Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
More history lessons
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, September 02, 2006

A good number of Democrats are irritated by the inferences they feel have been made against them in a series of speeches by Bush and Rumsfeld. And they're not to thrilled by either of them invoking the past as a lesson, especially that of WWII.

Well at the risk of again irritating them, I give you Jeffery Lord and, well, more history:
As America readies for the traditional Labor Day kickoff of this year's election campaign, a look back tells us the world has certainly changed in 2006. In 1942, Republicans and Democrats both understood the dangers the country and the world faced.

What happened in 1942?

The Republicans won the election, gaining 44 new House seats and 10 in the Senate, not quite a majority, but erasing FDR's control. Dewey won in New York and was instantly bannered as a presidential sure thing. GOP gubernatorial candidates won across the country.

What was FDR's reaction? The news account of his post-election press conference reported FDR "laughs." Why? Said the headline: "Assumes New Congress is for Winning, So Why Should Poll Make Any Difference?"

And the Nazis and the Japanese? The so-called Axis Powers? What was their response? The New York Times editorial page trumpeted "an admission from Berlin that it would be 'harboring an illusion' to expect the Republican victory to bring any change whatever in the policy of the United States." Focusing on the silence of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, the paper concluded: "His silence is proof of the fact that we have made the unity of our purpose apparent to our enemies."

We're a long way from 1942.
Yes we are. In both years and political unity against an enemy. We continue to be told that the sort of dissent now ongoing is healthy and good and does nothing in terms of helping our enemies even if we're divided and fighting amongst ourselves. I've always made a distinction between responsible and irresponsible dissent. It is certainly possible to dissent responsibly and reasonably. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of both the war and its prosecution. But not to the extent that our enemies take heart from it ... and frankly, much of the dissent today falls into that category.

The one thing our enemies in 1942 knew about the US is no matter which party was in power they were going to prosecute the war to the end and to victory. Draw whatever inferences from that you wish concerning today's situation.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Todays situation isn’t anything new, the old rules were thrown out when the Left threw Southeast Asia under the bus under the guise of "peace". Sure, it was the peace of the grave for millions in that region, but they had peace!

 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
Finally, something we agree on. The best strategy any enemy of the USA has available to it is to promote internal division and redivision until we have become so many squabbling children that they (the enemy) may act unopposed.

Good post.
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
This is so frustrating for me, being a war dissenter. It not something I ever expected to be. I am generally hawkish, I supported every action since Vietnam (too young to have had an opinion on that one at the time).

I agree that national will can have an effect on the outcome of a conflict. I understand that those were fight can view our national resolve, and this can give them encouragement, or show them the hopelessness of their own efforts.

So knowing all this, we still have to make a choice if we disagree with the policies of the government, do we stifle our opinions in favor of national unity, or do we speak out. And if we speak out, and if it has an effect on the conflict, is this the responsibility of the dissenters, or of the policy makers that prosecuted such a morally ambiguos action?

I lay the responsibility of embarking on this path on the administration and suggest that we should never engage in such actions when there is no moral clarity.

The invasion of Iraq lacked moral clarity.

There will always be some level of debate whenever military force is
brought to bear, always. There are some individuals and groups that
will oppose ANY military action, no matter how justified the action
appears to be. It is not possible to please everyone, and not likely
desirable either. Regardless of opposition, there are occasions when
the use of military force is appropriate, and sometimes inescapable.
On these occasions, there is a level of moral clarity that
overwhelms critics.

Iraq is not such an example.

As such, the greatest tragedy of this administrations policy is
simply that as a result of 9/11, they enjoyed unprecedented global
support in the global war on Islamist terrorists like those that
struck the world trade center.

America’s action in Afghanistan is one example of virtually
unanimous domestic and global support for military action. Sure
there were opponents of any action, but they were the usual
suspects, what the right likes to call the peace-at-any-price crowd,
as well as groups that were inclined to oppose any action involving
Western forces brought to bear against a predominantly Muslim
nation. The fact is that there was no doubt that al Qaeda and the
Taliban were inextricably linked, and that al Qaeda was physically
centered in Afghanistan. Republicans, Democrats, liberals,
conservatives, libertarians, Russians, French, Germans, Italians,
even the Chinese were supportive of American’s invasion of
Afghanistan. This action was supported by moral clarity.

The invasion of Iraq did was not an example of an action taken with
moral clarity. There were three elements at play when Iraq was being
discussed as a target:
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction
2. Complicity between Iraq and al Qaeda
3. The immense brutality of the manner in which Saddam Hussein
administrated Iraq.

The third element is irrelevant with respect to unilateral action,
or even multilateral action. It is impossible and counterproductive
to attempt to impose global accountability on a sovereign nation
without a global mandate. The third element is also irrelevant
within the context of the global war on terrorism.

The other two items taken separately or together could well have led
to global agreement on the moral clarity of taking action in Iraq,
but there was no consensus on moral clarity even in the U.S. much
less globally, and the reason for this is precisely that clear
evidence of the existence of either was never provided, even though
the administration claimed there was "no doubt" that huge
immediately available stockpiles of WMD’s were at Saddam’s disposal,
and on the second point, the administration never passed up an
opportunity to insinuate that a failure to remove Saddam and the
WMD’s was tantamount to handing nuclear bombs to terrorists (also
false). As President Bush clearly promoted in his state of the Union
Address in 2003 by discussing Iraq’s alleged nuclear programs
(false) and then discussed 9/11 and the threat of terror directly
against America, and then closed the loop by telling Americans that
we needed to disarm Iraq or the "smoking gun" could be in the form
of a mushroom cloud.

The action in Iraq was not an example of a failure of intelligence,
it was an example of the triumph of stupidity. America took it’s eye
off the ball and wasted lives and resources and relationships across
the globe, and the best we can hope to accomplish is to improve the
lot of 25 million Iraqi’s who were not even disposed to rebel
against their own government and who seem to have a desire to kill
Americans and each other.

To obtain the moral clarity needed to support an invasion of Iraq,
the al Qaeda links and WMD’s would have had to have been
substantiated by unequivocal evidence. Considering the effort by the
administration to establish such evidence as well as the fact that
there is now universal agreement that neither the weapons nor the al
Qaeda links exist, it is clear that those who questioned the
administrations intention of taking military action have been proven
correct, and the current reality facing America is that a large
number of Americans as well as a significant majority of the global
population now believe that America invaded a nation based on either
a lie or mistake.

If there were moral clarity surrounding this action, the possibility
of this circumstance would have been reduced to nil.

As a result of these realities, the invasion of Iraq was the single
worst foreign policy decision in the history of this nation and
should global conflict ever occur in our future, the catalyst for
such a conflict will likely be traced back to this single, poorly
considered action.
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
is this irresponsible dissent?

get the f_ck out of my country you WWII nazi appeasing, chickenhawk terorist fearing coward republican.

you may live your life cowering from muslim ragheads but I for sure will not let terrorists determine how our country is run. thats why you and your rt wing coward friends are on your ass after this election. and i will make sure to keep you no good cons down forever.
 
Written By: billy
URL: http://
The one thing our enemies in 1942 knew about the US is no matter which party was in power they were going to prosecute the war to the end and to victory.
Which "war" are you referencing here? The Global War on Terror, Iraq (and that mission has already been announced to be "accomplished"), or both?

And what do you envision would constitute an "end" or "victory," so that people, you know, have a clue when they may dissent without worrying that our enemies might "take heart"? We and our enemies knew what both victory or defeat would mean in 1942; does anyone know in the current situation?

In 1942 we were facing nation-states who could — and eventually did — raise the white flag. The metrics of victory were easy, even if reaching that goal was hardly that.

By contrast, no one has the first idea what could signal winning today, short of, one gathers, the elimination of every last terrorist on the planet, which will never happen.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://inactivist.org/
I guess yall better start toeing the Dem line, then. That’ll strengthen our unity, and allow for smart policies.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
My outgoing trackbacks are broken, but I think this article I wrote this morning is useful to contemplate:

The Bush-Truman Parallels.

Yes I start by quoting Henninger, but I add some more history than Henninger didn’t.

The main points worth remembering:

1) In 1950 the Republicans ran strongly against Truman and were ruthless in criticizing the Korean War. Truman was harassed terribly over it, and said little in response. Democrats were hurt by this.

2) But in 1944, Republicans ran strongly against FDR and were ruthless in criticizing World War II, with some even shrieking, "It’s Roosevelt’s War!" FDR fought back hard, and Republicans were spanked for it.

Both should be remembered. Especially since Bush shows no signs of acting like Truman in 1950, but a lot more like FDR did in 1944.

Sure, the left can keep screaming that Iraq has nothing to do with the War On Terror. Just like Republicans screamed that Korea had nothing to do with the Cold War. History proved them wrong, but they made short-term gains anyway because Truman tried to stay above the fray.

Bush won’t do that. And campaign season has begun now.
 
Written By: Dean Esmay
URL: http://www.deanesmay.com
and that mission has already been announced to be "accomplished"
And the meme lives on. Yes, the mission of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln has been accomplished. What is your point?
By contrast, no one has the first idea what could signal winning today, short of, one gathers, the elimination of every last terrorist on the planet, which will never happen.
Yeah, I’m sure promoting a liberal democracy in order to marginalize the appeal of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East has nothing to do with victory.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
McQ,

The lack of unity over how to proceed in the war on terror is unfortunate, but your analogy is piss poor. First, back in 1942, there wasn’t a whole lot of confusion over what needed to be done. Japan and Germany needed to be defeated, through military means. We needed to keep fighting until those countries surrendered. But in the current "war on terror", no one is sure what needs to be done. We all agree that we want to reduce the threat of terrorism, but there is massive disagreement over how best to do that. A lot people think, for instance, that our invasion and occupation of Iraq have actually exacerbated the terrorism threat. You’re never going to have unity when one side feels we are moving forward and the other thinks we are moving backward. And you can’t expect the people who think we are about to march over a cliff to just shut up and get in line.

Moreover, it’s worth noting that much of the disunity in America today over these issues is the result of an intentional political strategy engaged in by the White House. Less than one year after 9/11, the White House decided to politicize terrorism-related issues in order to make midterm election gains. Congressmen and senators who objected to labor provisions in the Homeland Security Act were accused of being soft on Al Qaeda. This naturally pissed off much of the left-leaning part of this country, who didn’t appreciate a recent tragedy being exploited so cynically. And then, when the Iraq invasion was proposed, people who raised very reasonable objections were villifed and mocked. Bush intentionally held the Iraq authorization vote just before the midterm elections in order to pressure democrats into voting for it. The GOP promised to hammer anyone who voted against it.

Long story short, the GOP has politicized the war on terror from almost day one. To the extent we are not "unitied" in our support for Bush’s policy, Bush has no one but himself to blame.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
By contrast, no one has the first idea what could signal winning today, short of, one gathers, the elimination of every last terrorist on the planet, which will never happen.
Gotta disagree with this. Not only can it happen, it must happen, and it will happen. For the simple reason that terrorists are ineffective. Nobody will argue - I shouldn’t think - that terrorism can be destroyed. Terrorism is an idea. A bad idea. An idea cannot be destroyed. TerroriSTS, however, do have an a$$ to kick, and we’re kicking it.

In the long run, however, it won’t be the military eradication of the adherents to the idea that will be effective - it will be the failure of the idea itself. Terrorism doesn’t work. As a strategy for gaining power, it is always self defeating. When that truth becomes universally recognized, every last terrorist on the planet will be eliminated.

The USA presenting a unified front will hasten that elimination. Whatever our disagreements with each other are, wherever the divisions fall, democrat, republican, libertarian, conservative, liberal, the United States of America must be united with respect to the rest of the world. It’s in the contract.

Yes, the reasons for invading Iraq turned out to be wrong. So what? That’s in the past. When the job is done, we’ll get busy beating each other up about how it happened and how not to make that mistake again. Until then, we have a job to do, and demeaning the office of the POTUS does not advance the completion of that job - no matter how you might happen to feel about the person sitting in that office. Respect the uniform, remember?
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
When the Republican party finally realizes that terrorism is a strategy designed to destroy America and not just a convenient tool to get Republicans elected, perhaps we can go forward as one nation again.
 
Written By: Oliver
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
When the Republican party finally realizes that terrorism is a strategy designed to destroy America ...
Actually, terrorism is a tactic, Oliver ... but thanks for trying.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The invasion of Iraq did was not an example of an action taken with
moral clarity. There were three elements at play when Iraq was being
discussed as a target:
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction
2. Complicity between Iraq and al Qaeda
3. The immense brutality of the manner in which Saddam Hussein
administrated Iraq.
No offense Captin, but this is a pretty crude caricature of the reasons we went to war. The AUMF—- the public law passed by Congress which is the literal reason we went to war—- does not lack moral clarity, nor does the moral clarity it has depend on any one brick in the wall, such as WMD.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
McQ, as is the wont of ignorant Republican reprobates, seems to believe that the United States is taking "freedom" to the ignorant masses of the Middle East. Not surprising that he would use a knife metaphor, because like most of his ilk, all he understands is sheer violence, whether it be to the 100,000 plus people that his policy promotions have eradicated in Iraq or to our freedoms at home. I will note, since Mona dislikes characterizations, that rather than refute, McQ prefers to simply call his opponents stupid and I will expect to see Mona make a post calling him to task for this. Surely ad hominem attacks are the refuge of the weakest minds of all.

If you think that this McQ person has any regard for freedom at all, then apparently you use freedom in the same manner that George Bush does. McQ has no interest in reformation of the violations of citizens rights here in the U.S. as he spends virtually all of his time telling me how I may and may not protest and speak against the government.

Indeed, he has deigned to decide when each American citizen is allowed to protest and when he is not allowed to protest. He has no shame, no sense of dignity and the American Republic would certainly be much better off if he were simply to shut his mouth and go away. Libertarian indeed.
 
Written By: william
URL: http://
The above was posted on the Inactivist. It is time for true libertarians to abandon the instant site. McQ is simply a plant pretending to be a libertarian. True libertarians are not obessessed with destruction and war and realize that there are always incredible dangers of creating a power-mad state whenever there are conflicts and wars. Unfortunately, virtually everything on this site is glib Republican rhetoric glorizing war and conflating democracy with liberty. No true libertarian would do that.
 
Written By: william
URL: http://
If you think that this McQ person has any regard for freedom at all, then apparently you use freedom in the same manner that George Bush does.
You know you’ve arrived when you have your own personal cyber-stalker. William is mine.
glorizing war
Wow ... that’s a new one. "Glorizing", huh?

Hey william, hasn’t anyone told you before: don’t type while drunk.

Now go have another short one and toddle off to bed like a good boy. It is waaaay past your bedtime (and expiration date).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, as is the wont of ignorant Republican reprobates, seems to believe that the United States is taking "freedom" to the ignorant masses of the Middle East. [...] Surely ad hominem attacks are the refuge of the weakest minds of all.
Well, certainly in this case.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Irony, Mark. It is called irony. Does anyone study English Lit and Swift or Twain anymore? How sad is the state of education in our Republic.

Sorry, McQ. I could go through and point out the numerous typos in your postings but I think that everyone on here knows what it is to be enraged by an outrage and to attempt to post something quickly, but you might want to take the speck our of your own eye first.(Bible Allusion).

I am not drunk, but a little duty-free Johnny Walker Red (can I say that on here) does ease the pain of seeing my beloved term, "libertarian" conflated with "neo-conservative, warmongering, morality police." After all, it is the only inebriant left which is still semi-legal after the "freest" nation in the world has illegalized virtually everything else, including sudafed. I understand that my dissent does not comply with the strict requisites which you have set up, but I do thank you for at least not editing posts, to this point.
 
Written By: william
URL: http://
I am not drunk, but a little duty-free Johnny Walker Red...
God, you don’t even drink good scotch.

Blech.

Heh ... oh, and you wouldn’t know irony if it bit you on the ass.
Sorry, McQ. I could go through and point out the numerous typos ...
That’s not a typo, william ... its a made up word. A pretty poor one at that.

But you are funny for such a futzy little critter.

Again, don’t type drunk, especially on that rotgut you’re drinking.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It is time for true libertarians to abandon the instant site.

Why don’t you lead the stampede for the door?
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Hey william, hasn’t anyone told you before: don’t type while drunk.
Wait. Nobody told ’bout that one, man.
Again, don’t type drunk, especially on that rotgut you’re drinking.
OK. A caveat. Thank goodness; my blogging career, and Pogue’s I’m pretty sure (such as they are) flashed before my eyes %^P

In all seriousness, william, if you would actually read comments other than McQ’s you would find that dissent is alive and well here at QandO. Suggestion: check out some of Anonymous Liberal’s posts. I personally don’t agree with any of them, but they’re worth reading (as is his website). If that is the view to which you are committed, g’danya and God speed. His efforts provide you a few clues as to how one can detract from the prevailing sentiment of a post (even vehemently so) without sacrificing clarity and reason.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Mona -
Which "war" are you referencing here? The Global War on Terror, Iraq (and that mission has already been announced to be "accomplished"), or both?

And what do you envision would constitute an "end" or "victory," so that people, you know, have a clue when they may dissent without worrying that our enemies might "take heart"? We and our enemies knew what both victory or defeat would mean in 1942; does anyone know in the current situation?

In 1942 we were facing nation-states who could — and eventually did — raise the white flag. The metrics of victory were easy, even if reaching that goal was hardly that.

By contrast, no one has the first idea what could signal winning today, short of, one gathers, the elimination of every last terrorist on the planet, which will never happen.
Good points by Mona.

The problem with all the "Bush as Churchill" metaphors is that - as Mona said - the metrics of victory in WWII were easy. And Bush, with his credo of tax cuts and giving the Owner Class what they want 1st, then fight his badly defined GWOT - is no Churchill. In WWII, we knew who the enemy was, we knew we had to fight them, take ground or manuever around that ground, with mass armies and navies inflicting mass death, until victory was achieved. Both Churchill and his opposition understood that. Both FDR and his opposition understood that. Both understood the war was 1st, 2nd, and 3rd priority and had folks like Harry Truman and Ministry of the Exchequer agents ripping through any fatcats feeding on government pork meant for the war effort.

In this war, Bush waited 3 1/2 years before even daring to start to say who the enemy actually was. Rumsfeld ruminates regularly on how he and others don’t "know the unknowable given indistinct criteria" - Are We Winning? Bush, though not as bad as Anonymous Liberal maintains - not impugning the patriotism of anyone like Max Cleland - hust their common sense to try and pull a union power grab on the new Homeland Security Dept so any crisis would be handled under union rules and contracts on agreed tasks done - Bush still badly alienated both Republicans and Democrats in Congress with his "I’m too busy Saving the Nation playing Churchill in the War-Room bunker to listen to anyone!" act.

If anything, he listens to Republicans of the Reagan and Bush I Administrations even less than Democrats, because he has to deal with Democrats..not "people who’s time has passed". In the present Republicans, he listens to inner circle people, the "leaders", K-Street, the neocons, and Grover Norquist.

Never an attempt to get consensus. Never an attempt to call on the American people to sacrifice. Just more massive spending on anything other than regrowing the size and capacity of military, intelligence, and strategic communications assets. Mission creep after invading Iraq past WMD, defeating the Ba’athists, and seeing what AQ-Saddam links existed [weak to minimal - if any]to make it "a nation as good as its noble, freedom-loving, democracy hungry people", despite all signs that Iraq Arabs are mostly sh*theads that could teach the French lessons in backstabbing and ingratitude from true masters of the arts.

As a conservative, I laugh at the WWII metaphors...just as I laugh at the inevitable "Munich" and "Appeasement" metaphors used by neocons anytime Israel doesn’t get what it wants, or fails to get America to "take out" Syria, Iran, or "let" Israel stay in Lebanon.

 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
Draw a line for me, C.Ford, between your diminution of the president and a future in which this country is secure, with the threats effectively eliminated, and our soldiers no longer in harms way.

Show me how a divided USA is a stronger USA, and I will concede that you have a point to make, rather than an agenda to advance.
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
First, back in 1942, there wasn’t a whole lot of confusion over what needed to be done. Japan and Germany needed to be defeated, through military means. We needed to keep fighting until those countries surrendered. But in the current "war on terror", no one is sure what needs to be done.
Germany spared us the need to anguish over declaring war on them, don’t bet it was a done deal because you’re 60 years forward in time where everything is ’clear’, the victors have written history and everyone has seen what a nightmare NAZI Germany was from behind the lines instead of from a distance.

I guess there just weren’t enough Americans killed in New York and Washington that day, nearly 5 years ago today, for some people to understand it’s a war. And I guess because the enemy doesn’t have their own flag, their own capital, and their own little uniformed army that they aren’t really a danger worthy of our notice.

Who knew?

And Iraq, yes, Iraq was a peaceful planet, and wasn’t part of any terror network, of course, of course.

There are some who might point out that after Afghanistan had the Taliban attacked (I’d say driven out, but 3 years now provides hindsight) Iraq was the one other terror favoring country that we COULD knock the snot out of with some world approval, as opposed to say, starting a war with Syria, or Iran (of, frankly, Saudi Arabia...), or other countries where we know terrorists receive more than lip service from governments.

And some might suggest that perhaps there was a boyish hope that having sent a message by way of knocking over a neighboring government Iran and Syria might have contemplated being a bit less supportive of terrorists themselves. What with the idea that West wouldn’t tolerate it any more.

Ya know, that might have happened, had the West had the gumption that England showed during the darkest days of the 2nd World War.
Thumbing their nose at the now Contiental superpower of NAZI Germany and letting them know they weren’t going to roll over and play dead.

But, nah, headed by France and Germany and Russia, old Europe showed the terrorists just what level of resolve Europe would have dealing with them and encouraged Iran and Syria to continue by showing they were prefectly willing to let Saddam be Saddam, and would actively obstruct any effort the United States and England were going to make.

If you want a better historical parallel - this isn’t WWII, it’s the Barbary Pirates - America willing to do something, most of Europe otherwise willing to pay the pirates off in hopes they’ll be left alone.

And local idiots yelling about American Kings.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Irony, Mark. It is called irony.
Indeed it is, but not for the reasons which you apparently think.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
No offense Captin, but this is a pretty crude caricature of the reasons we went to war. The AUMF—- the public law passed by Congress which is the literal reason we went to war—- does not lack moral clarity, nor does the moral clarity it has depend on any one brick in the wall, such as WMD.
The AUMF is a joke, not worth the paper it is written on. GWB was compelled by this so-called legislation to meet certain criteria, apparently this criteria was window dressing because it was ignored and we invaded anyway.

The Resolution cited several factors to justify action:
Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
Surely you don’t believe this warrants invasion and occupation, moreover, after this was passed inspectors returned to Iraq with a much more compliant Iraq.
Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
Hey look, the WMD’s, as I stated in my crude caricature.
Iraq’s "brutal repression of its civilian population"
Hey look, Saddam’s a brutal dictator, as I stated in my crude caricature.
Iraq’s "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
Hey look, the WMD’s, as I stated in my crude caricature
Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Window dressing, the US never had a case for going to war with Iraq over the Ny-FLy-Zone, for two important reasons, one being that they never even came close to knocing a plane down, and two, that the No-Fly Zone was created and enforced by the US and Britain and was never sanctioned. By the way, that does mean that I don’t think it was a good idea. After we left the Kurds out to dry when they tried to rebel on our suggestion, it was the least we could do.
Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"
Hey look, Complicity between Iraq and al Qaeda, as I stated in my crude caricature.
Iraq’s "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
Hey look, Complicity between Iraq and al Qaeda, as I stated in my crude caricature.
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
Hey look, Complicity between Iraq and al Qaeda, as I stated in my crude caricature.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
Hey look, Complicity between Iraq and al Qaeda, as I stated in my crude caricature.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
Hey look, Complicity between Iraq and al Qaeda, as I stated in my crude caricature.

I’d say that my list was dead on balls accurate and that Congress was just trying make these three items take up more space.
Presidential Determination.—In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
The President obviously did not meet these criterion.


So as I said, this war lacks moral clarity, and a result, the American people are not supportive of it, and it is not the people who oppose who are at fault for the damage that dissention does to this effort, it is the administration who prosecuted this action without moral clarity that bears responsibilty.

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
The AUMF is a joke, not worth the paper it is written on
Keep inventing rationalizations to justify your position....
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
The official list of reasons we went, voted on by our elected representatives and authorizing the President to use for for those reasons, is meaningless, is it?

How do you think the President should go about getting authorization to use force Captin [sic]?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Captin - as opposed to capaluminumfoil?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Am I the only one who thinks that weirdo william is a Monaesque liberal-who-has-read-up-on-libertarianism come to troll? McQ’s positions are much, much more likely to tick off a liberal than a libertarian. I had william down as a classic liberal until he started declaiming about his libertarianism. Certainly he will be more comfortable at another site which features Mona.
"Good points by Mona."
"As a conservative, I laugh..."
Yeah, Mr. Ford, I too laughed - when you represented yourself as a conservative. LOL.


 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Now for something more serious. Instapundit cites a really good post on the antics of the NYT in the Plame affair:
“…now that the fantasy has gone up in a puff of smoke, the latest article in the New York Times can think of new questions only for Patrick Fitzgerald. Well, I have a new question for the editors:

In light of your apparent eagerness to [my bold] maliciously and fallaciously savage the reputation of your own president during a time of war, what does this whole sordid affair say about you?

It seems like a fair question to me, and I am sure that an honest answer will shed light on the paper’s eagerness to expose other administration "scandals" (like the NSA wiretapping program and the CIA’s program to monitor the financial transactions of terrorists).”
Newspapers are sometimes wrong, so one might pass over the “fallaciously” part. What about the malice? Only the BSD [are you there, Mona?] crowd is not wondering about the actions of the NYT in this affair.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Sorry, make that "BDS". Definitely a freaudian slip.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
“A correction—perhaps the longest and most overdue in the history of journalism—is in order.”
Hear, hear!
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
The official list of reasons we went, voted on by our elected representatives and authorizing the President to use for for those reasons, is meaningless, is it?
Seeing as how none of the reasons HAD to be true, nor did the administration have to show evidence that the pretexts were, yes, the AUMF was meaningless, the President didn’t need the AUMF, and did not honor the AUMF, and if ever taken to task on it, the President could, and would, invoke the Presidential War Powers Act.
How do you think the President should go about getting authorization to use force Captin [sic]?
Is this a real question?

The War Powers Act of 1973

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Now I will grant that the requirements of the War Powers Act were not met by the Iraq invasion, but neither were the requirements of the AUMF, but since the President is the "decider" of what the laws, what the laws mean, and which laws actually apply to him, none of this relavent.

The point being that the President had as much authority granted by the War Powers Act as he did from the AUMF thus making the AUMF a superfluos rah-rah for the President.

Cap


Lager Ackbar! (beer is great)
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
The AUMF is a joke, not worth the paper it is written on.
The AUMF is Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502, and as per the US First Circuit Court of Appeals, is the constitutional declaration of war against Iraq by the Congress of the United States, your unsupported assertions notwithstanding.

You want to argue that the reasons we went to war lacked moral clarity? Fine, but you must argue against the actual reasons, not somebullsh*t straw man you snatch out of your butt.
...
Hey look, Complicity between Iraq and al Qaeda, as I stated in my crude caricature.
...
Hey look, Complicity between Iraq and al Qaeda, as I stated in my crude caricature.
...
Hey look, Complicity between Iraq and al Qaeda, as I stated in my crude caricature.
...
Hey look, Complicity between Iraq and al Qaeda, as I stated in my crude caricature.

[snip]
You don’t seem to understand, it doesn’t matter how much straw you stuff in its pants, it’s still a straw man.

Furthermore, pointing out each brick in a wall, declaring them one by one not to be a wall and thereby concluding that the wall doesn’t exist is fallacious (composition).

The only thing you’ve demonstrated to be lacking in clarity, moral or otherwise, is your caricature, and perhaps your thinking on the subject.

:peter
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
The AUMF is Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502, and as per the US First Circuit Court of Appeals, is the constitutional declaration of war against Iraq by the Congress of the United States, your unsupported assertions notwithstanding.
You just don’t get it do you.

That’s okay, I am extremely patient, I’ll keep working with you until it makes sense, unless of course you willfully opposed to admitting that you understand what is going on, in which case it’s still fine, because you are not the only person reading this.

Do you think that is a Circuit Court found that AUMF was not a Constitutional declaration of war that it would have made one whit of difference in whether we were there or continued to be there?

I am not saying that the AUMF is not legal, I am saying that is superfluos and irrelevant that is confirmed by the fact that the President did meet the requirements of that legislation, and further that the President could have invaded Iraq based on the War Powers Act and it would have been no more, or less, legal than the invasion under AUMF.

Hey, here’s a law...

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978


TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I

SUBCHAPTER I—ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE


§ 1801. Definitions
§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
§ 1803. Designation of judges
§ 1804. Applications for court orders
§ 1805. Issuance of order
§ 1806. Use of information
§ 1807. Report to Administrative Office of the United States Court and to Congress
§ 1808. Report of Attorney General to Congressional committees; limitation on authority or responsibility of information gathering activities of Congressional committees; report of Congressional committees to Congress
§ 1809. Criminal sanctions
§ 1810. Civil liability
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war

Have we stopped illegal eavesdropping even though a Federal Circuit Court has ruled that the NSA eavesdropping violates the law?


Are you starting to get it yet that laws mean what the President decides they mean until or unless someone in Congress grows a pair?

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
Draw a line for me, C.Ford, between your diminution of the president and a future in which this country is secure, with the threats effectively eliminated, and our soldiers no longer in harms way.
Bush’s policies are harming America; ergo putting someone into power that will work to help the country is the correct path. Simple enough.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
You want to argue that the reasons we went to war lacked moral clarity? Fine, but you must argue against the actual reasons, not somebullsh*t straw man you snatch out of your butt.
It’s preposterous to claim that the terms of the AUMF somehow retroactively determine the reasons for war that the AUMF was deemed necessary for. What we’re looking for are the but-for reasons for the war: but for WMDs, would we have gone to war? Almost certainly not.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
Years later, libs are STILL having this argument?

Sheesh.

Go back to your International Answer "peace" marches with the PLO flags and the "We Support our troops when they fire on their officers" signs....
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
Terrorism doesn’t work. As a strategy for gaining power, it is always self defeating.
However as a tactic of excluding another from power it can be quite effective. Terrorism is employed to drive away an unwanted group away from the terrorists civil population.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
I am not saying that the AUMF is not legal, I am saying that is superfluos and irrelevant that is confirmed by the fact that the President did meet the requirements of that legislation,
You’re going to have to flesh that one out, Cap.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Years later, libs are STILL having this argument?
Years back, ONLY libs were making this argument, now most Americans agree that the Iraq invasion was a bad idea.

Some of them believe as a result we should get everyone out now.

Some of them believe as a result we should get some of our troops out now.

Some of them believe as a result we should stay until Iraq is "fixed" considering that we broke it.

Regardless, when there is moral clarity, you don’t get poll results like this. When there is moral clarity, the only people on the opposition side are the people who would oppose any war any time, and we all know that most Americans are not anti-war in general, they are just against wars that they don’t believe should be fought. Like Iraq.

If you want to keep blaming the American public, or liberals, for opposition to this war, knock yourself out (with a hammer), but remember, when this war was started based on misinformation, partial information, and hyperbole, there was no way that the truth was not going to come out, and this eventuality, the public backlash, was not going to happen.

So the fact is that Bush started a war that was ABSOLUTELY destined to become unpopular, and the only chance he had to avoid this eventuality was to get in and get it over with quickly, which is obviously what they thought would happen, and once again, we see the Bush administration being wrong, wrong, wrong.

What the hell have they been right about? They are good at nothing but winning elections, even then by devious means (SVFT).

I posted the editorial above in 2003 about the lack of moral clarity of thuis war, but hey, it’s good that the mainstream has finally caught up with me.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
You’re going to have to flesh that one out, Cap.
Bush claimed to have passed the test, submitting over his signature, on March 18, 2003, a letter to Congress in which he wrote,


"Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."


Both were clear lies, and he knew it at the time. Bush betrayed our trust, and the trust of the international community. He did not have the information to base such a determination on, he still doesn’t.

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
What we’re looking for are the but-for reasons for the war: but for WMDs, would we have gone to war? Almost certainly not.
We went to war to effect regime change. We went to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power. WMD noncompliance was but one justification. American policy was regime change and it had been for years.
Both were clear lies, and he knew it at the time.
No, you’re a liar!

There. Now it’s your turn again. Let’s try to do a little better this time, shall we? I can see how you could misread #2 and get the impression that it hadn’t been met (such as failure to recognize Saddam as an international terrorist), but where do get the ridiculous notion that #1 hadn’t?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Years back, ONLY libs were making this argument, now most Americans agree that the Iraq invasion was a bad idea
I believe McQ has some bad news for you on the front page.....
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
No, you’re a liar!

There. Now it’s your turn again. Let’s try to do a little better this time, shall we? I can see how you could misread #2 and get the impression that it hadn’t been met (such as failure to recognize Saddam as an international terrorist), but where do get the ridiculous notion that #1 hadn’t?
Let’s break it down, shall we...
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
Bush has recently admitted that a threat from Iraq had not fully materialized. (see Bush quote below) Of course we know Iraq never posed any threat to the United States because Iraq had no WMD’s - and Bush knew it at the time, or at teh very least, he did not KNOW that Iraq DID have WMD’s, which would have been a necessary requirement to determine that Iraq posed a continuing threat to the US. But if Bush truly was uncertain about any WMD threat from Iraq, reliance on "further diplomatic or other peaceful means" - namely the U.N. inspectors combing every military and presidential facility in Iraq - would certainly have "adequately protect[ed] the national security of the United States."

How can Iraq be a continuing threat and an unmaterialized threat? It can’t.

Bush lied.
"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
This is quite specific. To meet the condition sine qua non of part (2), to wage war on Iraq, Bush had to determine that Iraq, which is a nation, not a terrorist organization, had "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Clearly, the resolution does NOT authorize force to be used against a NATION that could merely be associated with any group that could be considered an international terrorist organization , the only allowance for attacking a NATION was complicity with 9/11.

Bush, by law, had to have some information of a connection between Iraq and Al Qeada AND had to have been complicit in organizing, planning, authorizing, committing, or aiding in the 9/11 attacks to be authorized to wage this war. Without this specific evidence there can not be such a determination.

Did Iraq "plan, authorize, commit, or aid the terrorist attacks" of 9/11?

President Bush admits they did not...

BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.


 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
Years back, ONLY libs were making this argument, now most Americans agree that the Iraq invasion was a bad idea
I believe McQ has some bad news for you on the front page.....
McQ’s comments and polls reflect the opinions of what we should do now, and I reflected as much in my post, but my statement, "now most Americans agree that the Iraq invasion was a bad idea" is reflected in Gallup poll results that show that 59% of Americans Now Call Iraq Invasion A Mistake.

I have not entered the fray on what we should do now. Frankly I think it is irrelevant what anyone but George Bush thinks until at least Jan. 20, 2007 and possibly until Jan 20, 2009. Though the idea of large readily available strike forces outside the borders of Iraq is appealing, that way we could make calculated decisions on which frays we should engage in, and which whould beleft to sort themselves out. An occupation force works to provide rhetorical ammunition to the enemies of stable Iraq.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
Bush has recently admitted that a threat from Iraq had not fully materialized. (see Bush quote below)
Ok, I did. And it doesn’t say that. Nor does the AUMF state that a threat must be fully materialized in order for it to be a threat. A fully materialized threat looks like this. The point is to not let threats "fully materialize".
Of course we know Iraq never posed any threat to the United States...
Our pilots, at whom Iraq so enjoyed shooting, will be happy to hear you say this, Cap.
...because Iraq had no WMD’s - and Bush knew it at the time, or at teh very least, he did not KNOW that Iraq DID have WMD’s...
You have no way of knowing any of this, including that Saddam had no WMD’s, given the number of them that have been found in Iraq after his removal. Casus belli was Saddam’s noncompliance with UN Sec Res 1441, and I’m not going to rehash that again for the billionth time while you make excuses for him. But you should read it and perhaps learn a thing or three about who was required to do what. Next, google the term "material breach" and see what it brings up. Then check with Georges Sada and release him from his delusions about WMD.

which would have been a necessary requirement to determine that Iraq posed a continuing threat to the US.
According to whom? Was al-Qaeda a threat? Did they have WMD?
This is quite specific.
Yes. When it says "...actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations...", the word "including" is used to include a specific group of people in the set. It does not not exclude others who fit the previously mentioned standard for inclusion in the set. So, if I say "...all blog commenters, including those who post inane, pedantic accusations..." I am speaking of a larger set than the subset following the word "included". The preceding phrase defines the set, not the following one.

Look, if you think he lied, go get him unelected and drag him off to the Hague. Good luck with that, and tell Mother Sheehan that I said hi.

 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Look, if you think he lied, go get him unelected and drag him off to the Hague. Good luck with that, and tell Mother Sheehan that I said hi.
Apparently you missed, or have forgotten, the genesis of my comments. I made the assertion that the AUMF is irrelevant, it was superfluos, the President had all the authority he needed in the War Powers Act.

So the fact that he lied about meeting the criteria of the AUMF is as irrelevant as the AUMF itself.

The main point being that the President has FAR too much power and that wars should not be this easy to start, especially wars against nations that have not attacked us. and now, with this pre-emptive war doctrine combined with too much power in the hands of the executive, the impact of a bad President goes far beyind their 4 or 8 years in office, as the Iraq debacle will go on long after GWB has taken up clearing brush full time in Crawford.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
The main point being that the President has FAR too much power and that wars should not be this easy to start, especially wars against nations that have not attacked us.
What would you like to do, add the judiciary to the approval process? What if we really, really, really need to saddle up and go to war in a hurry? What new obstacles would you like in the way of us doing that? Iraq didn’t attack us 15 years ago. Bosnia never attacked us. Afghanistan never attacked us. Panama didn’t attack us. Germany didn’t attack us. Sudan never attacked us.

It sounds as though you think this was all George Bush’s excellent adventure, cooked up like a pot of soup as part of his master plan, and no one else had anything to do with it. That’s revisionism. We’re all grown up and we all talked about this for months and months and we decided to do it by the process we’ve set out for making that decision. We did it for reasons that most people who were paying attention (and not all, Scott Ritter had my attention at the time) agreed on. We did it with our allies on board. The only place that moral clarity is lacking is in the minds of those who choose to forget how we got where we are and ignore what we’re doing now that we’re there.

I am pleasantly surprised to hear you say that Bush had all the authorization he needed to invade. It’s a better world with Saddam Hussein locked up.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
What would you like to do, add the judiciary to the approval process?
IMHO, there are different kinds of military action, they are not all equal, and an invasion and occupation is different than airstrikes for example.

Bosn

But what I would like, at least for invasion type war is reliance on the Constitution. for Congress not to defer power to the President, but to actually make the call, declare war, or not.
That’s revisionism. We’re all grown up and we all talked about this for months and months and we decided to do it by the process we’ve set out for making that decision. We did it for reasons that most people who were paying attention (and not all, Scott Ritter had my attention at the time) agreed on. We did it with our allies on board. The only place that moral clarity is lacking is in the minds of those who choose to forget how we got where we are and ignore what we’re doing now that we’re there.
No, I disagree, entirely.

The revisionism is on the part of those that claim regime change was given as a significant reason for this invasion.

Revisionism is on the part of those that claim that COngress had the same information as the President.

Revisionism is on the part of those claiming that bringing freedom to the Iraqi people was given as a significant reason for this invasion.


Revisionism is on the part of those claiming that whether or not Iraq had WMD’s is irrelavant.

Revisionism is on the part of those claiming that the few pieces of WMD’s that we have found are enough to have warranted to invasion rather than the WMD claims of hundreds of tons of WMD’s that the administration indicated we KNEW were there.

Revisionism, in short, is on the part of those that didn’t listen to me before the war, when I pointed all of this out.

Cap


 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
Revisionism is on the part of those claiming that whether or not Iraq had WMD’s is irrelavant.
I held that position prior to the invasion. Saddam had 12 years to come clean. 12 years!

Name an intelligence service from any country that you wish (other than Iraq) which claimed prior to the invasion that Iraq had no WMD. Name any country that you wish (other than Iraq) whose public position prior to the invasion was that Iraq had no WMD.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Name an intelligence service from any country that you wish (other than Iraq) which claimed prior to the invasion that Iraq had no WMD. Name any country that you wish (other than Iraq) whose public position prior to the invasion was that Iraq had no WMD.
Stupid question.

Name an agency that had evidence that Iraq DID possess the WMD’s described by the President.

You don’t kill people because of something you DON’T know, unless you are just a murderer, you make life and death decisions based on something you DO know.

No one was paying attention to the slight of hand back in 2002 and 2003, but all I was asking for was some hard evidence, pictures of ONE stockpile, anything. But it was ALL rhetoric.

There’s one born every minute.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
If you could get five randomly selected Americans in a room to agree on what is or is not responsible vs. irresponsible dissent over a cross-section of, say, 10 different government policies across the political spectrum, you might have had some sort of worthwhile point here.

But you couldn’t. And you don’t. "Responsible" vs. "irresponsible" dissent is just your emotional shorthand for "dissent I agree with" vs. "dissent I don’t agree with".

It is certainly possible to dissent responsibly and reasonably. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of both the war and its prosecution. But not to the extent that our enemies take heart from it

We could wipe out probably three-quarters of Al-Quiada’s inner circle right now with, oh, call it ten nuclear weapons in a spread pattern moving east from the Afghani-Pakistani border. If Bill O Reilly suggests this tomorrow on Fox, and President Bush feels compelled to make a statement telling the world that we’re not going to do this, is President Bush giving "aid and comfort" to Osama Bin Laden, effectively telling him that the US agrees to fight with one hand behind its back?

What will the enemy take heart from? Who gives a d*mn? The fanatics will always find something to "take heart from". It’s the wrong way to think.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
So exactly how would the US and the world be safer with Hussein still in power?

Why is it that Libs are willing to give S.H. and his WMD program the benefit of a doubt, yet many of these same nitwits are against law abiding US citizens from owning guns?
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Why is it that Libs are willing to give S.H. and his WMD program the benefit of a doubt, yet many of these same nitwits are against law abiding US citizens from owning guns?
Not sure about the gun comment, I know of no one who wants to make it against the law to own a gun. A .50 machine gun perhaps, but not a gun.

As to the first, if you have to ask, you probably have heard the answer 1000 times and just don’t like. But here it is again for you to dismiss...
benefit of a doubt
Do you see what you have written here?

Doubt

The word doubt has one simple meaning and that meaning is "uncertainty".

Some people just have a nagging reluctance to engage in activity that will CERTAINLY leave over 100,000 people dead over something that is UNCERTAIN.

Good guys shoot back, bad guys shoot first.

Cowards shoot before they even know the other guy is armed.

So, are you a good guy, a bad guy, or a coward?

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider