Russia's recent shipment of uranium fuel rods to Iran has moved the Islamic Republic one step closer to having an operational nuclear power facility in the southern city of Bushehr, and one step closer to shifting the long-standing balance of power in the Middle East. Iran's continuing nuclear development efforts represent just one part of a three-pronged strategy designed to achieve Iran's ultimate goal: to be the dominant power in the Middle East.
When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Iran seized the opportunity to increase its power and influence in a region largely governed by Sunni regimes. The removal of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship allowed the Iraqi Shiite majority to take governmental control of their country, and Iran immediately began meddling in Iraq's internal affairs by arming and training Shiite militias, funneling deadly explosives to insurgent groups, and using as much influence as it could muster with the new Shiite leadership. Fomenting unrest in Iraq allowed Iran to tie down U.S. forces while the Iranians worked to ensure a Shiite-friendly government in Baghdad that would not continue Iraq's traditional role as a threat to Tehran.
At the same time, Iran began pushing the terrorist group Hezbollah, which Tehran has long armed and financed, to increase attacks on Israel and to strengthen its position in Lebanese society and within the Lebanese government. In the summer of 2006, when the United States seemed hopelessly bogged down in Iraq, Iran prompted Hezbollah to instigate a brutal war with Israel that decimated Lebanese infrastructure and seriously weakened the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Throughout this period, Iran stepped up its nuclear development efforts and continually defied the wishes of the international community as expressed in several United Nations Security Council resolutions. The long-standing demand of the UN, led by the United States and an increasingly assertive Europe, has been that Iran put a halt to its uranium enrichment program. Given the shipment of Russian fuel rods to Bushehr, this should, in theory, be an easy demand to satisfy. After all, if Russia is supplying Iran with nuclear fuel, then there is no need for Iran to enrich uranium on its own. But officials in Tehran quickly and predictably dismissed the idea, asserting that Iran would never give up its right to develop nuclear technology.
The reason for continued Iranian defiance is simple to understand when Iranian actions are viewed from a strategic perspective. The Iranian nuclear program is not a grand strategy designed to produce a nuclear weapons capability, although the procurement of a nuclear arsenal could easily be a by-product of Iran's nuclear development efforts. The Iranian nuclear program is instead part of the overall strategic vision for the Middle East that Tehran is feverishly attempting to turn into reality. That vision involves a Middle East in which Iran is the major national power, leading a Shiite movement that spreads from Beirut to Tehran. It is a vision that makes Sunni governments throughout the region nervous, and for good reason.
Iran has been a reckless, yet calculating, player in the Middle East for years. Having lost their Sunni buffer in Iraq, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, each wary of strong Shiite minorities within their borders, are increasingly concerned about rising Iranian power and influence in the region. Bahrain must be concerned as well, with a minority Sunni government running a country that is seventy percent Shiite. The very real concerns of these states have been well publicized in the news media, with reports about possible Saudi intervention in Iraq on behalf of the Sunni population, and with hints about a potential Middle East nuclear arms race if Sunni governments embark on their own atomic energy quests as a counter to Iran's nuclear program.
An increasingly powerful and influential Iran is a concern for all nations, including Russia, although the actions taken by the UN Security Council would never support that notion. Moscow isn't really thrilled about a nuclear armed Iran, and has been dangling the prospect of an operational Bushehr facility in front of the Iranians for some time now. The recent shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran is based on agreements that provide for IAEA control of the fuel rods and for the return of spent fuel rods to Russia, agreements that make it more difficult for Iran to produce nuclear weapons on its own. It is a move designed to encourage Iran to abandon efforts to enrich uranium, and even though Iran has dismissed that possibility thus far, it is possible that some aspects of Iran's nuclear program could be bargained away in exchange for concessions on Iraq and a strengthened Iranian position in the region. It is possible because the nuclear program cannot be separated from Iran's long-term goal of regional dominance.
As long as Iran is enriching uranium, and as long as Iran is meddling in Lebanon through Hezbollah, and as long as Iran is stoking sectarian violence in Iraq, Iran is a danger to the region and to the national security interests of the United States and its allies, both in Europe and in the Middle East. So what can we do to stop Iran from becoming the dominant nation in the region and forcing a fundamental shift in the long-standing balance of power?
Previous negotiations yielded nothing, with Iran rejecting several incentives packages from the west, and the sanctions approved thus far by the UN Security Council have been marginally effective at best. A military strike is likely off the table, given the difficulties inherent in such an operation and the findings of the recently released U.S. National Intelligence Estimate.
The truth is that there are really no good options available. New negotiations are not likely to produce anything of substance because Iran is negotiating from a position of strength, able to stir up trouble in Lebanon, able to use Hezbollah to attack Israel, able to continue its defiance of the international community based on the NIE, and able to turn the stunning success of the U.S. surge strategy in Iraq into a bloody nightmare of murder and mayhem by increasing support to Shiite militias and groups sympathetic to Iran. Additional sanctions from the UN are not likely to be passed given the significant financial interests of key member states doing business with Iran, and unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States or the European Union will be limited in their effectiveness due to a lack of enforcement by other nations.
The United States and Europe are quickly coming to the realization that little can be done to stop Iran. International weakness in confronting Iran over its support of Hezbollah and its interference in Iraq's internal affairs, along with a failure to force Iran's hand on the nuclear issue, has guaranteed that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have the luxury of extracting concessions from the west that will allow the realization of Iranian regional dominance. With or without nuclear weapons, Iran will probably be able to force a shift in power in the Middle East that the United States and its allies will have to deal with for decades to come.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 73
Oh yeah, I didn't say Iraq had WMD. The head of the CIA did, as did the head of the NSA, and the head of the DIA. Not to mention virtually every credible intelligence agency in the world. That's one hell of a conspiracy.
As for the UN having "control" of the situation, the UN hasn't been able to "control" anything since it was established.
Not surprising that your post devolved into an idiotic rant. That seems to be the pattern with you. I suspect you start to make an argument, realize that you don't know what you're talking about, and then resort to name calling nonsense.
As usual, Tony, thanks for stopping by.
First, I seriously doubt without any question that you did not make this absurd claim, right along with your corrupt white house and warmongering republibot politicians. Additionally, not a single intelligence agency claimed that Iraq "had WMD." There simply was no consensus on that, and in fact, the consensus was that they most likely did NOT have WMD. That's why the UN wanted to let the inspectors finish their job, and that's why your little Hitler wouldn't let them do so.
"As for the UN having "control" of the situation, the UN hasn't been able to "control" anything since it was established. "
That's funny. They seemed to have done a pretty good job of ridding Saddam of his WMD, and fully securing his hundreds of caches of high explosives, which is something that your little boy couldn't manage to do.
The UN acted in typical UN fashion in late 2002 and early 2003. They said, "Let the inspectors finish their work," but authorized the "strongest possible consequences." It's classic UN appeasement of all interested parties. It's more important to have an agreement at Turtle Bay than it is to have anything of substance. Compromise is most important, even if it means that the compromise does not really produce anything.
And for the record, the UN did a lousy job with Saddam. Saddam was contained for 12 years because of American airpower and the threat of American military force. Not to mention that the containment came at considerable cost in both dollars and military commitment for the U.S. The UN, as is typically the case, calls on the United States when it really needs something done.
99.9% of Americans are idiots?
Same bunch thatgot us into Iraq.
More like 24% (boosh blind followers) believe anything us intelligence says.
sigh...
The Iranians still remember the glory that was Persia. We disregard that at the region's and our peril.
The US intelligence community was not at all convinced that Saddam still possessed WMD, prior to our illegal invasion. In fact, most stated that they simply had no evidence to suggest that.
"We learned the hard way that they were wrong about Iraq."
I knew long before the illegal invasion. You just weren't paying attention to what the US and world intelligence communties were saying, because you were so zoned in on what this corrupt, dishonest white house was saying.
"I can only remember one national government saying they weren't sure, and that was France."
Actually, British, French, Russian, and German intelligence all said that there was no evidence that Saddam had WMD. This is why the vast majority of the world stood against us, and why the UN refused to authorize military action.
"I watched George Tenet on 60 minutes say that the CIA and allied intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMD"
What would you expect him to say after he was caught lying?
"The UN acted in typical UN fashion in late 2002 and early 2003. "
The UN inspectors were scouring the entire country when Bush pulled them out to illegally invade. They pleaded for 30 more days to complete their inspection, but Bush refused to allow it.
"And for the record, the UN did a lousy job with Saddam"
No argument there, except that they did manage to keep those weapons caches secured.
"Saddam was contained for 12 years because of American airpower and the threat of American military force."
This was illegal as well, btw. The UN charter strictly forbids any member from threatening or engaging in unilateral military action against another nation. We had no legal authority to create and enforce those no-fly zones.
"If I remember correctly, more than 3/4 of the American public supported military action against Saddam Hussein. Did they not believe what the intelligence community was saying, but went along like lemmings anyway? "
If I remember correctly, the American public was lied to by the white house, not only about the threat that Iraq supposedly posed, but also in insinuating that Iraq had caused 9/11 and was tied to al Qaeda. Had the public not been lied to by this white house and the "liberal media," I can assure you that the number supporting this illegal disaster would've been miniscule. I know of NOBODY who was aware of the facts, as I was, who was in support of it.
What a stupid comment. Do you NEVER grow weary of licking your boyfriend Booshie's anus? You really sound like a moron sometimes, the way you just keep blindly supporting everything that this failure does and says.
"The Iranians still remember the glory that was Persia. We disregard that at the region's and our peril. "
Another stupid comment. You need to put away the GI Joe dolls for a while. You're clearly a bit unhinged and far too anxious for war against the world. Your policy of naked aggression has failed. It's time to put it away now.
Illegal invasion? What about congress authorizing the use of force, or the UN authorizing the strongest possible consequences? Do those not matter?
Well, if you knew before the invasion, perhaps you should have been head of the CIA. You certainly seem to have known more than George Tenet did, unless he was lying to the president.
The British stood with us, as did the Australians and more than 25 other countries. France had business ties to Saddam, Germany under Schroeder and Russia under Putin opposed all things U.S. Is "the strongest possible consequences" not military action in UN speak? What could be stronger than the use of force?
Your hatred of Bush, or as Limbaugh calls it "Bush Derangement Syndrome," is ridiculous. You throw out allegations without proof. Where is the proof that Tenet was lying? And what motivation would he have to lie after the White House essentially threw him under the bus? If anything, he should have put the blame on the president, something he did not do. As for 30 more days for the inspectors, what would that have accomplished? We danced around with Saddam for 12 years? How much more time should there have been? Is 12 years not enough?
There has been no proof of lies, and to say definitively that the White House lied is just false. There were some very tenuous allegations made, and some loose associations that should have been scrutinized more harshly, but believing one was lied to and proving it are two different things. When Rumsfeld said he knew where the WMD were, it's safe to say that the statment was based on information provided to him by the intelligence community. That may make him poorly informed, but it does not make for a liar.
And since you have so much more knowledge than anyone else, maybe you should run for President. Certainly you could make a respectable showing given the current crop produced by each party.
"The removal of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship allowed the Iraqi Shiite majority to take governmental control of their country, and Iran immediately began meddling in Iraq's internal affairs by arming and training Shiite militias, funneling deadly explosives to insurgent groups, and using as much influence as it could muster with the new Shiite leadership." What you lead into here is inaccurate. Iraqi Shiites had taken refuge in Iran for several years to avoid persecution from Saddam. Leaders of SCIRI were in exile in Iran. When the US destroyed the Sunni Baathist government in Iraq, the power vacuum was naturally filled by those Iraqis in Iran that were no doubt waiting for Saddam to either be overthrown from within or from without. Iran did not begin meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. The invading force mauled Iraq's internal affairs and the resulting power vacuum was naturally filled by those Iraqis. Iran benefitted through the shortsighted ignorance of those executing the invasion.
You have no evidence that Iran is officially, or otherwise, directly sending EID's or any weapons into Iraq. That is dishonest conjecture. There has not been any substantiated proof, and the top military commanders have said as much, that any weapons entering Iraq have come sanctioned by Iran's leaders. On the contrary, it is in Iran's interest to have a stable Iraq on their border. What compels you to present such spurious, unfounded information?
You make another false, unsubstantiated statement when you say Iran pushed Hezbollah to attack Israel. Back that statement up with documented facts. Interviews with Hezbollah's leader in Lebanon Hasan Nasrallah indicate they acted in much the same manner they had been acting for the past couple of years... tit for tat crossborder raids by both Hezbollah and Israel. Only in that last case, Olmert made the wrong decision to answer with the force that he did. The mistake was Israel's. They showed themselves unable to deal with Hezbollah, gave Hezbollah the "stalemate" victory, and diminished Israel's standing by showing the world, again, Israel can be ruthless... destroying Lebanon's infrastructure, killing civilians, blanketing the south of Lebanon with up to 4 million cluster bomblets that kill and maim even to this day, a possible war crime by the Geneva conventions... Lebanon's economic and relative political stability before that aggression was visited upon them was destroyed by Israel, plunging the country into the state it is in today, near civil war, again...
"Iran prompted Hezbollah to instigate a brutal war with Israel..." Document this distorted allegation, Greg. And if you cannot, admit it. If you knew how much this statement is reminiscent of earlier fascist re-writings of history, you just might be ashamed that you even said it. Are you capable of that?
Iran has not aggressively attacked another country for over one hundred years. How many countries has the US aggressively attacked in that time?
It is as if the concept of war in their minds has become so abstract for them, all they can see is the rightness of the warrior, of their own cause, of their nationalistic fervor, the horror... the maimed, motherless, fatherless children, the blood of their compatriots, the hatreds that are born, all of the horror and ignorance of war means little or nothing. The glory covers it all. Of course, so many of those who foolishly think that, having neither the experience nor the sensibility to imagine it are young, cocksure, and when it comes right down to it, don't have the simplest clue of what they are talking about.
I also saw the entire white house say the exact same thing. However, NOBODY but Tenant, who was promptly hushed with a lofty "Freedom" medal for his evil deeds, was convinced of anything. You need to look around for more sources of information.
"Not every piece of dissent or support for an assessment makes its way to the president's desk."
Right. So, when Joe Wilson told the CIA that there was NO evidence that Saddam had tried to acquire yellowcake from Niger, and the CIA specifically told the white house NOT to include that allegation in his bogus SOTU speech, it was just a "misunderstanding" that put those magical 16 words in the speech, right? God did it.
"Illegal invasion? What about congress authorizing the use of force, or the UN authorizing the strongest possible consequences? Do those not matter? "
First, congress had no constitutional authority to authorize handing over their obligation to declare war. Secondly, congress did NOT authorize war, they authorized the president to use force IF he could prove that Iraq posed an immediate threat, or that they had directly attacked us. He did neither. Finally, the UN did NOT authorize unilateral military action, and Kofi Annan later called the invasion "illegal," as did one of the key architects, Richard Perle.
The UN, as you may recall, begged for 30 more days, to allow the inspectors to complete their work. As the Downing St. Memos proved, Bush never had any intention of allowing them to complete their work, because to do so would be to remove the justification for the illegal invasion.
Aside from that, just read that bogus congressional resolution sometime, and you'll get an idea of just how much Bush was lying to congress at the time as well. Nearly every other sentence relates to 9/11 or al Qaeda, when there was ZERO, get it, ZERO evidence of either link to Saddam.
"Well, if you knew before the invasion, perhaps you should have been head of the CIA."
George Tenant was LYING, just as his dishonest white house instructed him to do. What about this do you not understand? You need to start cracking some books.
"The British stood with us, as did the Australians and more than 25 other countries."
The only countries that stood with us, temporarily, were bribed to do so.
"France had business ties to Saddam, Germany under Schroeder and Russia under Putin opposed all things U.S."
The US, including Cheney, had business ties to Saddam. Hello.
"Is "the strongest possible consequences" not military action in UN speak?"
That stipulation was handed down before the inspectors went back in, as a warning to Saddam to let them back in. He complied. Is this REALLY so difficult to understand?
"Your hatred of Bush, or as Limbaugh calls it "Bush Derangement Syndrome," is ridiculous."
I don't hate him. We all actually owe him a great debt of gratitude, for single-handedly destroying the GOP for at least a generation.
However, I do hate his patently unAmerican/anti-American/fascist policies of wars of naked aggression, torture and abuse of prisoners, illegal detention, illegal rendition, illegal spying, constant propaganda, constant lies and coverups, total lack of accountability and responsibility, utter mismanagement of the government, fiscal recklessness, and overall destruction of the constitution and the nation.
"You throw out allegations without proof."
There are millions of links available to anyone with a computer, to verify everything that I've said. It's been written over and over and over again, in newspapers, magazines, books, online screeds, and spoken words all around the world. It's no secret to anyone, except those who refuse to seek the truth.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/05/
george_tenets_fairytale_histor.html
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=10965
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
"And what motivation would he have to lie after the White House essentially threw him under the bus?"
He got a freaking medal for it, and was probably cut into the bush crime family treasure chest. Thrown under the bus...give me a break.
"As for 30 more days for the inspectors, what would that have accomplished?"
It would've allowed them to complete their inspections, and would've produced a clean report, which would've prevented 1.1 million Iraqi's from dying, nearly 4,000 Americans from dying, untold millions more lives being maimed, at least $1-$2 trillion dollars in America's future being flushed away, saved this nation's credibility and moral authority abroad, and perhaps kept our eyes on the ball...global terrorism.
"There has been no proof of lies, and to say definitively that the White House lied is just false."
Grow up.
http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html
"And since you have so much more knowledge than anyone else, maybe you should run for President."
It doesn't take a genius to know what's going on around you. All it takes is to pay attention. Turn off the rightwing propaganda for a while, and start digging for the truth for a change.
While I personally have no evidence that Iran is sending explosives into Iran, multiple news agencies and our military say it's happening. You can call them all liars, but it's one hell of a conspiracy, not to mention a slap in the face to uniformed officers who have spent decades serving their country. I'd love to know what would motivate them to lie about where weapons were coming from. Of course, I've seen your conspiracy articles and none of this is surprising. I expect you believe everyone in government or uniform is lying to you.
As for Iran's interest, it is beneficial to have a stable Shiite government that is unwilling or incapable of threatening Iran. Iran has no interest in a government in which Sunnis could wield any power. Saddam left a bitter taste in their mouths and they do not want a repeat of his Sunni regime. U.S. inclusion of Sunnis in the political process is the last thing that Iran wants, and Tehran has used influence, and weapons, to help set conditions in Iraq that are favorable to Iran.
Short of joining Hezbollah's top ranks, I can't guarantee that the group takes its marching orders from Iran. But most serious academics and analysts agree that Iran funds and gives political and military direction to Hezbollah. Nasrallah was just quoted in a newspaper today as saying that a top Hezbollah official had been extended in a post at the direction of the IRGC in Lebanon. Does Iran no longer control the IRGC? Last summer's war was not a tit for tat crossborder raid. The opening salvo involved dozens of rockets strikes inside Israel and the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers who have still not been returned, despite the UN calling on Hezbollah to give them up. I should have known that you would blame Israel, after all, weren't the Jews warned to stay home on 9/11? Israel properly responded to an indirect fire attack and the seizing of two of its military personnel. Israel prosecuted the war poorly, which led to the stalemate and the weakening of the Olmert government. I find it amazing that you talk about Israel's actions but do not mention the indiscriminate attacks by Hezbollah upon Israeli citizens. I guess the militia members are just innocent freedom fighters, right?
Finally, Iran does not need to directly attack any other country to dominate the region. Military force is but one element of national power. When I say dominate, I do not mean Iran will invade and occupy the entire Middle East.
Why should I believe Joe Wilson? His allegations about his wife's name leaking were disproven when Armitage owned up to it. All along Wilson said it was the White House. No proof has been offered that the president was involved. Allegation, yes, but proof, no. My problems with Wilson aside, he was one person. Neither you nor I can say with certainty what the president saw and what he didn't see. Just because Joe Wilson said something, doesn't make it gospel. Maybe he should have been listened to, maybe not. Without full access to what the president was looking at, no one can make that judgment for sure. What if military guys had evidence contradicting the CIA's assessment on Wilson's report from Niger? What about other intelligence agencies in allied countries? The point is we don't know everything that was considered and to say that Joe Wilson told him it wasn't so but he did it anyway is a ridiculous assertion.
Whether or not congress had the constitutional authority to do what they did is irrelevant at this point. People want the president to go to congress. He does, they authorize the use of force, and then Bush is chastised for it? That's nonsense.
And if the president failed to meet congressional standards for the use of force, the congress could have forced a withdrawal after just a few months. They didn't. To put all blame on the president is disingenuous. I wonder what Kofi Annan's definition of the strongest possible consequences is?
You keep harping on the 30 more days thing. Again, what would that have accomplished. Saddam lied and obstructed for 12 years and you think he would all of a sudden just begin to cooperate? If the inspectors couldn't complete their work in 12 years, what would allow them to complete their work in 30 additional days?
You really need to get off the "Bush lied" routine. There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 and assertions that there was are just not based in the facts as we know them. But Bush was correct in that 9/11 changed the notion that we were safe behind our two ocean barrier. He was correct in that we could no longer wait for threats to smack us in the face as they did on 9/11. That's the true linkage between 9/11 and Iraq.
Show me the proof that Tenet was lying. Hard proof that a prosecutor would use, not allegations and speculation. And even if he did lie, he advised the president. That doesn't make Bush the liar.
Cheny had oil business ties, but that's an individual, not a state. Big difference in the international arena and at the UN.
Hey, Clark, no argument on Bush destroying the GOP. Conservatives can't stand him and most are looking forward to moving on.
Oh my God, you didn't seriously put in a link to the Washington Post, did you? That's funny. And since when is a Tripod web site an authoritative source? You should broaden your horizons beyond the left wing talking points.
Always a pleasure, Clark.
Why don't YOU show some "hard proof" of ANYTHING you are claiming about ANYBODY you are railing against? What the hell makes your little world of good guys and bad guys anything but a personal fantasy? You actually believe you can see into the hearts and minds of vast numbers of human beings you never even saw or heard, and you ask for "proof" of something as obvious as the misleading of America by the Bush Administration? Simply amazing.
And even if he did lie, he advised the president. That doesn't make Bush the liar
Right; Mr. Tenet got a medal from the President, for giving bad advice, and you figure Mr. Bush wasn't anxious for Mr. Tenet to give that advice. No implication that Mr. Bush was lying, just that he's insane, I guess.
"Bush lied...Bush lied...Bush lied...Bush lied...Bush lied...Bush lied...Bush lied...Bush lied...
Pity...that's all these fools know...
Clark Kent
John Knight
Don (I'm really Constipated)
Stevie D.
"While I personally have no evidence that Iran is sending explosives into Iran, multiple news agencies and our military say it's happening."
The embedded media repeats what it is fed by people who don't have proof of complicity of Iran's government. You repeat the unsubstantiated claims, making an argument that "Iran must be dealt with..." when you have nothing on which to hang your hat. You make much of Iran's influence, but say nothing about Saudi Arabia funding and supplying Sunni's in Iraq. Are there folks in Iran sending in explosives and arms? Probably. Is it being sanctioned by the government? You, nor the military have any proof that it is. You, and the media, repeat the baseless rhetoric as if it is fact. That doesn't bother you. I mean, whatever happened to honesty? Or are you just another Bush apologist calling black white because you get your jollies off of killing and war?
Of course Iran is involved with Iraq. It is in their national interest to be involved. Hundred of thousands of people died in the 1980-88 war. It is in their interest to ensure there is a stable government in Iraq. It is wrong of you to parrot the demonization of Iran without documented proof.
I didn't say last summer's war was a tit for tat event... The event that Israel used to set off on their spree was just that... both forces had been doing that same thing for months prior. Israel holds up to 10,000 Shiite Lebanese in prisons. Some of them are children. Hezbollah had made cross border raids, as did Israel into Lebanon. That had been going on for a good while. The over-reaction to the capture of those soldiers took Nasrallah by surprise. He has said interviews that was not the result he expected. But again, it was Israel's mistake. They proved themselves of superior firepower, but stategically they did not come out on top. In public opinion, or militarily they lost. And committed war crimes in doing so.
So Iran doesn't want to attack and dominate? I guess that is what we want to do. So a lone Shiite country in the midst of Sunni countries, why wouldn't they want to strengthen themselves in such a hostile neighborhood. Maybe they would like to be able to negotiate with their Arab neighbors from a position of strength instead of weakness. Maybe the US in fact is being used as a tool by a bunch of oil rich nations that play us like a fiddle knowing the stupidity of our leaders. Pakistan Intelligence wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 a couple of days before 9/11. That is well documented.
Let me encourage you to do more research into these things before parroting the fascist administration vomit again in an article like this one.
Sure, you have no idea why anyone would think Mr. Bush lied. It's not you who is being narrow-minded not a chance . . . in your dreams.
Mr. Tenet got a medal for federal service, not for giving bad advice. You can twist it any way you want, and even if Bush was anxious for the advice, it means he believed evidence from his CIA director that reinforced preconceived notions. That makes him human, but not necessarily a liar.
"Where's your hard proof? Why is the burden only on me?"
Cause you are intentionally provoking people to hate and attack millions of human beings. Strange as it may seem to you, I actually care about people and realize they are not just the vague images I have in my head.
Saudi Arabia is not the only complict regional government. But to just discount Iran is naive at best. As I already said, revealing sources or methods compromises those sources. Ask the New York Times. As for honesty, I have served, and continue to serve with our men and women in uniform. I know that the vast majority are upright citizens who want what is best for this country and its national security. I tend to believe 30-year generals whose business it is to know how to fight a war without requiring hard proof be shared with the general public. That's why congress gets classified briefings. They have oversight responsibility.
And to even ask if I get my jollies off of killing and war shows your ignorance. I have been to Iraq twice and I have lost dear friends and colleagues. I have come close to death myself and I can tell you that there is nothing "jolly" about it. It is serious business and I take it seriously. I don't apologize for the president, but he is the commander in chief and our military is built around the principle of civilian control. It is my job to go where he tells me and when he tells me. It is up to Congress and our electoral system to ensure checks and balances.
I find it amazing that you defend a nation that hid its nuclear program for twenty years. If it was for purely civilian purposes, why hide it? Why not let inspectors have unfettered access now? You demand proof from the U.S. and our allies, but the onus should be on the nation that lied, obstructed, and continues to defy the United Nations.
Israel and Hezbollah trade fire all the time, but Hezbollah upped the ante when they seized the two Israeli soldiers. And I'm sure the prisoners in Israeli jails are totally innocent. The evil Zionists probably conduct suicide attacks against themselves just to blame Hezbollah. I can't believe you say overreaction. How would we respond if some country took our soldiers? The soldiers missing in Iraq are the target of search misions every day. You get your people back and never tolerate the taking of them in the first place. That's one reason the Olmert government is so weak. He promised to get those kids back and has failed to deliver. He's seen as incompetent and indecisive.
Israel did in fact lose militarily and strategically, but Hezbollah is equally guilty of any war crimes (check out the human rights watch reports on Hezbollah's indiscriminate firing of rockets at Israeli civilians).
I like the argument about Iran wanting to strengthen themselves in a hostile neighborhood. I guess the same could be said of Israel, but of course you would never agree with that, now would you? That position of strength gets negated by Israel's nukes and by any nuke efforts undertaken by other regional players. That is why the nuke program is just one part of the strategy.
I would encourage you to do some reading as well, and to get away from the conspiracy theories. Your articles really make you sound like a nut, although I am sure that you're probably a quite intelligent and informed guy.
I think it is funny at how closed YOUR minds are to what is going on around you. You spit the same bile and talking points that Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich, and a whole host of left-wing losers have been spewing since Islamo-scumbags killed 3000+ Americans in New York, DC, and in Shanksville, PA on 9/11.
Gladly, you are in the minority.
There were other options to destroying Lebanon's infrastructure, disrupting the economy and government, taking advantage of the chaos they had created. Fomenting more violence by dealing with Islamic militants, as Seymour Hersch has reported, some of these guys having links to Al Qeada. All to disrupt Hezbollah, and by extension, Iran.
What lengths will we go? Another war with hundreds of thousands of potential deaths? Is that what you want?
Pffft.
The majority of Israel's strikes on Lebanon have been retaliatory strikes, and there is plenty of blame on both sides. As for Hezbollah's nationalist aspirations, one thing the United States must be willing to do is recognize the results of democratic elections. Hezbollah continues to win seats in the Lebanese parliament and they are entitled to those seats. Similarly, Hamas won an electoral victory that we then refused to recognize. I think it's important that we honor electoral results, no matter who wins, but that is not the same as maintaining any type of diplomatic relations with those victors.
It's hard to make the argument that Israel should diplomatically and economically engage Lebanon when Lebanese territory is consistently used to launch attacks on Israel. That's a hard sell, no matter how you frame it.
The destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure was designed to pressue a Lebanese government that not only tolerates Hezbollah's terrorist attacks on Israel, but facilitates those attacks. The Lebanese Army as a general rule will not disarm Hezbollah's armed wing and will not prevent Hezbollah from attacking Israel. Since the army is an agent of the state, the state is complicit and a legitimate target.
As for me, I don't want any wars, but realize that sometimes they are necessary.
The white house cherry-picked intelligence, until they had sorted out anything that made their story look weak, and magnified portions that strengthened their case.
"Why should I believe Joe Wilson?"
Maybe because his story was 100% collaborated, not only be every intelligence agency in the world, but later, in the Scooter Libby treason trial? Wait...that's not nearly as powerful as wingnut bloggers. Never mind.
"Whether or not congress had the constitutional authority to do what they did is irrelevant at this point. People want the president to go to congress. He does, they authorize the use of force, and then Bush is chastised for it? That's nonsense. "
He lied to congress in order to get the resolution. I wouldn't exactly call that "irrelevant." He also failed to meet the conditions required in that resolution. That is far from "nonsense." He was not authorized to use military force unilaterally, nor was he allowed to use it at all without meeting the conditions of that resolution. Sorry. You lose on this one, too.
"And if the president failed to meet congressional standards for the use of force, the congress could have forced a withdrawal after just a few months."
Where the hell were you at the time? Do you honestly think that the republiCON congress would've yanked the troops out at their moment of glory, before they got a chance to reap their political capital for the illegal occupation? You obviously haven't been paying attention at all, if you really believe that the republiCON congress would've done the right thing, regardless of what the issue at hand was, but particularly with regard to their shining medal of honor...the illegal occupation of Iraq.
"I wonder what Kofi Annan's definition of the strongest possible consequences is? "
Are you really this dense? He meant that if Saddam didn't let the inspectors back in (which he did), he would face a UN resolution calling for military action. Since he let the inspectors back in, there was no need for a UN resolution for military action, and therefore, none was produced. That makes Bush a war criminal.
"You keep harping on the 30 more days thing. Again, what would that have accomplished. Saddam lied and obstructed for 12 years and you think he would all of a sudden just begin to cooperate? If the inspectors couldn't complete their work in 12 years, what would allow them to complete their work in 30 additional days?"
The inspectors required only 30 more days to accomplish their inspections. They had been given full access to Iraq, including all of the palaces, and Saddam had turned over every shred of documentation on his entire military. That military was decimated by over 90%, from the Gulf War and 12 subsequent years of bombing. There was simply no need for more than 30 additional days for the UN to finish their inspection. Besides, had your boy merely given them the extra 30 days, and they found nothing, he still could've argued his case the legal way. He didn't HAVE to become a war criminal. That was his CHOICE.
"You really need to get off the "Bush lied" routine."
I provided you a link that contains hundreds of Bush quotes in which he flat out lied. Take a few moments to scan through them, and I think you'll agree with me that he's entirely capable of lying profusely.
"There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 and assertions that there was are just not based in the facts as we know them."
Yes, the entire white house spent MONTHS telling us and congress that there were, even LONG after the CIA and every other intelligence source available told them that there was simply no proof of that.
"But Bush was correct in that 9/11 changed the notion that we were safe behind our two ocean barrier."
So what? We've known that since the early 70's, when the CIA first started discussing the possibility of hijackers flying commercial airliners into tall buildings. Did you see Carter, Raygun, Bush I, or Clinton invading Poland or Guyana as a deterrent?
"He was correct in that we could no longer wait for threats to smack us in the face as they did on 9/11. That's the true linkage between 9/11 and Iraq."
So, rather than go after nations that actually fund and support terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, he chose a nation that not only did neither, but also posed no threat, either to us or to their neighbors. And, this makes sense to you how? Again, attacking Poland or Guyana would've made as much sense after 9/11, although those countries aren't known to have massive oil reserves. Ooops...did I say that out loud?
"Show me the proof that Tenet was lying. Hard proof that a prosecutor would use, not allegations and speculation."
I did. If you choose not to investigate the links provided and seek additional information on your own, your beyond help, I'm afraid.
"And even if he did lie, he advised the president. That doesn't make Bush the liar"
Ok. Let me ask you something...do you ever feel the least bit silly walking around with your tongue stuck up his ass 24/7? What does he have on you? Is he blackmailing you somehow, or are you on his payroll? WTF makes someone so allergic to the truth like this and so obsessed with continually providing cover for those who don't deserve it?
"Cheny had oil business ties, but that's an individual, not a state. Big difference in the international arena and at the UN."
Excuse me, but Cheney was in charge of Halliburton while they were violated the UN sanctions. There were also other American corporations that were doing the same. Why do you think the oil for food scandal went away so quickly? Remember how Normie Coleman came riding in on a high horse to "kill the UN" and "save the world?" Whatever happened to that crusade? I'll tell you what happened. The moment that it was discovered that American corporations, including Cheney's, were involved, the whole thing just sort of vanished. Magic.
"Oh my God, you didn't seriously put in a link to the Washington Post, did you? That's funny. And since when is a Tripod web site an authoritative source? "
You're free to provide whatever refutation you can provide. So far, all you've provided is your stunning ignorance and your unwavering love affair for Booshie. Put up time. Let's see the "proof" that you've got to back your nonsense. THEN, you can start ridiculing other's documentation.
"Doctor, heal thyself. "
"You spit the same bile and talking points that Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich, and a whole host of left-wing losers have been spewing since Islamo-scumbags killed 3000+ Americans in New York, DC, and in Shanksville, PA on 9/11.
Gladly, you are in the minority."
Such stunning ignorance. FYI, sparky, the left is in the majority, most people want BushCheneyCorp impeached and removed from office, and 2/3 of the population believes that either the government isn't telling the whole story about 9/11, or they were directly involved in it. Welcome to fringe world, minority boy.
Btw, would you are to produce a photo of the "plane" that was recovered from Shanksville?
Against nations that pose no threat and cause no harm? How does this make one shred of sense in your twisted mind? Tell me, why didn't we invade and occupy N. Korea at the time, instead of Iraq? Weren't they posing a REAL credible threat at the time, and didn't we KNOW that they were working on a nuke? Didn't they openly say that they were going to sell nuclear technology to terrorists to use against us? Yet, you and your boyfriend Georgie chose Iraq. Iraq. Of all nation in the world to attack, you chose Iraq.
And now you want Iran. You know why? Of course you don't know why, because you still think that Iraq was somehow tied to 9/11. You want Iran because your boy wants Iran, because the PNAC has been salivating over re-arranging the entire middle east, starting with Iraq and Iran, since the mid-90's. In 1998, they (rumsfeld, wolfowicz, cheney, perle, kristol, etc.) actually sent a letter to Clinton, ORDERING him to invade and occupy Iraq.
On their website, these neocons laid out their grand vision for their "Project for a New American Century." The centerpiece of their grand plan was to occupy all of the middle east, so that America could control all of the oil.
In their screeds, they also planned a massive buildup of the military, and a restructing and repositioning, in order to keep this empire under control. They openly acknowledged that, in order to carry out their plans sooner than 50-100 years, would require "a new pearl harbor." Lucky them, huh? Imagine the luck of getting their "new pearl harbor" only a couple of short years after they issued that stunning statement. Just a remarkable coincidence though, I'm sure.
Meanwhile, your "wonderful plan" to invade Iraq, as a result of the threat posed by global terrorism, has exponentially INCREASED global terrorism since 9/11. Thanks a bunch. al Qaeda could not have prayed for a more stunning success than what you've given them. Heckuva job, booshies.
Oh, and speaking of the "war on terra," shall we take a little peekie at how that's going, while we're at it?
Borders - wide open
Southern border leaking 3,000 unidentified illegals per day...no biggie...we got Saddam
Anthrax killer - MIA, even though only a reported 100 people worldwide had access to the particular strain of US military weaponized anthrax. Weird, huh?
Bridges - insecure and collapsing
Critical pipelines - insecure
Refineries - insecure
Nuclear and chemical plants - insecure
Seaports - insecure
Airports - virtually insecure
Rail and trucking lines - insecure
Communications grids - insecure
Power plants - insecure
Bin Laden - on the loose, sheltered by our pals in Paki and funded by our pals in Saudi...your boyfriend doesn't know where he is and doesn't care
Critical CIA operative who specialized in nuclear WMD - outed and inoperative
Good thing your boy is in charge. Seems like he's REALLY got things under control, now that he's gotten Saddam.
"John, I am not intentionally provoking anyone"
Sir, you can kid yourself all you wish, but you are intentionally provoking people to support and urge for a military confrontation that could be a catastrophe of biblical proportions. You can say something about what you think is "critical to the security of this nation" if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't mean you're not warmongering. Just that you think that's a good thing.
Okay, and you're really stretching it with this Joe Wilson business. You cannot say with 100% certainty that you are aware of everything the president saw, unless of course, you were reviewing the evidence with him. Otherwise you are basing your statement on information provided by others, as am I. And Scooter Libby did not commit treason. He obstructed a grand jury investigation. Richard Armitage leaded Plame's name, although his confession still leaves many unconvinced (I'm sure because he was part of the Bush administration and they are all liars.)
As for losing on the congressional issue, then why doesn't congress fulfill their constitutional responsibility to bring the troops home if Bush is breaking the law? They could, you know, simply by designating funds that can only be used for withdrawal. They blame the president for not allowing them to end the war, but the power and authority is theirs. It is complete bullshit that you place all the blame on the executive when the legislative bears as much if not more of the responsibility. Even if the Republican congress wouldn't do it, the Democrat congress could do it now. The truth is that political job security is more important than standing on principle or what they claim to be constitutional authority.
Kofi Annan and the UN are weak and the president was right when he warned the organization about its irrelevance. Saddam had no reason to believe the UN would take any meaningful action because he had a 50 year history to look back on as evidence. It's a ridiculous argument to say that THIS time the UN really meant it.
It boggles my mind that your hatred of all things Bush leads you to give more credence to a third world dictator and an ineffective UN than the president of the United States. If we are ever fortunate enough to have a president who truly shows the UN how worthless it is by pulling out of it, the rest of the world will see that they are screwed without American leadership and American power.
We agree on one point. If I were to launch a global war on terror, Iraq would not have been my preferred target after Afghanistan. But he's still the commander in chief and was authorized to employ U.S. forces by the congress, who by the way, continues to fund the war. If you are going to cast blame, put it where it belongs and not just on a president you can't stand.
Your links are ridiculous. Internet links to the Washington Post, a Tripod web site, et al, are not "authoritative." Just because someone puts it on the internet doesn't mean it's true.
As for your gripe with Cheney, if he broke U.S. law, he should be prosecuted, but that requires proof. Leave it to the prosecutors; internet accusations mean nothing. And I don't apologize for the president, or walk around with my tongue up his ass, as you said (nice visual). But I do believe that more people than just the president have screwed up Iraq and that constitutional authorities are being ignored to cast blame unevenly and unfairly.
The burden is not on me to provide refutation. You are making the allegations, which puts the burden of proof on you. And again, the Washington Post and Tripod do not meet the standard of evidence needed to prosecute. Fall short of that and it's all speculation.
I addressed the choice of nations in the last post, so time to move on. But I will says this first, other nations made more sense, but Bush was the commander in chief and the congress authorized and funded the war. Period. End of discussion.
For the record, I don't want Iran and don't advocate military action against Iran unless they pose a direct threat to our national security. Right now, they pose an indirect threat because the move for regional dominance is not complete. Confronting Iran must be an international effort because Iranian domination of the Middle East is a concern for more nations than just the United States.
Borders wide open? Talk to congress. It was more important to pass a resolution authorizing a wall than to actually fund the wall. As long as it looked like they were doing something. That's what really mattered.
Your conspiracy theory mentality is mindboggling.
Talk to congress about bridges. Get rid of the earmarks and dedicate more money to infrastructure repair. They have the power, but they'll have to stop renaming post offices first to get anything of substance done. Hell of a first year Nancy and Harry have had. You must be proud.
All of the insecurity you mention can be fixed if the Congress authorizes and appropriates (two different monsters) the funds. It all begins with the power of the purse. Of course, I guess we can what's left over after the Tom Daschle center for policy is built in South Dakota.
You know, you bring up a key point with bin Laden. He is irrelevant. It would be great to see him do the perp walk and be brought to justice. While it would bring personal satisfaction to the families of 9/11 and to all Americans, it would mean little to nothing in a global war on terror. One man does not make or break the radical islamic movement.
CIA operative: put Richard Armitage in jail, although it will be a hard sell since Plame hadn't been covert in quite a long time.
As I said, this is pointless. You blame Bush for everything wrong with the country and completely absolve the Congress and third world dictators. You should take a deeper look, if for nothing else for the sake of fairness and accuracy.
Now, as I concluded in the article, not much can be done. International weakness showed Iran that the UN was incapable of mounting a unified opposition. That's the point I made, not an argument for a military strike.
"They could, you know, simply by designating funds that can only be used for withdrawal. They blame the president for not allowing them to end the war, but the power and authority is theirs"
You don't actually understand what a veto is? Or a filibuster, do you?
The president doesn't have his own government stash. He asks congress for money and congress gives it to him. Pelosi has the power to deny debate and vote on any bill, which means that since all federal spending originates in the House, she doesn't HAVE to give Bush a dime for Iraq. He could use funds from other military accounts for a while, but eventually that would run out.
The point is that if ending the Iraq war was truly the most important issue for Nancy, as she has said it is, she could end the war very quickly. She has the power of the purse. Just because the president asks for money for Iraq doesn't mean she has to give it to him, not just on his terms, but on any terms.
Of course, she would be perceived as cutting off troops in the field and that is politically untenable. But one thing has been made clear: political security is more important to Nancy and Harry than standing by the principles they declare on national television. The american public is too ignorant of governmental process to know any different.
Most believe Nancy when she says she is powerless to stop the war, when the reality is that she never even has to let an Iraq funding bill hit the floor of the House.
War is one area where ill-conceived, poorly-executed human nature is not tolerable. It is the one decision that a president makes that absolutely HAS to be checked, re-checked, verified, re-verified, and completely, entirely justified. Bush failed to do anything but present fraudulent information, so that he could get the war that he and his neocon pals had been salivating for. It was no accident, and you're being incredibly naive to believe it was. They lied. Repeatedly.
"Okay, and you're really stretching it with this Joe Wilson business."
Wilson has been completely vindicated. EVERYTHING that he said has been proven correct. The white house was given the information that Iraq was NOT trying to seek yellowcake from Niger, they were SPECIFICALLY told by the CIA NOT to use that information in their SOTU speech, and they chose to do so anyway. That was no accident, either. They lied. Repeatedly.
What you're failing to see, for some reason, is that this was a pattern. You're attempting to pull out isolated statements, and pretend that they were simply a mistake. You fail to recognize that this was a concerted, organized pattern that consisted over a period of many months. If it were only one false statement, I might be inclined to agree with you, but it's not. It's literally dozens and dozens of patently false statements that were presented LONG after they were known to be patently false, and then repeated over and over and over again, in a deliberate attempt to deceive. They lied. Repeatedly. There is no other way to view this. Well, I guess you could, if you REALLY were deeply in love with Booshie, claim that he was simply mind-boggling incompetent (which, of course, is true as well), but that wouldn't explain why his entire administration was selling the exact same lies.
"As for losing on the congressional issue, then why doesn't congress fulfill their constitutional responsibility to bring the troops home if Bush is breaking the law? "
Because, the republicans have chosen a path of obstructionism. Every time the democrats have attempted to pass legislation that would bring the troops home, the republicans have stepped in to stop it. The democrats don't have enough of a majority yet to override republican obstructionism.
"Kofi Annan and the UN are weak and the president was right when he warned the organization about its irrelevance."
Somehow, though, they managed to keep Saddam under control, didn't they? I hope you're not one of those who believes that the UN is an entirely separate entity from the US. There is a very good reason why the HQ was built here. We control the UN so heavily that we can literally engage in illegal wars with no repurcussions. If you have a complaint with the UN, it begins with the US.
"Your links are ridiculous. Internet links to the Washington Post, a Tripod web site, et al, are not "authoritative." Just because someone puts it on the internet doesn't mean it's true. "
And yet, you continue to avoid posting a single credible link to prove your position. I wonder why that is? Do you actually feel that your position is more credible simply because you say so, and because you can cast judgement on MY links, without providing a single shred of documentation to actually refute what they say? Some might call that "delusion."
"As for your gripe with Cheney, if he broke U.S. law, he should be prosecuted, but that requires proof."
No, impeachment doesn't require proof at all. All it requires is enough legitimate allegation to begin the investigation. There is more than enough evidence to begin.
"The burden is not on me to provide refutation."
Sorry, but you're mistaken again. I have provided links, as you requested, to back up my statements. It is YOU who has chosen to brush them aside. Now, you are obligated to produce your own documents to back your position to brush mine aside.
"This is accomplishing nothing and your hatred of Bush doesn't facilitate any opposing view. "
I will offer the same about your adoring worship of all things bush. You have let your passionate love affair for him cloud your ability to see facts and reason in an intelligent, logical fashion.
"Bush was the commander in chief and the congress authorized and funded the war. "
Again, the Bush administration lied repeatedly to the American public and to congress, in order to get that resolution passed. Once passed, however, the president did NOT have the authority to unilaterally attack Iraq. Even if you were to ignore international law, which forbade it, the resolution itself did not authorize it unless/until the president was either able to prove that Iraq caused 9/11 or attacked us directly (he failed to prove this, of course), or that they posed an immediate threat to do so (he failed to prove this as well). Therefore, the resolution was null and void. He had no authorization to strike militarily.
"Borders wide open? Talk to congress."
Oh, I get it. Whenever we're "fighting the war on terra" and doing thingis that YOU think are right, it's the president's doing, but whenever there are abysmal failures, it's congress' fault. Isn't the president the one who launched this idiotic "war on terra" bullshit? So, where's his "magnificant leadership" on border security? Nowhere. He's done NOTHING on that issue.
"Your conspiracy theory mentality is mindboggling. "
The information about PNAC is 100% true and fully verifiable. They've long since changed their website, of course, but the original documentation is still available online, because it was wisely cached for future reference.
The 9/11 stuff is entirely valid as well. We do NOT know what really happened on that day, but we DO know that an awful lot of what happened doesn't make sense when matched up to the official conspiracy theory, AND, the events of the day certainly seem to have benefited the neocon PNAC group in an uncanning way.
"Talk to congress about bridges."
Again, the president is supposed to take the lead on areas of national security. He has utterly failed to do so, and you cannot push that off on congress, simply because you have difficulty seeing the truth about your boyfriend. He's a failure. I'm sorry that's the case, believe me. He's caused an immeasurable amount of damage to this country with his incompetence and his dishonesty, but at some point, you have to finally admit facts, don't you?
"All of the insecurity you mention can be fixed if the Congress authorizes and appropriates "
Congress has been trying to get the 9/11 commission recommendations in place since the report was completed, but the president has stood firmly in the way all along the way. You need to check your facts on this one as well. You've clearly gotten a tremendous amount of misinformation from somewhere. Do you happen to watch a lot of Fox, by any chance?
"You know, you bring up a key point with bin Laden. He is irrelevant."
That's an incredible statement, even from a blind bush worshipper. Most of you at least recognize him as a continued threat, and can admit that Bush should never have refused to let the Taliban hand him over, or to let him get away while we had him cornered around Tora Bora.
Your boy and his administration STILL claims that it was Bin Laden that caused 9/11 (although the FBI has NEVER claimed such), yet none of you could be bothered less by the fact that he continues to roam freely, openly mocking you all the while. You'd think, if nothing else, you'd want him just so that you wouldn't look like such utter fools all the time.
"CIA operative: put Richard Armitage in jail, although it will be a hard sell since Plame hadn't been covert in quite a long time. "
What a shocker. Yet another rightwing lie. Where DO you get this garbage? Plame WAS a covert agent at the time, which is precisely why the CIA requested an investigation into the act of treason. Unfortunately, the entire DOJ and white house sprang into action to immediately begin a large scale coverup. At the end, the prosecutor never exhonerated anyone in the case, but rather, claimed that there was so much obstruction of justice any lying going on that he simply could not carry out his job. Some lofty, proud moment for you and your little boyfriend, I bet, huh? Oh well...at least it was only a critical CIA operative who just happened to specialize in nuclear WMD, and who just happened to have been focused on Iran, rather than an intern giving a blowjob, right?
"You should take a deeper look, if for nothing else for the sake of fairness and accuracy. "
Hello? I've been trying to get YOU to set your adoring, blind worship of bush aside long enough to consider documented facts, and it is YOU who has flatly refused to do so, and chooses instead to find any far-fetched alternative that you can possibly dream up, to avoid having to admit that your boy has failed America. Unbelievable.
If I were you, I'd seriously consider expanding my sources of information beyond Limbaugh and Fox. You're clearly getting a heavily distorted view of reality.
Another blatant lie. Several funding bills have come to the floor, and every single one that doesn't give your precious little boyfriend exactly what he wants either gets filibustered by the republicans in the senate, or gets vetoed by your boy. Stop spreading this staggering misinformation, will you? It's one thing for you to choose to be this ignorant, but it's quite another for you to choose to attempt to make others so.
"But one thing has been made clear: political security is more important to Nancy and Harry than standing by the principles they declare on national television"
Ohhhh, I get it; Clark can't know what motivated Mr. Bush and his crew to repeatedly, and vehmently claim that Iraq posed an imminent threat, which turned out to be completely "in error", but YOU one the other hand can naturally see Ms Pelosi's and Mr Reid's motivation for not committing political suicide, and giving the neocons even more power. How do you explain your ability to make such divinations without "proof", while at the same time demanding Clark somehow acquire such "proof"?
What is really worrisome to me, is your apparent unconcern for the possibility that we are dealing with a "rouge" Administration, despite knowing full well that we have been told many things by this Administration which turned out not to be true. Would that not constitute an event "critical to the security of our nation"? And you have no where near as "solid" evidence that Iran has done anything at all unusual for a sovereign nation. Why no concern for a threat which, if real, would be far more dangerous to our republic than Iran ever could be?
You look more like a hero worshiper, than a patriot in this, to me.
The White House cannot conduct war on its own, yet you continue to absolve the Congress and place all blame on the president. That's ridiculous. To say the congress is letting Bush have his way even though it can be proven that he has repeatedly lied is nonsense, not to mention an abrogation of the constitutional duties of the congress.
And with Wilson you stick to the same song and dance without authoritative proof that the president didn't have other evidence. The simple truth is that there is no way for either you or I to know what Bush was looking at. Maybe you're right, maybe not, but you cannot say definitively that you know everything he knew unless you were there with him. It's not that I'm taking Bush's side, but I'm calling bullshit on definitive statements that cannot be proven except by those privy to ALL the intelligence presented to the president, and that is a very select few in this country.
Your argument about republican obstructionism in congress only holds up for those who don't understand how our government works. I addressed the funding in a post to John. Tell Nancy to not allow an Iraq funding bill to the floor at all. She has the power, and the war ends when the current pool of funds runs out. Bush can't spend money she doesn't give him, and withholding funds doesn't require a vote.
"Somehow, though, they managed to keep Saddam under control, didn't they?" Yes, Clark, they did. With American military forces. We are indeed the UN, but it is time we left that cesspool and moved the headquarters to Europe. Let's see how much good it does for international security without American power.
"And yet, you continue to avoid posting a single credible link to prove your position." The burden of proof is on you, my friend. You make the allegations, then prove them, and not with links to the Washington Post and Tripod.
"No, impeachment doesn't require proof at all. All it requires is enough legitimate allegation to begin the investigation. There is more than enough evidence to begin." So what's Congress waiting for?
For the record, unilateral implies "one." The other 25-plus nations involved in the invasion of Iraq negate the unilateral argument. Yes we were the most powerful, but that doesn't mean we did it by ourselves.
"war on terra" bullshit. We sort of agree here. The war on terror cannot be won, just as the war on drugs cannot be one. Terror is a tactic that we can attempt to counter, but a war on terror is not a realistic objective.
I'm not trying to push anything off on Congress. I'm simply making the point that it's not just the president that is at fault when things go wrong. Congress shares blame, but you insist on pinning it all on Bush. Three separate but co-equal branches.....
I find your references to Bush as my "boyfriend" amusing. I personally think he's a terrible president, but that doesn't cloud my assessment of constitutional roles and responsibilities. By the way, no Fox or any other channel really. Four kids at home. Not much time.
It is time for me and my right wing lies to move on. Arguing with you someone blinded by hatred and partisanship is pointless.
For the record, John, I think Iran should be entitled to a peaceful nuclear program under the supervision of the IAEA (despite my misgivings about the UN) just as every other nation with nuclear power is. My problem with Iran is the lying, obstructing, and defiance of safeguards designed to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. If Russia is willing to provide fuel rods, under IAEA control, and have those fuel rods return to Russia after being used, then there is no need for Iran to enrich uranium, a process that could easily be used in a nuclear weapons program. If there's nothing to hide, then show us what you've got.
Now just WHERE do you get that information?
House Oversight Committee hearing;
On March 16, 2007, at these hearings about the disclosure, Chairman Henry Waxman read a statement about Plame's CIA career that had been cleared by CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA, stating that Wilson was under cover and that her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and in her various positions at the CIA, had faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life"
So . . . do you have some secret source in the CIA that also violated the law by giving YOU classified information? Or did you just take some pundits word for that blatantly false assertion about Ms. Plame's status at the time she was outed by someone in the Administration?
"John, it's not hard to decipher. Nancy appears on tv and says she will end this war no matter what"
Still NO QUOTES or references. It's just more you happen to believe.
"For the record, John, I think Iran should be entitled to a peaceful nuclear program under the supervision of the IAEA (despite my misgivings about the UN) just as every other nation with nuclear power is. My problem with Iran is the lying, obstructing, and defiance of safeguards designed to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation"
Well, I take no issue with such a reasonable statement. But I do wonder how you know Iran lied, yet insist others cannot know the Bush Administration lied. You seem to have a very selective sense of fairness.
And you're right John. I'm making the whole thing up. It's my imagination, but I suppose I could give a link to the ultra liberal Huffington Post where Nancy herself blogs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-nancy-pelosi/bringing-the-war-to-an-en_b_34393.html
Title: Bringing the War to an end is my highest priority as speaker
At least you guys (Clark and John) make more sense than Tony S.
You're right. The white house can NOT wage war on it's own, and yet they did. They lied congress into giving phony authorization (which was in violation of international and constitutional law), and then they failed to abide by that very resolution, and struck against Iraq in spite of what the resolution called for.
"And with Wilson you stick to the same song and dance without authoritative proof that the president didn't have other evidence."
Wilson provided the CIA with his evidence. It concurred with everything that the CIA and other intelligence sources had found. The document that this fraudulent administration relied upon to base their bogus claim about Nigerian yellowcake was a blatant, obvious forgery. The CIA emphatically told the white house not to broadcast that information, nor to base anything on it. Bush chose to lie.
"Your argument about republican obstructionism in congress only holds up for those who don't understand how our government works"
Excuse me? The republicans can hold up ANY bill in the senate, merely by filibustering it to death. Apparently, it is you that doesn't understand the process. The democrats have brought numerous bills to the floor that would end this disaster in Iraq, but, between your boy and your republicans in the senate, not a single one has gotten passed into law.
"Bush can't spend money she doesn't give him, and withholding funds doesn't require a vote. "
You're right about this. The democrats should just ignore the rightwing media's assault, and flat out refuse to dole out one more penny. He's got plenty to bring the troops home. That's all that's required at this point.
"Somehow, though, they managed to keep Saddam under control, didn't they?" Yes, Clark, they did. With American military forces. We are indeed the UN, but it is time we left that cesspool and moved the headquarters to Europe. Let's see how much good it does for international security without American power. "
Why on earth would we move the HQ to Europe and risk losing complete control? How would we be able to carry out future illegal wars without having complete control over the UN?
"The burden of proof is on you, my friend. You make the allegations, then prove them, and not with links to the Washington Post and Tripod. "
Excuse me, but I already covered this. If you have proof that can refute what documentation I provided, bring it. If you have proof that nothing that either of those sites publishes can be taken as factual, bring it. If you cannot provide either, accept it for what it is. You don't get to have it both ways (ignoring my documentation while refusing to offer anything to refute it). That's lazy and nothing more than a cheap way of saying "I have nothing to refute what you've provided, but I don't have the character or integrity to admit that you may be right, so I'll just pretend that what you offered is entirely meaningless.
For starters, you can begin to refute every single one of the documented lies of George W. Bush that I provided you with. If you refuse to do this, or are somehow unable to, you are admitting that I'm right.
"So what's Congress waiting for?"
Articles against Cheney have already been sent to the judiciary committee, and articles against Bush are currently being drawn.
"For the record, unilateral implies "one."
For the record, unilateral, in this discussion, refers to "without UN approval." Read the UN charter if you don't understand.
"The other 25-plus nations involved in the invasion of Iraq negate the unilateral argument."
Read the UN Charter, if you don't understand the word.
"We sort of agree here. The war on terror cannot be won, just as the war on drugs cannot be one. Terror is a tactic that we can attempt to counter, but a war on terror is not a realistic objective. "
Sweet! We've seen a war on our national treasury, a war on the rule of law, a war on constitutionality, a war on civil liberties, a war on common sense, a war on truth, a war on the middle class, and a war on American ideals, but definitely NOT a "war on terror."
"I'm simply making the point that it's not just the president that is at fault when things go wrong. Congress shares blame, but you insist on pinning it all on Bush. Three separate but co-equal branches....."
There haven't been three co-equal branches since a corrupt, partisan supreme court chose to overstep the will of the people on 12/12/2000. This mess is 100% bushcheneycorp.
"I find your references to Bush as my "boyfriend" amusing."
I find your references to my "hatred of Bush" equally amusing.
"It is time for me and my right wing lies to move on. Arguing with you someone blinded by hatred and partisanship is pointless."
There it is again. Anyone who disagrees with you, your president, and your party or dares to have the temerity to find fault with, or provide actual documentation to support real facts, is a "hater." We either "hate America," we "hate Bush," we "hate our soldiers," or we "hate Christmas." It's always about hate with you people. Nobody is ever allowed to have an actual differing opinion. We're either insane, stupid, evil, full of hate, or unAmerican. And, nothing that we EVER provide as the foundation for our beliefs is EVER worth even looking at, let alone offering credence to.
It's so much easier to simply step away from a discussion with a differing opinion, than to actually be courageous enough and honest enough to actually look at the foundational basis for those differing opinions. You can just brush aside everything that I've said about BushCheneyCorp as being unworthy of consideration, even though I've provided you with documentation, simply because it's so much easier for you to do so than it is to actually be honest with yourself that they may, in fact, be a valid differing opinion that exists. It may just be possible that your rightwing propaganda outlets haven't, in fact, told you everything after all.
I probably shouldn't have to make you aware of this, but this refusal to even acknowledge what I've offered doesn't do anything to strengthen your opinion at all. In fact, it weakens it. If you were able to actually look at what I'd provided, and either provide documentation to refute it, or at least acknowledge that there is ample documentation to support the POSSIBILITY of having a valid differing opinion, that would be one thing. But, to merely cast everything that I've said aside without even so much as examing what I'd provided, or even attempting to refute it, is a bit weak, if you asked me.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
The ONLY people who believe, at this point, that she was NOT covert at the time are those who've allowed themselves to be misled by rightwing propagandists.
"Bush chose to lie." Were you there when he looked at all the evidence and said, "Screw these guys, I'm going to do what I want." That's about the only way you could say what you're saying with certainty.
"The republicans can hold up ANY bill in the senate, merely by filibustering it to death." You miss the point and show your ignorance. If Nancy doesn't allow a funding bill to reach the house floor, there is no bill to be vetoed, filibustered, etc. But political survival is more important that standing on what you claim to believe. I mean really, show some balls and cut off the money!!
Oh, I see you acknowledge the funding cut off. I typed that last bit before I got to it.
"Why on earth would we move the HQ to Europe and risk losing complete control?" What control do we have exactly? Can we get meaningful action on Iran? Can we override a veto by China or Russia? The Security Council is designed so that the permanent five are equal because of the veto power. We don't control anything unless the other four members of the permanent five go along.
"If you cannot provide either, accept it for what it is." I do accept it for what it is. An internet posting that lacks authority. Burden of proof is always on the accuser, and internet postings do not qualify as proof. Of course, under the FIA we should find out in about 25 years.
For the record, I've already said you may be right, but with the evidence available we don't know for sure.
"Articles against Cheney have already been sent to the judiciary committee, and articles against Bush are currently being drawn." But the democratic leadership has no stomach for it. Look internally my friend, look internally.
"For the record, unilateral, in this discussion, refers to "without UN approval." Read the UN charter if you don't understand." I understand, but I prefer a president who puts the United States ahead of what the UN may want (and when I say UN, I'm talking the permanent five, which by the way, is outdated and needs to be relooked.)
"Read the UN Charter, if you don't understand the word." The UN Charter does not replace national constitutions or elected governments. The main reason the UN is ineffective is because individual nations, all of them, put national interests above international interests. Realism is alive and well at Turtle Bay.
"There haven't been three co-equal branches since a corrupt, partisan supreme court chose to overstep the will of the people on 12/12/2000." Ah yes, it all comes back to Florida. How exactly are partisans from either side of the aisle supposed to discern voter intent by looking at indentations on voter cards? By being open to individual interpretation the whole process lost its objectivity and credibility. Selected not elected. I love it.
I knew if we engaged in this long enough that it would finally come out. So predictable.
I have no problem with disagreement or finding of fault. I have a problem with the way you absolve democrats of all wrongdoing while blaming Bush for everything. Your opinion is always welcome, yet I've found that arguments based on speculation and allegation often resort to stupid name calling and personal bashing, kind of like you have done......
I have no problem looking at foundational material, but it needs to be authoritative. Unfortunately, what you have provided is not, meaning your allegations cannot be PROVEN.
You and Stephen should hang out together. You can sit around and wallow about Florida 2000 and curse Bush all you want. I suspect your greatest fear is that Giuliani will win the GOP nomination and trounce Hillary or Barack in the general election. What a nightmare that would be!!!
By lying to congress in order to get a resolution, and then just bulldozing right straight into battle.
"If the white house is not playing by the congress' rules, why doesn't the congress just not allow a funding bill to the floor and end this charade? "
I've already covered that. I agree, that this is what must be done. This is exactly what finally brought Vietnam to a close.
"You miss the point and show your ignorance. "
No, I'm not. You are. Not every bill congress has discussed has to do with funding the illegal republican occupation of Iraq, believe it or not.
"What control do we have exactly?"
Name one illegal act that we've commited over the past 40 years that's been met with retribution by the UN. In fact, I can only think of one that even involved a vote in the UN, but there was nary a word of condemnation afterward, even though the vote was to do so.
We have yet to be held back or controlled in any way by the UN. Yet, if you listen to the "right," you'd swear that we've surrendered the entire country over.
"I do accept it for what it is. An internet posting that lacks authority. "
Then refute away. The burden is on YOU, because YOU have chosen to brush aside what I've provided. You just got through saying that the burden of proof is on the accuser. You are accusing me of providing fraudulent information. The burden is now on YOU to prove your case. I want you to go through that staggering list of PUBLISHED, DOCUMENTED Bush lies, and point out which ones are false. Then, I want you to provide documentation to back your claim that nothing that the Washington Post has ever published is credible. Stop backing away from this, or accept that you cannot refute what I've offered. You don't get it both ways. I realize that it would make life much easier for you, but it doesn't work that way. You don't get to disbelieve everything that I provide, and then fail to provide a single shred of documentation to support your position.
"But the democratic leadership has no stomach for it. Look internally my friend, look internally. "
They may have no choice in the matter. It appears rather likely at this point that Wexler is going to be handing over to the judiciary committee 200,000 - 300,000 names on a petition for impeachment of Cheney. It will be very, very difficult for the "leadership" to avoid the will of the people at that point.
Btw, I have heard Conyers rational for holding this back, and I can understand it to a point, but I find it reprehensible that he, of all people, thinks that he has a choice in the matter. When a person commits a crime, the police don't have a choice whether or not to arrest that person. They don't have a say as to whether or not the person is convicted of the crime, but they do at least carry out their duty to have the person investigated. That's all Wexler is asking for. If Conyers and Pelosi don't have the stomach for it, they should step aside and let someone who understands their sworn oath of office step in.
"I understand, but I prefer a president who puts the United States ahead of what the UN"
You and the president don't have a choice.
"The UN Charter does not replace national constitutions or elected governments."
Read your constitution. It clearly states differently. Article VI would be a great place to start, in order to clear up your confusion on this.
"Ah yes, it all comes back to Florida. "
Actually, the supreme court of this country is what I was referring to. They are the ones who decided to ursurp their constitutional power and brush aside the constitutionally granted power of the states to manage their own presidential elections. But, I'm pretty sure you knew that.
"I knew if we engaged in this long enough that it would finally come out. So predictable. "
Sorry. I happen to believe that the integrity of elections is the most crucial element of a democratic society. If elections can be stolen, the entire democracy can be stolen. Gee...what a coincidence...looks what's happening since. How quaint of you not to care.
"I have a problem with the way you absolve democrats of all wrongdoing while blaming Bush for everything."
Democrats didn't lie this nation into an illegal, unnecessary war. Bush did. If you can't handle that, that's your problem, not mine. I certainly can't force you to accept reality.
"I have no problem looking at foundational material, but it needs to be authoritative."
Ah, the straw man appears. I knew it would eventually! See, it's impossible for you to accept what I offer, because it's not "authoritatize," even though you cannot refute it. The REAL crux of the biscuit is that there is NOTHING that I could provide you that you would deem "authoritative," thus, you can just continue to brush aside my argument as meaningless. How convenient, right?
If I provided links from CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, the NYT, the POST, the LA TIMES, al Jazerra, the BBC, the Guardian, or any other source that didn't meet YOUR strict standards of credibility, whatever that may be (and, of course, this will never be revealed, because to do so would be to eliminate your own straw man, and render yourself forced to actually respond!), you would, of course, label them as being "unauthoritative," and then you can just simply choose to ignore the entire discussion entirely.
Meanwhile, you can't, for some odd reason, provide any shred of documentation to back up your claim, either that Bush didn't lie, or that the sources that I provided are not "authoritative." All we need is your word on those things, and we're supposed to just swallow them without question.
Does this seem logical to you, because it certainly doesn't to me. Do you REALLY think that your position gains credibility by continuing to dance and spin around like this, rather than providing anything substantive?
"You and Stephen should hang out together. You can sit around and wallow about Florida 2000 and curse Bush all you want. I suspect your greatest fear is that Giuliani will win the GOP nomination and trounce Hillary or Barack in the general election. What a nightmare that would be!!! "
Ah, and here we finally have the obligatory casting together of the "nutcakes." Once again, offering you assurance to yourself that you don't have to bother with our arguments, because we're "loonie toons" that think alike, and therefore are not credible or worthy of consideration. This is really, really weak, I hope you know.
Btw, Ghouliani hasn't got a prayer of even winning the GOP nomination at this point. He's tanking faster than Bush's approval ratings after the public found out that he'd lied us into Iraq. He'll be lucky to take a single state, let alone the nomination, and you really should be rather thankful for that. He'd be crushed in a general election. He's a fraud, a liar (maybe that's why you like him so much?), a cheater, a criminal cavorter, and completely incompetent. You just stick with him, though, and whenever somebody points out his lies, his corruption, or his obvious character flaws, you can just make the claim that the source of the information isn't quite "authoritative enough" for you to believe, and then you can just brush them all aside and pretend that you live in a bubble! LOL!
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqlies.html
http://www.unknownnews.net/logoflies.html
http://www.rightwinglies.com/Bush%20Lies/listoflies.htm
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170001
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/2/83555/0324
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/bush_lies.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/041306.html
Looks like somebody's going to have a lot of brushing aside to do! LOL!
I want to see documented refutation from you on every single one of these documented Bush lies.
"Not every bill congress has discussed has to do with funding the illegal republican occupation of Iraq, believe it or not." But the congress tries to insert withdrawal language into virtually every bill passed in the House, instead of just cutting off the money.
"Name one illegal act that we've commited over the past 40 years that's been met with retribution by the UN." "We have yet to be held back or controlled in any way by the UN." That's because each of the permanent five have veto power. It's a system designed for gridlock. Hell, practically no one gets condemned.
"The burden is on YOU, because YOU have chosen to brush aside what I've provided." What you have provided are unauthoritative internet sources. You may be proven correct when the classified documents are released, but we'll have to wait and see. I find it mind boggling that you believe everything our intelligence agencies did or had access to can just be found on the internet.
"The burden is now on YOU to prove your case. I want you to go through that staggering list of PUBLISHED, DOCUMENTED Bush lies, and point out which ones are false." How about you point out which ones are true based on evidence in official government intelligence documents. Hell, you and I both publish anything we want on the internet. It is not on me to disprove baseless allegations.
"...but I find it reprehensible that he, of all people, thinks that he has a choice in the matter." That's a problem with many of our folks in congress, on both sides of the aisle. They are not accountable to the people; they are accountable to each other. They feed their districts with pork and frame electoral rules that get 90-plus percent reelection rates. Is it because they do such a bang up job? Hell, the approval rating for congress is lower than it is for the president. It's past time for an overhaul of both parties.
Do you really believe the framers of the constitution envisioned a UN that was trying to be a world government? Do you honestly believe that fit in their intent? Times have changed since the 18th century my friend. I have a similiar issue with the 2nd amendment. The intent was for arming of militias because there was no stomach for a standing national army and individual states provided much of their own protection. That has been translated into an absolute right to gun ownership by every individual. While I oppose gun control laws because they only deter those who abide by the law, the argument made by absolute gun ownership advocates is not in keeping with the intent of the 2nd amendment.
And please, the federal government has been interfering in states rights for as long as there has been a federal government. Remember the civil war. If ever an argument could be made for federal intervention in a state matter, it would be when the state matter impacted the entire nation, as was the case in Florida.
And of course we return to the Bush lied mantra. The documentation that I would accept is not accessible by either you or I. You claim I won't entertain the possibility that you could be correct, which is not true, but you do the same. You stick to the same old, tired lines. The problem with all of the media outlets you listed is that none of them have access to the data or documentation that will tell us what really went on prior to March 2003.
As I said at the outset, this is like arguing with my six year old. The same thing being said over and over and over and over. And for the record, I never said Giuliani is my guy. I do think he has the best chance in a general election against either Hillary or Obama, and that's what I was referencing, not the primary contests. This whole argument is a classic exercise in futility. You won't budge; I won't budge.
What's the point?
/iraqlies.html, /logoflies.html, rightwinglies.com/Bush%20Lies/listoflies.htm, /0324
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/bush_lies.html
No chance they could be biased, huh?
I say the same about you, except that, when all else fails, say that Bush never lies. At least there's significant documentation to support my line.
"But the congress tries to insert withdrawal language into virtually every bill passed in the House, instead of just cutting off the money. "
I've already agreed with you that this is the only way to end the illegal occupation, presently. Why do you keep re-hashing this?
"Hell, practically no one gets condemned. "
Really? How did those sanctions ever come about then, I wonder? And, how was the UN able to issue all of those resolutions against Iraq?
"What you have provided are unauthoritative internet sources."
I'll take that as a victory. Thanks. I would've rather you'd have at least made an attempt, but I can certainly understand why you didn't want to do so.
Btw, the Washington Post is not a "unauthoritative" voice, and the long list of DOCUMENTED Bush lies on the blog aren't, either, but again, thanks for showing that you're incapable of admitting when you're beaten.
"I find it mind boggling that you believe everything our intelligence agencies did or had access to can just be found on the internet. "
I find it mind boggling that you feel that I've said that, and that you simply refuse to accept what IS widely available on the internets.
"How about you point out which ones are true based on evidence in official government intelligence documents."
I already have. You refused to even consider what I offered. You put the burden of proof on yourself, to prove me wrong. You have failed miserably to do so. You've had your chance, over and over and over again, and you've simply walked away from the challenge, without even so much as making a weak attempt. Your opportunity has formally been revoked for failing to exercise it.
"It's past time for an overhaul of both parties. "
Time for public campaign financing.
"Do you really believe the framers of the constitution envisioned a UN that was trying to be a world government?
Do you honestly believe that the framers of the constitution envisioned WWI or WWII, both of which created the necessity for a UN?
"Do you honestly believe that fit in their intent?"
I don't think the military industrial complex fit into their intent, nor did warrantly wiretaps, illegal renditions, presidents lying us into illegal wars of aggression, torture, or the stripping away of civil liberties in the name of "security."
"Times have changed since the 18th century my friend."
Maybe that's why there's a UN?
"I have a similiar issue with the 2nd amendment. The intent was for arming of militias because there was no stomach for a standing national army"
We're in complete agreement on this.
"And please, the federal government has been interfering in states rights for as long as there has been a federal government."
This is justification for the supreme court violating the intent of the voting public? By state law, a FULL statewide recount was REQUIRED, and there was NO time limit, as has been falsely claimed by some. In fact, had the full recount been allowed, and not completed by the time the states sent their electoral reps to congress, the election would've gone to Bush, and it would've been fully legitimate.
But, because they couldn't risk having the real results of the election made known, they chose to illegally overstep their constitutional bounds, and choose a "winner," God save us all.
"And of course we return to the Bush lied mantra. "
The documentation of Bush lies is fully verifiable. Every single lie is referenced to the day that he said it, and where it was published. If you choose to discount that as proof, there is nothing more to be said about it. You will forever be blind to the truth, with regard to how it treats your boy.
"What's the point? "
Exactly. If you're unable and unwilling to seek out factual information, what IS the point?
I didn't say that, did I? What I said was "PROVE TO ME THAT WHAT THEY"VE OFFERED IS UNTRUE." You STILL failed to do so. I give up.
"No chance they could be biased, huh?
Oh, I see the problem; These folks are up front and honest about their position, and that is to you an indication of "bias". This is not something you are ashamed of, but something you see as perfectly reasonable.
It is very disheartening to speak with you, for you are an excellent example of the poor state of understanding most people have of themselves, and so all human beings; You think the stuff happening in your imagination is the real world, and don't hesitate to call anything which would call it into question, wrong. Amazing disgrace.
Greg, I leave you with this frightening, but very true fact; Your sense of psychological comfort is NOT a Truth-o-meter. It's a Fear-o-meter.
Now,
"I say the same about you, except that, when all else fails, say that Bush never lies." I have said that you may be correct, but we won't know until all evidence is available.
"Why do you keep re-hashing this?" Because you said not every bill is about Iraq, and I was making the point that virtually every bill contains language on Iraq. But you're right, enough said on the subject of funding.
"Really? How did those sanctions ever come about then, I wonder?" The sanctions were purposely weak to get compromise, which resulted in a sanctions regime with no effect. That's not condemnation of Iran, it's appeasement at the UN.
"Btw, the Washington Post is not a "unauthoritative" voice, and the long list of DOCUMENTED Bush lies on the blog aren't, either, but again, thanks for showing that you're incapable of admitting when you're beaten." I've admitted nothing of the sort. My opinion of these sites extends to the Washingon Times, Human Events, etc. that do the same thing from the conservative viewpoint. They are not authorative either.
"I already have." You have not. The documents you and I both need are classified. Hell, I could say a million times on the web that you're gay. It might become widely published and accepted, but it doesn't make it true.
"Maybe that's why there's a UN?" There's an ineffective UN populated by countries that put self interest over international interest.
"...the election would've gone to Bush, and it would've been fully legitimate." And what magic did you use to divine that? How could you possibly know what the outcome would have been from a series of counts by partisans of both parties? That was the point of the Supreme Court getting involved. A matter that affected the entire nation could not be determined by individuals with personal biases and preferences trying to discern voter intent.
"The documentation of Bush lies is fully verifiable." It's verifiable that internet postings exist. It's not verifiable that he looked at intelligence and then consciously chose to lie to the country about it.
I have. YOU were the one making allegations that my proof was somehow untrue. We've been through this multiple times already, and I've already told you that you blew your opportunities. You can continue to beat this dead horse for as long as you wish, but anyone who reads this can very plainly see which one of us is avoiding their end of the bargain, and I can assure you, they won't be seeing me in that light. You lost. Deal with it.
In fact, I've grown weary of this entire thread. You have nothing, and refuse to provide anything substantive on a single one of your opinions. You're going around and around in circles, as you desperately try to spin something meaningful from some of your more ridiculous statements. I'm through. I've made my points as eloquently and politely as I could, and have done everything that I could think of to convince you to seek the truth, and yet you continue to play little games.
Enjoy. I'm out.
Round and round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows.....
"The burden of proof in this country is always on the accuser"
And you have offered NO proof of, or even evidence for, the many accusations you have made against "Iran". None.
Furthermore, only an incredibly foolish person would think that the words posted on a website are not evidence in court, because the websites themselves are not evidence. If the words posted are factually true, then the inclinations of those posting them leaves the evidentiary value of the words they quoted, unchanged. If this gets to court, I assure you, the original source of those words WILL be presented, not the websites that copy/pasted them.
But here in the court of public opinion, you have proven only that you refuse to consider either the websites, or the sources for the words they quote. You have presented nothing but your obstinacy.
The sum total evidentiary value of your many silly words here, is zero.
You have utterly failed to demonstrate that ANY assertion you have made is ANYTHING more than something you wanted to hear said.
"Round and round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows..... "
Who's that "we" ? You spinning, does not make the whole world dizzy.
"If the words posted are factually true, then the inclinations of those posting them leaves the evidentiary value of the words they quoted, unchanged. If this gets to court, I assure you, the original source of those words WILL be presented, not the websites that copy/pasted them." So why hasn't anyone dragged Bush to court? If the words could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I suspect Moveon.org would have acted by now, or impeachment proceedings would have moved forward.
"The sum total evidentiary value of your many silly words here, is zero." Ditto.
"You have utterly failed to demonstrate that ANY assertion you have made is ANYTHING more than something you wanted to hear said." Ditto.
"I'm sorry, is not an admission by Iran of a nuclear program that they kept secret for 20 years proof of a lie?"
Not according to the standard YOU insist on in the case of the Administration. You seem to think it is perfectly reasonable to break THEM into little compartments, and then say that if there was a break of any kind in the full understanding of what they were saying, they ought not be accused of lying. Obviously, you apply no such "purification filter" to those in Iran. You treat them as a single monolithic being, ultimately responsible, and condemnable, for any words spoken (in your imagination, anyway), which turned out to be misleading. That the actual human being who may have spoken the words might have not realized they were false, never enters into the matter at all for you. While, it's the very foundation of your defence of your heroic President.
Pathetic.
"Not according to the standard YOU insist on in the case of the Administration." Where's the difference in standard? If the president came out and said "I lied" about Iraq, that would certainly be proof. However, if Iran was still denying a nuclear program of any kind, I would require more.
"...misleading." Whoa, that's a stretch. It is unfathomable that you believe a religious fanatic third world dictator more than you believe your own president.
That is what is pathetic.
"That the actual human being who may have spoken the words might have not realized they were false..." You mean, like the president?
And for the record, I've never said he was my heroic president. I've defended the constitutional authorities of the office and the burden of proof on the accuser, something I would do for any president, regardless of party.
Greg asked: "Can We Stop Iran?"
No, we can't.
And it's a major reason why Iraq was such an enormous mistake. In his infinite wisdom and keen understanding of the intricate nature of the religious, cultural and political complexities that make up the Middle East, Dubya chose Iraq to unleash his pandora's box of "democracy." We will pay for this idiocy for decades.
Whether Bush lied or simply fumbled the intel on Iraq is almost irrelevant to me. Pick your poison. Either way it adds up to a colossal blunder.
In terms of the "legality" of the war, the logic of invading a country under the pretext that said country is not abiding by UN resolutions while the invasion itself violates international law (because, as is required, not all of the permanent members of the UN security council approved it) escapes most people who have given the matter more than a moment's consideration.
Against a notable amount of advice, including that of his own father and many of his fathers senior advisors, and in the face of the famous Colin Powell "Pottery Barn rule," Dubya bludered us into Iraq, gift wrapping it perfectly for the Mullahs in Teheran.
No we can't "stop" Iran. Their influence will grow exponentially, and we may well see an arms race in the ME including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others as they seek to counter-balance that influence and the threat it poses.