OK, goys and birls, try to play nice . . .
The GOP is merely trying to undo the previous changes to turn it back to what it was before FDR and civil rights ect.
I think most people will see through the spin if the polls are anything to go by.
Article II.
Section 2.
The President ... shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Article VI.
...
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.
Article IV.
Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
revel wrote:The GOP is merely trying to undo the previous changes to turn it back to what it was before FDR and civil rights ect.
I think most people will see through the spin if the polls are anything to go by.
Revel, I am no better discerning Republican motives than I am discerning Democrat motives or anyone else's motives. I suspect that's true for each and everyone of us participating in this forum, including--but not limited to--Setanta, the originator of this forum. But I think I can do a pretty good job discerning probable consequences of actions.
I do know what the US Constitution says on the subject of presidential appointments:
Quote:Article II.
Section 2.
The President ... shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Article VI.
...
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.
I note nothing in the Constitution that grants a minority of the Senate the right to prevent a majority of the Senate from advising and consenting to presidential appointments. I think any effort on the part of a minority of the Senate to do that is unlawful, illegal and crooked, regardless of their motives. I think it unlawful, illegal and crooked, regardless of how well-meaning, grand and self-less the motives of the Senate minority may be.
I think any attempt to abandon the rule of law threatens the viability of The Republic of the United States of America. I think that when Congress permits the abandonment of the rule of law, Congress violates the following constitutional guarantee to the States of our union:
Quote:Article IV.
Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
ACTIONS NOT MOTIVES HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
This is not the place to discuss those issues. I didn't read the whole of redrex's link; it turns out I should have.
Democrats don't object to solutions, just the solutions that are being offered and some of the ways in which patriot act and other things are being applied.
In other words you can't fix everything with a tax cut sometimes you need tax cuts or benefit cuts plus tax increases in order to fix economic problems. The way Clinton did it.
Also, some of those laws in the patriot act are just simply unfair.
The prescription drug thing does not provide enough help for everyone who needs it.
There is also the big looming problem of health care for everyone that needs to be addressed.
Like I said, this is not the place to discuss it. So I will not respond to this issue here again.
... The prescription drug thing does not provide enough help for everyone who needs it.
There is also the big looming problem of health care for everyone that needs to be addressed.
...
Are you saying redrex that your side didn't filibuster?
...
If I stay on the loosing side forever it will not make a difference in what I believe in. To me it is not a matter of who is on top or more popular, but who and what is correct and just.
Revealed: documents show Blair's secret plans for war
PM decided on conflict from the start. Blair told war illegal in March 2002. Latest leak confirms Goldsmith doubts
By Raymond Whitaker, Andy McSmith and Francis Elliott
01 May 2005
Tony Blair had resolved to send British troops into action alongside US forces eight months before the Iraq War began, despite a clear warning from the Foreign Office that the conflict could be illegal.
A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute reveals the head of British intelligence reported that President Bush had firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, adding that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
At the same time, a document obtained by this newspaper reveals the Foreign Office legal advice given to Mr Blair in March 2002, before he travelled to meet Mr Bush at his Texas ranch. It contains many of the reservations listed nearly a year later by the Attorney General in his confidential advice to the Prime Minister, which the Government was forced to publish last week, including the warning that the US government took a different view of international law from Britain or virtually any other country.
Surely, ican, you understand that the reason I pointed out the chronology of your references is that you claim that it is false that your reference B perused the same unreliable "intelligence" as your reference A. For example, your reference B perused a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analytic report, ,"Special Analysis: Iraq's Inconclusive Ties to Al-Qaida,"--now pay special attention to the date, ican--published July 31, 2002, that your reference A did, ergo your reference B perused the same unreliable "intelligence" as your reference A. It would be my pleasure to go over this with you again if you're still having a difficult time comprehending the point, ican.
your statement is a good example of false set logic. My copy of reference A lists on pages 451 through 567 notes to each of its 13 chapters. For example, Chapter 2-THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEW TERRORISM lists 93 such notes. Each note is a dated reference and sometimes a comment. Some of these references are dated prior to the date of reference B, and some of these references are dated after the date of reference B. Therefore your statement: "ergo your reference B perused the same unreliable "intelligence" as your reference A" is false on its face.
Had your statement been ergo your reference B perused some of the same unreliable "intelligence" as your reference, A then the truth of your statement would rest only on the truth of your hypothesis, or your speculation, or your fantasy, or your sham that all of that some of the same unreliable "intelligence" was actually unreliable.
Thus far you have not provided evidence, reason, or confession regarding your statement, so I speculate your statement, as I have corrected it, is your sham.
here is that Iraq willingly harbored al Qaeda/Ansar al Islam in northern Iraq, ican. Is is not? And you've proceeded to provide your references thereof. Correct? One of my points is that the most your reference A could say about an Iraq/Al Qaeda link is that the most it could conclude about an Iraq/Al Qaeda link is that Iraq tolerated Ansar al Islam in the isolated area it did not control, and that Iraq may even have helped them. That's a weak argument for your position that Iraq willingly harbored al-Qaeda/Ansar al Islam in northern Iraq.
My argument that I have repeatedly posted here for more than a month does not state as you claim: "Iraq willingly harbored al Qaeda/Ansar al Islam in northern Iraq." Nor does my argument claim Saddam's regime possessed ready-to-use WMD when the US invaded Iraq on 3/20/2003. So rebut my actual argument and then I will attempt to rebut your rebuttal.
Another of my points is that your reference B has been demonstrated to be incompetent and demagogic by Associated Press writer Charles J. Hanley. For example:
Powell said "most United States experts" believed aluminum tubes sought by Iraq were intended for use as centrifuge cylinders for enriching uranium for nuclear bombs.
Energy Department experts and Powell's own State Department intelligence bureau had already dissented from this CIA view... No centrifuge program has been reported found.
"We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program," Powell said.
On July 24, Foreign Minister Ana Palacio of Spain, a U.S. ally on Iraq, said there was "no evidence, no proof" of a nuclear bomb program before the war. No such evidence has been reported found since the invasion.
At two sites, Powell said trucks were "decontamination vehicles" associated with chemical weapons.
Nothing has been reported found since... Norwegian inspector Jorn Siljeholm told AP on March 19 that "decontamination vehicles" U.N. teams were led to by U.S. information invariably turned out to be water or fire trucks.
Powell said defectors had told of "biological weapons factories" on trucks and in train cars. He displayed artists' conceptions of such vehicles.
After the invasion, U.S. authorities said they found two such truck trailers in Iraq, and the CIA said it concluded they were part of a bioweapons production line. But no trace of biological agents was found on them, Iraqis said the equipment made hydrogen for weather balloons, and State Department intelligence balked at the CIA's conclusion.
According to Powell, unidentified sources said the Iraqis dispersed rocket launchers and warheads holding biological weapons to the western desert, hiding them in palm groves and moving them every one to four weeks.
Nothing has been reported found, after months of searching by U.S. and Australian troops in the nearly empty desert.
Powell noted Iraq had declared it produced 8,500 liters of the biological agent anthrax before 1991. None has been "verifiably accounted for," he said.
No anthrax has been reported found, post-invasion. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), in a confidential report last September (five months before the Powell speech) said that although it believed Iraq had biological weapons it didn't know their nature, amounts, or condition.
Powell showed video of an Iraqi F-1 Mirage jet spraying "simulated anthrax." He said four such spray tanks were unaccounted for, and Iraq was building small unmanned aircraft "well suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons."
According to U.N. inspectors' reports, the video predated the 1991 Gulf War, when the Mirage was said to have been destroyed, and three of the four spray tanks were destroyed in the 1990s. No small drones or other planes with chemical-biological capability have been reported found in Iraq since the invasion.
Powell said Iraq produced four tons of the nerve agent VX.
Powell didn't note that most of that was destroyed in the 1990s under U.N. supervision. No VX has been reported found since the invasion. Experts at Britain's International Institute of Strategic Studies said any pre-1991 VX most likely would have degraded anyway.
"We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry," Powell said.
No "chemical weapons infrastructure" has been reported found. The recently-disclosed DIA report of last September said there was "no reliable information" on where Iraq might have established chem-warfare facilities.
"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical-weapons agent," Powell said.
Powell gave no basis for the assertion, and no such agents have been reported found. That same DIA report had reported "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons."
"Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons...And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them," Powell said.
No such weapons were used in the war and none was reported found.
Powell said 122-mm "chemical" warheads found by U.N. inspectors in January might be the "tip of an iceberg."
The warheads were empty, a fact Powell didn't note. No others have been reported found since the invasion.
Powell said "intelligence sources" indicate Iraq had a secret force of up to a few dozen prohibited Scud-type missiles. He said it also had a program to build newer, 600-mile-range missiles.
No Scud-type missiles have been reported found. No program for long-range missiles has been reported.
As far as his claims of an Iraq/al Qaeda/Ansar al-Islam harboring link, according to the source that Old Europe provided here, American intelligence sources had said right before Powell's infamous speech before the UN that the intelligence was practically non-existent, and that most of the intelligence being used to support the idea of a link between al-Qa'eda and Saddam Hussein comes from Kurdish groups who are the bitter enemies of Ansar al-Islam.
"It is impossible to support the bald conclusions being made by the White House and the Pentagon given the poor quantity and quality of the intelligence available. There is uproar within the intelligence community on all of these points, but the Bush White House has quashed dissent." an American intelligence source is quoted as saying in OE's link.
Throughout Powell's demagoguery he sprinkled tidbits of inciteful terrorism such as:
"Less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax, a little bit about this amount--this is just about the amount of a teaspoon--less than a teaspoon full of dry anthrax in an envelope shutdown the United States Senate in the fall of 2001. This forced several hundred people to undergo emergency medical treatment and killed two postal workers just from an amount just about this quantity that was inside of an envelope."
"A single drop of VX [nerve agent] on the skin will kill in minutes."
"Call it ingenuous or evil genius, but the Iraqis deliberately designed their chemical weapons programs to be inspected. It is infrastructure with a built-in ally."
"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.
"Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly 5 times the size of Manhattan."
"We also have sources who tell us that, since the 1980s, Saddam's regime has been experimenting on human beings to perfect its biological or chemical weapons.
"A source said that 1,600 death row prisoners were transferred in 1995 to a special unit for such experiments. An eye witness saw prisoners tied down to beds, experiments conducted on them, blood oozing around the victim's mouths and autopsies performed to confirm the effects on the prisoners. Saddam Hussein's humanity--inhumanity has no limits."
"It is noteworthy that, over the last 18 months, Saddam Hussein has paid increasing personal attention to Iraqi's top nuclear scientists, a group that the governmental-controlled press calls openly, his nuclear mujahedeen. He regularly exhorts them and praises their progress. Progress toward what end?"
"Saddam Hussein's intentions have never changed. He is not developing the missiles for self-defense. These are missiles that Iraq wants in order to project power, to threaten, and to deliver chemical, biological and, if we let him, nuclear warheads."
"Less than a pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal."
Thusly, I have demonstrated that your contention about about extradition of "AQ leadership" and or the lack thereof is merely speculation on your part is based on the fact that you rely on demonstrably discredited and unreliable information, ican. That your contention, furthermore, is based on your own flights of fancy in interpreting said discredited and unreliable information is self evident.
You speculate that the Iraq government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq. Where in all of your references does it say exactly that, ican?
You speculate that the Iraq government had the wherewithal to do so. Where in all of your references does it say exactly that, ican?
You do not provide evidence demonstrating the credibility of the claim that the US even approached that government to perform the aforementioned, given the discredited and unreliable nature of your very references, ican.
About your contention in your response to OE that the connection/link between bin Laden and Iraq being superfluous, you are correct ican.
The point is that Powell accused Iraq of willingly harboring al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam, and that it willingly did nothing to extradite Zarqawi. There is no evidence of this only Powell's selfsame discredited, willful, instigative demagoguery.
First, because Powell et al later admitted they were wrong about WMD, does not validly imply he was wrong about everything else they said.
Second, because after Powell's speech, neither Powell nor the Saddam regime denied that the US had requested extradition of the al Qaeda Ansar al Islam leadership, and Saddam's regime did deny both the possession of ready-to-use WMD and a link to al Qaeda, I think it highly probable that Powell was correct when he said the US did in fact request the extradition of the al Qaeda Ansar al Islam leadership.
1. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists. [Reference A]
2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]
3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]
4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier. [References A, B, C, D, F]
5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan. [Reference A]
6. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq. [References A, B, D, E, F]
7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]
8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]
9. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.
References:
A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
NEW LINK:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com
D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers
E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
F. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again travelled to Afghanistan and was reportedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. He moved to Iran to organize al-Tawhid, his former terrorist organization. Zarqawi then settled in the mostly-Kurdish regions of northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region. He reportedly became a leader in the group, although his leadership role has not been established. His followers claimed he was killed in a US bombing raid in the north of Iraq [11] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4446084/).
US targets Islamist group in Iraq http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2875269.stm
March 22, 2003.
US targets Islamist group in Iraq
Alleged Ansar al-Islam leader Mullah Krekar denies any terror links
US forces have targeted a radical Islamic group alleged to have links to the al-Qaeda movement in a Kurdish-controlled area of northern Iraq, eyewitness say.
About 70 US missiles are reported to have struck the belt of hill country close to the Iranian border that is controlled by the Ansar al-Islam.
Both the US administration and the Kurds accuse the movement of being linked to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.
Ansar commanders deny this
Quote:CycloptichornRevealed: documents show Blair's secret plans for war
PM decided on conflict from the start. Blair told war illegal in March 2002. Latest leak confirms Goldsmith doubts
By Raymond Whitaker, Andy McSmith and Francis Elliott
01 May 2005
Tony Blair had resolved to send British troops into action alongside US forces eight months before the Iraq War began, despite a clear warning from the Foreign Office that the conflict could be illegal. ...