Nutjobs Ranting About Politics. - Page 304

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 09-15-2004, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

At the same time, you couldn't very well cut the President's legs out from under him by denying him the authority.

If you wanted to exercise leadership you could. If Congress truly thought war was a mistake, or at least not a reasonable option at that time, it could easily have said so. Apparently Byrd didn't have the votes to carry that view, however.

sgtclub · 09-15-2004, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you really this stupid? He voted to give the President discretion. This is Congress's role. If the President used the discretion to make stupid decisions, you hold the President accountable, not the Congress. It's not like Congress knew that the President was intent on doing the wrong thing.

October 2002 was before Hans Blix (e.g.) couldn't find WMD. At that point, the President might have changed course. Kerry should be held accountable because Bush made bad decisions? I don't think so.

Did he? No. Congress authorizes the use of force, but there's only one CIC. eta: Kerry's not saying he made a mistake in giving the President discretion, he's saying the President misused that discretion. It's really not that hard.

If Kerry really thought that he was conditioning that discretion on the existence of WMD, the resolution should have said exactly that. It didn't and now he is trying to get out of his responsibilities.

Hank Chinaski · 09-15-2004, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If you wanted to exercise leadership you could. If Congress truly thought war was a mistake, or at least not a reasonable option at that time, it could easily have said so. Apparently Byrd didn't have the votes to carry that view, however.

That is the truth. Most of America realized that vote equaled SH either did what Bush said to do, or there'd be a war. People will not buy into Kerry explaining that's not what they should have heard.

bilmore · 09-15-2004, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But stop pretending that you can't understand Kerry's position. You're not that dumb.

You have no conception of how dumb I am.

sgtclub · 09-15-2004, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
So perhaps you should have rephrased your original question "I'm wondering whether those of you who still think the UN is infallible have had a change of heart, given its impotence in the Sudan?"

I view this as a waiting game so that it looks like we are doing something and working with the international community, until we can gather ourselves and actually get something done in Iran. I do not believe this exercise is meaningful, other than to highlight, once again, the corrupt and impotent nature of the UN.

edited to change Iraq to Iran

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-15-2004, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Let me ask you this:

Are you more pissed that Kerry can't seem to campaign his way out of a paper bag, and appears fairly likely to lose what should be an entirely winable election (in light of the economy, employment, and the current administration's foreign policy bungles), or

that the American people can't seem to see how bad Bush as been and persist in their (slightly more than 50%) support for Bush?

I always thought Kerry was a flawed candidate, so what's the point in getting pissed about it now? I'm also not throwing in the towel now. There's way too much time before the election, and the race is essentially tied. Kerry was up some six weeks ago, Bush is up some now, but what matters is who's up six weeks from now.

It does bother me that Bush's support isn't weaker. I attribute this to (a) the Democrats doing a poor job of attacking on the issues, and (b) people's natural and understandable reluctance to change leaders during a fight.

bilmore · 09-15-2004, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
If the UN is so meaningless, why is the admin turning to the UN to address the Iran proliferation issue?

Because Kerry would be screaming like a plucked chicken were we to take any other route, and, since there's no real urgency (we don't need to bomb today), we can afford to wait.

(Okay, I don't think plucked chickens really scream, but I like the imagery.)

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-15-2004, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
If Kerry really thought that he was conditioning that discretion on the existence of WMD, the resolution should have said exactly that. It didn't and now he is trying to get out of his responsibilities.

When did he say that? I think you are confusing what he said. Not that he helped much.

sgtclub · 09-15-2004, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When did he say that? I think you are confusing what he said. Not that he helped much.

See post 4520. I'd link to it but I'm useless.

The Larry Davis Experience · 09-15-2004, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Because Kerry would be screaming like a plucked chicken were we to take any other route, and, since there's no real urgency (we don't need to bomb today), we can afford to wait.

(Okay, I don't think plucked chickens really scream, but I like the imagery.)

Well done. We're going to the UN...because the opposition in this election wants us to.

Of course, back before you left us for a while you would have included the disclaimer that Bush is a man of principle who makes decisions based on deeply held beliefs and as such this is just a happy circumstance where what he believes coincides with political self-interest. You've changed, man, you've changed.

p.s. I would think plucked chickens scream a lot.

sgtclub · 09-15-2004, 05:33 PM

Here's a start:

Quote:

Correction: Because of an editing error, the headline on a Page One story Saturday on whether documents released by CBS News about President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service are genuine ("Authenticity backed on Bush documents") did not accurately reflect the content of the story. The story quoted one analyst saying that the documents could have been produced on typewriters available in the early 1970s, but the analyst did not vouch for the authenticity of the documents. A second analyst quoted in the story said he doubts the documents are authentic

bilmore · 09-15-2004, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Well done. We're going to the UN...because the opposition in this election wants us to.

/. . . and because Bush has taken untold amounts of BS for not having gone to the UN well enough times on Iraq, and, since this is a no-cost step to take at this time (see "we don't need to bomb today")(as opposed to a high-cost step back then), he can do it to appease the plucked chickens. (Yeah, I think it's logical to assume that plucked chickens do scream.)

Quote:

Of course, back before you left us for a while you would have included the disclaimer that Bush is a man of principle who makes decisions based on deeply held beliefs and as such this is just a happy circumstance where what he believes coincides with political self-interest. You've changed, man, you've changed.

Not really. Because it's not a critical point, he can wait and go to the UN without violating any of his principles (such as, leaving us in danger while the UN ponders.) If we reach a point where he sees something that clearly threatens us, I'm sure he'll say screw the UN, go play in Darfur, I'm going to Iran.

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 09-15-2004, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Not really. Because it's not a critical point, he can wait and go to the UN without violating any of his principles (such as, leaving us in danger while the UN ponders.) If we reach a point where he sees something that clearly threatens us, I'm sure he'll say screw the UN, go play in Darfur, I'm going to Iran.

Thank god we got into Iraq in time! We'd all be dead by now had Bush waited. Whew! That was a close one. One of Saddam's SCUDs could have flown off course, exceeded its maximum range by 7000 miles and killed us all!

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 09-15-2004, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Thank god we got into Iraq in time! We'd all be dead by now had Bush waited. Whew! That was a close one. One of Saddam's SCUDs could have flown off course, exceeded its maximum range by 7000 miles and killed us all!

Israel thanks you for your concern.

Replaced_Texan · 09-15-2004, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I always thought Kerry was a flawed candidate, so what's the point in getting pissed about it now? I'm also not throwing in the towel now. There's way too much time before the election, and the race is essentially tied. Kerry was up some six weeks ago, Bush is up some now, but what matters is who's up six weeks from now.

It does bother me that Bush's support isn't weaker. I attribute this to (a) the Democrats doing a poor job of attacking on the issues, and (b) people's natural and understandable reluctance to change leaders during a fight.

2. I also have a dislike of Bush that goes back to the 1994 campaign for governor, so I'm pretty sure that my perspective on him is skewed compared to the rest of the American population, who have only had 4 years to get to know him.