Bush INSTALLS Bolton as US Ambassador to UN.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050801/pl_nm/bush_bolton_dc_18;_ylt=ApEef3Tjjpa5uhigI5yGEodqP0A C;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


Admittedly I'm biased against Bolton because Dr. Evil nominated him...but it still seems strange to install a guy who hates the UN at a time when you should be trying to regain some credibility on the world stage. He seems to have the diplomacy skills of a bull in a China shop, of course he's not alone in that respect in this administration. ;)

No surprise. Bush hates being thwarted, and since he didn't withdraw the nomination it was clear that he'd go the recess appointment route. Bolton will now carry out his role as propagandist for the neocons, but his credibility is so lacking I don't see how he can be effective.

No biggie.
Every President has made recess appointments. Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, JFK (who actually appointed Thurogood Marshall to Fed Appellate because he wouldnt have been able to get it past the southern block)

Relax, its part of the system. No surprises.

Every President has made recess appointments.

Thanks L2, I did read about that.....it still bugs me to have this guy Installed this way. Why bother passing these appointments through congress at all, if they can be bypassed so easily?

Can anyone give me the reasoning behind this guys appointment? What is Bush trying to accomplish with this guy? it certainly doesn't appear he wants to rebuild broken bridges.

Bolton doesn't hate the UN in concept/theory, and this is where many of the folks are getting in an outrage...

He hates what the UN has become, and anyone that's done their homework over the last 20 years would agree with me. It's corrupt, backbiting and very anti US and their allies.

Bush, and many are siding with him on this, want change and reform. By adding this very vocal and very connected catalyst they are hoping for a big shakeup.

Fandros

Yes, many want change and reform at the UN. I'm all for installing a firebrand who will bring about needed change (as opposed to simply marginalizing it). I'm also certain we could have a far more capable nominee than John Bolton. He brings a load of baggage with him and a feather's weight of credibility. I don't see him as being in a position to negotiate reforms or bring the US and the rest of the world closer diplomatically.

As a sidenote. I think it highly unlikely that anyone Bush nominated would be acceptable to the left. Everyone of them would be found to have....baggage.

But hey, this is the party that supports Ted Kennedy and what's her name...Nancy Palosa.

American politics is just too rife with corruption and self interest to really pull together a good solid canidate...for any position imho.

Fandros

The "left" has passed 95% of Bush's judicial nominees, Condi Rice, Gonzales, and other such candidates for positions of power, many of them quite questionable. It's rare to find anyone who doesn't have some kind of "baggage" (I'm sure you have yours, as I have mine), but when the people in question may enter positions of tremendous influence, be given guardianship of our country's secrets and security, it behooves both the opposition and the party in power to ask tough questions and pursue anything that may seriously besmirch the candidate and, therefore, the country (and administration, though Bush's vetting process has been laughable).

And jeez, Fanny, get over your Ted Kennedy fetish already. The guy is far from perfect, but the people actually wielding power are of far greater concern. :rolleyes:

party that supports Ted Kennedy

We could name plenty of assholes on both sides...it will get us nowhere.

I'll have to do more reading, but from what I've read before, Bolton was for dismantling the UN, not reforming it...not honoring treaties (except for political gain)

fiercely opposing existing and proposed international treaties restricting landmines, child soldiers, biological weapons, nuclear weapons testing, small arms trade, and missile defense


, and stopping all payments to the UN. I fail to see how his appointment will help our dismal relationship with the rest of the world...though it seems Bush doesn't give a shit about our relationship with the rest of the world.

The U.N. has become a hotbed of anti-semitism. It needs to be cleaned up asap.

I fail to see how his appointment will help our dismal relationship with the rest of the world

Wow, Bush actually appointed the best person for the position (in Bush's opinion) rather than someone that would "look good" to the rest of the world. Shocking.
As for the recess appointment, they are specifically authorized by the Constitution. Art. II, Sec. 2, Par. 3. The Senate could have easily avoided the necessity for a recess appointment by allowing a vote on Bolton. They chose not to vote on Bolton, so Bush appointed him until such time as the Senate can get their act together and vote on him.

The Senate might have voted on Bolton if the White House had issued the documents requested by Lugar, Voinovich and others. If the White House wanted a vote, complying with Senate requests would have been a good start. So much for transparency and "advise and consent."
Wow, Bush actually appointed the best person for the position (in Bush's opinion) rather than someone that would "look good" to the rest of the world. Shocking.
If the intent is to work with the rest of the world to reform the UN, then yes, it is shocking.

Ted Kennedy isn't just an asshole, he's a criminal. They need to Cold Case his lil mystery and be done with it.

To be honest, as the UN functions now I'm all for dismantling it. Hell, I'm damn sure against paying such a huge portion, what is it 33%? of the operating costs.

Also, let's move the damn building elsewhere somewhere on more neutral ground. Swedan or Luxembourg(sp) perhaps?

And I'm definately all for ousting Kofe Anan and perhaps restructuring the security council.

Fandros

Not gonna comment on Kennedy....never liked him, never will...as far as I'm concerned he and Dean can get locked in a french kiss in theHudson with cement overshoes on. :)

To be honest, as the UN functions now I'm all for dismantling it. Hell, I'm damn sure against paying such a huge portion, what is it 33%? of the operating costs.

Personally I think we should be expempt from paying anything to them....there has got to be some amazing ancilary costs having the UN building on US soil. Unless we it's moved like Fandros suggested, I'm all for that.

restructuring the security council

I'm for restructuring the whole shooting match, but to do that you'll need the cooperation of many...many other countries, something Bolton will not be good at.

Personally I think we should be expempt from paying anything to them....there has got to be some amazing ancilary costs having the UN building on US soil. Unless we it's moved like Fandros suggested, I'm all for that.
I'm for restructuring the whole shooting match, but to do that you'll need the cooperation of many...many other countries, something Bolton will not be good at.

I also agree that the costs of hosting the UN facilities should offset any costs the US is accountable for, but the entire "dues" arrangement should be reconfigured based on changes in the assorted national finances over the last decade or two.

And while I agree that restructuring and reform are vital if the United Nations is to endure, I would like to point out what I hear from the local high school kids so often......"It is the UNITED NATIONS" and not an entity that the United States should approach with such arrogance as to say they are sending Bolton to carry out the Bush plan for reforming it.

Bush, with the arrogance of most lame duck presidents, is trying to do as he wants since he does not have anything to lose in the coming elections. If he were truly a man of his party, he would be looking at the future of his party as well as his own legacy and seek compromise to get some of his legislative goals enacted. Instead, he is going to use any and every end-around he is able to find, and continue his pattern of alienating rather than including people. I will be 53 this month, and in my lifetime I do not believe I have seen a more inept, arrogant, anti-american leader. He has consistently gone against everything that makes this country the place everyone else has always wanted to make their home. I wish there was some way to see how much he and Cheney walk away from this eight year stretch with, financially.

Oops, got carried away with my rant. Sorry.

My biggest problem, is we are globally looked upon poorly. Now most of us would say...oh well they will deal, but we still are hated.

Now we have a history recently of a lot of our political leaders and icons with a lot of "baggage" as we like to put it, and everyone has baggage, but damn...can't we find someone who doesnt have THAT much baggage.

It's corrupt, backbiting and very anti US and their allies.


It not shocking to me that in an organization of 190 countries, most of whom are islamic, that there would be anti US feelings. There are many countries that support us as well. We are just one country in the world. We are not the biggest, we don't have the most people, we don't have the biggest military. Get over yourself Fanny, because we are just the loudmouth short guy with an inferiority complex of the world who just happens to have nukes to keep all the big tough badasses at bay.

Actually Phel, my short sighted and underinformed friend, we are the baddest military in the world. We also happen to contribute more than most countries in the world when aid is called upon.

We provide the home, the funding and most of the might for the UN's doctrines.

So, get thee behind me ya lemon sucking shortie ;P

Fandros

There are people in the UN who are Anti-US, that doesnt mean the UN is anti-US.
Seriously, what is Bolton going to do? Bush could appoint the Messiah to the UN Post and he is still one vote on the Security Council.
The right is hysterical. I love how they are courting black voters now that they have the gays to demonize. They traded in Willie Horton for Will and Grace. Conservatives definitly love their boogeymen. Evil people who I think they would actually believe live in their closets and under their beds.
"Be good Kids and eat your spinach, vote for Bush, or TED KENNEDY will come kill you!"

But lets look at the Republicans.. Remember http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html ?
Balanced Budget? WRU?
"We will only stay for Six Years to get the job done then leave" 12-15 years later, most are still there.

You wanna buy the entire Buffet of bullshit that Liberals are evil? Whatever, Americans need things to be afraid of I guess. The interesting part is that Republicans do best in the areas of the country that are socially and demographically homogenus. It is easier to hate or be afraid of someone that you have never met. How easy is it to convince some hick from Omaha that gays are destroying America? Alot easier than someone from NYC who knows LOTS of gay people and understands thats a load of shit.
Republicans win elections by fearmongering. They actually had people in Bumfuck, Georgia scared that Osama Bin Laden was going to attack them.. BUY YOUR DUCT TAPE. OMG WE ARE ON ORANGE ALERT (what does that mean?). OMG I SAW JANET JACKSONS BREAST! SAVE THE FETUS! LIBERALS WANT TO KILL GOD! (Faux News Flash! Attack on Christmas/Easter/10 Commandments/St. Crispins Day!) WE CANT LET GAYS MARRY BECAUSE THEN WE ALL MIGHT TURN GAY. (Apparently, a good portion of the US, especially the South and MidWest clings onto the playground science of Gayness being transmitted like "cooties")

The apex of this is President Bush saying "The Jury is still out on Evolution". What?
Ive seen the videos of the people teaching "creationism". One was given to me by a very lovely woman who believes in this shit. To a large crowd of people, this guy on the video explained how God put Dinosaur bones in the ground to "fool people and to test the faithful". The earth is only 6,000 years old. After I vomited, I turned off the tape. That is the Republican Base. Successful because they have been able to tap into the "stupid" base, which it turns out is rather large.

Quote:
loudmouth short guy with an inferiority complex of the world who just happens to have nukes to keep all the big tough badasses at bay


Umm...what other country can deploy even 1/3 of the military force the US can anywhere in the world? I'll buy the loudmouth thing....but we are more like "The Rock" than a short guy with an inferiority complex.

My point to this thread is I'm baffled on Bush's goals on Bolton's appointment. Other than pulling completely out of the UN, his appointment makes no sense...if anything he will make relations with the rest of the world worse....not that it can get much worse.

My point to this thread is I'm baffled on Bush's goals on Bolton's appointment. Other than pulling completely out of the UN, his appointment makes no sense...if anything he will make relations with the rest of the world worse....not that it can get much worse.
I guess that means the UN isn't going to let us in on the next oil for food type extortion scheme.

Umm...what other country can deploy even 1/3 of the military force the US can anywhere in the world?

China, Russia, Britain, depending on where in the world Germany, Canada, Australia, India and North and South Korea. We have a more mobile and better supported expeditionary capability than anyone, but we are not alone in being able to field troops and depending on what you read, thanks to the Rumsfelds of the world our military is getting weaker by the year.

Hmmm no.

No other country approaches our ability to mobilize our forces. Couple that with our domination of Air and Sea and you have a unique military. China has a great huge military machine. But they can't project said power to our shores without HUGE losses.

Fandros

Gods, I sure hope we can kiss Kofe's ass and get in on the next scheme. We all realize it's part and parcel of why the UN didn't want the US to finish up Iraq, they were raking in the dough from our blockade.

China, Russia, Britain, depending on where in the world Germany, Canada, Australia, India and North and South Korea. We have a more mobile and better supported expeditionary capability than anyone, but we are not alone in being able to field troops and depending on what you read, thanks to the Rumsfelds of the world our military is getting weaker by the year.

None of those countries can deploy much of a force "anywhere" in the world. In their region perhaps, but not anywhere. None have near the naval or air capability to support a foreign deployment.

Won't argue with you about Rumsfeld....he should have been fired years ago, but he's no less competitant than the rest of the idiots in this adminirritation.

China and Russia very much can project power to our shores. They can't INVADE us, but if you think American policy isn't and has not been directly influenced by their military capabilities I don't even know what to tell you. By the same criteria we don't fulfill your question either, because we haven't been able to realistically invade anyone capable of fighting back for about thirty years .

Any of those countries could have occupied Iraq if they felt like spending the money.

Re: the whole recess appointment thing, it's sleazy but it's really the Senate's fault in this case. The executive has to have that capability else the Senate could hold the rest of the government hostage by never validating the appointment of anyone.

Actually Malse.

Until VERY recently China only had Diesel Subs and they are building their first aircraft carrier right now.

With economic might comes military power.

Like Malse said, projecting their power to us doesn't mean they have to come and stand on our beaches. It isn't WWII. Chain's had ICBMs that can reach the Western 1/3 of the US for nearly 10 years.

To a large crowd of people, this guy on the video explained how God put Dinosaur bones in the ground to "fool people and to test the faithful".Hah, was it Kent Hovind? I think he uses that "God deceives us to test us" line.
I guess that means the UN isn't going to let us in on the next oil for food type extortion scheme.
...
Gods, I sure hope we can kiss Kofe's ass and get in on the next scheme. We all realize it's part and parcel of why the UN didn't want the US to finish up Iraq, they were raking in the dough from our blockade.
Next time you think there's a good opportunity, just check with David Chalmers of (you guessed it!) Texas! (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/14/oilfood.indictment/)
Re: the whole recess appointment thing, it's sleazy but it's really the Senate's fault in this case. The executive has to have that capability else the Senate could hold the rest of the government hostage by never validating the appointment of anyone.
As I mentioned before, the Senate (including Republicans like Thune, Lugar, and Voinovich) requested documents that the White House refused to provide. There's a lot of speculation about those documents, but they seem to include Bolton's requests for classified info that he may or may not have been privy to, and may even tie into the Rove/Plame case. Whatever is there, the White House didn't want to give it up, preferring to follow its usual "fuck accountability/reward failure" SOP.

As I mentioned before, the Senate (including Republicans like Thune, Lugar, and Voinovich) requested documents that the White House refused to provide. There's a lot of speculation about those documents, but they seem to include Bolton's requests for classified info that he may or may not have been privy to, and may even tie into the Rove/Plame case. Whatever is there, the White House didn't want to give it up, preferring to follow its usual "fuck accountability/reward failure" SOP.

Right, which is why the Senate should have voted to deny. Irrespective of party, I can't believe they'd abdicate their authority to such a jerkoff executive administration.

No surprise. Bush hates being thwarted, and since he didn't withdraw the nomination it was clear that he'd go the recess appointment route. Bolton will now carry out his role as propagandist for the neocons, but his credibility is so lacking I don't see how he can be effective.

I didn't hear you complain once when Clitnon did his 140 recess apointments. Hipocrite.:rolleyes:

Bolton doesn't hate the UN in concept/theory, and this is where many of the folks are getting in an outrage...

He hates what the UN has become, and anyone that's done their homework over the last 20 years would agree with me. It's corrupt, backbiting and very anti US and their allies.

Bush, and many are siding with him on this, want change and reform. By adding this very vocal and very connected catalyst they are hoping for a big shakeup.

Fandros

Fandros can you move farther to the Left, I hate agreeing with you.;)

I didn't hear you complain once when Clitnon did his 140 recess apointments. Hipocrite.
Of course you didn't, illiterate dolt, just like I didn't hear you complain at the time when you were having your diapers changed.

And the argument isn't about recess appointments in and of themselves (Reagan had 243, Dubya's had 106); it goes with the job, so your tu quoque argument is, expectedly, useless. In this case, it's the fact that Bush used the recess appointment in order to avoid having to supply the Senate with potentially damaging information. It doesn't help that Bolton is a questionable selection even to some Republicans willing to buck party line.

The Senate should have rejected him, but if Bush was so eager to, as he put it, fill this important position with a permanent selection, he should have either supplied the requested information or withdrawn Bolton in favor of a better nominee. He has had plenty of time to do so.

Of course you didn't, illiterate dolt, just like I didn't hear you complain at the time when you were having your diapers changed.

And the argument isn't about recess appointments in and of themselves (Reagan had 243, Dubya's had 106); it goes with the job, so your tu quoque argument is, expectedly, useless. In this case, it's the fact that Bush used the recess appointment in order to avoid having to supply the Senate with potentially damaging information. It doesn't help that Bolton is a questionable selection even to some Republicans willing to buck party line.

The Senate should have rejected him, but if Bush was so eager to, as he put it, fill this important position with a permanent selection, he should have either supplied the requested information or withdrawn Bolton in favor of a better nominee. He has had plenty of time to do so.

Everyone knows that is BULLSHIT. The reason he is being denied(by the demoncats) is because he knows and believes the UN is corrupt and wants to change it.:D

Of course he wants to change it. He wants to change it so it is more controllable by him and his gang. Is the US government any less corrupt than the UN? Don't be naive.

Of course he wants to change it. He wants to change it so it is more controllable by him and his gang. Is the US government any less corrupt than the UN? Don't be naive.

? WTF how can you say the UN is less corrupt than the US unless you a liberal wackjob?

? WTF how can you say the UN is less corrupt than the US unless you a liberal wackjob?

I am not sure that it takes a liberal wackjob to see that Dick Cheney as CEO of Halliburton was doing business with Iran in direct violation of UN sanctions and set up a dummy office in the Carribean to avoid violating US law which also provided sanctions against doing business with Iran; or, that after Bush and Cheney initiated a war to remove the man that attempted to kill Bush Sr., not only did Bush not allow certain countries to take part in the rebuilding of Iraq, and instead awarded Halliburton (Cheney's old company again) the contracts, but even after it was proven and admitted to that there was gross overcharging and fraudulent billing renewed the contracts with the same company.

Not sure how that glaring piece of corruption fits either liberal or conservative definition; just looks like plain old corruption to me. But of course, I can't stand Bush or Cheney, so I am biased. We never would have had this bullshit with McCain in office.

Just a quick note...

I agree Cheney's involvement with Haliburton is grey...

But, Haliburton is world recognized as the best at doing what they were contracted out to do in Iraq.

Fandros

I am not sure that it takes a liberal wackjob to see that Dick Cheney as CEO of Halliburton was doing business with Iran in direct violation of UN sanctions and set up a dummy office in the Carribean to avoid violating US law which also provided sanctions against doing business with Iran; or, that after Bush and Cheney initiated a war to remove the man that attempted to kill Bush Sr., not only did Bush not allow certain countries to take part in the rebuilding of Iraq, and instead awarded Halliburton (Cheney's old company again) the contracts, but even after it was proven and admitted to that there was gross overcharging and fraudulent billing renewed the contracts with the same company.

Not sure how that glaring piece of corruption fits either liberal or conservative definition; just looks like plain old corruption to me. But of course, I can't stand Bush or Cheney, so I am biased. We never would have had this bullshit with McCain in office.

It's No different that Clinton seting up his buddies to make money. Which Clinton did, and not one complaint did I hear about it from the left.

Which ones? I know there is always some spoilage from a president, but I don't recall anything as glaringly obvious as Bush/Chaney.

i propose making a new forum section inspired by foh's board, Elrens Rickshaw, and limit his posting abilities to only that section, so he doesnt ruin every potentially interesting thread by just..well, showing up.

It's No different that Clinton seting up his buddies to make money. Which Clinton did, and not one complaint did I hear about it from the left.

Ahh, so your argument is it is ok for Bush and Cheney to be engaged in what appear to be corrupt practices because Bush's predecessor did it?

It has been my experience in life that those who demand no integrity in others have none themselves.

I say again, McCain would not have brought us this bullshit.

I say again, McCain would not have brought us this bullshit.

Then you decieve yourself, all politicians desire power and money above all else and will abuse it.

Read up Elren...in the past Bolton's comments weren't about rebuilding it to form a better UN.....he has wanted to abolish it. Even right based sites characterize him as someone who is "A hard-line unilateralist and an aggressive opponent of multilateralism and international treaties, Bolton has served as the Bush administration’s designated treaty basher."

Assuming Bolton's task here is wanting " to change it". He's going have to be an achomplished diplomat and get the COOPERATION of other members of the UN. Nothing in this guys history makes me believe he is remotely capable of doing this. That is what confuses me....what is his TRUE purpose, dismantling the UN perhaps? Set up a international body where all other countries report to the US? j/k

Read up Elren...in the past Bolton's comments weren't about rebuilding it to form a better UN.....he has wanted to abolish it. Even right based sites characterize him as someone who is "A hard-line unilateralist and an aggressive opponent of multilateralism and international treaties, Bolton has served as the Bush administration’s designated treaty basher."

Assuming Bolton's task here is wanting " to change it". He's going have to be an achomplished diplomat and get the COOPERATION of other members of the UN. Nothing in this guys history makes me believe he is remotely capable of doing this. That is what confuses me....what is his TRUE purpose, dismantling the UN perhaps? Set up a international body where all other countries report to the US? j/k

That would be fine by me then. Its imposible to change it at this point anyways. When nations that deny their citazens rights are on the human rights council and most the UN members where taking bribs from Sadam they need to be dismantled.

most the UN members where taking bribs from Sadam .

Please name 20 UN members that were taking bribes from Sadam, and cite your sources please. You said MOST, and I am only asking for twenty.

And as far as complaining about nations that deny their citizens rights, who determines the rights? If they are a sovereign country, do they not have the RIGHT to determine what "rights" their citizens will have? I have seen nothing in the US Consitution, Bill of Rights, or various assorted articles upon which this country was founded that says we get to decide another country's "rights". Pretty arrogant, really.

It would be nice to have democracy spread and human rights become the norm, but it is not up to the US to force our principles on any other sovereign country; we certainly do not accept having other countries force their ideas on others, so it is a tad hypocritical to think we can do so.

That would be fine by me then. Its imposible to change it at this point anyways. When nations that deny their citazens rights are on the human rights council and most the UN members where taking bribs from Sadam they need to be dismantled.

......the US dismantling the UN, yeah that'll get our standing with the rest of the world back, nice thinking EL. :rolleyes:

I highly doubt you'd find even 20 countries whose UN reps were involved with the big Oil in Iraq scandal.

Tho it appears likely that Kofe was involved at some level.

Fandros

Lets play a game. It's called "Who said it":



1) The war in Iraq itself has not made America safer and has not made the world safer

1) Ted Kennedy

2) John Kerry

3) Ayman Al-Zawahiri

2) There is no way out of Iraq without immediate withdrawal, and any delay on this means only more dead, more losses

A) Ted Kennedy

B) John Kerry

C) Ayman Al-Zawahiri

3) What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.

A) Ted Kennedy

B) John Kerry

C) Ayman Al-Zawahiri



This is not the heart of the subject of this thread...but just to show that the modern Democratic Party sound bites are in the same spirit as the terrorists we are fighting. If that scares you, well, it should.

The war in Iraq itself has not made America safer

Ted Kennedy - and I agree....though I re-iterate that I have no respect for him.

There is no way out of Iraq without immediate withdrawal, and any delay on this means only more dead, more losses

Clueless Ayman Al-Zawahiri, they still don't get it, the more Americans and Iraqis they kill, the longer we HAVE to be there...idiots.

What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States

Kerry, not a smart thing to say at the time...but true none the less. :p

Clueless Ayman Al-Zawahiri, they still don't get it, the more Americans and Iraqis they kill, the longer we HAVE to be there...idiots.
And yet, plans are afoot for a major reduction in force in 2006, in time for midterm elections, despite the fact that the insurgency is only getting worse, the Iraqi forces are still not even close to being able to defend themselves much less their own country, and that those same forces are riddled with insurgents.

And if you want to play at quotes, we can talk about the "war of days or weeks, I doubt months;" the 1.7 billion reconstruction would cost; our being greeted as liberators*; the "slam-dunk" WMD intel and so on.

Iraq is a disaster, and nothing less.

You can cherry pick Dem soundbites til the cows come home, but they aren't running the country. In the meantime you ignore real threats from people like Rove, for whom sacrificing intel assets is fine if it scores political points. That the Repubs have leapt to his defense instead of recoiling in horror is far more frightening than selected quotes from minority party senators.

This is not the heart of the subject of this thread...but just to show that the modern Democratic Party sound bites are in the same spirit as the terrorists we are fighting. If that scares you, well, it should.

Why the hell should 3 soundbites scare us? You're going to have to give more then that single example(which was easy to figure out) before saying they are in the 'same spirit.' Talking bad about the war in iraq is the same spirit? The first and 3rd were obviously correct, while the second was obviously wrong.

Lets play a game. It's called "Who said it":



1) The war in Iraq itself has not made America safer and has not made the world safer

1) Ted Kennedy

2) John Kerry

3) Ayman Al-Zawahiri

2) There is no way out of Iraq without immediate withdrawal, and any delay on this means only more dead, more losses

A) Ted Kennedy

B) John Kerry

C) Ayman Al-Zawahiri

3) What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.

A) Ted Kennedy

B) John Kerry

C) Ayman Al-Zawahiri



This is not the heart of the subject of this thread...but just to show that the modern Democratic Party sound bites are in the same spirit as the terrorists we are fighting. If that scares you, well, it should.

This is more of the same mindless propaganda of "you are either with us or against us", "all dissenters are terrorists", "if you are against the war you don't support the troops". I am tired of it. Have an original intelligent opinion of your own for a change.

In the meantime you ignore real threats from people like Rove, for whom sacrificing intel assets is fine if it scores political points. That the Repubs have leapt to his defense instead of recoiling in horror is far more frightening than selected quotes from minority party senators.

Word to that. Bush is a big doofus marionette for some of the sleaziest politicians of our time, and they have managed to near-completely coopt the Republican party.

This is more of the same mindless propaganda of "you are either with us or against us", "all dissenters are terrorists", "if you are against the war you don't support the troops". I am tired of it. Have an original intelligent opinion of your own for a change.

1) Did you hear me say "all dissenters are terrorists?". No. Did you hear me say "Either you are with us or agaisnt us" No.

So take that and stick it. Seriously.

2) I can imagine that it must be great to be a soldier and hearing halfwits like you saying "We support you but could not disagree more with the work you do. We appreciate that you are there putting your life on the line for no good reason. Its really great of you to die for {insert your favorite Halliburton, oil, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, neo-conservative bashing here}. We know your only option was to join the army/navy/air force/marines due to your poor socio-economic status. "

I am sure that does not send any mixed signals at all. :rolleyes: .

Have an original intelligent opinion of your own for a change.

irony at its best, a rebuttal using the formulaic "have an original idea" response.


It is hard to have an original idea...most dislike bush and have listed dozens of reasons, which are all the reasons someone else listed....cause well those are the reasons. You wouldnt tell someone to name the last 10 presidents and then tell them to have an original list would ya?? The facts/reasons are the facts they arent going to change.

2) I can imagine that it must be great to be a soldier and hearing halfwits like you saying "We support you but could not disagree more with the work you do. We appreciate that you are there putting your life on the line for no good reason. Its really great of you to die for {insert your favorite Halliburton, oil, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, neo-conservative bashing here}. We know your only option was to join the army/navy/air force/marines due to your poor socio-economic status. "

I am sure that does not send any mixed signals at all. :rolleyes: .


It is unfortunate you live in an either/or world, as it is much more colorful and exciting in a world that offers more options.

I have seen what it is like to be unsupported in an unpopular war, and could share many stories from the loss of childood friendships because I volunteered to go to the proverbial being spit upon (and yes, these things happened and the only thing that kept me from being arrested when one did it to me at an airport was the police officer on the scene was a vet and said I acted in self-defense). I have also seen people being extremely supportive of the men and women who are in Iraq, regardless of their personal feelings about the war itself.

I support the military because they are doing the job they signed up for, which is to follow their commanders orders to the best of their ability and training, without regard to whether they agree with those orders or not.
I have always been one to believe that when you give an oath, you should do your utmost to keep it.

I do not agree with any of the purported reasoning of the Bush administration for why these people are in Iraq, and I firmly believe this war was based more on Bush and Cheney's personal agendas than on what took place on September 11. And so I will continue to make what protest I can against the continued war in Iraq, while at the same time I will make what contributions I can to the people doing the fighting and dying.

If those are mixed signals, I am confident the men and women serving our country over there are mature enough to understand them.

..... And so I will continue to make what protest I can against the continued war in Iraq, while at the same time I will make what contributions I can to the people doing the fighting and dying......

Amen brother.

I believe that while you do not support the war you do support the troops.

Of course you can protest, you live in America.

But, it's unlikely anyone that has served in the past 2 decades would agree with you.

Noone goes to war on a personal agenda, that's pure lunacy on your part.

But perhaps you're one of the crew that thought we should sit on our hands another 10 years around Iraq. Perhaps you are one of the braindead who think the blockade was actually working, even tho Kofe Anan and his inner circle were getting rich off our work. Perhaps you're one of the "head in the sand" circle who think we were actually keeping Saddam from his money, and the checks he was writing to the families of the suicide bombers....

Wake up, it's not Vietnam you're smelling...

Fandros

Noone goes to war on a personal agenda, that's pure lunacy on your part.
"He tried to kill my daddy."

Not the only reason, of course. There was money to be made, a base of operations to set up for Middle East powerbrokering, a desire to set up a secular Middle East state heavily influenced by the US, the opportunity to funnel a lot of dollars into preferred companies through no-contract bidding, and other similar reasons that were never mentioned but which had everything to do with neocon dreams of hegemony.
But perhaps you're one of the crew that thought we should sit on our hands another 10 years around Iraq. Perhaps you are one of the braindead who think the blockade was actually working, even tho Kofe Anan and his inner circle were getting rich off our work. Perhaps you're one of the "head in the sand" circle who think we were actually keeping Saddam from his money, and the checks he was writing to the families of the suicide bombers....
Boy, we better invade Myanmar now, because in 10 years they might have some sort of bomb. Iraq wasn't a threat and wasn't going to be a threat any time soon, whatever Saddam believed or wanted us to think. Kofe Annan may or may not have been involved in oil-for-food (I haven't seen him linked in any compelling way), but I've mentioned a Texas oilman that was; profiteering certainly wasn't limited to the UN.

And speaking of suicide bombers...bin Laden is still free (helped by our incompetence at Tora Bora). Al-Zarqawi is also still free, helped by Bush's refusal to take him out because it might lower support for his war. None of the 9/11 boys came from Iraq. Etc, etc, etc, we've been through all this before.

You can ask Bylimet whether it smells like Vietnam or not. But while Saddam isn't around to send checks now, he doesn't have to bother. Iraq has provided all the incentive budding terrorists need to leave whatever lives they had behind and to join "the cause." From inception to marketing to "Mission Accomplished" to "the insurgency is in its last throes" to today, BushCo bungled the operation. It could only be worse if we hadn't caught Saddam.

And we've barely begun to experience the fallout from all this.

Thor, the 10 years I was referring to was the 10 years we spent Gahugabillions of cash enforcing the no fly zone and surrounding him.

Did you forget this? Or was it a case of "hey we're not bombing so we're not doing it"?

See, I'm honked off in a huge way by all this. I was there the first time in Iraq. I was there when , due to huge pressure from the bleeding hearts , we didn't finish the job. That's when I moved from my slightly left of center political stance to slight of right stance.

Byl is correct in most respects. This two party view and system blows lame sickly goats ass.

Fandros

I was there when , due to huge pressure from the bleeding hearts , we didn't finish the job.


I was not aware that it was bleeding hearts that stopped us from finishing the job the first time. I personally think we should have. But then, I also am radical enough to believe that the dictators leading Iraq, Syria and Libya should all have been candidates for "removal", due to the overwhelming evidence of the suppression of their people and support of criminal behavior. While I firmly believe it is not our place, or anyone else's, to tell a country what they should do in terms of human rights and philosophy of government, I also believe that when it is clear to the world community that a leader is engaged in the systematic torture and murder of his citizens that he has forfeit any claim to due process and should be "removed".

This does not mean I sanction going to war with a country and destroying it's infrastructure and creating innumerable casualties among it's people just to get at the leader.

I have to echo Bylimet's pov. I would have liked Saddam out of power then, but alas, important people disagreed:
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome. (from A World Transformed)
Damn those bleeding heart liberals, Bush and Scowcroft!

Fanny, got any data on US costs for the "no-fly zone" support? I'm curious how they compare to our UN dues (that is, we could have justified non-payment by pointing to costs absorbed by enforcing no-fly).

I agree with Fandros. Back in the first war, CNN decided to show photo's of the now infamous "road of Death". It was a stretch of road that was located in North East Kuwait ( I believe), and it showed a stretch of road that was littered with Iraqi equipment and bodies where the Coalition Airforces (not just US) blew the shit of of them. Many considered it extreme, and Bush Sr was told that the continuation of acts like this and the war in General would have a negative impact on the people who were no committed with the war. Coalition forces were alot closer to Baghdad then what most people realize, and were pulled back shortly after that time.shanno