THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

ican, You see, you really knew the answer without asking. Wink

0 Replies

I re-read your post No. 1234944, page 909. I have boldfaced both the specific parts you were responding to and your response that led me to infer you were still hung up on the WMD whooey.

revel wrote:

Quote:
Well for once Blair's team at the UN failed to convince. Of course we blamed the French, we weren't going to admit that the resolution was not going to pass because a majority would vote against. In the infamous tv interview Chirac said he would veto the use of force. But he didn't rule it out for all time, he wanted the inspectors to be allowed time to finish their job and report. We jumped on that, withdrew the resolution, went to war without it and blamed the French.

What was the job Chirac wanted to be finished? It was the search for WMD. Chirac too was hung up on WMD whooey.

This was the problem for me in a nutshell. It was like they wanted to shove that down everyone's throat so fast that it was a done deal before anyone really knew why we were going to war.

Had they said at the outset that they wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy to have as an example for the rest of the middle east an alternative way of running their country without dictators so that the rest of the world would be safer and that they couldn’t do it unless they got rid of Saddam Hussein who is an evil dictator anyway who has tortured and oppressed his people for decades, then at least it would have been an honest approach and people could have made up their minds on the truth instead of sexed up half truths.

(Sorry for the long sentence)

People keep going on about those of [us] in the United States are just so opposed to George Bush that we are against the war in Iraq. That is simply not true. Most of us [were] for the war in Afghanistan, at least I was and I still am and George Bush was acting President then too as well.

I would have been against the war in Iraq even if they had phrased it that way. (I do not believe treating people much less whole nations as though they are merely pawns in a world chess game.) If they went strictly for the Iraqi people and I trusted that was their interest, I would have been for it even though we were still in a war with Afghanistan that we still have not completed yet. But the way they sprung this war on us with the excuses of WMD

Multiple reasons were given for our invasion of Iraq. Only one, WMD, turned out to be false. All the others turned out to be true. Why not get hung up on them? Why not get hung up on the most important true reason. That reason was that al Qaeda had bases in Iraq just like they had bases in Afghanistan. Both the Taliban and Saddam ignored our requests to remove al Qaeda leaders from their countries. So we chose to remove both al Qaeda and these governments that ignored our requests. We removed the governments to reduce the probability of al Qaeda re-establishing itself in both these countries after we left. We surely had had good reason for believing al Qaeda was a threat to US.

and past crimes of Saddam Hussien which never was a direct threat to us just made me suspicious of them from the get go. I thought at the time that if others in the world who are closer to that part of the country feel like they were threatened then I would support the war, but they didn’t so I didn’t understand the rush.

It wasn't Saddam that was a direct threat to us. His threat to us was indirect. It was/is al Qaeda that was/is a direct threat to us. Saddam was an indirect threat to us, because he ignored the direct threat to us of the Iraq based al Qaeda.

I infer that some think the Iraq based al Qaeda were an insignificant direct threat to us because Saddam was alleged to have had little or no relationship with them. Well Saddam allegedly had little or no relationship with the Afghanistan based al Qaeda, yet that invasion is ok with you.

So, in conclusion I infer that you are hung up on the WMD whooey because you fail to look at all that what was actually true in Iraq.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, You see, you really knew the answer without asking.

I knew/know my answer. I still don't know your answer. It was your answer I was looking for and I'm still looking.

0 Replies

Your answer is sufficient for the purpose of this discussion.

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

What has damaged Michael Schiavo's case is possible motivations lurking in the background. He wants to marry his companion and cannot do so until he, as a Catholic, is divorced, annulled, or widowed. So even if her parents take over Terri's custody and care, the problem of him having a living wife is the obstruction to his remarriage. Thus, his self-interest is clear and taints his spoken beliefs, no matter how sincere, that she "would not want to live this way."

Here's my understanding of the case.

Terri's estranged husband believes Terri wants to be allowed to die.

Terri's parents believe Terri wants to be allowed to live.

Florida judges believe Terri's husband has the authority and responsibility to decide whether Terri should be allowed to die or Terri should be allowed to live.

Republicans and some Democrats passed a federal law, signed by the President, that requires federal judges to review the state judges' decisions.

[boldface emphasis added by me]

Quote:

Amendment V (1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Quote:

Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Some say, Republicans are no damn good.

0 Replies

Some also say republicans are not consistent. The law Bush signed in Texas in direct contradiction to the law he just signed this past weekend. Conservatives are supposed to represent less government intrusion into private lives, but they want the whole Congress to get involved - and did. They keep repeating the refrain, "the sanctity of marriage," but they question the marriage of Michael and Terri Schiavo. Do you wonder why people are confused? Maybe not.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Some also say republicans are not consistent. The law Bush signed in Texas in direct contradiction to the law he just signed this past weekend. Conservatives are supposed to represent less government intrusion into private lives, but they want the whole Congress to get involved - and did. They keep repeating the refrain, "the sanctity of marriage," but they question the marriage of Michael and Terri Schiavo. Do you wonder why people are confused? Maybe not.

No law that any governor signed, not only the law Bush signed in Texas, can lawfully override the US Constitution as lawfully amended.

[boldface emphasis added by me]

Quote:

Article VI (1789)
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Some say President Bush does not understand this.

0 Replies

Well, Bush signed a law in Texas that states that the spouse has final say on their spouse, but last weekend, he signed a law that denies that right to Michael Schiavo.

0 Replies

Heard this on CNN

Quote:

March 22, 2005
Tom Delay ... Wow

Tom Delay thinks that Terry Schiavo being in a persistant vegetative state for 15 years is a blessing from God. Why? Because Delay can use her politically:

On Friday, as the leaders of both chambers scrambled to try to stop the removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, Mr. DeLay, a Texas Republican, turned his attention to social conservatives gathered at a Washington hotel and described what he viewed as the intertwined struggle to save Ms. Schiavo, expand the conservative movement and defend himself against accusations of ethical lapses.

"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," Mr. DeLay told a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. A recording of the event was provided by the advocacy organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," Mr. DeLay said.

Anyone who still thinks these guys are compassionate or moral has got to be as nuts as they are.

Posted by Poppy at March 22, 2005 02:28 PM | TrackBack
Comments
Post a comment
Name:

Email Address:

0 Replies

Iraqi commandos seize rebel base

Dozens of insurgents have been killed by Iraqi special forces backed by US troops in a raid on a training camp near the city of Tikrit, officials say.

An Iraqi commando unit engaged in heavy fighting before seizing control of the camp, 160km (100 miles) north-west of Baghdad, on Tuesday.

At least seven Iraqi commandos died, officials said. Between 45 and 80 insurgents were reported killed.

Correspondents say it is the heaviest blow to the insurgency in months.

Iraqi special forces attacked the training camp, at Lake Tharthar, on the border between the troubled mainly-Sunni provinces of Anbar and Salaheddin.

After encountering heavy fire, they called in US ground and air reinforcements.

Operations stepped up

Lt Col Sarmad Hassan Kamel, a commander of the special unit, said many of the insurgents were foreigners.

"Forty-five Arabs were killed, Saudis and Syrians, but there were other Iraqis," he said.

The US military confirmed the operation, but was unable to say how many insurgents were killed.

Spokesman Maj Richard Goldenberg said Iraqi forces now had complete control of the site.

"An early assessment of the site indicates a facility for training anti-Iraqi forces," he said.

Iraqi special police units have been stepping up operations against insurgents in recent weeks.

The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says the units are made up of experienced military men who served under the previous regime.

Though they are regarded with suspicion in some circles, he says, they are considered to be more reliable than conventional troops.

Earlier this week, US troops killed up to 26 insurgents after an ambush south of Baghdad.

In Baghdad on Wednesday, a rocket or mortar hit a school and exploded, killing an 11-year-old girl and injuring at least one other child.

A teacher was seen weeping as parents came to pick up their children from al-Junainah school in the Amariyah district, while dust and glass fragments covered the classroom.

Also in the capital, witnesses said shopkeepers fought a gunbattle with insurgents on Tuesday, killing three of them.

Correspondents say the incident is the first time private citizens are known to have retaliated successfully against insurgents.

Meanwhile agreement appeared to be drawing gradually closer on the formation of a new Iraqi government, with Shia and Kurdish parties due to meet for further talks on Wednesday.

source

0 Replies

Interesting, Ge. The issue has become a political football. However, the facts and the law cannot be reduced to a few sentences. The matter is more complex.

The editorial page of the NYTimes today has three or four thoughtful articles. I have not read the Journal yet, but they had an excellent piece on this case a few days ago on the ed page.

From today's Times, this was especially to the point, I think.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 23, 2005
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Federalism Has a Right to Life, Too
By CHARLES FRIED

ambridge, Mass. ?- IN their intervention in the Terri Schiavo matter, Republicans in Congress and President Bush have, in a few brief legislative clauses, embraced the kind of free-floating judicial activism, disregard for orderly procedure and contempt for the integrity of state processes that they quite rightly have denounced and sought to discipline for decades.

On the substance, the law passed by Congress on Monday called for a federal court to decide whether Ms. Schiavo's constitutional rights had been violated at the state level. In this regard, it is worth quoting at length from a concurring opinion by Antonin Scalia, the president's favorite Supreme Court justice and occasionally my own as well, in a 1990 case from the Missouri courts involving precisely the same issues.

"The various opinions in this case portray quite clearly the difficult, indeed agonizing, questions that are presented by the constantly increasing power of science to keep the human body alive for longer than any reasonable person would want to inhabit it," Justice Scalia wrote. "The states have begun to grapple with these problems through legislation. I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortion - requiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from term to term. That would be a great misfortune."

Justice Scalia went on to say that he would have preferred that the court had announced, "clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field." The problem, he insisted, was that "the point at which life becomes 'worthless,' and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become 'extraordinary' or 'inappropriate,' are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine justices of this court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory."

Congress's intervention in the Schiavo case is equally mischievous. It demanded that a federal court decide this issue without giving any deference to state law or the previous course of state court proceedings. This is exactly the sort of episodic federal intervention without regard for the integrity of state processes that plagued death penalty cases for years, and that Congress moved to end when it passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. And the real possibility now of the case bouncing back and forth between the federal district court and the federal appeals court, and maybe even back to state court, is just what Congress tried to shut down in death penalty cases.

For years now, Congress has more and more stringently demanded that federal court intervention be limited to cases where the state courts have acted not just technically incorrectly, but with egregious lack of reason. Whatever might be said of the Florida state court proceedings in this case, they certainly have not crossed that line, and indeed probably accord with what state courts all over the country have ordered or permitted for years in these difficult and agonizing cases.

Finally, the law passed by Congress on Monday was an obvious attempt - under the pretense of allowing the determination of federal constitutional rights - to delay the outcome decreed by Florida state law with the hope of making that outcome impossible. That is precisely the worrisome tactic employed with increasingly imaginative stays and orders of re-litigation in a number of federal courts, most noticeably the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers nine Western states. And it is also precisely the sort of tactic that Congress sought to discipline in the Effective Death Penalty Act.

It is no good for politicians to try to justify this absurd departure from principles of federalism and respect for sound and orderly judicial administration by saying that, in this case, the life at stake is unquestionably innocent. For in many of the death penalty cases, the claim has also been that the prisoner had at least unfairly, and perhaps even incorrectly, been condemned to death.

What we have is many of the the same political leaders who denounced the Supreme Court's decision forbidding states from executing those who committed their crimes as juveniles now feel free to parachute in on a case that had been within a state court's purview for 15 years.

Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School, was solicitor general of the United States under President Ronald Reagan.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

0 Replies

Maybe we are all hypocrites. A news piece quoted on C-Span this morning said that the Dems are shouting States' Rights (not their usual screed) and the Repubs are demanding federal hegemony (not their usual rant) showing how we can all switch sides if it suits our political purposes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 23, 2005
CONSERVATIVES
G.O.P. Right Is Splintered on Schiavo Intervention
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON, March 22 - The vote by Congress to allow the federal courts to take over the Terri Schiavo case has created distress among some conservatives who say that lawmakers violated a cornerstone of conservative philosophy by intervening in the ruling of a state court.

The emerging debate, carried out against a rush of court decisions and Congressional action, has highlighted a conflict of priorities among conservatives and signals tensions that Republicans are likely to face as Congressional leaders and President Bush push social issues over the next two years, party leaders say.

"This is a clash between the social conservatives and the process conservatives, and I would count myself a process conservative," said David Davenport of the Hoover Institute, a conservative research organization. "When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts and it's been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the process has worked - even if it hasn't given the result that the social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a violation of federalism."

Stephen Moore, a conservative advocate who is president of the Free Enterprise Fund, said: "I don't normally like to see the federal government intervening in a situation like this, which I think should be resolved ultimately by the family: I think states' rights should take precedence over federal intervention. A lot of conservatives are really struggling with this case."

Some more moderate Republicans are also uneasy. Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the sole Republican to oppose the Schiavo bill in a voice vote in the Senate, said: "This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this country. These are fundamental principles of federalism."

"It looks as if it's a wholly Republican exercise," Mr. Warner said, "but in the ranks of the Republican Party, there is not a unanimous view that Congress should be taking this step."

In interviews over the past two days, conservatives who expressed concern about the turn of events in Congress stopped short of condemning the vote in which overwhelming majorities supported the Schiavo bill, and they generally applauded the goal of trying to keep Ms. Schiavo alive. But they said they were concerned about what precedent had been set and said the vote went against Republicans who were libertarian, advocates of states' rights or supporters of individual rights.

"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Mr. Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."

While the intensity of the dissent appears to be rising - Mr. Warner made a point Tuesday of calling attention to his little-noticed opposition in a nearly empty Senate chamber over the weekend - support for the measure among Republican and conservative leaders still appears strong. In interviews, some conservatives either dismissed the argument that the vote was a federal intrusion on states' rights or argued that their opposition to euthanasia as part of their support of the right-to-life movement trumped any aversion they might have to a dominant federal government.

"There's a larger issue in play," and Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, "and that is the whole issue of the definition of life. The issue of when is it a life is a broader issue than just a state defining that. I don't think we can have 50 different definitions of life."

Other Republicans who supported the Schiavo bill said they were wrestling conflicting beliefs. Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, a former governor and a strong advocate of states' rights, decided to support the bill after determining that his opposition to euthanasia outweighed his views on federalism, an aide said.

Senator Tom Coburn, a newly elected conservative Republican from Oklahoma, said: "This isn't a states' rights issue. What we're saying is they are going to review it. The states are not given the right to take away somebody's constitutional rights."

Representative Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican who is the House majority leader, bristled on Sunday when he was asked about how to square the bill with federalist precepts.

"I really think it is interesting that the media is defining what conservatism is," Mr. DeLay said. "The conservative doctrine here is the Constitution of the United States."

The Republican Party has long associated itself with limiting the power of the federal government over the states, though this is not the only time that party leaders have veered from that position. Most famously, in 2000, it persuaded the Supreme Court to overturn a Florida court ruling ordering a recount of the vote in the presidential election between Al Gore and George Bush.

But now the Schiavo case is illustrating splinters in the conservative movement that Mr. Bush managed to bridge in his last campaign, and the challenges Mr. Bush and Republicans face in trying to govern over the next two years, even though they control Congress as well as the White House.

"The libertarian streak in me says, you know, people should have the right to die," Mr. Moore, of the Free Enterprise Fund, said. "But as so many conservatives, I'm also very pro-life. Those two philosophies are conflicting with each other."

Bob Levy, a fellow with the Cato Institute, argued that Democrats and Republicans alike were being "incredibly hypocritical" in this case: Democrats by suddenly embracing states' rights and Republicans by asserting the power of the federal government.

"These questions are not the business of Congress," Mr. Levy said of the Schiavo dispute. "The Constitution does not give Congress the power to define life or death. The only role for the court is once the state legislature establishes what the rules are, the court can decide if the rules have been properly applied."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company |

0 Replies

Kara and others, there are a multitude of threads discussing the Shiavo case. Please try to use those for articles such as these as this thread is about Iraq.

Just a heads up.

0 Replies

Kara, two questions come to mind ...

Where is the outrage?
Does the name 'Machiavelli' ring a bell?

0 Replies

Sorry, did'nt know the rules were that strict.

0 Replies

It's not rules, just curtesy.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Sorry, did'nt know the rules were that strict.

OOPS, hiit the submit too soon .....

how about posts regarding your use of your scroll button ... how would that be pertinet?

0 Replies

http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204%257E21474%257E2776642,00.html

Quote:

Iraqis take a stand against insurgents

Carpenter shoots militants as they head into his neighborhood; 3 die.

By Robert F. Worth
The New York Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq ?- Ordinary Iraqis rarely strike back at the insurgents who terrorize their country. But just before noon on Tuesday a carpenter named Dhia saw a troop of masked gunmen with grenades coming toward his shop here and decided he had had enough.
As the gunmen emerged from their cars, Dhia and his young relatives shouldered their Kalashnikov rifles and opened fire, the police and witnesses said. In the fierce gunbattle that followed, three of the insurgents were killed, and the rest fled just after police arrived. Two of Dhia's nephews and a bystander were wounded, the police said.

"We attacked them before they attacked us," said Dhia, 35, his face still contorted with rage and excitement, as he stood outside his home a few hours after the battle, a 9mm pistol in his hand. He would not give his last name. "We killed three of those who call themselves the mujahedeen."

"I am waiting for the rest of them to come, and we will show them."

It was the first time that private citizens are known to have retaliated successfully against the insurgents. There have been anecdotal reports of residents shooting at attackers after a bombing or an assassination. But the gunbattle on Tuesday erupted in full view of at least a dozen witnesses, including a Justice Ministry official.

The battle was the latest sign that Iraqis may be willing to stand up against attacks that leave dozens dead nearly every week.

After a suicide bombing in Hilla last month that killed 136 people, hundreds of residents demonstrated in front of the city hall every day for almost a week, chanting slogans against terrorism. Another demonstration in the capital is scheduled for today.

Like many of the attacks here, Tuesday's fight had sectarian overtones. Dhia and his family are Shiite Arabs, and they cook for religious festivals at the nearby Shiite Husseiniya mosque. The insurgents are largely Sunni Arabs, and they have aimed dozens of attacks at Shiite figures, celebrations and even funerals.

The conflict has grown sharper in the last year, with Shiites dominating Iraq's new police force and army and have a narrow majority in the new national assembly.

Elsewhere in Iraq, insurgents continued their campaign of violence. In the northern city of Mosul, four civilians were killed Tuesday morning and 14 were wounded when a roadside bomb detonated near an American military convoy, health officials said.

I am trying to figure out if this is the beginning of the end for the insurgents or the start of a civil war.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Well, Bush signed a law in Texas that states that the spouse has final say on their spouse, but last weekend, he signed a law that denies that right to Michael Schiavo.

No! Bush did no such thing. Bush signed a law ordering the federal courts to review the decisions of the Florida state courts.

For over 200 years, the federal courts have repeatedly reviewed the decisions of state courts on all kinds of matters, especially matters of life and death. The only difference this time is that the Congress itself appealed the decisions of the state courts to the federal courts. I cannot find anything in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from making such an appeal, and I infer the 5th and 14th Aendmendments to the Constitution delegate to the Congress the power to make such an appeal. If they lacked such power, the Congress would be severely limited in enforcing the the 5th and 14th Amendments.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Well, Bush signed a law in Texas that states that the spouse has final say on their spouse, but last weekend, he signed a law that denies that right to Michael Schiavo.

No! Bush did no such thing. Bush signed a law ordering the federal courts to review the decisions of the Florida state courts.

For over 200 years, the federal courts have repeatedly reviewed the decisions of state courts on all kinds of matters, especially matters of life and death. The only difference this time is that the Congress itself appealed the decisions of the state courts to the federal courts. I cannot find anything in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from making such an appeal, and I infer the 5th and 14th Aendmendments to the Constitution delegate to the Congress the power to make such an appeal. If they lacked such power, the Congress would be severely limited in enforcing the the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Look up 'Texas futile care law'.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know