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

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.

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

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."

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.

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 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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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.