The Downing Street Memo: Just another empty Anti-War Leftist canard

POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, June 19, 2005 09:05
VIEWED: 15313
PAGE 8 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Friday, June 17, 2005 12:57 AM

This is pretty much what I figured. It sure is nice to see it confirmed. Thanks.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 17, 2005 1:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey, I found it!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

"14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003."

I'm having a hard time coming up with the words to describe how this makes me feel. This is just disgusting. It's fraud. In no way was war a "last resort" for Bush & co. as they said it was. It was they're first priority, all they had to do was establish plausible deniability to move ahead. And they did. Y'know, AJ, I have never said I hate these people, but I hate them for this.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

You know, I'm noticing a trend here. The people who seem most upset by this stuff are the people who really are proud to be Americans. Or at least people who want to be. The last thing they are is 'hate-filled' or ready to 'blame America' at the drop of a hat.

The reality of the situation is that, if anything, we're guilty of delusion. It doesn't take much study of history to realize that wars are almost always 'sold' on simplistic distractions that often have little to do with the real reasons behind them.

But most of us, us Americans that is, would like to think we're different. We'd like to think that our government acts in good faith with the intentions and values of the citizens. We'd like to think that our nation, born out of rebellion against imperialism, wouldn't be so quick to take advantage of it's powerful position.

Is that naive? Is there any way we'll ever get someone in office who respects REAL American values?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Friday, June 17, 2005 4:02 AM

AJ- Your last post (about the single missiles that "could" reach the USA via tramp freighter) is a great example of a paranoid scenario that doesn't make sense.

Saddam was not a stateless terrorist with nothing to lose. He was the leader of a large Middle Eastern nation that happens to be sitting on the world's second-largest proven oil reserves- a fact that he was highly aware of. All of his actions indicate that he wanted to continue being the leader of that country. Why would he tweak the nose of the USA as you describe? It would only provide the perfect justification for us to invade Iraq and depose him, whihc is the last thing he would want.

So-Use your imagination. I'll ask you, for the roughly eighth time- What do you think Saddam was actually doing, and what evidence do you have to support it? I don't want to hear yet another maybe that contradicts the half-dozen maybes that you've already suggested. The critical words in this question are "you" and "think". OK?

SIGNYM

Friday, June 17, 2005 1:33 PM

Quote:
The concern was geniune.

Your concern is genuine, too. But it's misinformed, just like the average soldier's.

NEUTRINOLAD

Friday, June 17, 2005 6:41 PM

Quote:
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This is in regards to an individual state's power only, not the role of eithe the President or the Congress.
This case is, however, covered by the "repel invasion" clause, so the Federal executive, as well asthe State itself, may respond. Because an individual state did not "engage in War" because it was invaded, or in imminent Danger of such, this clause does not apply.
Nice red herring, though

Oh, and the other times we sent troops? I'm not ignoring those, I think most of those were clearly illegal.

My point being, our elected representatives should obey the law of the land and nnot abdicate their responsibilities because those responsibilities are politically inconvenient. That's it. That's all I meant. I think there is ample evidence that the COngress has done just that with respect to the War Powers, going all the way back to the Truman administration.

And LynchAJ? I agree, ascribing motives is a dangerous business. That's why it is so very difficult to prove intent in a court of law, and rightly so in my opinion.

DIONWR

Friday, June 17, 2005 7:09 PM

*sigh*

Did IQ's suddenly drop while I was away?

This thread gives me much to write, because many of you, particularly the right-wing tool who started the thread, don't know anything of what you're writing about.

As a recently returned Iraq vet (with one less leg than I went in with), I can tell you that the average soldier in Iraq is actually better informed than you are.

The largest, growing group of anti-Bush folks I know of are my buddies in Iraq. It's obvious to us that Bush lied and is lying. We see it every day.

Were any of you even aware that we started bombing and throwing missiles into Iraq in 2002--BEFORE CONGRESS HAD EVEN VOTED ON THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ? The story is starting to come out now, but trust me, it's true--I know some of the pilots who did the sorties. Do a google search on "Charlie Clements," for just one testimony of this.

That story, too, is starting to come out now, albeit the right-wing dismissed it at the time as lies from the Saddam Hussein government. The current spin is that we were enforcing the "no fly" zones, but all the pilots involved will tell you that that just wasn't so. We systematically started taking out Iraq's ability to defend itself, and we did so before Congress even voted on the matter. Indeed, I have a desk paperweight that was part of the missile that took out the Bagdad central telephone exchange in early September, 2002.

But the big lie is the current one, that the war is going well. The war is NOT going well. It is NOT being won, and I don't think it's winnable. We should never have gone in to Iraq, we should have concentrated on Afghanistan and catching Osama bin Laden. At this point, we should cut our losses and leave.

Up until Iraq, I had been a lifelong Republican. But my Republican party was one of strict observance of the Constitution, balancing the budget, avoiding foreign wars unless absolutely necessary, and keeping government from interfering in people's lives except under the most extreme of circumstances. The current Republican party is one of pious lip-service to (while totally ignoring) the Constitution, childish economic policies that will come back to haunt us, reckless and stupid foreign adventurism, and changing government interference from the social programs the GOP hates, to propping up the fundamentalist Christian ethos.

War after 9/11 was inevitable and necessary, but not against Iraq. We should have stuck to it in Afghanistan and been on the ground to ensure bin Laden didn't get away. We should have followed wherever he led, including Pakistan. We should have accepted no substitute for finding and hanging that evil bastard. We should still do that.

Instead, we attacked a country that hadn't been a party to bin Laden's attack, stretched our resources to their absolute limit, threw away the good will of the entire world which had been freely given us after 9/11, and are creating more insurgents with every day that we stay there.

SERGEANTX:

I have to disagree with your belief that impeachment would only be a "foolish gesture." Bush's crimes are MUCH more serious than Clinton's getting his dick sucked, and they should be brought to the same forum, and him made to answer for them. Plus, and more importantly, it's the right thing to do. Bush lied, and he knew he was lying. He has committed the high crimes that impeachment calls for.

The folks in Congress should forego their partisan differences and address this. Instead, we're getting a silly, childish politics where our representatives are playing at politics as if it were a game, with no concern for truth or their responsibilities in the matter. It would also be a great litmus test as to who is more interested in scoring partisan points (like AJ) than in getting to the truth.

It's important to remember, in this context, that the Democrats, back when I was a boy, were smart enough to wait for Republicans to propose bills of impeachment against Nixon. They knew that there had to be a true bipartisan concensus on this.

As to its creating a neutered presiden

SIGNYM

Friday, June 17, 2005 7:30 PM

Quote:
dee-uh-NOOR; it's Welsh

Ah. That accounts for the spelling.

Thank you for your post. It's good to hear from someone who's been there.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 17, 2005 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dionwr:
*sigh*

Did IQ's suddenly drop while I was away?

I have to disagree with your belief that impeachment would only be a "foolish gesture." Bush's crimes are MUCH more serious than Clinton's getting his dick sucked, and they should be brought to the same forum, and him made to answer for them. Plus, and more importantly, it's the right thing to do. Bush lied, and he knew he was lying. He has committed the high crimes that impeachment calls for.

The folks in Congress should forego their partisan differences and address this. Instead, we're getting a silly, childish politics where our representatives are playing at politics as if it were a game, with no concern for truth or their responsibilities in the matter. It would also be a great litmus test as to who is more interested in scoring partisan points (like AJ) than in getting to the truth....

..Now, no one expects impeachment, because the Congress is Republican, both House and Senate. But think what it says, folks, that we believe they will all put their party above any of their responsiblities to the Constitution and the country.

Thanks for the post. Your points are compelling and you've put me in the unusual position arguing pragmatism over idealism. The problem I see is with the repurcussions of an impeachment. I just think it would do more harm than good, just as the Clinton impeachment did.

If, IF, we could get wide ranging consensus among politicians on both sides of the isle, as was the case with Nixon, I'd say go for it. As it is, as long as Bush and his cronies maintain an atmosphere of 'plausible deniablity' for their supporters to cling to - the republicans will never let it go forward in any productive way.

But I agree, it IS the right thing to do.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CONNORFLYNN

Friday, June 17, 2005 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dionwr:

CONNORFLYNN:

While you seem to argue from my own position--someone too disgruntled with the Republicans, but wary of the Democrats--you also have a tendency to throw up your hands, figuratively, and argue, essentially, that fighting is of no use. I cannot agree.

What this administration has done must be fought. If we allow them to get away, with no accountability, then we might as well stop referring to ourselves as a free nation.

best,
diownr
(dee-uh-NOOR; it's Welsh)

I think you misunderstood me Dionwr. I agree there are times you just need to open a can of whoop-ass. I have no problem with us fighting for our freedoms. I'm far from a peacenik LOL. My point all along has been that our troops were forced into fighting a war in Iraq that they didn't NEED to fight.

I'm sorry to hear about your leg and wish you the best in recuperating and in life. Thanks for your service.

Connor

CONNORFLYNN

Friday, June 17, 2005 8:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Quote:
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This is in regards to an individual state's power only, not the role of eithe the President or the Congress.
This case is, however, covered by the "repel invasion" clause, so the Federal executive, as well asthe State itself, may respond. Because an individual state did not "engage in War" because it was invaded, or in imminent Danger of such, this clause does not apply.
Nice red herring, though

Oh, and the other times we sent troops? I'm not ignoring those, I think most of those were clearly illegal.

My point being, our elected representatives should obey the law of the land and nnot abdicate their responsibilities because those responsibilities are politically inconvenient. That's it. That's all I meant. I think there is ample evidence that the COngress has done just that with respect to the War Powers, going all the way back to the Truman administration.

And LynchAJ? I agree, ascribing motives is a dangerous business. That's why it is so very difficult to prove intent in a court of law, and rightly so in my opinion.

Neutrino -

Dude, you keep using that word "Only" . WHy why why?

The word "only" ONLY appears 3 times in the entire constituion(along with all its happy ammendments) and NONE of those times does it appear in reference to Congress. You keep interpreting rather then looking at it factually.

The US is referred to often as the State or Union or United States. The words "consent of Congress" appear, yet you claim it has nothing to do with the role of Congress.

Please stop passing off your interpretations as fact. LOL

It's cracking me up. Thanks for the funny

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE