" read as anything else. Thanks for the help, but I'd rather read saint's links. At least he offers something to think about, rather than tripe ill-sutied to even lining the bottom of a bird cage ::)
-
saint, use the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator:
http://www.bls.gov/bls/inflation.htm
via Scott Burgess
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/01/continued_the_m.html#comments
Year Inauguree Cost (current $) Cost (2004 $)
1981 Reagan 19.4 44.47
1985 Reagan 20 36.36
1989 Bush 30 47.9
1993 Clinton 33 44.43
1997 Clinton 30 36.12
2001 Bush 40 43.88
Averaging the 2004 equivalent amounts yields a result of $42.19m.
don't always trust "your sources". we all know what happened to dan blather and cbs. your sources use too low a value in yesterdays dollar so out lower after adjusting.
besides, it doesn't really matter. since when do democrats care about spending money since they are happy giving away my money I worked for to others. it's all one big flip-flop for convenience sake. just another thing for the stinky hippie prostestors to work themselves into a frenzy over.
-
TA Pilot? It doesn't sound quite like you, yet.....somehow......it does ;D
Jened, if you want your points to be taken at face value, it would behoove you to refrain from the name calling. Even if they DO stink, ARE hippies, and DON'T care, you pointing those things out aren't the way to convince someone to think about your point of view. It does no good to tell them that politically correct term of "commune" actually means they're living on a stench ranch. It only helps to enforce THEIR view of YOU as a heartless money-grubbing cheat out to screw humanity for the sake of your own gain.
See how that works?
p.s. saint has a little odor to him, too ;)
-
p.s. saint has a little odor to him, too
-
p.s. saint has a little odor to him, too
And I stink to high heaven...I mean, hugging trees all day tends to make one sweat. Plus, having to walk around town and hand out small percentages of my weekly earnings, like any good socialist, sure doesn't leave much time to shower. Pardon my latte breath...
mrC
-
And I stink to high heaven...I mean, hugging trees all day tends to make one sweat. Plus, having to walk around town and hand out small percentages of my weekly earnings, like any good socialist, sure doesn't leave much time to shower. Pardon my latte breath...
mrC
I figured your stink was from licking various frogs and the eating of dirt.
How much does tree-hugging pay these days? I need some part-time income, and I can start small, mebbe by hugging a few Bushes (the twins come to mind) and working my way up to trees.
-
I figured your stink was from licking various frogs and the eating of dirt.
How much does tree-hugging pay these days? I need some part-time income, and I can start small, mebbe by hugging a few Bushes (the twins come to mind) and working my way up to trees.
Frogs? No. Wouldn't want to disturb their habitat and dirt is over-rated. Grass is where it's at! ;)
-
Year Inauguree Cost (current $) Cost (2004 $)
1981
-
FYI, according to this article:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012105Y.shtml
DrewKaree replies:
FYI, the minute I read an article titled "Inauguration: Lifestyles of the Rich and Heartless", it tells me this is going to be as far removed from a "useful" read as anything else.
-
How many of those years were we involved in a war like Iraq?
-
The military NEEDED to be gutted. What kind of fool maintains a cold-war military AFTER the cold war? Keep in mind that what the Russians couldn't do in Afghanistan in a decade Clinton's "gutted" military did in a month (because, of course, in October 2001 G.W. Bush was still using Clinton's military).
Some of you people should really make an effort to look at issues for issues. The only reason gutting the military was bad is that Clinton is the one who did it. We still spend a WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY larger percentage of our GDP on our military than any other nation.
Same goes for this $40 million thing. It's totally normal. It's a little obscene, but hey, it's nothing compared to what many leaders of other countries do (even leaders of very poor countries). Hell, look at the royal family in England. Talk about retarded.
This whole, "yeah, but we're at war," bit is a total smokescreen for blind partisanship. So, what if Bush decided to do it on the cheap this year and spent $25 million. An extra $15 million would barely put a scrach in military supplies. That's like, A MISSLE.
It's so comical to see everyone working up such a froth over this kind of money when they could be talking about Bush's tax cuts or the elimination of the estate tax or overfunding NASA or any one of a thousand lame-ass pork projects that $10 or $40 or $100 million get's dumped into every year.
This party is just small potatoes. Not only that, it is apparently the same size potatoes that get served at every inaugeration party.
I could understand the clutching at straws if Bush wasn't such a bafoon with such an absurdly poor record. But there's plenty of really legitimat grievances to focus on, IMHO.
-
Arcadiac's got the most well-educated birds in history folks. If'n you ask him real nice, and give him a shiny nickel, he may let you see them....but be careful, they tend to treat non-conservatives none too kindly ;D
Shmokes, I gotta pm you in a sec if you're staying online, otherwise you'll just end up reading it tomorrow.
-
I'll say. Any creature with the presense of mind to take a crap on Drew's posts MUST be smart. :P
-
Actually, it was congress that gives the power to the President to go to war in the US.
-
What was Boxer's answer to the terrorist situation.
"NOT" what the President prescribed, and little else.
Her answer was to pass a resolution that Syria stop funding terrorists. Wow. How effective.
Dexter seems to do a lot of quoting of Boxer. But he doesn't seem to want to quote Condi's answers. Nice. I guess it doesn't matter what Condi had to say.
Congress were presented with information manufacutred or manipulated to suport the case for war. If the bush regeime had toed the line they are now i.e. freeing the iraqi people from tyranny, there would have been no war. Lies + BS by war criminals, nothing more, thats what congress voted for...self defence, not 'liberation'.
So how do you explain Tony Blair and Howard from Austrailia? They agreed. Putin Agreed. The UN agreed with it.
Here's a link to the actual Bill so we call all read it and see if it's just weapons of Mass destruction:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107yCgDVi::
-
Temporary file not found. Display failed.
Just like the WMDs. Hmmm. ;D
BTW my bird is more regular that ever, thanks Drew! :laugh:
ARCADIAC!
-
saint, use the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator:
http://www.bls.gov/bls/inflation.htm
That gives the same numbers Peale gave
don't always trust "your sources". we all know what happened to dan blather and cbs. your sources use too low a value in yesterdays dollar so out lower after adjusting.
What makes your sources more right than others (ie why trust a lone webuser over newsweek)? Looks to me like he did a double inflation on some figures.
-
Here's a link to the actual Bill so we call all read it and see if it's just weapons of Mass destruction:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107yCgDVi::
They're currently on the new Congress. Where would they have the archives to search? Everything turns up new....and some frighteningly lame crap too!
*edit*
Nevermind, found it. Also, fredster, I'm guessing the reason the link doesn't show is that search links time out and you have to re-do 'em.
I'm off helping someone with something I can solve, mebbe once that's taken care of, I'll stop back here to help you with showing folks information they can't be bothered to read (or will read and change their rationale to suit their now-current argument) unless you find it before me. Mebbe copy/paste when you find it again, and link to the search along with your keywords and.....nevermind, why would they go through all that when you're a liar anyway?
-
It has to do with the query I ran.
You have to dig for it pretty good.
Here it is -
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 2, 2002
Mr. HASTERT (for himself and Mr. GEPHARDT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
-
fredster, that's a pretty long list of manipulations!
Don't you think they could have shortened it and just said what Boxer-fanboy said?
"We are typing this all out to mislead and misrepresent what intelligence agencies worldwide have stated in agreement with our own intelligence that Sadaam has no WMD's, but by stretching this out in legal-speak, we can dupe the rest of these guys into thinking he does, and start a war based ONLY on WMD's, regardless of all the other reasons we've given that Congress looked at. No one will ever figure us out, unless Ms Boxer is given a microphone, because she's an absolute genious to the point that she doesn't have to read stuff to know what it means"
See how much space that takes up, compared to what was actually said?
I mean, since Ms Boxer "cleaned Condi's clock" with this info, surely she already knew the information you gave us, orrrrrrrrr..........d'ya think she just "couldn't be bothered to read the FAQ's"?
Dexter's already been given this info by jened, perhaps you giving it to him might shine some light on the info for him, but he's changed his stance after jened's post from "Bush LIED" to "Bush MANIPULATED OR MANUFACTURED". You prolly just entrenched the "manipulation" theory.