All Hank, all the time.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You're right.

We now live in a country where half the politicians care more about illegal immigrants receiving benefits than about the tax payers supporting them.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your hungry, yearning to breathe free...."

We live in a country where our soldiers are declared imperialist murderers and sympathy for our enemies is encouraged.

I haven't really heard that much other than a very small minority. What I hear a lot more of is "My country, right or wrong." That's bullshit. Ben Franklin said that those who are willing to sacrifice their liberty in the name of security desrve little of either."

We live in a country where an unelected judiciary steps all over the separation of powers doctrine and expands the scope of Treaties

It's called the separation of powers and it's enshrined in the Constitution. That doctrine deserves more than just lip service. When our President starts to act as though he jas been empowered to rule rather than to govern, it's time to smack his nose with a rolled-up slip opinion.

We live in a country where "freedom of the press" now means "expose national security".

Without a free press, we have no security. If the federal government chooses to act as though it can suspend all due process in order to fight terrorism, it's the government that is creating terror.

It really just isn't all that American anymore.

Some of us are trying to fix that.

etft -- t.s.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What a crock of shit this is. Please.

Didn't Murtha just declare that Bush is the biggest terrorist of them all?

[Park]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You're right.

We now live in a country where half the politicians care more about illegal immigrants receiving benefits than about the tax payers supporting them.

We live in a country where our soldiers are declared imperialist murderers and sympathy for our enemies is encouraged.

We live in a country where an unelected judiciary steps all over the separation of powers doctrine and expands the scope of Treaties

We live in a country where "freedom of the press" now means "expose national security".

It really just isn't all that American anymore.

Wow, it's like watching FOX News. Um, by the way, what is American?

[Spanky]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"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."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[Shape Shifter]

George W. Bush, most notably in his State of the Union address, while trying to sell a costly and unnecessary war to the people of the United States.


What do I win?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
"Give me your tired, your poor, your hungry, yearning to breathe free...."

I believe Bush would like there not to be guys at Gitmo(I'm not trying to sound butch, I just know I can't spell it). He was stuck having to do something with them- with no blueprint of what to do. With a few exceptions they are people who would like to blow up your kid's school because God told them to. I don't want them on the street, Bush doesn't and probably you don't.

He came up with a plan- and the Supreme Court by 5-3 said "get Congress to make you a plan." That's all. Now you guys with your chorus of how clearly wrong it was seem to be ignoring how close the vote was. What clear guidence that he was heading down the wrong path do you really see?

This isn't some major rebuke. Those guys aren't going anywhere.

[Park]

Originally posted by Spanky
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"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."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

This type of back and forth just isn't productive (depending on your political persuasion, you likely already have unwavering opinions on this and can find snippets of support in the press), but someone please tell me, how much loss are we willing to tolerate to create a puppet state in the Middle East (please, no talk of democracy)? Loss can be lives or money, whichever is of more importance to you.

By the way, you get a gold star for a very thorough compilation of quotes. Wow.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Park
This type of back and forth just isn't productive (depending on your political persuasion, you likely already have unwavering opinions on this and can find snippets of support in the press), but someone please tell me, how much loss are we willing to tolerate to create a puppet state in the Middle East (please, no talk of democracy)? Loss can be lives or money, whichever is of more importance to you.

By the way, you get a gold star for a very thorough compilation of quotes. Wow.

You should make a strip about bored lawyers posting on blogs and making the same arguments for 5 years running.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

The funny thing is, we now know that Clinton's Iraq policy worked. Iraq abandoned its WMD development after attacks Clinton ordered. Those -- like you -- who want to pretend that Clinton wasn't tough enough towards Hussein have the blood of 2,500 American soldiers and countless Iraqis on their hands. It's war for the sake of a political pose.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I believe Bush would like there not to be guys at Gitmo(I'm not trying to sound butch, I just know I can't spell it). He was stuck having to do something with them- with no blueprint of what to do. With a few exceptions they are people who would like to blow up your kid's school because God told them to. I don't want them on the street, Bush doesn't and probably you don't.

He came up with a plan- and the Supreme Court by 5-3 said "get Congress to make you a plan." That's all. Now you guys with your chorus of how clearly wrong it was seem to be ignoring how close the vote was. What clear guidence that he was heading down the wrong path do you really see?

This isn't some major rebuke. Those guys aren't going anywhere.

Are you kidding? This case smashed the Administration's theory of the Unitary Executive so forcefully that they have David Addington on a 24 hour suicide watch. I don't care if it was 5-3, 5-4 or if SCOTUS had to go to Rock, Paper, Scissors. It's the law now.

I'd be more sympathetic to your characterization of the President as just a poor guy with a job to do and no blueprint to go by if the Administration hadn't spent the last 5 years telling Congress and the courts to go fuck themselves, thank you very much, because they, the grownups, have a plan, the Constitutional authority, and trust us because we don't need no fucking oversight either.

Gattigap



ETA: And it's not as if we've been saying that they had to empty Gitmo and put 450 guys on the NY subway tomorrow. Notably, a WaPo poll finds that 71 percent of folks think that the Gitmo detainees should either be given POW status, or charged with a crime.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Are you kidding? This case smashed the Administration's theory of the Unitary Executive so forcefully that they have David Addington on a 24 hour suicide watch. I don't care if it was 5-3, 5-4 or if SCOTUS had to go to Rock, Paper, Scissors. It's the law now.

I'd be more sympathetic to your characterization of the President as just a poor guy with a job to do and no blueprint to go by if the Administration hadn't spent the last 5 years telling Congress and the courts to go fuck themselves, thank you very much, because they, the grownups, have a plan, the Constitutional authority, and trust us because we don't need no fucking oversight either.

Gattigap



ETA: And it's not as if we've been saying that they had to empty Gitmo and put 450 guys on the NY subway tomorrow. Notably, a WaPo poll finds that 71 percent of folks think that the Gitmo detainees should either be given POW status, or charged with a crime.

You know that and I know that. Others are apparently not able or willing to grasp the subtle dichotomy that we as Americans don't want and needn't tolerate terrorists but we nonetheless need to respect and follow the rule of law.

As Ben Franklin, a noted radical, once said, those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve very little of either.

I find it very telling that in the portion of his dissent read from the bench, Justice Thomas declared that this decision will interfere with the President's "power to rule." As I recall, our system is one where the President governs rather than rules, and he does so only at the sufferance of the People.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The funny thing is, we now know that Clinton's Iraq policy worked. Iraq abandoned its WMD development after attacks Clinton ordered. Those -- like you -- who want to pretend that Clinton wasn't tough enough towards Hussein have the blood of 2,500 American soldiers and countless Iraqis on their hands. It's war for the sake of a political pose.

how come we know it worked? did Bily bob know it worked- were spank's quotes contrived?

[Park]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You should make a strip about bored lawyers posting on blogs and making the same arguments for 5 years running.

Sure, but only if it's guaranteed that I'll move beyond 20 readers per day. My goals aren't that lofty. I'm a realist.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how come we know it worked? did Bily bob know it worked- were spank's quotes contrived?

We couldn't be sure at the time, but it helps to have picked through the wreckage since then.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You're right.

...

We live in a country where an unelected judiciary steps all over the separation of powers doctrine and expands the scope of Treaties

...

It really just isn't all that American anymore.

You see, if Reagan, Ford and Bush I had just listened a little more to Pat Buchanan in choosing their Supreme Court nominees, we wouldn't have this problem. After all, a majority of the five justices who bitch-slapped your boy were Republican appointees.

Luckily, "W" is right there with you in Pat's court.




Edited to add elipses - because I like elipses.