Search This Blog

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Four reasons to fear a Democratic majority in Congress

Democrats seek to fill important congressional positions with left-wing libs!

Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House - San Francisco liberalism in control... Pelosi's Political Philosophy--Raise Taxes

Nancy Pelosi on Taxes.

Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004)
Voted NO on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)
Voted NO on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
Voted NO on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)-- Ya think?????

Nancy Pelosi on Homeland Security.

Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)
Voted NO on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)

Nancy Pelosi on Immigration.

Voted NO on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)



Charles Rangel takes over Ways and Means Committee
- allowing him to block any move to extend the tax cuts, thereby in effect raising taxes on Americans across the board. He's already indicated that this is what he wants...along with starting up the military draft!

Alcee Hastings on Intelligence - why isn't he in jail instead???? That would be as bad as putting Jay "The Leaker" Rockefeller in charge or maybe even worse?

John Conyers on Judiciary - the guy who wants to impeach George Bush, a liberal loony to the nth degree.

Terrorists, on the other hand, are counting on a Democratic win. That trick would be their treat!

27 comments:

highboy said...

All too true radar. The problem is, for which RINOS around the blogosphere like to chide me for, is that you can attribute those same positions to a large chunk of Republicans as well. I say keep the majority, but we need to get them to snap back to attention.

Liberals suck. Liberal majorities suck harder.

A Hermit said...

Wow, this blog has gotten even worse since I was last here...

Nice to see the rest of America seems to be waking up and will hopefully vote out the corrupt, warmongering political opportunists running your country and elect some responsible, rational, compassionate human beings for a change.

See you on Wednesday...

highboy said...

Hermit: Your country has its own problems. I'd suggest you start there. And the "war-mongering" talking point is getting old. America isn't fed up with the GOP because of "war mongering", they're fed up because of liberals, which is what the GOP has acted like. You should have been rooting for them.

creeper said...

"America isn't fed up with the GOP because of "war mongering", they're fed up because of liberals, which is what the GOP has acted like. You should have been rooting for them."

Voters prefer Democrats over Republicans because they're secretly fed up with Democrats. Riiiight... Up is down etc. Perhaps you could consider the possibility that they've seen what the current leadership has to offer and aren't satisfied. A simple and reasonable explanation.

Republicans have had the presidency and both houses of Congress for six years now (and I for one am not convinced they won't have it for another two years - Democrats have screwed up stuff like this before). But Republicans can't shirk responsibility this time.

And why is it so hard for hangers-on of the so-called "party of responsibility" to actually subscribe to the idea of accepting accountability instead of looking to shift the blame?

highboy said...

"And why is it so hard for hangers-on of the so-called "party of responsibility" to actually subscribe to the idea of accepting accountability instead of looking to shift the blame?"\

Creeper, this comment and your entire post is completely irrelevant, since I was holding the GOP accountable. Try reading this again:

"America isn't fed up with the GOP because of "war mongering", they're fed up because of liberals, which is what the GOP has acted like."

Get it? That is why the Republicans have lost steam, because a large body of their base won't vote for them. Their sick of RINOs, they're sick of liberal Republicans.

creeper said...

"Creeper, this comment and your entire post is completely irrelevant, since I was holding the GOP accountable."

If you, Tim High, were synonymous with all "hangers-on of the so-called "party of responsibility"", then you might have had a point, but you're not. As you are probably aware from frequenting right-wing blogs, plenty of Bush supporters have great difficulty finding fault in Bush's policies or actions and find more comfort in demonizing his political oppponents and blaming them instead.

"That is why the Republicans have lost steam, because a large body of their base won't vote for them. Their sick of RINOs, they're sick of liberal Republicans."

You're partly right. Republicans in power and with no one left to shift the blame to haven't delivered on some of their core promises, most notably fiscal responsibility. This in turn has alienated part of their base.

If the fiscal responsibility of the Clinton years is to be credited to the Republican Congress of the time, then what happened to that Congress once Bush got into power? What made them morph into a spend-happy Congress instead of continuing to be a responsible one?

There are additional factors though, such as Bush's strategic bungling of Iraq. Even if one agrees with the overall goal of bringing democracy to Iraq and thus stabilizing the Middle East, it is entirely possible (and currently very wide-spread) to hold Bush and his administration accountable for the mess. That's not a leftie view per se, it's simple accountability, as you can also see it practiced in the editorial pages of the four military Times magazines these days. Somebody messes up? Call a spade a spade and hold them accountable.

Also, and you may not want to hear this, but Bush's pandering to the religious base doesn't necessarily sit well with everyone either. Someone who supports Republicans because of, say, tax cuts may not necessarily be on board with faith-based tinkering with science education. It has affected the overall image of Republicans being the responsible adults to slightly deranged zealots.

Then again, these are more general factors behind the Bush Administration being so heavily disliked, not necessarily the individual races in each state (apart from the general damage to the Republican image).

They do have an effect though, in that a popular president can help close races across the country by making appearances with the candidate. That's what you would be seeing if Bush were a popular president. Instead, he's poison. Hence no appearance with him, and no boost for a candidate in a close race.

highboy said...

Yep, you're right creeper, and while I say vote Republican this election (or I would if I had requested my absentee ballot in time, but unfortunately did not) I get highly irritated at the notion that Republican voters who are against liberal ideology will vote in liberal Republicans, (extreme liberal Republicans) just to get the majority. So they will be the first to complain when Congress continues to piss on their head and tell them its raining.

I agree with the majority of your observations except for the religous aspect. Not just because I'm Christian, but because most Americans have historically appreciated Bush's defense of the Christian side of issues. I think in this case, where as you are right that Bush won't exactly win an election for any of the candidates in Congress, I think he's been declared guilty by association because of people like Dobson and Falwell, who have their fingers in everything political. That's just my observation.

Amy Proctor said...

Great quotes and sources, Radar. I have a friend in Baghdad who wrote to me yesterday and said, Quote:

"support MR. Bush he could make the needed change
and be surre that he got the enamy, and he will fionsh the job .
be proud of your army:women and men ...
but corracting the proceeses is part of the job ..."

For him I'm voting REpublican, and for my children. And myself. And my country.

A Hermit said...

listen to the veterans here. Iraq for Sale America needs oversight and accountability and an end to war profiteering. They won't get it from the gamg of croks running things today.

America's soldiers deserve better, don't you think?

creeper said...

Amy,

surely that e-mail is a parody, no?

Judging from your past comments, I take it that your own words are not intended to be a parody, so perhaps you could tell me how you think President "Stay The Course" Bush who just said Rumsfeld is in for another two years has it within himself to "make the needed change".

creeper said...

Amy,

should that e-mail be sincere, could you ask your friend in Baghdad what he thinks the "needed change" might be?

creeper said...

Highboy,

Who would you say is an "extreme liberal Republican"? And did they run on a platform of runaway spending, lack of accountability etc.?

I don't agree with the label of "liberal" for runaway spending. It's simple political opportunism, and it's pretty clear that both sides of the aisle are susceptible to it. The only sweet spot I can think of where that wasn't the case was the Clinton years, which (for the most part, anyway) happened to consist of a Republican House and a Democratic President. When Bush came in, it went to s**t. Doesn't the guy know what a veto is? Some leadership.


The current Republican voting blocks are largely a combination of let's call them economic conservatives (the ones who like the tax cuts), religious conservatives, and national security conservatives. The last two presidential elections were close, and each of those blocks was important. Bush has to do something to please each of them. Maybe you're right that Dobson and Falwell butted in a bit too much, and Ann Coulter's bonehead remarks sure didn't help matters as far as the conservative Republican image went, but Bush wasn't exactly resisting any of this - did he distance himself from any of them? When Bush says something, it carries a lot more weight than if someone down the food chain says it. So he makes some remark about ID, and suddenly it makes his administration look that much more like a religious zealot zone.

But he has to do stuff like this to keep his various factions happy.

Except that just saying stuff isn't enough. After six years in office, results do matter. So now he's cut taxes but hasn't cut spending (and no, that spending doesn't all come down to national security) and the debt has gone up, he's gone into Iraq and Afghanistan and for some reason they weren't the fixes he promised: Afghanistan is precarious and Iraq, instead of the troops being pulled out in a year or so, is a mess where Iran is stronger instead of weaker and Bush has to commit an equal level of troop deployment for the foreseeable future. And no, acknowledging that the leadership messing things up is not "treason" or a slight against the troops themselves. Even the military magazines are coming out in the open and questioning their leadership at this stage. The WMD either didn't exist in the first place, are now in the hands of shady underground organizations or were spirited across the border around the time of the Iraq war. For anyone who cares about national security and isn't completely blinded by partisan politics, each of those options is a completely unacceptable result from an administration that attacked Iraq in order to secure WMD.

So the national security supporters are massively disillusioned.

And the religious folks don't think he's gone far enough, from what I gather - I'm guessing you'd agree with that, wouldn't you, Tim?

loboinok said...

That's not a leftie view per se, it's simple accountability, as you can also see it practiced in the editorial pages of the four military Times magazines these days. Somebody messes up? Call a spade a spade and hold them accountable.

Even the military magazines are coming out in the open and questioning their leadership at this stage.

Why wouldn't they come out in the open and question the Republican leadership? They're liberals!

They are now part of the Gannett Group (USAToday) and the writers for these four “military papers” also work at USAToday.

None of the Military Times weekly are professional. Their circulation is going the way of all the other liberal rags...South, and their staff is shared with USAToday.


Also, and you may not want to hear this, but Bush's pandering to the religious base doesn't necessarily sit well with everyone either. Someone who supports Republicans because of, say, tax cuts may not necessarily be on board with faith-based tinkering with science education.

Define this "religious base" if you will. It seems to change frequently, depending on what is being discussed.

highboy said...

"Who would you say is an "extreme liberal Republican"?"

Arlen Spectre.

"Doesn't the guy know what a veto is?"

Apparently not. He should have been vetoing a lot of what he passed during this term, but he played politics. He'll do the same if/when the Dems take office, vetoing everything they send him. (hopefully)

"After six years in office, results do matter. So now he's cut taxes but hasn't cut spending (and no, that spending doesn't all come down to national security) and the debt has gone up"

Yup. One reason yours truly, is so pissed off.

"Even the military magazines are coming out in the open and questioning their leadership at this stage"

Lobo's right, the Army Times and the like are horrible, written by USA Today writers whose biased is as blatant as the nose on their face.

"So the national security supporters are massively disillusioned."

Not really. We're well aware of the short-comings of the Bush administration and the WMD search. But the Democrat alternative is either to cut and run, or well...they have no alternative. Bush's policy has had its shortcomings, but its had its success too, which the biased liberal media will not acknowledge in any way. The fact is, Democrats have no answer for the national security issue, except to attack Bush. Objective people like yourself know this creeper.

"And the religious folks don't think he's gone far enough, from what I gather - I'm guessing you'd agree with that, wouldn't you, Tim?"

Depends on what you mean by "far enough". He opposes the big issues for us Christian conservatives, such as homosexual marriages and abortion. But there is only so much he can do. Its in the hands of the states for the most part. He appointed two good judges to the Supreme Court, another great step in the right direction. I don't want a theocracy, but I would have my president acknowledge the Christian principles from which our country is built on, and Bush has, and did it without pushing for a theocracy, which is what the liberals are forever trying to scare us with.

creeper said...

Thanks for the info, Lobo. Wasn't aware of that and had only recently dipped into the issue. Not that I expected the Army etc. Times to be some kind of wonkish foreign policy journal.

What do you think about Rumsfeld, by the way? Could the country benefit from Bush appointing a new Secretary of Defence?

(I'm still curious about that guy that Amy referenced: what change does he think is needed, and how can it be attained?)


Highboy,

"Arlen Specter"

I only lived in Pennsylvania for a few years, so I'm sure you know a lot more about Specter than I do, but it seems to me he's not exactly an extreme liberal, seeing as he's pro-death penalty and pro-NRA. Correct me if I'm wrong on those. The extreme liberal side of the spectrum wouldn't have him. Pro-civil unions, pro-choice, true.

"Not really. We're well aware of the short-comings of the Bush administration and the WMD search. But the Democrat alternative is either to cut and run, or well...they have no alternative."

For starters, what is the Republican alternative to the shortcomings of the Bush administration?

What is the Bush administrations's alternative to the shortcomings of the Bush administration?

I don't see what pointing at the opposition party has to do with the Bush administration failing to address one of the key issues of their foreign policy (attacking Iraq to prevent use and proliferation of WMD) in any way. Think about what they claimed before they invaded Iraq, then think about the different scenarios that could ensue from that, and how they failed at each and every one:

1. No WMD found. (Going on the assumption that they did exist, it was essential that they be found and secured.)
2. WMD not kept out of hands of shady underground organizations. (Ditto.)
3. WMD not contained within Iraq's borders, but allowed to be transported to other suspect nations. (Ditto.)

That's three key objectives of the invasion simply not being met. But somehow you think it's more important that the minority party who wasn't in charge of this operation didn't have the answers that the commander in chief was supposed to have.

Surely it's not that hard to think in terms of accountability. Did the guy you want in office succeed or fail?

Not: Did the guy you want in office succeed in not being demonstrably worse than the opposition party, even if that means comparing the failure to meet one's objective with a party out of power not having a plan of battle? Or calling it a success when someone does marginally better than people you routinely demonize?

"I don't want a theocracy, but I would have my president acknowledge the Christian principles from which our country is built on"

I guess there are some flexible terms here. In public, every president pays lip service to Christian principles. Once government services are to be replaced by "faith-based" services, that is clearly a step toward a theocracy. (Not a theocracy unto itself, but a step in that direction.)

And yes, loboinok, that religious base can be a flexible group, depending on the issue, though I'm guessing with a common core. It's just that different numbers of people sign up for different issues.

loboinok said...

What do you think about Rumsfeld, by the way? Could the country benefit from Bush appointing a new Secretary of Defence?

The President chooses his Secretary of Defense to serve at his pleasure. Bush would know far better than I, if Rumsfeld is competent and qualified for the position.

I served during war under SoD Melvin Laird and James Schlesinger. I knew nothing about either man and didn't really care, other than knowing my chain of command.

Incidentally, Rumsfeld became SoD under Ford, 3 months after I left the military. Dick Cheney was Ford's Chief of Staff.

I just did a check on Rumsfeld and found he was:

13th Secretary of Defense

White House Chief of Staff

U.S. Ambassador to NATO

Administrative Assistant to a Congressman

U.S. Congressman 1962, re-elected in 1964, 1966, and 1968

Attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships

Served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor

In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975

He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.

From 1969 to 1970, he served as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Assistant to the President

From 1971 to 1972, he was Counsellor to the President and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program

Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford

Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Co

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Corporation

Chairman U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission

Chairman U.S. Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization

Member of the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control

Special Presidential Envoy on the Law of the Sea Treaty

Senior Advisor to the President's Panel on Strategic Systems

Member of the U.S. Joint Advisory Commission on U.S./Japan Relations (1983 - 1984)

Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East

Member of the National Commission on Public Service

Member of the National Economic Commission

Member of the Board of Visitors of the National Defense University

Member of the Commission on U.S./Japan Relations (1989 - 1991)

Member of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission

Member of the National Academy of Public Administration and a member of the boards of trustees of the Gerald R. Ford Foundation, the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and the National Park Foundation, and as Chairman of the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, Inc.

Awards include:

Eagle Scout Award (1947)
* All Navy Wrestling Champion (1956)
* George C. Marshall Medal by the U.S. Army Association (1984)
* Woodrow Wilson Medal by Princeton University (1985)
* Dwight D. Eisenhower Medal (1993)
* Lone Sailor Award by the U.S. Navy Memorial Foundation (2002)
* Statesmanship Award by the U.S. Assoc of Former Members of Congress (2003)
* James H. Doolittle Award by the Hudson Institute (2003)
* Ronald Reagan Freedom Award by the Reagan Library (2003)
* Gerald R. Ford Medal presented by President Ford and the Ford Foundation (2004

The Presidential Medal of Freedom (1977)

11 honorary degrees

He looks qualified to me...how about you?

loboinok said...

I don't see what pointing at the opposition party has to do with the Bush administration failing to address one of the key issues of their foreign policy (attacking Iraq to prevent use and proliferation of WMD) in any way. Think about what they claimed before they invaded Iraq, then think about the different scenarios that could ensue from that, and how they failed at each and every one:

1. No WMD found. (Going on the assumption that they did exist, it was essential that they be found and secured.)

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to *terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

*2. WMD not kept out of hands of shady underground organizations. (Ditto.)

America is threatened by an "unholy axis":

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from *terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the *outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html

http://www.usemb.ee/union98.php3

*2. WMD not kept out of hands of shady underground organizations. (Ditto.)



Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm


"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html



"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/



"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons."

James P. Rubin, President Clinton's State Department spokesman
In a PBS documentary titled "Saddam's Ultimate Solution"
July 11, 2002
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saddam/


"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm


3. WMD not contained within Iraq's borders, but allowed to be transported to other suspect nations. (Ditto.)

How would you suggest a military that hasn't even invaded the country, secure WMD within Iraq's border?

Clinton and his administration, talked about taking out Saddam... but they didn't get it done, did they?

Clinton's intelligence services gave him the same info that Bush was given... what did he do with it?

Why are the above Dems, who knew there was WMD, now saying there never was?

How could Saddam, who was all bad and a threat in '98', not be the same or more, after 911?

It's a bad thing to be an "unholy axis" but a "axis of evil" is just hype?

45 UN security violations through Clinton's administration is justification to take military action, but add a few more, a few dozan allies, attacks on our military and our country, and we no longer are justified?

The fact is creeper, Socialism/Marxism has polluted most of our society. It got a strong toe-hold in the 60's and we ended up with Vietnam. Now they are doing the exact same thing, except they don't even bother hiding it any longer.

The Communist Party is supporting the Democrat party today. The Democratic Socialist Party is supporting the Democrats today and all terrorists factions worldwide are supporting the Democrat party today.

http://www.cpusa.org/

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

I would give you the link to the " Congressional Progressive Caucus", but they took everything off their site today (word is getting out)

loboinok said...

And yes, loboinok, that religious base can be a flexible group, depending on the issue

But I'm sure you'll agree that the constitutional rights afforded that religious base, regardless of how flexible or the issue, is secure.

highboy said...

What lobo said.

creeper said...

Wow Lobo, that's one heck of a long-winded evasion, but a mere evasion is what it is.

I guess you're used to trotting out those talking points in response to a smorgasbord of different arguments, but that wasn't the point that was being made here. (There are separate strands of discussion relating to the things you bring up, but that's another topic.)

What on Earth do various quotes from Democrats from the 1990's have to do with the fact that Bush set an objective - keeping America safe from Saddam's WMDs - and failed to meet that objective?

Bush promised to keep the US safe from Saddam's WMDs. Three years later we're looking at three possible outcomes.:

1. No WMD found, so perhaps they didn't exist. That's actually the most benign option out there, and the one most forgiving of Bush.

2. No WMD found, so perhaps they were spirited away by underground organizations. Not good. Now at least as dangerous as before war... and possibly more so. A failure for Bush.

3. No WMD found, so perhaps they were transported across border to other "rogue nations". Likewise, not good. Also a failure for Bush.

I would think that's not so hard to understand: a major objective of the war (and the one trumpeted most loudly at the time of the invasion) that Bush has failed to achieve. Pure and simple.

But for some reason it's more important to point at quotes by Democrats from the 90's. So much for accountability. So much for the "party of responsibility".

"The fact is creeper, Socialism/Marxism has polluted most of our society."

Perhaps if you looked at some real Marxist countries you could appreciate the difference.

"But I'm sure you'll agree that the constitutional rights afforded that religious base, regardless of how flexible or the issue, is secure."

But of course. Even the ACLU is on board for that.

loboinok said...

I will answer you on the top post, sometime before this weekend is over creeper.
Having a bit of problem with the computer and keep losing comments before I can get them posted.

creeper said...

"Having a bit of problem with the computer and keep losing comments before I can get them posted."

Looking forward to your response, Lobo.

If the problem is with your browser, btw, perhaps you could write your comments in Word or something and copy them over when they're done.

loboinok said...

The WMD either didn't exist in the first place

Thus the quotes from the Democrats of the '90's'.
Bush I and his people knew that Iraq had WMD and programs, Clinton and his people knew, Bush II and his people knew as did France, Britain, Germany, Russia and 40 or 50 various other countries, the weapons inspectors and the U.N.

You have been shown that Saddam had, admitted to and used these weapons against other countries and his own people.

We have provided you with quotes, links to translated documents, testimonies of eyewitnesses and the resolutions.

We have shown that Saddam lied about disarming, and every individual and country and organization listed above has stated the same.

Yet, during the preparations leading up to the invasion, the Democrats, U.N. and three or four other countries continually insisted that Iraq be given more time to comply, that all avenues of diplomacy be exhausted and they bickered and argued about it for months.

Bush is ready to go... several others stall for months, giving Saddam time to hide his weapons and move them out of the country and it is Bush's fault that we didn't find the weapons. Riiight!

In the " Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"...

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-235)...

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.

(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.

Where are the weapons Clinton and his people were talking about?

Why did Congress authorize Clinton to take action, only to have him hire it out to "IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATIONS?"

What is an IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION?

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

WMD was not the only reason stated for war.

I would think that's not so hard to understand: a major objective of the war

I would think the same, but you and many in your group are having a major malfunction and failing to wrap your brain around a thing so simple.

Iraq and WMD have involved at least three Presidents and Congresses, both Democrat and Republican, as well as the U.N. and dozens of countries. Bush W. is the only one to fully prosecute it and inspite of all the obstructionism, the failure to find the WMD falls on Bush. Brilliant!

radar said...

Looks like creeper can't answer lobo this time....once again the Democratic talking points cannot stand harsh scrutiny. No surprise there!

creeper said...

Lobo,

again, you either seem to completely misunderstand my point or are evading it. I made a pretty specific point, and I've made it clear that I was making a specific point, and again you lump me in with anyone you've ever disagreed with about the war and instead respond to a whole bunch of arguments I did not make.

In fairness, I may not have been specific enough in my wording, though I would have thought the context made it clear: when I wrote "Either the WMD didn't exist in the first place" I meant "Either the WMD didn't exist in the first place at the time of the preparation for the invasion".

I am NOT making the claim that the WMD didn't exist, but that the WMD not existing at the time of invasion is one out of three possible scenarios (along with the WMD having been transported out of the country and with the WMD having fallen into the hands of terrorist organizations) one could conclude from the lack of WMD found in Iraq to this day. (By WMD here I mean relatively recent and thus usable ones, in quantities that warrant using them as justification to war, not ancient empty shells or labs of dubious heritage that are not considered worth mentioning in this context once properly analyzed.)

I did not say which of those scenarios I considered most likely. All things considered, the WMD not having existed in 2003 is the one I would prefer, whether it is likely or not, since the others would mean that some pretty dangerous weapons are in the hands of our enemies instead of under lock and seal or destroyed.

Nor did I, in the rather specific point I was making, question the justification for war. I'd like to point out a simple point of logic, though: Saddam having a WMD program in 1991 does not mean that he had one in 2003. This was a common conflation bandied about in 2003, pretending that anyone who wondered whether Saddam had WMD at the present time (2003) was actually questioning whether he had ever had them (a far less relevant question, and certainly no justification for war).

"Bush I and his people knew that Iraq had WMD and programs, Clinton and his people knew, Bush II and his people knew as did France, Britain, Germany, Russia and 40 or 50 various other countries, the weapons inspectors and the U.N."

Re. Bush I and to some extent Clinton - see WMD program existing in 1991 does not equal WMD program existing in 2003.

Re. other countries agreeing: "After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator; we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, but we did not find those weapons.

It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."
- Bush's Address to the Nation, 2005

"Yet, during the preparations leading up to the invasion, the Democrats, U.N. and three or four other countries continually insisted that Iraq be given more time to comply, that all avenues of diplomacy be exhausted and they bickered and argued about it for months."

It's 2002/2003. Bush is President and Republicans control Congress. How on Earth does "Democrats insisting" influence Bush's actions? Come on, he wasn't that much of a bipartisan, was he?

As for the UN etc. - the US couldn't go in alone. Blair needed an explicit UN resolution to be able to sell the war back home, and Bush needed the UK as an ally to bring other allies on board too. Without Blair visibly on board there wouldn't have been much of a coalition of the willing. So this wasn't Bush "ready to go", it was Bush assembling the coalition he needed. And that takes time.

As for this being a crucial window in which Saddam could hide WMD - he already had plenty of reason to hide the stuff on account of the weapons inspectors.

"Where are the weapons Clinton and his people were talking about?"

The ones mentioned in the 1998 act (referencing the 1991 resolution) refer to the WMD Saddam had in 1991 and before. A lot of those (we don't know how much of the total) were either destroyed under the supervision of weapons inspectors or, in the case of biological weapons, also simply "went bad" - the stuff has a limited shelf-life (e.g. Sarin only a few months).

"WMD was not the only reason stated for war."

I didn't say it was the only reason, but securing the WMD that Saddam was supposedly going to use against us was a key national security objective which was bungled by Bush - as they are now in the hands of either terrorist organizations or hostile governments (unless, of course, you want to entertain the notion that at the time of the invasion they didn't exist).

"Bush W. is the only one to fully prosecute it and inspite of all the obstructionism, the failure to find the WMD falls on Bush."

Since Bush Jr. made the decision to invade Iraq, yes, of course he's responsible for the conduct of that invasion. Bush Sr. and Clinton didn't get to stand next to him and hold hands and make decisions about how to handle the war. The buck stops at Dubya's desk, obviously.

me: "I would think that's not so hard to understand: a major objective of the war"

you: "I would think the same, but you and many in your group are having a major malfunction and failing to wrap your brain around a thing so simple."


Given my comments in this thread, how do you figure that I don't understand this was a major objective of the war?

I'm not sure which specific "group" you think I belong to, but when I make arguments, I let them stand or fall on their own logic. As far as I know, the point I made here is not a "Democratic talking point", but I can't say I spend much time on Democrat or lefty sites, so I don't really know. If you or Radar have seen this specific argument made somewhere, please let me know.

In the meantime, when you respond to my argument, please look at the argument itself, not a bunch of other arguments made by a bunch of other people on a bunch of other blogs.

creeper said...

Radar,

Wow, thanks for jumping in after such a short time and deciding that I "can't answer".

"Looks like creeper can't answer lobo this time....once again the Democratic talking points cannot stand harsh scrutiny. No surprise there!"

The hypocrisy of your comment is breathtaking.

Radar, how many questions have you been unable to answer in the course of these discussions? How many arguments have you made that couldn't stand not just harsh but even casual scrutiny, and then simply abandoned them without comment or correction?

Here's a recent one:

radar: "federal tax revenues now being received are higher than expenditures"

creeper: "Could you be more specific? Are we looking at a federal budget surplus? Link? I asked you a similar question two or three months ago (more than once), but you chose not to answer."



Does it stand up to scrutiny, Radar?

loboinok said...

I meant "Either the WMD didn't exist in the first place at the time of the preparation for the invasion".

I'd like to point out a simple point of logic, though: Saddam having a WMD program in 1991 does not mean that he had one in 2003. This was a common conflation bandied about in 2003, pretending that anyone who wondered whether Saddam had WMD at the present time (2003) was actually questioning whether he had ever had them (a far less relevant question, and certainly no justification for war).


http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/04032006.htm


WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2006/06/iraq-060629-afps02.htm


The U.S. government has taken a beating for supposed failures to find weapons of mass destruction in the press, and from political opponents. There have been some discoveries that have made the news, most notably an incident in May, 2004, when terrorists used a 155-millimeter shell loaded with sarin in an IED. The shell detonated, exposing two soldiers to sarin nerve gas (both of whom survived and recovered). It is this attack that provides one explanation as to why many of the finds have been classified.

If the United States were to have announced WMD finds right away, it could have told terrorists (including those from al-Qaeda) where to look to locate chemical weapons. This would have placed troops at risk – for a marginal gain in public relations. A successful al-Qaeda chemical attack would have been a huge boost for their propaganda efforts as well, enabling them to get recruits and support (many people want to back a winner), and it would have caused a decline in American morale in Iraq and on the home front.

The other problem is that immediate disclosure could have exposed informants. Protecting informants who provide the location of caches is vital. Not only do dead informants tell no tales, their deaths silence other potential informants – because they want to keep on living. A lack of informants leads to a lack of human intelligence, and the troops don't like being sent out on missions while short on intelligence – it's easy to get killed. This has led to media coverage (particularly around "milestone" deaths)


http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20060623.aspx


Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by these sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. But in all but one case, they never arrived.

http://www.nysun.com/article/27183


Document http://70.168.46.200/Released/07-24-06/ISGQ-2005-00022470.pdf that was written sometimes after the Iraq war talks about an Iraqi dissident named “Abu Abdallah” who says that Iraqi WMD were moved to Syria before the war on the month of 10 Mouharam (Islamic calendar) i.e. March 10. The document was apparently reviewed by the Department of Defense as you the word D.O.D (in Latin letters) written on the side of the document.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1671897/posts


The reason the BND is well-informed of Iraqi WMD programs - nuclear, biological and chemical - is straightforward: since the early 1980s, it has monitored German exports of dual-use nuclear technologies, precursor chemicals for poison-gas weapons, and "pharmaceutical" products and equipment for biological weapons manufacture to the Middle East. Indeed, there are strong suspicions that it was a silent partner in a Hamburg front company, Water Engineering Trading or WET, which covered for and facilitated such exports. Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said in his January 27 report that tons of Iraqi chemical and biological agents and precursors were unaccounted for. Over the years, well over half of the precursor materials and a majority of the tools and know-how for their conversion into weapons were sold to Iraq by German firms - both prior to and after the 1991 Gulf War. The BND has the details.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB05Ak02.html


As far as the weapons inspections were concerned we devised very lucrative measures to hide our ongoing nuclear projects. For instance we were under strict orders to destroy all materials, memos, and reports pertaining to such projects. Immediately after completion of the orders, we were also given orders at random to abandon nuclear facilities and sites where nuclear, chemical, or biological research was being conducted and to move them to future facilities that were not known about until the materials were ready for transport. Many of the workers used for such transport were immediately purged as to leave few witnesses.

As for foreign involvement in our programs, much of this can be attributed to the Russian Federation. Moscow directed many programs around the world, Iraq being one of them where chemical weapons and scientists were sent to further develop unconventional munitions. Contingency plans were developed though, in the event that the host nation was compromised, as in the case of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Spetsnaz forces were sent to retrieve the munitions as well as any materials related to Russian involvement. These programs were designed to build stronger relations with countries that were discordant with the west.

For those who are still skeptical of the unconventional weapons programs in Iraq, I would offer you to first take a look at Iraq and the obvious uses for such weapons. As well as Saddam's own insatiable lust of being the great Arab unifier of the Arab world. What better way to gain control except through the means of unconventional weapons which are seen by most as being the end all to western dominance.

http://www.worldthreats.com/AliWMVpage.htm

_____________________________________

(By WMD here I mean relatively recent and thus usable ones, in quantities that warrant using them as justification to war, not ancient empty shells or labs of dubious heritage that are not considered worth mentioning in this context once properly analyzed.)

Responded above.

since the others would mean that some pretty dangerous weapons are in the hands of our enemies instead of under lock and seal or destroyed.

That is precisely what it means.


It's 2002/2003. Bush is President and Republicans control Congress. How on Earth does "Democrats insisting" influence Bush's actions? Come on, he wasn't that much of a bipartisan, was he?

147 Congressional Democrats voted against authorizing military force. Couple that with the resistance from France, Germany and Russia, as well as several other nations on the security council holding out to see what the US would offer in "aid" to their countries. Plus the UN wanting to make sure that all diplomatic avenues had been exhausted (as if 12+ years wasn't long enough).

"Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html


It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush's Address to the Nation, 2005

I have no idea why he would say that inlight of the evidence to the contrary.

It does amuse me though that, of the 3 or 4 times that statement has been presented to me, it has always been from those that squawk about Bush "lying us into war" and Bush is a liar and can't be trusted.

I don't recall if you have said this or not (and I don't feel like searching to see) but if you say you haven't...I'll trust you.

A lot of those (we don't know how much of the total) were either destroyed under the supervision of weapons inspectors or, in the case of biological weapons, also simply "went bad" - the stuff has a limited shelf-life (e.g. Sarin only a few months).

Both of those statements have been shown to be false by the UN, US, Inspectors and Iraqi defecters (witnesses).


As for the UN etc. - the US couldn't go in alone.

We most certainly could and would have. Bush stated flat out that the UN and others failure to act, would not prevent the US from rightfully protecting it's safety and sovereignty.


As for this being a crucial window in which Saddam could hide WMD - he already had plenty of reason to hide the stuff on account of the weapons inspectors.

If they had already hidden them, why were they not allowing inspections of civilian installations, including schools, hospitals, and Saddam's 39 Presidential Palaces?

Why did they prevent entry to industrial facilities and loaded truckload after truckload and drive away, while the inspectors stood and watched the whole time, and THEN were allowed to enter and inspect?

I'll spare you the numerous links on this one.


Since Bush Jr. made the decision to invade Iraq, yes, of course he's responsible for the conduct of that invasion. Bush Sr. and Clinton didn't get to stand next to him and hold hands and make decisions about how to handle the war. The buck stops at Dubya's desk, obviously.

Well great. When and if Bush decides to radically alter Teheran's and a few other Iranian cities' geographical locations, you shouldn't find a problem with it.


As far as I know, the point I made here is not a "Democratic talking point",

It is and is why ... "I'm used to trotting out those talking points in response to a smorgasbord of different arguments." That and it saves me alot of time.


In the meantime, when you respond to my argument, please look at the argument itself, not a bunch of other arguments made by a bunch of other people on a bunch of other blogs.

I'll try to keep that in mind creeper.