oh Dubbya...

jimmy · Sep 10, 2002

Because I feel like playing today....

Bush and his Quest for Coalescence....

You remember earlier these past few weeks how he's been trying to support going in against Saddam by saying that he has ties to Al Qaeda? Well there's an article in the Post about how they've kind quietly dropped that...ha! Can you just see that?

Bush: So, yeah we need to get Saddam.
Reporter: Is it still your position that he's liked to Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist organization? Isn't that what you JUST said last week?
Bush: Um...well...not PACIFICALLY...but...still...he's...um...he's an evil doer.
Reporter: Ok Mr. Bush....whatever you say.

I find that so funny.

Oh and Cheney's no better. His response is just that "well, there is information that we can't give to congress because it's classified and should REMAIN classified".

Well great. So basically, this administrations position in trying to convince congress and the American people is "Ok. We NEED to do this. We can't really tell you WHY, per se but trust us. It's the right thing to do. Take our word for it. We're for serious. No, you guys, you don't understand. Seriously. Dude. C'mon."

jimmy · Sep 10, 2002

Oh and he apparently "took his case" to the Prime Minister of Canada. Yeah the PM was like "well, he didn't show up with any documents, he didn't present any new evidence...he just kinda walked in, told us about how he was worried about nukes and germs and gas and the like...and then, kinda left. So, no, I'm not really convinced" or something to that degree.

Can't you just see Bush on his "tour" to convince our allies that he's right and just forgetting to bring his briefcase or notebook??? What kind of strategy is this?? He doesn't even bring any documents or info with him on his "quest for coalescence?" I'm begining to see why the international community is having such a hard time buying into Bush's line.

Bruzilla · Sep 10, 2002

You know what's really funny Jimmy is that the case you're trying to make would have been exactly the same one made by Democrats if Bush's Justice Department had tried to arrest the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11.

jimmy · Sep 10, 2002

Bru,

I'm just saying that you can't expect people to understand your point of view when you don't give them any info.

Would it have been better for all of us if Bush's justice dept HAD been able to arrest the hijackers before 9-11 with no real just cause, just a hunch? Yeah I think there are about 3,100 people at least that would have agreed with you.

But would that have made the argument against such an abuse of power any less valid? I don't think so.

Bruzilla · Sep 10, 2002

The point is that most Dems, and you are one of them, are trying to make Bush look bad over Irag when you should be looking at long-term strategic objectives rather than short-term political gain.

You guys get all gussied up in your moralistic robes and try to make Saddam Hussein out to be a poor, misunderstood, innocent just so that you can find something to attack Bush on. "WE NEED PROOF!" you all chant... proof of what? That he was WMDs? That's been proven since 1992. That he misled investigators? That's been known since 1993. That he's willing to use any weapon at his disposal to get what he wants, or that he desperately wants to be King of All Arabs, or that he sees the USofA as being the primary roadblock to him achieving his dreams? If you need new proof of that all I can say is what hole has your head been stuck up over the past decade.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck. And if you're a duck hunter, you blast it. I don't need a DNA check to tell me a duck is a duck, and I don't need any BS "new" evidence to know that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to our country.

You'all's claims are not about the need for evidence, it's just politics.

jimmy · Sep 10, 2002

Oh but you are wrong, my friend.

It IS about evidence. You can't tout military action OVER getting the UN inspectors back in there when the whole basis of your arguement revolves around issues related to the inspectors not being allowed in in the first place.

This is why we don't know what materials he is/isn't developing. It's all hearsay and educated guessing. Educated to be sure but guessing none-the-less. And if it's NOT guessing, then people need to be convinced of this more than a documentless, evidence-free Bush chatting with you over tea.

It's not you pro-military, gung-ho, yay-America types he needs to convince. It's the rest of us. The rest of us who have friends and relatives who will see combat, who's tax dollars pay for such endeavors and who bear the consequences for our foriegn policy with our lives.

Don't try and whittle this down to simple politics when it's obviously so much more.

Kyle · Sep 10, 2002

Pointless! If Saddam let the inspectors back in tomorrow they'd have six months of catching up to do just to get back to where they were when he kicked them out.

At that point he'd do the same thing he did last time. Stall, misdirect and block them from finding what they are looking for and all the while that worthless body called the U.N. will be folding their hands and looking the other way. It happened before it will happen just that way again.

He needs to Glow! Nothing less.

jimmy · Sep 10, 2002

Kyle,

I'm glad that you fancy yourself a medium but I don't think you can take action simply because you (and I'm speaking of those with your and the current administration's mindset) THINK that, most likely, this that or the other thing will happen.

Saddam is a self-preservationist and, when faced with the US's DIRECT goal of diposing (read: killing) him, he may be a bit more likely to allow and keep inspectors into the country.

All the international community is asking us to do is to TRY diplomacy first. This war against Saddam just came out of NOWHERE. First, they try to pawn it off on us as a continuation of the war on terror. But, aside from a scant few meetings with known or suspected terrorists, the CIA itself has said that it can't prove that Saddam/Iraq are involved in any real way with terrorism. So that's out the window.

Now, they are using the 'future threat' aruguement. But the threat to our OWN security is really in question and analysts on BOTH sides agree that Iraq is YEARS of development and foreign assistance away from posing any realistic threat to us or our allies.

In fact, he's laid relatively low in recent years for someone that is supposedly so dangerous. No major incursions, no major infractions; just an open distate for the US and it's leaders. And it's for THAT reason, that we are contemplating the attack.

It's pretty obvious, isn't it? Elections are just around the corner and even members of Bushies staff said it themselves.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and Bush political adviser Karl Rove, who made the case to the New York Times's Elisabeth Bumiller last week that they pretty much did what Cheney said they didn't do -- waited patiently and deliberately to launch a long-planned rollout. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," Card said.
Added Rove: "The thought was that in August the president is sort of on vacation."

So now, this big idea pops up when support for the War on Terror is waning in the light of no real developments (ie, Bin Laden still on the loose) and no real defined targets. Not to mention the bone to pick that Bush has with his father's former enemy.

I'm not saying Saddam isnt' dangerous or bad news for his own people. I'm not saying they wouldn't be better off without him. But I can't believe how carelessly you all would have us project power across the globe. Historically, we've made HUGE mistakes when we've tried to replace regimes we don't like with ones that we like. It's bad policy, it's all but a violation of international law and it presents a poor image to the international community.

vraiblonde · Sep 10, 2002

Jimmy, I think your faith is sweet, I really do. But we've already seen what happens when the libs get to make foreign policy decisions.

Historically, we've made HUGE mistakes when we've tried to replace regimes we don't like with ones that we like.

Name one.

justhangn · Sep 10, 2002

Jimmy,

At the end of the '91 war, there was a cease fire declared with obligations that IRAQ was to meet, with stipulation that IF he did not comply, the bombardment was to continue.

He has not complied!

Let the bombing begin.

:biggrin:

Kyle · Sep 10, 2002

Originally posted by jimmy
Kyle,

I'm glad that you fancy yourself a medium but I don't think you can take action simply because you (and I'm speaking of those with your and the current administration's mindset) THINK that, most likely, this that or the other thing will happen.... You don't have to be a medium Jimmy! Open your eyes and apply a little of that psychobabble you picked up in college. Human Nature is the name of the game. He didn't become a follower of Mother Teresa in the last few years... He's still the treacherous little dictator he always has been and now he's closer to getting his dream of becoming a nuclear power. (as per the information supplied by his former chief weapons designer)

... Saddam is a self-preservationist and, when faced with the US's DIRECT goal of deposing (read: killing) him, he may be a bit more likely to allow and keep inspectors into the country.... Allowing them in doesn't get it fixed. Allowing them unfettered access might... But therein lies the problem. They didn't get it last time right after an ass kicking. He won't allow them to find his toys this time either!

... All the international community is asking us to do is to TRY diplomacy first.... WHEN????? WHEN????? Has "DIPLOMACY" WORKED ON ONE OF THESE Vermin? EVER? WHEN?

.... Historically, we've made HUGE mistakes when we've tried to replace regimes we don't like with ones that we like. It's bad policy, it's all but a violation of international law and it presents a poor image to the international community.

First we need not replace the p!$$-ant! That's the nomad’s problem. We only need kill him and find the bio/chem/nuclear toys and eliminate them and the guys that built them for him.

Oh... And why the hell should we care what the "International Community" thinks? They're only looking out for their interests as well. And I dare you to find some evidence they're not.

Frank · Sep 10, 2002

We don't need proof that he has chemical weapons and biological weapons - he's always had them, and he's already used them, several times. The only concern is does he have nuclear weapons, weapons-grade materials for bombs, and the means to deliver them. He doesn't need long range ICBMs. All he needs is is to make a few deals, and toss a few small ones at Israel. From past experience, if he bombed the hell out of Israel with nukes, there'd STILL be hand-wringing at the UN and in Europe. I can't recall the UN taking any kind of military action without the U.S.

The EU is posturing as the next great super-power. As such, they are concerned about their own interests. They do not possess any higher altruistic motives, and it's about time everybody recognizes that we don't require their permission or approval on anything. I don't see our 'friends' in Europe as anything but concerned about their own. They are not 'enlightened' or 'wiser', they simply don't have anything on the line yet.

Bruzilla · Sep 10, 2002

Jimmy, you might to remember that it was the "pro-military, gung-ho, yay-America" types that made America as strong as it is today. We didn't gain our indepedence through negotiations, we didn't defeat Germany twice through negotiations, we didn't bring down the Soviets with negotiations, and we didn't give Saddam the boot from Kuwait through negotiations. Look at what 8 years of "Feel Good" foreign policy has brought to the world... Somolia, Haiti, the Balkens, Al Quaida... yeah, that beats the heck out of what Bush Sr. did in Panama and Kuwait, or that Reagan did to the Soviet Union and Libya. You may not like force of arms, but at the end of the day it is fear of death that brings about reforms not fear of sanctions.

If you think that this all just came out of nowhere, I can see what your problem is. Some of us "pro-military, gung-ho, yay-America" types have been following this issue for years. We saw the satellite shots of Iraqi trucks moving materials out of sites where inspectors were going to; we watched the news reports of inspectors being detained to check ID while trucks drove out of sites; we saw the video of stockpiles of chemical weapons stores and the dead bodies of Iraqis who had been killed by them.

Now you guys who have been more worried about gay marriages, pretending that sex isn't sex, and fighting off the Religious Right are suddenly saying "Iraq? What's the problem with Iraq?" Please go back to fighting for gays to be able to say "I Do" and leave the foreign policy to us "pro-military, gung-ho, yay-America" types. You're wayyyyy out of your league. :biggrin:

jimmy · Sep 10, 2002

Justhangn,

And if this time goes the same way, I'll agree with you. It's the pre-emptive, unilateral thing that bugs me.

Vrai,

Bay of Pigs to name one. But our drug-busting efforts in Columbia, the attempted regime change in Vietnam (since it wasn't an actual war, right)? I mean all of these are attempts by us to project power more in the name of serving our own interests rather than defense of sovereignty or direct threat. And they're all considered failures.

Frank,

It's also not about being more enlightened or wiser in the case of our allies. It's the importance of international cooperation. Of COURSE everyone is looking out for themselves to a degree. That's nothing new to any of us.

But the issue is that we are looking for cooperation from our allies in our War on Terrorism but we are expecting them to just stand aside as we just extend this war to wherever we deem necessarly? That's ridiculous.

Again, I'm not saying that Saddam is a good guy who is on the right track. His people would be much better off without him. But I can't believe it doesn't give any of you pause that the rest of the world disagrees with us on this. And, well, if you will say that you really don't value international cooperation much, I can't aruge with that. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

Bruzilla · Sep 10, 2002

Frank, I think a lot of folks like Jimmy get lost in the pro-anti Israel weeds on Iraq. I don't think that Hussein would ever launch nukes against Israel because they can return fire. The real threat is him using these weapons to threaten his Arab neighbors. Remember that this guy wants to take Saudi Arabia, and Mecca, more than anything else so that he pronounce himself the Godfather of the Middle East. One small nuke over Quatar or Kuwait would be a powerful persuader to the rest of the Arab world that Saddam is the BMOC. That's the real threat.

By the way Jimmy, you might want to become familiar with the words "No Dong" and "Taep'o-dong". These are the missiles that Iran already have and that Iraq is in the process of getting from the North Koreans. These missiles can certainly bag anything in the US west of the Rockies, and the Taep'o-dong-2 can probably take out any target in the US. Although I am sure that you and your ilk will think that's propoganda until the first city gets vaporized. :barf:

And why to you give a flip if we do this by ourselves or not? Do you hear Iraqis screaming "Death to the Canadians" or "Death to the French" or "Death to the Germans?" These countries all cow tow to just about every despot that comes along because they fear loss of trade and becoming targets of terror. They aren't going to be the one that stands up to the bully, they're the ones that hide until the fight is over then come out and tell you how it's a good thing you kicked the dude's ass first because they were just about to. :biggrin:

jimmy · Sep 10, 2002

Bru,

Cute.

But where do you get the idea that I hadn't heard about these things? You're hardly educating me here. What you are talking about are certainly reasons to be suspicious of Saddam and his regime.

But what I'M talking about is justification for the assassination of this man and the unilateral military action that it will take to get there.

Man, you "pro-military, gung-ho, yay-America" types really think your so privy to all this sh!t that the rest of the world isn't. And, oh, if we could only see the world through your eyes we'd realize how we need to just blow up everything that we don't like.

Well, Bru, I hate to disappoint you but "my side" is pretty well educated as well in the realm of Foreign Policy and military/political history, despite what you might think. And, no, military might hasn't made everything all peachy keen for years only to be destroyed by the "evils" of diplomacy.

When you consider that many of the conflicts we so valiantly went into and whupped ass on were as a direct result of some hawkish, America-first-screw-everyone-else mentality, then your supposed flawless track record has an asterisk.

Not wanting to change the way things are done. That's what makes you conservatives so scary to me. Because rather than attempt a change in policy or to forge new relationships, you'd rather just kill it, be done with it, world be damned.

Ken King · Sep 10, 2002

PART 1

Jimmy,

Until recently I felt similar to what I believe that you do. I felt that a "pre-emptive" strike was just not American. I felt that it was an absolute essential requirement to have Congressional endorsement. Then I found PL 105-235. which says,

Joint Resolution

Finding the Government of Iraq in unacceptable and material breach of its international obligations.

Whereas hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and the conditions governing the cease-fire were specified in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 686 (March 2, 1991) and 687 (April 3, 1991);

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 requires that international economic sanctions remain in place until Iraq discloses and destroys its weapons of mass destruction programs and capabilities and undertakes unconditionally never to resume such activities;

Whereas Resolution 687 established the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) to uncover all aspects of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and tasked the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to locate and remove or destroy all nuclear weapons systems, subsystems or material from Iraq;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 715, adopted on October 11, 1991, empowered UNSCOM to maintain a long-term monitoring program to ensure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are dismantled and not restarted;

Whereas Iraq has consistently fought to hide the full extent of its weapons programs, and has systematically made false declarations to the Security Council and to UNSCOM regarding those programs, and has systematically obstructed weapons inspections for seven years;

Whereas in June 1991, Iraqi forces fired on International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and otherwise obstructed and misled UNSCOM inspectors, resulting in United Nations Security Council Resolution 707 which found Iraq to be in `material breach' of its obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 for failing to allow UNSCOM inspectors access to a site storing nuclear equipment;

Whereas in January and February of 1992, Iraq rejected plans to install long-term monitoring equipment and cameras called for in United Nations resolutions, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of February 19, 1992 which declared that Iraq was in `continuing material breach' of its obligations;

Whereas in February of 1992, Iraq continued to obstruct the installation of monitoring equipment, and failed to comply with UNSCOM orders to allow destruction of missiles and other proscribed weapons, resulting in the Security Council Presidential Statement of February 28, 1992, which reiterated that Iraq was in `continuing material breach' and noted a `further material breach' on account of Iraq's failure to allow destruction of ballistic missile equipment;

Whereas on July 5, 1992, Iraq denied UNSCOM inspectors access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of July 6, 1992, which declared that Iraq was in `material and unacceptable breach' of its obligations under United Nations resolutions;

Whereas in December of 1992 and January of 1993, Iraq violated the southern no-fly zone, moved surface-to-air missiles into the no-fly zone, raided a weapons depot in internationally recognized Kuwaiti territory and denied landing rights to a plane carrying United Nations weapons inspectors, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of January 8, 1993, which declared that Iraq was in an `unacceptable and material breach' of its obligations under United Nations resolutions;

Whereas in response to continued Iraqi defiance, a Security Council Presidential Statement of January 11, 1993, reaffirmed the previous finding of material breach, followed on January 13 and 18 by allied air raids, and on January 17 with an allied missile attack on Iraqi targets;

Whereas on June 10, 1993, Iraq prevented UNSCOM's installation of cameras and monitoring equipment, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of June 18, 1993, declaring Iraq's refusal to comply to be a `material and unacceptable breach';

Whereas on October 6, 1994, Iraq threatened to end cooperation with weapons inspectors if sanctions were not ended, and one day later, massed 10,000 troops within 30 miles of the Kuwaiti border, resulting in United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 demanding Iraq's withdrawal from the Kuwaiti border area and renewal of compliance with UNSCOM;

Whereas on April 10, 1995, UNSCOM reported to the Security Council that Iraq had concealed its biological weapons program, and had failed to account for 17 tons of biological weapons material resulting in the Security Council's renewal of sanctions against Iraq;

Whereas on July 1, 1995, Iraq admitted to a full scale biological weapons program, but denied weaponization of biological agents, and subsequently threatened to end cooperation with UNSCOM resulting in the Security Council's renewal of sanctions against Iraq;

Whereas on March 8, 11, 14, and 15, 1996, Iraq again barred UNSCOM inspectors from sites containing documents and weapons, in response to which the Security Council issued a Presidential Statement condemning `clear violations by Iraq of previous Resolutions 687, 707, and 715';

Whereas from June 11-15, 1996, Iraq repeatedly barred weapons inspectors from military sites, in response to which the Security Council adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 1060, noting the `clear violation on United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 707, and 715' and in response to Iraq's continued violations, issued a Presidential Statement detailing Iraq's `gross violation of obligations';

Whereas in August 1996, Iraqi troops overran Irbil, in Iraqi Kurdistan, employing more than 30,000 troops and Republican Guards, in response to which the Security Council briefly suspended implementation on United Nations Security Council Resolution 986, the United Nations oil for food plan;

Whereas in December 1996, Iraq prevented UNSCOM from removing 130 Scud missile engines from Iraq for analysis, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement which `deplore[d]' Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM;

Whereas on April 9, 1997, Iraq violated the no-fly zone in southern Iraq and United Nations Security Council Resolution 670, banning international flights, resulting in a Security Council statement regretting Iraq's lack of `specific consultation' with the Council;

Whereas on June 4 and 5, 1997 Iraqi officials on board UNSCOM aircraft interfered with the controls and inspections, endangering inspectors and obstructing the UNSCOM mission, resulting in a United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement demanding Iraq end its interference and on June 21, 1997, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1115 threatened sanctions on Iraqi officials responsible for these interferences;

Whereas on September 13, 1997, during an inspection mission, an Iraqi official attacked UNSCOM officials engaged in photographing illegal Iraqi activities, resulting in the October 23, 1997, adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1134 which threatened a travel ban on Iraqi officials responsible for noncompliance with United Nations resolutions;

Whereas on October 29, 1997, Iraq announced that it would no longer allow American inspectors working with UNSCOM to conduct inspections in Iraq, blocking UNSCOM teams containing Americans to conduct inspections and threatening to shoot down United States U-2 surveillance flights in support of UNSCOM, resulting in a United Nations Security Council Resolution 1137 on November 12, 1997, which imposed the travel ban on Iraqi officials and threatened unspecified `further measures';

Whereas on November 13, 1997, Iraq expelled United States inspectors from Iraq, leading to UNSCOM's decision to pull out its remaining inspectors and resulting in a United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement demanding Iraq revoke the expulsion;

Whereas on January 16, 1998, an UNSCOM team led by American Scott Ritter was withdrawn from Iraq after being barred for three days by Iraq from conducting inspections, resulting in the adoption of a United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement deploring Iraq's decision to bar the team as a clear violation of all applicable resolutions;

Whereas despite clear agreement on the part of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with United Nations General Kofi Annan to grant access to all sites, and fully cooperate with UNSCOM, and the adoption on March 2, 1998, of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154, warning that any violation of the agreement with Annan would have the `severest consequences' for Iraq, Iraq has continued to actively conceal weapons and weapons programs, provide misinformation and otherwise deny UNSCOM inspectors access;

Whereas on June 24, 1998, UNSCOM Director Richard Butler presented information to the United Nations Security Council indicating clearly that Iraq, in direct contradiction to information provided to UNSCOM, weaponized the nerve agent VX; and

Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged 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.

Ken King · Sep 10, 2002

PART 2

After reading this it is apprent that Congress has already authorized the President to take "appropriate action". Shouldn't he comply with the demands of Congress?

jimmy · Sep 10, 2002

Ken,

Good haul! But would "appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" include going over there and killing the man without international support??? That's the issue I believe.

Frank · Sep 10, 2002

Nah, a simple paddling will do!!

:spank:

I don't see why a threat to our security requires permission from anybody.

oh Dubbya...

Drunkard

Drunkard

Bruzilla

Guest

Drunkard

Bruzilla

Guest

Drunkard

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!

Drunkard

Board Mommy

justhangn

Guest

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!

Chairman of the Board

Bruzilla

Guest

Drunkard

Bruzilla

Guest

Drunkard

A little rusty but not crusty

A little rusty but not crusty

Drunkard

Chairman of the Board