Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

From your post #4520
ON DON IMUS'S RADIO SHOW this morning, John Kerry suggested that he would not have gone to war with Iraq, knowing what we know now (no evident stocks of weapons of mass destruction): "Not under the current circumstances, not that I see. I voted on the basis of weapons of mass destruction," Kerry told Imus.

I'm still not seeing it. He's not saying that Bush exceeded the authority conferred by Congress, he's saying that Bush acted unwisely within those bounds.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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

The meaning of the UN is that we can keep asking it to do stuff so we can show how it is meaningless. Circular, but effective.

For my own part, I don't think the UN is perfect, and on some days I may even go further towards your side of the scorn dial. But even then I understand that the UN has value as the only place in the world where every nation has a seat at the table. I realize that this point walks into one of the main criticisms of the UN, that it is forced to accept outlaw nations as members in good standing and with the rotating committee chair system can have a Syria charing the human rights committee or whatever that gotcha line was. But on the good side this flawed structure allows the UN to provide legitimacy in a way that no nation, not even the most well-meaning and powerful of democracies, can provide on its own or with a few like-minded allies.

I see the UN not as a supergovernment, but as a force multiplier for us, an imperial power with global influence but with limited financial and military means to project that influence. For example, in 1991 Bush 41 made a point of going through the UN and in return for on those efforts we paid only $8 billion of the $61b cost of that war (good anecdotes about the logistics and financing of the 91 war in Clarke's book, by the way). In 2002-03 we did not let the inspections take their course, lost support of the UN, and as a result have paid more than 75% of the costs of a much more costly undertaking, not to mention an even larger majority of the casualties. Even if the UN is a bunch of shitheads, if by working the UN poliical process before the next invasion we can lop off more of the casualties and costs than we can if we don't go there, I think it's hard to say that the UN has no meaning.

[Apropos of Nothing]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Israel thanks you for your concern.

Israel demonstrates on a daily basis that it is quite capable of taking care of itself. It certainly had no problem in acting in what it viewed as self-defense in bombing the Iraqi nuclear facility in 1981.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm still not seeing it. He's not saying that Bush exceeded the authority conferred by Congress, he's saying that Bush acted unwisely within those bounds.

He said "I voted [for the resolutions] on the basis of WMD." I read that as his vote was conditioned on the existence of WMD and because there have been no WMD found, knowing what we know today, he would not have voted for the war.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
He said "I voted [for the resolutions] on the basis of WMD." I read that as his vote was conditioned on the existence of WMD and because there have been no WMD found, knowing what we know today, he would not have voted for the war.

It's much easier to accuse him of a flip-flop if you're going to start making shit up.

Kerry's position, as I understand it:

- I voted to authorize force because of WMD.
- Had I known there were no WMD, I still would have voted the same way, to keep the pressure on Hussein, etc.
- Armed with this authority, and based on what we know, the President made a mistaken in going to war, because there were no WMD.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

Yeah? Him and whose Army?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yeah? Him and whose Army?

Whose army would it be if the UN said okay?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I would think plucked chickens scream a lot.

You think they're alive when plucked? City slicker.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Whose army would it be if the UN said okay?

Either way, I don't think it's ours.

Ours is rather occupied at the moment, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future, regardless of what happens in November.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
City slicker.

I thought that had been made clear before denuded poultry came into play.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
. . . denuded poultry . . .

That is so hot.

Oh, wait, wrong board.

[Replaced_Texan]

After three months of review the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Ethics committee postponed today’s hearing [on the ethics charge against Tom Delay] and have decided to put before the committee the question of whether to proceed with the investigation. Four of the five Republicans on the committee have accepted money from one of Delay's PACs.

In happier news, Richard Morrison has raised enough money for television commercials. Here's hoping Brazoria and Ft. Bend counties listen.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
- I voted to authorize force because of WMD.
- Had I known there were no WMD, I still would have voted the same way, to keep the pressure on Hussein, etc.
- Armed with this authority, and based on what we know, the President made a mistaken in going to war, because there were no WMD.

This is a coherent explaination in your mind?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's much easier to accuse him of a flip-flop if you're going to start making shit up.

Kerry's position, as I understand it:

- I voted to authorize force because of WMD.
- Had I known there were no WMD, I still would have voted the same way, to keep the pressure on Hussein, etc.
- Armed with this authority, and based on what we know, the President made a mistaken in going to war, because there were no WMD.

You are truly being ridiculous.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

- Had I known there were no WMD, I still would have voted the same way, to keep the pressure on Hussein, etc.

That's the biggest crock of shit, if that accurately reflects his position. And certainly reflects more than simply giving discretion to the president.