Iraq Non-Resolution

| | Comments (32) | TrackBacks (0)

Do I have to say how ridiculous the whole concept of a "non-binding" resolution against the President's war plans is? What a gutless excuse for action.

Why not just phrase it "I'm opposed to Iraq, but I'm afraid to do anything real about it, so I'll vote for the `non-binding' version of what I really think."

If you oppose the war, have the intestinal fortitude to back your opposition, or have the dignity to back down.

I'm embarrassed this thing got so many votes.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Iraq Non-Resolution.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/910

32 Comments

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

this resolution is easy to support because it doesn't demand anything and it was sponsored by a republican. now that they have a bunch of people on record as being against the war, they'll push for something more meaningful. ...at least that's what Joe Biden keeps saying

jacob said:

We are playing politics with a war. It is sooo true, you get the guv'mint you deserve.

No Relation said:

You are both right.

The Senate is playing the part of the high school girl waiting to see what everyone else is wearing before she picks out her outfit.

Not that I know what it's like to be a high school girl.

Hey...I got sisters. OK?

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

"It is sooo true, you get the guv'mint you deserve."

Even if it's a baathist dictatorship?

Nyoooo!

jacob said:

SPMM,
Nice snide comment.

Now, without sarcasm, I am talking about how our Republic is becoming a mess. Former presidents and current Senators are going overseas and saying things that would have gotten them charged with treason 100 years ago.

We are getting exactly what we deserve. I predict that we will no longer be capable of winning wars unless they are over quickly and we pull out within a very short time period. Or, if we always have someone else to do the dieing for us.

The people of this country have allowed themselves to become apathetic and highly complacent about the performance of their elected officials. Whether we win wars, or not, is portrayed as unimportant in the public forum. It has become actually a matter political calculation that we do loose the war in order to hurt the other side of our internal political divide.

Interestingly, the fact that this is still the best place to live on earth, bar none, has a large part in our collective stupidity. When things do take a sharp turn for the worse, I am sure each side of the isle will blame the other, as will the people. This is a recipe for lots of violance.

Got any more snide comments?

No Relation said:

Thanks Jacob, excellent points.

Kevin said:

"It has become actually a matter political calculation that we do loose the war in order to hurt the other side of our internal political divide."

Sarcasm aside, do you really think that's true? I'm for winning the war. We started it (for some odd reason). To say that anyone is hoping that we lose the war so that the Republicans look bad is either disingenuous of you, totally mistaken, or absolutely true.

Jack said:

Why else have the Dems opposed Bush every step of the way?

Kevin said:

I recall a lot of Dems backing the war, at least initially.

Jack said:

Only for the first votes. Ever since then, it's been "Bush got us into this," and countering every effort to deal with terrorists, such as tracking their financial transactions, listening to their phone calls, profiling at airports, and cancelling Visas from terrorist-harboring countries.

The Democrats want us to lose the War (not just against Iraq, but against the Islamic terrorists) because they hate America.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

"would have gotten them charged with treason 100 years ago,"
maybe, but 9/11 changed everything!!

but don't be silly. this war was political from the get go. remember how they cooked the books to take the wind out of the opposition, it's sick and twisted.

people don't have confidence in Bush's ability to do anything to make us safer. Everything he touches goes to hell. hence the reluctance to follow his lead.

I find no reason to believe that invading Iraq has done anything to protect us from terrorism. There's a crap load of cash going to this war that could have been more wisely used on things like, ahem, strengthening the border.

Jack said:

"Cooked the books"? How?

"Everything he touches goes to hell." I guess that's why the economy is doing so well, tax receipts are way up, the deficit has gone down two years in a row, and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit is wildly successful.

"I find no reason to believe that invading Iraq has done anything to protect us from terrorism."

Then you have no reason. Who do you think most of these "insurgents" are? Many are al Qaeda, others are Iranian and Syrian -- our enemies.

"There's a crap load of cash going to this war that could have been more wisely used on things like, ahem, strengthening the border."

There's far more money going to unconstitutional things, such as Welfare, education, and local police, that could have gone to strengthening the borders. However, we both know that Congress will not fund that, even if there were a surplus.

Kevin said:

"The Democrats want us to lose the War (not just against Iraq, but against the Islamic terrorists) because they hate America."

Nice snide comments. Now you're being ridiculous.

Jack said:

Really? According to many, America is what's wrong with this world. There would be no terrorists if it were not for our support of Israel. There would be no hunger if we were not so greedy, and there would be no global warming if we were a backward cesspool like Somalia.

The Democrats hate capitalism, and want socialism or communism. They hate our freedom of speech (see the Campaign Finance Reform Law) and they hate our right to bear arms. They do not hold to the limited powers of the federal government as defined in our Constitution in Article I, Section 8, and in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

They do not want to protect our sovereignty -- they want the U.N. to dictate to us, and say we do not have the right to secure our borders. They do not want to require immigrants to learn English (hence ballots in multiple languages), and assert that our culture is no better than any other.

In short, they hate America.

jacob said:

All,
I try to stay away from who hates what. Who hates who, is another matter. Does the Democrat party (please notice the capital 'D' Marshmallow) hates Bush, the Republican party, and republicans, in that order.

I do not mean disdain. I mean they would crucify Bush and use rusty nails if the could get away with it. Why do I say this? Go to the Democratic Underground, the Kos, moveon.org etc.

The question though Jack is does this really translate into hatred for the country? Marshmallow and Kevin are Democrats, they are not the howling lunatics in Howard Deans netroot mob. However I am coming to the concluion that Kevin and SPMM are not representative of the Democrats today.

Dean and ilk, are fatuous and do blame the US for the world woes. why do I say this, I read what they write. But is blaming the US for the worlds woes translate hatred for the US?

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
Cooking the books? Please. You say 'they'. Do you mean Bush and the'NEO CONS' (dun dun dun). I have a little 'old' news for you. The following people make up your careless 'they'. Mosad, MI5, French Intelligence*, the exKGB, the NSA AND the CIA. All of thee organizations beleived that Saddam had a program.

Bill Clinton beleived it. It was in a few speeches he made WHILE president. Actually if I recall he signed a bill calling for regime change in Iraq back when he was president. If I recall JFK voted for it, as did all the Democrats in the Senatorial leadership.

You can try to rewrite history if you want, but the facts do not support you. 16 words taken out context do not make for cooking the books. The whole world thought that Saddam had the goods.

Every intelligence estimate we had since GWI stated as much. To top it off, Saddam made speaches threatenng us. What do you think he implied? What do you think our intel thought when they listened to those speeches?

It is very conveneient now to pretend otherwise, but, pretending does not change what was.


*-I fully recognise that this is an oxy-moron, but I have no choice

stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Good luck drumming up support for your quest to abolishing the evil funding of welfare, education, and local police, Jack Quihote!

Jacob:

I'm not trying to rewrite history. (scooter libby) lots of People were suspicious about the admin's motives for going into Iraq. (Joe Wilson) Not everyone fell for the REVISIONIST Iraq=Al Qaeda=9/11 narrative that was subtly spread by those in favor of war. But after the Colin Powell UN power point, those opposed to the war were silenced. Now we all know that was a load of horse shit, and that he knew it himself as he was saying it. so that's 'cooking the books.'


We've been bombing Iraq on a weekly basis since the end of GWI. So, Surprise! the country's leader adopted some anti-American rhetoric in his speeches. Our intel should have seen a boxed in, powerless dictator putting on airs save his own ass. But this whole fiasco hasn't exactly been a beacon of success for our intel folks (or anyone else).

Kevin said:

Jacob,

I'm heading out to dinner. Plans! for once in my week.

But I couldn't help but tell you that I cannot seem to convince those who know me well that I am not a "bleeding heart liberal". However, I am not. Thanks for noticing.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
Nice dodge. I ask you to explain "cooking the books" for yourself and you start another line. Almost Zimzoesque.

Would you please address the inconvenient fact that Mossad Mi5 et al had reached the same conclusion. You still have not addressed this salient truth. The world was wrong, but, in hindsight I think that it was Saddam's intent to fool the world. In hindsighth, it cost him his and his son's their lives.

Now, I will beat your argument like a red headed step child later this evening. Like Kevin, I too have plans.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
Nice dodge. I ask you to explain "cooking the books" for yourself and you start another line of argument. Almost Zimzoesque.

Speaking of that rogue, if you are out there Zim, sleeping on a heating grate near grand central station. I hope you don't freeze in your cardboard box.

Now, puffy, would you please address the inconvenient fact that Mossad Mi5 et al had reached the same conclusion. You still have not addressed this salient truth. The world was wrong, but, in hindsight I think that it was Saddam's intent to fool the world. In hindsight, it cost him his and his son's their lives.

Now, I will beat the rest of your miserable argument like a red headed step child later this evening. Like Kevin, I too have plans.

No Relation said:

But were they wrong? NO ONE can dispute that Saddam had WMD at one point(he used them), and NO ONE knows what happened to them...

There is legitimate intel that he sent them to Syria in the months leading up to the US invasion in 2003. It's not like we didn't give him enough notice we were coming. Ask CNN and the NY Times to report on that. I bet they laugh at you.

Wow, this is a great thread, sorry I've missed it.

I have not changed my opinion one bit that, given the chance, knowing all we now know, the U.S. should invade Iraq AGAIN if we had not done so already.

However I have my doubts about the way the war is being conducted. The amount of money thus far UNACCOUNTED FOR could probably build THREE fences on our southern border.

I'm totally tracking with Gen. Gozer on this one. And I imagine he's made this point because it is pretty darn near irrefutable: Allowing the U.S had to take the sumbitch out, does that mean we necessarily had to open a a new sewer line into which the American taxpayers should be depositing their money?

As part of my day job I watched a really good speech recently in which the guy argued that the major reason for business failure is not lack of strategy: It is poor execution. There is no "hating America" in saying a job has been executed poorly.

Kevin said:

amen, brother.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

MI5 had the same faulty story about the yellow-cake. I believe they had already realized that report was fake. I don't know what xkgb or mosad knew. I do know that both of those countries are in range of Iraqi missles, yet both opposed the American invasion. and given the political turmoil in Russia since the 1st Iraq war, and the recent radioactive reindeer games the xkgb's been engaging in, I doubt their intelligent on Iraq would be the most reliable or up-to-date source of info.
on the other hand:

"Powell was Under Pressure to Use Shaky Intelligence on Iraq: Report
Agence France Presse

Friday 30 May 2003

US News and World Report magazine said the first draft of the speech was prepared for Powell by Vice President Richard Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, in late January.

According to the report, the draft contained such questionable material that Powell lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit."

Cheney's aides wanted Powell to include in his presentation information that Iraq has purchased computer software that would allow it to plan an attack on the United States, an allegation that was not supported by the CIA, US News reported.

The White House also pressed Powell to include charges that the suspected leader of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer prior to the attacks, despite a refusal by US and European intelligence agencies to confirm the meeting, the magazine said.

The pressure forced Powell to appoint his own review team that met several times with Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to prepare the speech, in which the secretary of state accused Iraq of hiding tonnes of biological and chemical weapons.

US News also said that the Defense Intelligence Agency had issued a classified assessment of Iraq's chemical weapons program last September, arguing that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons."

However, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress shortly after that that the Iraqi "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard gas," according to the report."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060403B.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,968581,00.html
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060210/1/3ymkc.html

Jack said:

You are correct, Joe, but I do see it as hating America when the efforts to win (specifically intelligence gathering efforts and rules of engagement) are thwarted at every turn. That is treason.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Joe: I believe a comment of mine has been detained indefinably.

This Just In!:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070209/UPDATE/702090441


stay puft marshmallow man said:

wow, that was a lot longer than I thought...

Kevin said:

"You are correct, Joe, but I do see it as hating America when the efforts to win (specifically intelligence gathering efforts and rules of engagement) are thwarted at every turn."

That's right, Jack. It's the Dems that are waging war on America by not allowing the Repubs to win their little war. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting the wrong people. They should be brought back to wage war on the Dems, treasonous feckers that they are. Only after they have killed off the Democrats will the noble Republicans be capable of winning the "war" on terror.

Puft,

I will respectfully suggest you peruse this before foisting any more news from your godawful Senator on us:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/215150.php

jacob said:

Kevin,
Some Dems DO Hate America. I found ranting by some typical Kos denizen, it is most illuminating ...
Why I hate America
by coolobserver
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/8/172058/4195

It is SAD.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Joe:

looks like the AofS is looking for something to rant about more than anything. The correction states that the original article accidentally attributed quotes from one report to another report on the subject that used similar phrasing. So AofS jumps all over this as evidence of liberal bias without giving any thought to what it really means: not a whole lot. Here's the correction notice:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902053.html

Here's the non-Levin report, courtesy of foxnews:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Unclass_Executive_Summary.pdf

Here's the DoD bio for Thomas Gimble, who wrote the report. He doesn't strike me as a partisan hack (like AofS):

http://www.dodig.osd.mil/BIOs/gimble_bio.html

Jacob:

the typical kos denizens denounced that article in the comments.

meanwhile, folks like Anne Coulter, (who are much more prominent on the cultural landscape than the likes of coolobserver) preach hatred toward 'liberals' who constitute at least half the population. How's that make sense? "Love America, but hate 1/2 the people who live there." That's sad. half of America is liberal: love it or leave it!

stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Link: ____________
________________
_____http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2007/02/12/CampusLife/Former.Cia.Lawyer.Blasts.Bush.Pentagon-2712322.shtml?sourcedomain=www.michigandaily.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com&mkey=2533884

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM