quote:Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes of leader time this morning, before we get into the debate on the amendment offered by the senator from Texas, to talk about a concern that I have wanted to avoid talking about for weeks.
I am very saddened by the fact that we have debated homeland security now for three weeks. I have noted on several occasions that there is no reason, on a bipartisan basis, this body cannot work together to overcome our differences and to pass a meaningful and substantive bill dealing with homeland security.
Some have suggested that the delay has been politically motivated, and I have said: I am not willing to believe that. In fact, yesterday I said: We intend to give the president the benefit of the doubt.
Over the course of the last several weeks, as we have debated national security, the issue of war in Iraq has become more and more prominent.
And again, as I go back to my experience in 1991 and 1992, during a similar period -- the fall and winter prior to and after an election -- I expressed the concern that our politics in this climate could easily create a politicized environment and, in so doing, diminish, minimize, degrade the debate on an issue as grave as war.
No one here needs to be reminded of the consequences of war. No one here should have to be admonished about politicizing the debate about war. But, Mr. President, increasingly, over the course of the last several weeks, reports have surfaced which have led me to believe that indeed there are those who would politicize this war.
I was given a report about a recommendation made by Matthew Dowd, the pollster for the White House and the Republican National Committee. He told a victory dinner not long ago -- I quote -- "The No. 1 driver for our base motivationally is this war."
Dowd said war could be beneficial to the GOP in the 2002 elections. And then I quote: "When an issue dominates the landscape like this one will dominate the landscape, I think through this election and probably for a long time to come, it puts Republicans on a very good footing."
I thought: Well, perhaps that is a pollster. Perhaps pollsters are paid to say what is best regardless of what other considerations ought to be made. Pollsters are paid to tell you about the politics of issues. And were it left with pollsters, perhaps I would not be as concerned.
But then I read that Andy Card was asked: Well, why did this issue come before Washington and the country now? Why are we debating it in September?
Where were we last year? Where were we last spring? And Mr. Card's answer was: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."
New products? War?
And then I listen to reports of the vice president. The vice president comes to fund-raisers, as he did just recently in Kansas. The headline written in the paper the next day about the speech he gave to that fund-raiser was: Cheney talks about war: electing Taff would aid war effort.
And then we find a diskette discovered in Lafayette Park, a computer diskette that was lost somewhere between a Republican strategy meeting in the White House and the White House. Advice was given by Karl Rove, and the quote on the disk was: "Focus on war."
I guess, right from the beginning, I thought: Well, first it was pollsters, and then it was White House staff, and then it was the vice president.
And all along I was asked: Are you concerned about whether or not this war is politicized? And my answer, on every occasion, was: Yes.
And then the followup question is: Is the White House politicizing the war? And I said: Without question, I can't bring myself to believe that it is. I can't believe any president or any administration would politicize the war.
But then I read in the paper this morning, now even the president -- the president is quoted in The Washington Post this morning as saying that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people."
Not interested in the security of the American people? You tell Sen. Inouye he is not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people.
That is outrageous, outrageous. The president ought to apologize to Sen. Inouye and every veteran who has fought in every war who is a Democrat in the Senate. He ought to apologize to the American people. That is wrong. We ought not politicize this war. We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death.
I was in Normandy just last year. I have been in national cemeteries all over this country. And I have never seen anything but stars -- the Star of David and crosses on those markers. I have never seen "Republican" and "Democrat."
This has to end, Mr. President. We have to get on with the business of our country. We have to rise to a higher level. Our Founding Fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now. We have to do better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we are giving now.
So, Mr. President, it is not too late to end this politicization. It is not too late to forget the pollsters, forget the campaign fund-raisers, forget making accusations about how interested in national security Democrats are; and let's get this job done right.
Let's rise to the occasion. That is what the American people are expecting.
And we ought to give them no less. I yield the floor.
It's time the Democrats stopped being silent and responded to the assassination tactics employed by the GOP. They're marketing a war for political gain? They're sending children to die so they can get in office? Fuck 'em.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
no, fuck you.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Uh, finger in the eye?
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
no, up the butt.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
btw, did you see the lego harpsichord i posted about? it's pretty rad.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Some have suggested that the delay has been politically motivated, and I have said: I am not willing to believe that. In fact, yesterday I said: We intend to give the president the benefit of the doubt.
Masterful change of topic there. Those who say the delay is politically motivated are saying that DASCHLE is the one causing it. And they'd be right. The President has nothing to do with it.
over the course of the last several weeks, reports have surfaced which have led me to believe that indeed there are those who would politicize this war.
And why, exactly, would anyone need to make the assumption that Bush has to politicize the war? It's far more likely that he sees Iraq for the threat that it is, and wants the power to deal with it. And I notice that Daschle doesn't tell us WHY the delays.
Dowd said war could be beneficial to the GOP in the 2002 elections.
Yeah, he's a pollster. It's his job to figure out what people think. Still no evidence that Bush's push for an attack on Iraq is BASED on polls, especially considering that Sadaam IS a legitimate threat.
Well, why did this issue come before Washington and the country now?
Um... because there's a threat, and a President that's finally willing to deal with it? Yes, politics does play some part in it, but its role is in forcing the Democrats into doing what needs to be done, regardless of whether they want to or not.
Cheney talks about war: electing Taff would aid war effort.
This is a true statement, yes? If the person Taff is running against would be against the war, and Taff is for the war, then electing Taff would aid the war effort. Effectively, a question of whether the war serves the elections, or the elections can help serve the war. Daschle, for all he's talking, has no evidence for his POV.
Advice was given by Karl Rove, and the quote on the disk was: "Focus on war."
Ah, the joys of out-of-context quotes...
I can't believe any president or any administration would politicize the war.
Senators, OTOH, are another story.
the president is quoted in The Washington Post this morning as saying that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people."
Again, no context.
You tell Sen. Inouye he is not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people.
And these make up the majority of the Senate?
I don't suppose anyone has stats on how many veterans are in the Senate, and their parties?
We have to get on with the business of our country.
Again, who does he think is delaying this?
It is not too late to forget the pollsters, forget the campaign fund-raisers, forget making accusations about how interested in national security Democrats are; and let's get this job done right.
What job? The job of NOT defending the country? 'Cause that seems to be what Daschle's advocating, seeing as there has been no vote...
They're marketing a war for political gain?
Says Daschle.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Says Daschle.
Actually, Oh-Read-A-Not, so does Card: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."
I hope you're taking an English 101 course this fall.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Well, why did this issue come before Washington and the country now?
Um... because there's a threat, and a President that's finally willing to deal with it?
Hehe . . . I misread that as "willy to deal with it", a roundabout way of arriving at the truth of the matter:
Clinton preferred to demonstrate the existence of his dick by displaying it to interns, or launching a few cruising phallic symbols from time to time.
Bush demonstrates the existence of his dick by using it to severely slap around some of this planet's major shitheads.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Way to go, Daschle! He won't get an apology from the President, but he did say the right things.
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
I think that if he makes the White house mad enough, their going to send him ANOTHER powder filled letter!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well, it's about damn time that some people are growing a spine. Yes, Iraq is a threat. But (at the risk of appearing uninformed) it's not the most crucial threat right now. Yes, Saddam is a loose cannon who needs to be smacked down. But really, what good will it do to get the entire world pissed off at us by acting unilaterally? And by calling for an invasion, they're basically playing into Saddam's hands -- he gets to play the victim.
But that's not the worst part. The key here, is Bush's assertion that the Democrats are not interested in national security. That's simply a gross insult to half of the legislative branch of the government.
quote:Daschle: "But then I read in the paper this morning, now even the president -- the president is quoted in The Washington Post this morning as saying that the Democratic-controlled Senate is 'not interested in the security of the American people.'"
And THAT is what Daschle is reacting to. Bush and Cheney and the others are trying to make it look like the Republicans are the only ones who really care about "national security."
Take the example of Cheney's fund-raising speech. He specifically connected the election of a Republican to the support of a war that hasn't even started yet!
Here, I've got an idea for national security: nuke everyone else off the face of the planet. Then they won't bother us! Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i'd love to nuke everyone off the planet. especially PETA.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Daschle meltdown.
Of course, the Bush quote that has Daschle so all-fired mad was buried in a back page of the Post, and taken out of context. But don't let that get in the way of a good meltdown.
A political party cashing in on a war for political gain? Perish the thought! As if that's never happened, and as if the Democrats aren't trying to do it as well - or haven't done it before... FDR and JFK ring a bell.
Poor Daschle, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. A CBS poll shows 68% of Americans favoring war ( http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm ), his compatriots are starting to jump ship or engage in internal warfare (Didja hear Gore blast Lieberman, his former running mate and bosom pal in 2000?) You can't help but feel sorry for the guy.
And now Condoleeza Rice says they've got new evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaida.
Well, half your post doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. Gore & Lieberman? Is your case against Daschle really that weak you have to go off topic?
Wellin that case, fine. Bush has BO. I win.
Also, aren't you and Omega always the ones screaming about how polls can't be trusted? Now we know that you do trust them quite a bit.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well, if the poll is from the media, and it says that the Conservatives are RIGHT, I admit that's odd. Odd enough to merit special attention.
quote:Gore & Lieberman? Is your case against Daschle really that weak you have to go off topic?
It's not off-topic at all, it's a perfectly valid reason for Daschle, normally a fairly soft-spoken individual, to be raving and shouting on the Senate floor - his party is breaking ranks and fighting amongst themselves. ( Gore attacking Lieberman is simply a rather striking example of this event.) Since Daschle is the nominal leader of the Democrats - he by far gets the most face time - this does not say good things about him being able to hold the party together... which is BAD news for a possible presidential hopeful.
And since his anger at Bush is over something so otherwise inconsequential, one must assume that his rage has other contributing factors.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh, there you go with the tired old "the Jewish liberal media" rant again. It's old. It's tiresome. It's not true.
Yeah, his rant couldn't have anything to do with the simple fact that George W. Bush is a coward who took refuge in the National Guard instead of having the conviction to fight in Vietnam or burn his draft card. And that then that same man makes a lump and general conclusion that Democrats are against protecting their nation.
Yeah. We can see by example. And Republicans are notorious for dodging combat, then urging for it when they're in office.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, this is constructive.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
OMG, the much-derided "chickenhawk" theory!
Think about our history, and you'll see how foolish this argument is.
War Between the States - On one side, you had the CSA, led by Jeff Davis, a West Point grad, a military man. On the other side, you had Abe Lincoln. Who proved to be the better leader?
WWI - Woody Wilson -never served. Never saw action.
WWII - FDR-Served in an admin capacity in the Navy, never saw action.
Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that only those who served in the military be allowed to voice their opinions re war? You know you previously voiced the opinion that that's un-American.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Rob, you keep changing the subject. I never suggested that it was, as you suggest, about who is better to lead the country.
Rather (as anyone with a basic comprehension of English would have read), how is it that some chickenshit piece of fuck asshole who used his daddy's political connections to cower in relative safety without having the conviction to fight or burn his draft card DARE question the integrity of those who DID fight for their country?
George W. Bush (the cickenshit piece of fuck asshole in question) attacked John McCain's integrity during the Republican primaries ... a man who fought in Vietnam and was a POW ... now he attacks Democrats, including those who have served in the military and in combat duties. This is nothing new to that cheap prick we have to call a "president", and I'm *DAMN* glad someone called him for being the moronic fuckface he is.
As usual, your reading skills and abilities are below par.
Thanks for playing.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:some chickenshit asshole who used his daddy's political connections to cower in relative safety without having the conviction to fight or burn his draft card DARE question the integrity of those who DID fight for their country
I don't know. Somehow, he still managed to get elected in 1992 and '96, though.
Oh, save it. I admit that was a cheap shot, even though it is true.
How many Democratic Representatives ARE veterans, BTW? I know Hillary isn't. I know Daschle is a Vietnam vet, but I can't find out where he served.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Rob,
Clinton's father didn't have political connections, remember? Actually, I think Clinton's dad abandoned the family. And Clinton had at the least the courage to stand by his convictions and burn his draft card. Bush didn't even have that courage.
(PS -- the only Republican senators to see combat are McCain and Hagel).
-Democrat Senators in the Military-
* Sen. Daniel Akaka (Hawaii) - Served during World War II ('43-'47), some of that with Army Corps of Engineers. Was at Saipan and Tinian.
* Sen. John Kerry (MA) - Rewarded Silver Star for actions in Vietnam (not to be confused with former Sen Bob Kerry, also a Dem, who was a SEAL during Vietnam and lost his leg in combat).
quote:John Kerry entered the Navy after graduation, becoming a Swift Boat officer, serving on a gunboat in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat.
* Sen. Max Cleland (Georgia) - Lost both legs and one arm in Vietnam during his second tour. Awarded Silver Star and Bronze Star for meritorious service.
quote:"After airborne training at Ft. Benning, Georgia and a tour as an Aide de Camp at Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, Cleland volunteered for duty in Vietnam in 1967. In 1968, he was promoted to the rank of Captain, but was seriously wounded in a grenade explosion on April 8th of that year, costing him both legs and his right arm."
* Sen. Tom Daschle (S. Dakota) - Served three years as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Air Force Strategic Air Command.
* Sen. Daniel Inyoue (Hawaii) - WWII. Enlisted in March, '43 when he turned 18. Served in 442nd Regimental Combat Team. Promoted to Sergeant, and served in Italy. Recieved battlefield commission to first lieutenant after fighting in the French Vosges Mountains. Later, wounded in combat, he continued to press an attack against a machine gun nest, sustaining wounds which led to the amputation of his right arm.
* Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia) - USMC '53 - '56
quote:Miller did his 12-week boot camp at Parris Island, SC, followed by time at Naval Training Station in Great Lakes, IL and the 2nd Marine Division at Camp Lejeune, NC. By the end of the three years, he had earned the rank of sergeant and was an Expert Rifleman.
* Sen. Jack Reed (Rhode Island) - Graduated West Point, served '67 - '79, and as a reserve until '91.
quote:Reed, an Army Ranger and a paratrooper, served in the 82nd Airborne Division as an Infantry Platoon leader, a Company Commander and a Battalion Staff Officer.
* Sen. Tom Carpel (Del.) - U.S. Navy, '68 - '73, then a reserve until '91.
* Sen. Jon Corzine (NJ) - USMC Reserve, '69 - '75.
* Sen. Chris Dodd (Ct.) - Army Reserves, '69 - '75.
* Sen. Jeff Bingaman (NM) - Army Reserves 68-74
* Sen. Herb Kohn (Wis.) - Army Reserves '58 - '64
---
So, yeah, Bush is a cowardly sack of shit to attack men who have placed their lives on the line for this nation. Fucking prick piece of shit.
(PS -- Rob & Omega, when you said that Daschle was the one making this political ... that's when I decided to kick your collective asses)
[ September 26, 2002, 18:14: Message edited by: Snay ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Clinton's father didn't have political connections
Gore.
when you said that Daschle was the one making this political ... that's when I decided to kick your collective asses
And this will start when?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
However, Rob was clearly speaking of Clinton. Gore actually served not only in the armed services but also in Vietnam.
Omega, I've kicked your ass so hard already it's no wonder its no numb you've not noticed the rest of the kicking. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yes, but he served as a reporter, not a combatant. Thanks to his father's political clout. So, Gore.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Actual quote:
quote:"The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this president and future presidents to better keep the American people secure. And people are working hard to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats. See, this isn't a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is an issue which is vital to our future. It'll help us determine how secure we'll be."
(emphasis mine)
If he wanted to be accurate, he should have said "There are those in the Senate who are" rather than "the Senate is," because fully a third of Senate Democrats are expected to vote for the Bush resolutions, and another third are undecided but likely to jump on so as not to damage their chances at re-election.
But this is a war, and despite what Sen. Daschle says, wars are always politicized. People get re-elected for staying out of war (Wilson), they get re-elected for being in DURING a war (Roosevelt), and they get elected for being IN a War, playing on their record (Taylor, Grant, T. Roosevelt, etc.) Who caught most of the heat for Vietnam, after all, the guy who got us in, or the guy who brought us out?
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Senator Ted Kennedy criticized the President harshly in a speech he gave this week. The speech is on his website.
Journalists in war have as much chance being killed as the combatants. And in some cases, journalists have been forced to take up weapons and engage the other side in combat. With these ideas in mind, I see VP Gore as a veteran of the Vietnam War.
Yesterday, on News Night with Aaron Brown, General Wesley Clark was asked by Mr. Brown if the war would stay confined to Iraq. Gen. Clark was of the opinion that this would occur; however, he added rumors being circulated by top ranking officials of the administration that Syria and/or Iran may be attacked at some future date. When we considered the resolution written at the White House and sent to Congress, this explains the clause which calls for military action to bring peace to the region. Our administration was planning a massive drive, starting with Iraq, to cleanse the Middle East of terrorists. This was and is terrifying.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:So, Gore.
No, Rob was clearly speaking of Clinton, since it was HE who was elected in '92 and '96 (VPs aren't elected seperately, you know).
quote:the guy who got us in,
Who, Eisenhower?
quote:guy who brought us out?
Nixon? But Watergate and Vietnam were too seperate things and all.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, with the propaganda that was absobed by the American people, coming form both directions, the US was anti-war, with most of the pro-war people being the WW2 vets. With the anti-war sentiment at the time Nixon should have been more secure in his position, but his other scandals really put an and to that...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Then there's the uncomfortable fact that Daschle was the UberHawk when it came to Iraq in 1998.
"Democrats for Regime Change" Weekly Standard, 9-16-02
Daschle not only supported military action against Iraq, he campaigned vigorously for a congressional resolution to formalize his support. Other current critics of President Bush--including Kerry, Graham, Patrick Leahy, Christopher Dodd, and Republican Chuck Hagel--co-sponsored the broad resolution: Congress "urges the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Daschle said the resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law."
He also said "Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
And the then- BMOC, Billy himself said "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century," he argued. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
In one of his diatribes, Daschle asked "What has changed in recent months or years" to justify confronting Saddam.
A better question would be: What's changed to make some Senate Democrats no longer want to confront him?
The only thing I can find that's changed is the political party of the man in the White House. Is that "politicizing war?"
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
I dunno, could have something to do with the fact that Saddam is willing to let weapons inspectors in now, et al.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Funny, I thought we were all in agreement that he never let them do their job in the first place...
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yeah, but since he's making the offer, it's kind of hard to say "Saddam isn't letting us inspect weapons, KILL HIM!"
PS -- kind of interesting how every time Clinton bombed Iraq, Republicans screamed that he was trying to take public interest off his "scandals", isn't it ... ?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Jeff, the problem is that he did say come on in, but you can't look in to anything at my presidential palaces, which I now have a lot of. Oh, you thought those were military bases, no, no, those were always presidential palaces, I just never named them till I didn't want you there....
Okay, we search all the places he lets us, then bomb the fuck out of the rest....
This seems fair to me...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Not to mention that the 'presidential palaces' are usually about the same size as central London...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Regarding the Weekly Standard article:
quote:This new article in the Weekly Standard by Stephen F. Hayes ("Democrats for Regime Change") is getting a lot of attention by tarring Democrats as hypocrites on Iraq. Hayes takes us back to February 1998 when President Clinton was ratcheting up pressure for military action against Iraq in the then-on-going struggle over inspections. He quotes the then-president extensively on the necessity of acting. And he quotes Democrats like Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt and John Kerry supporting the president and echoing his argument for action -- including military action -- against Iraq.
Hayes' argument -- first implicit, later explicit -- is obvious: what else beside partisanship would be preventing Democrats from endorsing the case against Saddam and the need for military action now when they did so so fulsomely four years ago?
The argument reads well. But it sets the Standard in a two-against-one battle against logic and the its own editorial line.
After all, just what sort of military action was being discussed? And with what aim? Even the most skittish Democrats today are full of talk about the necessity of confronting Iraq, the dangers of WMD, and so forth. But Hayes' argument only makes sense if what Democrats were inclined to endorse four years ago is at all similar to what they're hesitant to endorse today. But, of course, it's not. The entire discussion Hayes references refers to military action, but not the forcible overthrow of the Iraqi regime through military force.
Who says so? Why, the Weekly Standard. And virtually every other Republican politician and certainly every conservative publication. The conceit of Bush administration policy on Iraq is that it's fundamentally different from Clinton administration policy -- which is, by and large, true. At just the time Bill Clinton and the sundry Democrats Hayes' quotes were making their statements the Standard said, succinctly enough, that "Containment is the strategy this administration has chosen." (Weekly Standard, Editorial, March 2, 1998) In other words, the policy then on offer was fundamentally different from what's now being discussed. Supporting that one then and not supporting this one today means nothing.
Perhaps Clinton's policy was the wrong one. Pains me as it does to say, by the end of the second term I don't think the Clinton administration had a coherent policy on Iraq. But the logic of Hayes' argument collapses at the simple level of a mistaken apples and oranges comparison.
quote:dunno, could have something to do with the fact that Saddam is willing to let weapons inspectors in now, et al.
This is a good point, with one or two rather large problems.
#1. Saddam lies. A lot. This is a bit of a historical precedent.
#2. The inspectors LAST TIME were supposed to have 'unfettered access.' And they did, until they actually wanted to do anything to CONFIRM that the weapons had actually been destroyed, or weren't being manufactured anywhere like in hospitals (best place for a biowar lab) or in those military installations-cum-palaces which suddenly sprouted anywhere.
Now, if you want to lay offs, we could set up a pool to see how long it takes for "unfettered access" to turn to "you can't go there."
Put me down for 10 minutes.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Feeling generous are you???
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Why??!!??!
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Why??!!??!
i think he was referring to First of Two giving an entire 10 minutes. but maybe i'm wrong. i am, afterall, not a sailor.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yes, but I think you were not reading Mr. Liam's comment closely enough. A hint??!?!?!?!?!?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:According to U.N. and Iraqi officials, restrictions on surprise visits to President Saddam Hussein’s presidential palaces remain in place.
Since it has already been established that several of his "palaces" were military installations prior to being "renamed" during the last inspection cycle, I submit that the value and reliability of any future inspections are now highly questionable.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Since it has already been established that several of his "palaces" were military installations prior to being "renamed" during the last inspection cycle, I submit that the value and reliability of any future inspections are now highly questionable.
I agree. Inspections need to be unconditional.
Now I have to go get some water as I can't believe I agreed with Rob.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
The nice thing about being a hradline independant is that I agree with whomever I feel is right, unfettered by party lines.....
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Cause I only disagree with Rob just because he a Republican.
I don't even know or care if he is.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Canadians are backing American demands for unfettered, unscheduled, and unannounced inspections. They want a tough new resolution addressing this drafted in the UN. The current one basically, as everyone would agree, has no teeth.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Canadians are backing American demands for unfettered, unscheduled, and unannounced inspections. They want a tough new resolution addressing this drafted in the UN. The current one basically, as everyone would agree, has no teeth.
Canadians are wise and good.
Now if we can only get Russia, China, and France to wake up to that fact...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
What fact? That Canadians are wise and good, or that Iraqis are unwise and nongood?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Oh, by the way, Farquad, you'll like this: Tony Blair's secret weapon to convince his own party of the war's necessity (it's the Labour Party's annual conference in Blackpool this week) is. . . Bill Clinton.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Angels and ministers of grace defend us...
FARQUAD?
*LOL*
I'm not even going to ask if that was on purpose or not...
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: Oh, by the way, Farquad, you'll like this: Tony Blair's secret weapon to convince his own party of the war's necessity (it's the Labour Party's annual conference in Blackpool this week) is. . . Bill Clinton.
well it does make you wonder if Clinton was using missile strikes against Afghanistan to divert against the uh, Lewinsky affair. As so the Republicans claim....
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
The bizarre thing was that, acompanying Clinton on his conference warmongering junket, was Kevin Spacey (the actor). No-one knows why.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: Oh, by the way, Farquad, you'll like this: Tony Blair's secret weapon to convince his own party of the war's necessity (it's the Labour Party's annual conference in Blackpool this week) is. . . Bill Clinton.
I got to hear part of it on BC news last night. Looks like the Labour Party members liked him. He may be more popular over there now then he is here.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Omega is quoting Shakespeare now? Perhaps that fancy college of his is actually teaching him something, after all...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: The bizarre thing was that, acompanying Clinton on his conference warmongering junket, was Kevin Spacey (the actor). No-one knows why.
Well, apparently they had lunch with Prince Andrew and he payed! Unfortuneatly I can imagine Clinton's speech; "So I say to Saddam, wanna see my rocket in action?"
(Sorry, sorry; someone had to say it though)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Angels and ministers of grace defend us...
FARQUAD?
*LOL*
I'm not even going to ask if that was on purpose or not...
Of course it was. That he spelled the character's name wrong, though, is quite funny to me. It's like giving someone the wrong finger.
His name is Lord Farquaad. 2 'a's.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Speaking of shady dealings, how about the Dems doing another 'redefinition' of state law so they don't lose Toricelli's NJ Senate seat (and possibly the Senate with it?)
Option #1. The Dems lose in the Supreme Court, and Toricelli's name stays on the ballot, meaning the Republican candidate essentially runs unopposed. Reps win, possibly taking back the Senate.
Option #2. The Dems win in the Supreme Court, take the Torch's name off the ballot, and disencfranchise all the abseentees and overseas voters who may have already voted for him! Plus, it just looks BAD, going TWICE to the Supreme Court because you lost according to the laws of the state. Plus, the Reps get to bash the Dems for doing another "end run around the law." Even if the new Democrat wins, Republicans can have hours of fun referring to him as the NEW "His Illegitimacy."
Either way, it should be entertaining.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:...because you lost according to the laws of the state.
Not according to the unanimous New Jersey State Supreme Court.
It seems that those pro-states' rights Republicans don't want the states to make decisions about their own election laws. Again.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
We want the state LEGISLATURE to make the law, not the courts. Basically, we want those chosen by the people to make the laws, not the people who are simply appointed. How 'bout you?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
You really want to go down this road again?
Legislatures make law, courts interpret law.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Clinton also didn't really back the war in his speech. His main point was that the UN resolutions need to be abolished so that the inspectors can have complete access to anything that they want to, er, inspect. Because, as he pointed out, when you start firing weapons, innocent people die, so any option that will solve things without firing weapons would be a good thing.
He also pointed out that more chemical, biological and WOMD were confiscated and destroyed by inspectors between 1991 and 1998 than were destroyed in teh Gulf War or any subsequent military action. To to say that the weapons inspectors have been useless is a bit untrue.
Still, most people seem to agree that the current restrictions on weapon inspections are preventing them from doing a complete job. Logically:
Problem: UN Regulations preventing inspectors from doing a complete search for weapons.
Option 1: Change the regulations.
Option 2: Bomb things while quoting Tom Clancy film taglines.
That's a pickle.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well then, they were interpreting it with an English/Martian dictionary, because there's no way that that law could be "interpreted" to mean anything else by any sane individual.
But there's no need for an uproar, until the US Supreme Court makes its decision.
Liam: yes, but that's what The Bush administration has been saying, too. We need a new resolution.
Part 1 of the resolution = give inspectors full authority to go anywhere, anytime, they need to. No 'notice' no 'observers' (the need to get which gives the Iraqis time to hide stuff).
Part 2 = the authority to stomp Saddam, if he doesn't comply with part one, until he does.
Now, tell the French and Russians and Chinese that. Be loud.
Pardon us, but we're preparing to either:
1. Enforce part 2, because we assume that Saddam won't comply with part 1, and we're pretty much the only folks both able and willing to enforce part 2.
2. Go in without the resolution, if its blocked, because it's the last resort when that fails.
You may recognize that from ST3: "The Word is 'no.' I am therefore going anyway."
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
BONUS POST! You have a choice of two options:-
1. Actually, I chose to spell it that way, I know the character in Shrek was spelled "Farquaad."
-or-
2. Oops, you're right, I did mis-spell it, I should of course have typed "fuckwad."
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Careful. You keep showing your temper off like that, and they'll take away your 'stiff upper lip' privileges.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
That was the least temper filled post that Lee has ever posted.
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: You may recognize that from ST3: "The Word is 'no.' I am therefore going anyway."
That's great. USING QUOTES FROM FILMS IMPROVES YOUR POINT!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
A new generation in the military, a 'new' war to be fought....
Every US generation has had a 'war' to fight, remember that this group of kids was about 10 when the last Bush sent in the troops.... Now it is their turn...
Liam, you should have used hacker-geek to write that last bit....
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
*breaks into song* I was gonna tell Farquad to jump into a lake, but then I got high. . . 8)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: A new generation in the military, a 'new' war to be fought....
Every US generation has had a 'war' to fight, remember that this group of kids was about 10 when the last Bush sent in the troops.... Now it is their turn...
"A new generation in the military. Now, will he make the ultimate sacrifice for the country he loves?"
*shots of explosions*
"When people die by the thousands, can one man make a difference?"
*Shot of, say, Will Smith*
"I believe in my country. I was only 10 when the last war was fought."
*Shots of lots more explosions*
"Now, it's my turn."
*Helicopters, tanks, people running, explosions*
"Paramount studios presents a film by someone who is almost Jerry Buckheimer, but not quite"
*Shot of, say, Will Smith looking moody*
"Every generation has to fight a war. This is mine."
*Fade to title:*
RANDOM WAR VII: This time it's about, er, something or other.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
And we would all go down together!
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Assuming we get the UN to agree on a resolution vis-a-vis spitting or swallowing, that is.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Given the recent activity in the House of Representatives, I'd just like to say:
GO GEPHARDT! Screw Streisand's memo!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Daschle came out in support of the Bush Iraq plan, as all the "alternate" plans were voted down.
GO DASCHLE!
HA!
*commences turbo-mooning*
[Vader:] Now his failure is complete.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I sincerely hope that, if Bush invades Iraq, he finds absolutely zero evidence of any nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I visited some Former-Iraqi citizins today, very nice people, hot looking daughters....
She felt SH and GWB were both losers, er, her words were, '...they are both stupid.'
She got out of Iraq after the last Bush invasion, she , her husband and kids, were bound for anyplace people didn't drop bombs on them. She was tired of it, first Iran, then the Bush team....
If all the women over there look like her and her daughters then maybe we should go have a big ass party over there.....
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I sincerely hope that, if Bush invades Iraq, he finds absolutely zero evidence of any nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.
I sincerely hope that you, in fact, do not really hope that to be the case. It says a great deal about your character if you want Bush to be found in the wrong at the expense of lives of the Iraqi people.
If, however, no evidence were found, I would be the first Republican in line calling for an investigation and demanding someone be held accountable. If such an investigation implicated Bush, then I would support his removal from office.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Thank you for that lovely interpretation, Herr Spin-Doktor.
Now, back to what I actually said... I at no point suggested that I wanted Bush to invade Iraq at all. However, if, like the crazed lunatic he is, he chooses to do so, I would prefer that he find nothing. If his actions were ever justified, how could we stop him from going even further?
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Thank you for that lovely interpretation, Herr Spin-Doktor.
Uh…, I don’t spin. I simply call ‘em like I see ‘em. If I am mistaken or I misinterpreted your statement, so be it. However, I think I know exactly what you are saying.
If you refer back to what I actually said, you will note that I never suggested that you wish an attack to occur. If I understand your position correctly (and I am sure you will let me know if I do not) you do not support an attack on Iraq, regardless of whether the attack is or is not justified. However, you stated that if Bush does order an attack, you hope it will not be justified. Is that not correct?
It is this that I find appalling. I, for one, would hope that any attack ordered by a present or future President would have some justification, regardless of his or her political affiliation, and regardless or whether or not I supported the attack. To wish otherwise infers that one cares more about politics than the loss of human life.
Again, I hope that you really are not wishing for such a scenario.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I thought the North Korea problem had been taken care of!
12 September 1985: North Korea signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
23 June 1986: North Korea announces that it will refrain from testing, producing, or stockpiling nuclear weapons.
June 1994: North Korean President Kim Il Sung agrees to freeze his nation's nuclear program in exchange for Western aid and a resumption of dialogue with the United States.
21 October 1994: A series of discussion between North Korea and the United States conclude in the "Agreed Framework."
(under which we agreed to help them build a "light water reactor")
10 October 2000: President Clinton meets with a top North Korean military commander Jo Myong Rok, the first meeting between a US President and a senior official from the DPRK. The two sides draft a joint communique during the visit.
(the joint comminique states: "Pledging to redouble their commitment and their efforts to fulfill their respective obligations in their entirety under the Agreed Framework, the US and the D.P.R.K. strongly affirmed its importance to achieving peace and security on a nuclear weapons free Korean Peninsula. To this end, the two sides agreed on the desirability of greater transparency in carrying out their respective obligations under the Agreed Framework. In this regard, they noted the value of the access which removed U.S. concerns about the underground site at Kumchang-ri.")
This was supposed to end the problem! North Korea CAN'T have nukes, no matter what they say!
Oops. I may have dripped too much sarcasm.
Looks as though the current administration is right... again.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
mmm, the Korean War never ended.... in any kind of surrender. That is why when we had all those trrops in the Middle East before we were worried about China and/or North Korea opening another front....
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
gee were those the same nuclear treaties we backed out of? everyone else should follow them while we dont, for hypocrisy's sake!
sure the Korean war ended! there wasa big two part last episode, Hawkeye went crazy and Col Potter had to move the MASH unit. Then everyone went home. And Potter convinced Klinger and Mulcahy to work at his hospital wheh they got home. And Radar visited them once.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
gee were those the same nuclear treaties we backed out of?
No.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
'No' as in "No, the US has backed out of nuclear treaties, but these are different nuclear treaties" or "No, the US has never backed out of nuclear treaties, perish the thought?"
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Option A please, for the price of an Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems.....
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The crazy thing is that the US (Read: The Previous Administration), in exchange for a "promise" not to develop nuclear weapons, agreed to help N. Korea build a nuclear power plant.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that that makes Clinton the first US president to actively help a hostile nation (while it was hostile, not before) increase its nuclear capability.
Wowsers. Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
While you're busy rolling your eyes, I'll thank my lucky stars that at least someone in your administration understood the terms "diplomacy" and "balance".
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)