"You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.” Pete Stark (D-Ca)
“While Members of Congress are passionate about their views what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate." Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, (D-Ca)
“But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have (sic) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” George Bush, War Criminal
I cheered inside my head when I heard, Rep. Stark unbelievably utter his words condemning the murderous acts of BushCo on the House floor and I was impressed with his candor, compassion and what I consider an appropriate amount of rage and honesty. How many of us were not thinking the same thing about the S-CHIP votes? I knew, however, that it would not be long until Pete Stark had to apologize and it happened today.
I believe that Speaker Pelosi’s comments about Rep. Stark were utterly inappropriate and out of line. I believe that when she said that impeachment was “off the table,” her remarks were not only inappropriate but also antithetical to our Constitution and directly in opposition to why the people of this country put Democrats back in power.
We may remind the Speaker of some of the things George has said: He told us that Saddam was able to reach the Eastern part of the US with drones that contained either chemical or biological weapons; that the smoking gun might come in the form of a “mushroom cloud” and that Saddam was also seeking significant amounts of “yellow cake uranium.” George and his co-criminals also told us over and over again the 9-11 was the justification for an attack on Iraq because Saddam had something to do with 9-11.
It is imperative that Ms. Pelosi be a true leader and lead the charge to impeach the liars, or at least get the hell out of the way so they can be impeached. I buried my son for no logical, moral or truthful reason for God’s sake, and she has neither the integrity or fortitude to finally say that BushCo has to be stopped before George is the instigator for Armageddon.,
Ms. Pelosi is not the only one who condemned Rep. Stark; she joined hands (again) with Republicans to do so. However, for the Republicans to say that Congressman Stark’s comment demeaned “the troops” is so patently ridiculous, it is stunningly pathetic. Our troops and their much higher paid cousins, the mercenary killers, are killing innocent Iraqis. IT IS A WAR! What do these morally bankrupt Chickenhawks think occurs in war? It would be better for everyone if “the troops” went over to play pinochle with the Iraqis, but occupied peoples have an inherent hatred of their occupiers and want them to leave their country: dead or alive. Congress wants to hide behind “the troops” by giving BushCo billions of more dollars to wage the occupation so their lobbyist buddies and campaign contributors can become richer off of the flesh and blood of those same troops that they claim to support.
BushCo has over 14 more months to sew their demented seeds of destruction all over the planet and we must all join Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh) in his call to remove them from office not only for their past, but for their future, illegal wars of aggression, possibly even doing the unthinkable: using a nuclear weapon. The terrorists that wear Brooks Brothers and Armani and live and work in the big white house on Pennsylvania Avenue are more dangerous to our way of life and safety than any others.
I wish Congressman Stark had not caved to the establishment elitists. George is the one that needs to apologize to each and every one of us for killing just about everything that we hold dear: our treasury, our Constitution, our standing in the international community, our ecology, our children, and for murdering our hopes and dreams for the future.
When I replace Nancy Pelosi as the Representative from California’s 8th district, I will fight for the lives, security and prosperity of, not only my constituents, but for all the human beings in the world. If BushCo is still in office, God forbid, when I am sworn in, I will do everything in my power to hold them accountable for their crimes against humanity and I will never, ever apologize for telling the truth.
Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan, who was KIA in Iraq on 04/04/04. She is a co-founder and President of Gold Star Families for Peace and the author of two books: Not One More Mother's Child and Dear President Bush.
Mark. Olbermann played clips back to back of Stark's comments and of his apology. When he was making the comments he looked a little inebriated, as if after a four-martini lunch. When contrite, he looked sober.
He was probably ashamed that he said something under the influence of alcohol that he wouldn't ordinarily say. And he was afraid of hurting his party.
by
Russ Wellen (58 articles, 1029 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 335 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 8:26:46 AM
I'm sure Pelosi threatened him, either with losing his
committee chairmanship, or with blocking legislation he's interested in. The same basic way she threatened Conyers, to keep him quiet on impeachment; & Barbara Lee last spring, to stop her from offering a serious war-defunding amendment.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1235 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 8:56:19 AM
Cindy, I don't believe You will ever be guilty of backing down for speaking The Truth ( Like some we know ) just to stay on the Good Side Of Anyone or anything...Or Supposedly, "Not to hurt your party !' God Forbid ! When not hurting Any Party Should ever come before THE Truth !' People that ARE guilty of this Very thing..ARE also some of the ones who should Be tried for treason ! I don't think this country can sustain another year of bush and co. Our patience is thinning out to zero, right along with our 'monetary means'...and man-power. Perhaps it is time to Get Off The PP or else ! and End this unauthorized 'war' with Iraq..Immediately ..before our Country goes under for the Count . It is way past-due time to Send the Sons & Daughters of those who instigated us into this war.. to take up their positions on the front line for 'the powers that be'. I believe they should have been deployed Immediately ! If that had occured, You can bet your Booty that there would not be any talk of a ' War without End.'..( Or ever been a ''war'' at all ! ) Cindy, You Will be our Speaker of the House. Why ? Because you possess the integrity to Stick to your principles, and Not Stop until you have gotten the Job Done ! SO, Cindy..Hang in there.. and let nothing deter you. Money is nice, but it isn't all that is needed here... Our guvmt. Is Lacking in every dept. But it is a sad thing that it is Our tax dollars that this congress keeps right on feeding them to keep the 'war going. Peace ! VGF
by
VGF (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 9:57:45 AM
It is sad that you are so filled with irrational hatred. What Pete Stark said from the well of the House was an inexcusable personal attack. It demeaned the House and it demeaned our government. It was uncalled for and a violation of the House Rules. Such personal attacks add nothing to the debate. They are counter productive...unless, of course, your aim is to inflame hatred.
Our government was and is based on the premise that only through a reasoned and rational debate can our freedoms and liberties be preserved. Self government hinges on our ability to discuss our disagreement rationally and reasonably. Such ad hominem attacks don't elevate our legislative bodies, the desicrate and demean them. They dishonor our founding fathers and the structure of government they sought to build.
Your personal grudge against the President and now Mrs. Pelosi are not based in rational thought, they are a product of anger and hatred; they are a product of emotion, and actions taken out of raw emotion are seldom noble or successful. Your personal assaults against the President and Vice President...and now Speaker Pelosi do not elevate either your cause or this nation. Rather they only serve to destroy and denigrate this nation and it's people.
You will never win over any converts to your cause except those with whom you already have agreement. That will not get you into Congress, that will only get you headlines, which is apparently what you seek most of all. As long as you refuse reasoned discourse you fight against your own cause.
President George Bush did not kill your son, Muqtada al Sadr's men did and for you to rage against him rather than the man truly responsible is wrong.
Your son was an adult. He made a choice, an honorable choice. He chose his fate and he did so bravely, heroically. He was not forced to fight that battle, he volunteered to do so. I have read his story. From the words of his brothers in arms. Their accounts of the battle and the mission he volunteered for show him to be a man of principle and honor. He died trying to save his fellows and he was among the first to volunteer even though it was not a part of his mission assignment. He died a hero, a man of honor and self-sacrifice.
Casey was the epitome of everything that makes America great. Even as Christ said "Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his fellow man," thus was Casey's choice and he is a hero for having done so. Your campaign is not one of ennobling his sacrifice or his choice, but denegrating it.
I feel sorry for your loss. President Bush felt that same sorrow and expressed it to you in person and with compassion, a fact that you acknowledged at the time.
Your loss, however does nothing to excuse your own hateful actions and words against a good man; and make no mistake about it, George W. Bush is a good man, a man of honor and faith. He does not return your hatred, but greets it with compassion and understanding, and perhaps that is what angers you most of all.
Stark caved because he knew, or was forced to face the fact, that what he did was callow and wrong. His fellow Congressmen knew it, Nancy Pelosi knew it and the citizens of the United States sure as heck knew it.
Yes it is war and in war their are always civilian casualties, but rarely have those casualties been so few when caused by the military and rarely have those civilian casualties been so many caused by their fellow citizens and the al Qaeda invaders who provoke them. The fact that you are incapable of perceiving the moral difference between those comparatively few innocent civilians whom our troops kill and those thousands who are killed with intent by those we fight belies you ability to reason.
Yours is a sad tale and I fear it will end as tragically as your son's death was heroic.
By the way, those "mercenary killers" are the same as the men your son fought beside. They are veterans who have served their time in the military and have chosen to perform some of the most hazardous duties one can perform, and they are very professional in performing their tasks at great personal risk.
As Mr. Prince stated in his testimony before Congressman Waxman's committee, out of 1180 missions, only 56 resulted in them firing their weapons, that in spite of the fact that everytime they perform those missions they take fire...far from the mindless killers you, Mr. Waxman, and your fellow haters seek to paint them as. They are pros and they have a 100% perfect record of safely delivering the dignitaries they escort.
I hope someday you find the peace you seek. I hope someday you will find the forgiveness in your heart that God in His infinite wisdom has already given you for your transgressions. Hatred, no matter how much it appears to fill the void you feel will never heal the wounds.
May God Bless You and Keep You Safe in your journey.
by
Will Malven (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 2:04:10 PM
BWAHahahaha -- this is hilarious! Truly beneath contempt.
Comment is flagged and has been reviewed by the editors -
Reason: Nasty Attacks
Editor's Message: Yes, the gentleman is a conservative, right winger. I invited him to post civil comments and to engage in dialogue. It's good to not just converse with the choir. This kind of nastiness is unnecessary, uncivil and unacceptable.
When a newcomer with views you disagree with comes here, you don't attack and call names.
Epictetus advises,
"It is circumstances which show what men are. Therefore, when a difficulty falls upon you, remember that God, like a trainer ofwrestlers, has matched you with a rough young man. For what purpose? you might ask. So that you may become an Olympic Conqueror; but it is not accomplished without sweat. ...no man has had a more profitable difficulty than you have had, if you choose to make use of it as an athlete would deal with a young antagonist."
I suggest you consider a conservative commenter someone who offers you the gift of the opportunity to fine tune your debate. Just calling names demeans the conversation and your image suffers.
Aww, how cute. We have a (nasty name calling deleted. ) among us.
NewsFlash: the Iraq war is a monstrous crime against humanity, and Bush is a war criminal.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1235 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 2:44:22 PM
Once again I wish to thank you for proving me correct in my general assumption about Liberals. Everytime one of you responds in this manner you make my job easier.
You are unable to rebut or debate without personal attack. That is what is beneath contempt.
Really a sad statement on the state of Leftist thought.
by
Will Malven (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 2:51:01 PM
Thank you for coming and speaking your mind on OpEdNews, hconserv.
I'm not going to attack you. I am actually going to give you what I consider an intelligent response to what you said.
One, my knowledge is growing and right now mainly because I am not a member of the House I do not know the House Rules. So to me, Pete Stark was exercising a basic American right, freedom of speech, on the floor when he made his attack on Bush. Would you mind telling me where in the House Rules and what exactly dictates that what Stark said is or was censure-able?
Two, you bring up ad hominem attacks. You certainly have to admit that both sides and not just Democrats like Stark engage in ad hominem attacks quite often and usually show little restrain when firing these attacks on people. I do agree that ad hominem attacks do not get us anywhere. A huge majority of Barack Obama's presidential campaign is based on delivering ad hominem attacks on Bush and Cheney instead of speaking about his policies or lack thereof. However, when you examine what was said, how do you argue against the fact that we could cover children's health care if we were not fighting a war in Iraq? When a person asks that, it truly becomes a question of priorities. Health care or a faulty "war on terror" being executed poorly like the "war on poverty" and "war on drugs" were? Which one?
Three, I do not speak for other people but encourage people to second my statement on Pelosi. She like Bush and Cheney has failed to uphold her oath of office. We have a thread going that is an interview with Dennis Kucinich. There a comment at the bottom details how Pelosi needs to be put on the record as to why she is not pursuing impeachment because under the Constitution---as part of her oath---she should be pursuing impeachment along with Harry Reid.
Four, your comment: "As long as you refuse reasoned discourse you fight against your own cause." Good. I agree. That is why Richard Mynick deserves to be censured by Republicans in the House of Representatives like Pete Stark almost was.
Five, your comment on al-Sadr is true. He is responsible. But what caused him to be a militant man that sent people out to kill U.S. soldiers? The answer is our invasion and planned occupation of Iraq. Sorry, that's my answer. What's yours? How are we not responsible for infuriating al-Sadr to the point where he planned attacks on us?
Six, thank you for this wonderful quote, ""Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his fellow man." This truly speaks to this:
"World War I. German Soldiers wrote poems about the bravery of British Grunts. Admired them. Almost as much as they laughed at the British High Command who just wasted those same Grunts by the hundred-thousand. A German General wrote, “Nowhere else have I seen such Lions led by such Lambs.” -Dr. Malley (Robert Redford's character in Lions for Lambs)
You can find this quote from the film on the film's website. It fits because Casey, a Lion, died for Lambs, the Bush administration, who basically have no idea about war but seek to have civilian control of the tactical operations so they can maintain control of Wolfowitz's strategy for "Statesmanship in a New American Century." This civilian control got Donald Rumsfeld ousted from his position as Secretary of Defense. He was not giving the military the proper control they were entitled to and that has helped make Iraq the quagmire that it is. It is leaders like Rumsfeld who will bear the burden of deaths like Casey's until they meet their maker.
Seven, you say that "George W. Bush does not return your hatred but greets it with compassion and understanding..." This is true. Except what he does instead of hating is try to scare us by threatening World War III when that idea is ludicrous. Unless we incite World War III, there is no chance that it will be happening anytime soon. Disagree?
Eight, those mercenaries while veterans are not the same as Casey and will never be. Casey served his nation, America, proudly. While those veterans are serving Blackwater proudly. Blackwater service does not make somebody patriotic. Soldiers in Iraq are not fighting for profits like Blackwater mercenaries are. They are fighting for education when and if they return home, they are fighting for money to have in their bank account when and if they return home, and they are fighting so that when they are getting ready to retire they can say they did something good for this nation (of course, to retire they would have to come home). But right now, due to the extensive amount of failures in Iraq, I do not know how military members will ever be able to be proud about Iraq. So maybe we should send them to another country where we can succeed tactically that way they can have a "Normandy story" or "Iwo Jima story" to tell their children and grandchildren when they are older?
Lastly, you are right again..."Hatred, no matter how much it appears to fill the void you feel will never heal the wounds." This is why we should not be waging a "war on terror" at all. We should be pursuing strength through peace and working to achieve peace through justice. We should be bringing these terrorists before the International Criminal Court and trying them for crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and crimes of aggression. If they have not committed crimes (these detainees we've captured or these Islamic "extremists" we are targeting), than we should leave them be. We should strive to coexist with them and not go after them.
What we did in Iraq was in the name of liberal interventionism or liberal humanitarianism. We seeked to bring democracy to Iraq when it had a brutal dictator named Saddam. But we did not realize that Saddam was keeping the ethnic factions (Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds) stable so people could live in Iraq. Iraq used to be a monarchy. Saddam gradually transformed it into a dictatorship.
We should have been much more hesitant to give this "gift" of democracy to Iraq because our mission had little chance of ever being accomplished. The people in charge did not understand nation-building and the people did not draw on a history of nation-building when making plans to reconstruct Iraq. They did not have plans for reconstruction other than the plan to quickly open up oil fields in Iraq so that what is 90% of Iraq's economy could pay for repairing the damage we would do. So far, little oil has been pumped and Iraq is in ruin. Even worse, we let the situation get so bad we cannot even come up with a reason to rebuild their nation because we know ethnic factions will just blow up what we rebuild.
We've created a mess. And we need to turn everything over to Muslim countries in the region or the UN and get out now. We've failed. And while I would like to say let's try again next time and maybe we'll get it right, we have a 26% success rate at nation-building so, no, I don't want to build anymore nations.
I want to bring our troops home, impeach Cheney then Bush, repair our damaged Constitution, and start making strides forward domestically so people struggling to get out of poverty and debt can experience life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness like our founding fathers intended Americans to be able to do.
by
Kevin Gosztola (235 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 907 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 3:36:15 PM
Kevin, some of this is not bad, but some of it is miles off
the mark. // You write,
"What we did in Iraq was in the name of liberal interventionism or liberal humanitarianism. We seeked to bring democracy to Iraq when it had a brutal dictator named Saddam. But we did not realize that Saddam was keeping the ethnic factions (Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds) stable so people could live in Iraq. Iraq used to be a monarchy. Saddam gradually transformed it into a dictatorship..."
(The past tense of "seek" is "sought," by the way.) // When you say that "we did not realize...," this is absolutely wrong. Everyone knew it; it was no secret. Even the US mainstream media often made that very point. Back in the 1991 Gulf War, for example, the NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman specifically made this very point in his coverage of the war's aftermath. He said that (this is not an exact quote) "what we now need in Iraq is a new iron-man like Saddam, to hold the country together" -- but Friedman thought it couldn't be Saddam himself. (I'm not citing Friedman because his opinions hold any real value; but simply to show that this idea -- that Saddam held Iraq's ethnic factions together -- was very commonly expressed.)
Beyond that, your idea that what we did in Iraq was done in the name of liberal humanitarianism -- this is utter baloney. There was a pretext of the invasion being "humanitarian," but that was simply dishonest PR to get the public to go along with it. There is nothing the slightest bit humane about invading a country based on lies, simply to get control of its oil, and shattering the society, and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents in the process. // Also, we did not invade to "bring democracy to Iraq." We invaded to get control of its oil, & to built permanent military bases there -- to use them as a stepping stone for controlling the whole region by military force.
You call Saddam a "brutal dictator." OK, sure, he was, but are you aware of the role of the US government in bringing him to power, & in supporting him while he was in power? The idea that we supported him while he gassed Kurds & Iranians in the 1980's, then used his gassing those people as an excuse for invading his country in 2003 -- this should tell you something about the criminal dishonesty of the US leaders who planned this invasion.
You also say that "And while I would like to say let's try again next time and maybe we'll get it right, we have a 26% success rate at nation-building ..." -- I'm curious what that 26% is supposed to include. // Beyond that: note that your underlying assumption here seems to be that the US has the right to invade other countries and rebuild their nations; your only objection seems to be that we "didn't get it right." This is a dangerous & untenable idea. The USA has no right whatsoever to unilaterally decide to invade & occupy sovereign nations -- even if we do, or could, "get it right." We signed the UN Charter; that Charter forbids this kind of action, unless expressly approved by the Security Council.
Finally, the other poster you're talking to, Mr Malvin, specifically said "make no mistake about it, George W. Bush is a good man, a man of honor and faith." You're a young kid who's still learning about politics, but anyone who says something like that is precisely the type of person described by Kevin Phillips in his book American Theocracy, & by Chris Hedges in American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America . You seem to think you'll be able to have a "reasonable and respectful" conversation with him. However, you will soon learn that it's not really possible to have rational conversations with members of the Religious Right.
PS - I'm flattered you think that my comments on an Internet chat board merit condemnation by House Republicans. One difference between me & Stark, though -- I wouldn't apologize.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1235 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 7:50:22 PM
You use the word "pretext" as though it is a fact, but it is an opinion, not a fact. The invasion was not based on "lies." That is simply Liberal dogma and there is no evidence of that whatsoever. The lie is that we went their for the oil. That is the big Liberal lie. It is irrational on the face of it. Your opinions are legion, your facts are chimerical.
The U.S. did not have a hand in bringing Saddam to power, so your knowledge of Iraq history is severely lacking. He was a functionary, as was Iraq the nation of the Soviet Union. It must have escaped you that the weaponry being used against our troops in both Gulf Wars was of Soviet manufacture; specifically T-65 tanks and Soviet troop carriers, AK-47's, not M16's. The missiles he had were of Chinese and Korean manufacture, not of American manufacture, and the fighters he possessed were Soviet Migs, not built by McDonnell-Douglas or Boeing.
You speak of dishonesty...well you obviously know a lot about it. The only factual statement in your fourth paragraph was that we supported him in his war against Iran in the 80's. We did not provide the weaponry for the gassing, that again is a Liberal created myth and not supported by any evidence.
Once more I am forced to tell another Leftist Bush-hater that opinion is not fact, and myth is not a substitute for the truth.
Your dismissal of me because I am a Christian and a Conservative, I take as a compliment and another bit of proof of the illiberalness of those who claim the label (or if you like the regressiveness of the so-called progressive). By attempting to categorize me as someone that cannot be reasoned with displays your fear of being confronted by the truth. You choose to dismiss me so that you are not forced to engage in reasoned discourse. It is the same attitude as Liberals who gave us the "soft bigotry of low expectations" in which minorities and those who were not well taught were given a pass. It is like a member of the KKK saying oh, he's a black man, he can't be expected to understand.
Once again I wish to thank all of the Liberals here for proving my arguments that it is the Left which is close-minded. They fear exposure to new and differing opinions because it might force them to rethink their basic tenets.
The only war on America is the war of the Left against the very principles upon which this nation was founded. Freedom, open and unfettered commerce, capitalism, freedom to worship as one chooses or not in public.
Instead of reading Chris Hedges and Kevin Phillips, you might try reading Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin and the rest of our founding fathers. You might begin by reading the Federalist Papers as they are the closest we have to knowing what our founding fathers were thinking when the built this Greatest of Nations.
You attempt to censor our young friends exposure to Conservative ideals because you know that the ideals of the Left are bankrupt and have failed the test of time. They can't stand rigorous scrutiny or knowledgeable evaluation. The fall before the logic and reasoning of Conservative philosophy and the words of the Constitution.
What you espouse is antithetical to everything for which our Constitution stands. You should read it sometime. It is all about freedom and limited government, not subjugation of the idividual to the government.
As Thomas Jefferson so wisely said, "That government governs best which governs least." Learn it, live it.
You are a living example of the Liberal closed mind.
by
Will Malven (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 9:13:43 PM
Are you for real? Are you willing to change your mind?
The invasion was not based on "lies." That is simply Liberal dogma and there is no evidence of that whatsoever. The lie is that we went their for the oil. That is the big Liberal lie.
Unless you have an unusual definition of words like "lie" and "evidence" you are either mistaken (seriously mistaken) or dishonest.
There is a difference between evidence and proof. Do you deny that the Downing Street memos (the facts are being fixed around the policy) are even circumstantial evidence?
You present a moral problem to me. I know that you are wrong in fact and dangerous in your mistaken views but I don't know whether you are in good faith and open to be persuaded or whether you are here to run interference and to waste time. I respect honesty even honesty in the ignorant when they are genuinely trying but for pete's sake does the world (do I) have to inform every single American one at a damn time.
It is just possible that one of the reasons that impeachment isn't occuring is because there are people like you that would do the right thing if they knew it was the right thing. And you aren't being fairly engaged.
I would like to make a deal with you. One of us is profoundly wrong. Are you willing to pay me for showing you your error(s) if I am willing to pay you for showing you yours? What would it be worth to you - if you are an honest Christian and a genuine conservative to be saved from being on the wrong side of a moral question? I have to ask because time spent on you is time I will never get back.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1042 comments)
on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 11:47:19 PM
You will find your definition of fixed around number 5 in an unabridged dictionary. Fixing in your terminology, as in "fixing" a fight is not the connotation that either the PM or the group at Downing understood.(the British know the language, that's one thing you can say for them. They are better educated that are Americans on the origins, the nature of, and the usage of the English language).
The term "fixed around" in this case meant focused upon:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
The meaning is clear here to anyone without an anti-Bush agenda. If one is going to take military action because they believe that the diplomatic approach is failing, they would be a fool not to fix the intelligence "around the policy." It is called pre-planning or preparation, something that cannot be left to the last minute (although with Iraq, it would appear that at least some of the planning was left undone, as in what happens after).
I hope to God that our miiltary and intel communities are constantly examining potential scenarios in various areas of the world. That is their job, and if the President says to the intel community, "Hey guys, it's beginning to look like we are going to have to take military action against Iraq." then they darn well better be fixing their intelligence around Iraq.
by
Will Malven (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments)
on Friday, October 26, 2007 at 12:26:10 PM
How, in good faith, can FACTS be focussed around the policy?
Mark Twain once said "Facts are stubborn things, statistics are more pliable."
You said (above) there was "no evidence whatsover" - (and concentrated your reply on the 'intelligence' rather than 'facts' part of the quote) do you assert that the Downing Street memos are no evidence whatsoever?
Or do you now conceed that the Downing Street memos are "evidence" - perhaps falling short of proof?
I think an honest person with only a willingness to read and to consider material that is publically available (like the Downing Street memos and the US Constitution) and from reliable sources can be brought to the conclusion that impeachment of President Bush IS warranted and IS in the interests of the American people.
But you do have to BE an honest person and you do have to BE willing to read and reflect upon the material in a deliberative way. You have to be willing to consider that you may be mistaken. You certainly don't have to hate Bush. One can probably do a better job of understanding the intellectual case for impeachment in fact if one doesn't get carried away by strong emotions like hate. I do not hate Bush. (I think George W Bush has personally caused more harm to the United States and to the rule of law than anyone else that I can think of, but I don't hate him).
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1042 comments)
on Friday, October 26, 2007 at 8:01:36 PM
Excellent response, I shall endeavor to do the same
This comment has been flagged and is awaiting review by the editors -
Reason: Inappropriate Content
Kevin,
You are correct we, the American people do have the "(almost) iviolable right to free speech, you know the usual exceptions (shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.), but the House of Representatives, as well as the Senate, has certain rules of decorum which restrict or set boundaries on their freedom of speech. These rules of decorum are intended to keep indivdual violence-which has been known to occur in the past-to a minimum. Congress members are not allowed to attack members in their speeches from the well or floor (Senate) for the House, I direct you to this link:
"The freedom of speech in debate in the House of Representatives should never be denied or abridged, but freedom of speech in debate does not mean license to indulge in personal abuses or ridicule. The right of Members of the two Houses of Congress to criticize the official acts of the President and other executive officers is beyond question, but this right is subject to proper rules requiring decorum in debate." [Emphasis added]
-Cannon’s Precedents, Volume 8, Section 2497
Specifically "Words Taken Down" (Clauses 4 and 5 of Rule XIV)
Having one's words taken down is a major slapdown and since Pete Starks words violated the standards set by the House itself, he was forced to apologize or have his words "Taken Down," or worse.
So...you see Cindy and a lot of other Democrat voters have much to learn about our Congress and the level of decorum that is required. Very good question Kevin (not trying to be condescending here just complimentary).
Two reflect back to your first question. Freedom of speech is almost unfettered outside of the Congressional premises, so Barack Obama's ad hominem attacks, though rude and in my opinion uncalled for, are not covered. He can blast away as much as he wishes subject only to his conscience and the response of his supporters.
As to the rest, I would direct you to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights and the other 15 Amendments to the Constitution. A Libertarian would tell you that the only legitimate Constitutionally mandated purpose of government is the protection of it's people and their right to property; nothing else. Sort of the Anti-Federalist view, look at Amendments 9 and 10. It is from those that the concept of "States Rights" is derived, and argument for the concept has a strong Constitutional basis under Amendment 10.
I am not a pure Libertarian because I do believe that some other functions of the Federal Government are, shall we say convenient, such as the federal highway system which was actually started to enable the mail to be delivered, the interstate highway system started by Eisenhower as well, although his argument for that was in the interest of our national defense. He was very smitten by the German Autobahn system.
This nation was built upon the concepts of self responsibility. It is the obligation of each individual where physically able to take responsibility for their own needs. This includes health-care. The private health care system we have is the envy of the world, and all the world's people know that the very best care available is here in the United States. This is because it is a for profit system, not in spite of it.
The "war on poverty" was a dismal failure. During Johnson's "Great Society" and the decades following over $5 Trillion was spent attempting to "end poverty as we know it." It was a failure because you cannot control the habits and activities of a free people and yet allow them to remain free.
No one in this nation, no one, is forced to go without any medical care. There is a "safety net." It is not fun, it is not necessarily convenient, and it is reminiscent of what you see in states with a socialized health care system...long lines and waits, but it exists.
There are things which Congress could do, were they not constantly engaged in one upsmanship such as allowing small businesses to form co-ops so that they can qualify for the same discounts that large corporations get, but those who favor single payer coverage (socialized medicine) are against such intelligent solutions because they provide a reasonable alternative to the single-payer concept. They allow, horror of horrors, the free market to work.
I continually hear people like you say that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have "failed to uphold their oath of office," but have seen no evidence confirming that. So now, since Nancy Pelosi won't dance to the extreme Left-wing's tune, she has been added to that list.
You cannot impeach a President or Vice-President simply because you disagree with their actions, you must have legal reasons and no one has yet provided a real legal basis for impeachment. Hatred is not a legal reason.
Richard Mynick can't be censured by the Republicans because he is not a member of Congress...as far as I am aware. If you are referring to the Richard Mynick who posts here. from what I can tell in a very brief examination of his googlable work, is a major nutjob (sigh, I know that is a personal attack, but I can think of no better description without a further examination of his writings) which I am disinclined to do after reading about
"the unequal distribution of powe among it's social classes, its economic an political relations with the rest of the world, its ruling ideology."
and
"They can compel the public to furnish lives and bodies to be killed and maimed in the war anto bear the moral and financial budents of the war, in an action which not icidentally lets administration allies in the "defense" and oil industries profit handsomely from the ensuing mayhem." [America on its Knees Before Tyranny- by Richard Mynick, 03/02/07 "ICH"]
Sorry Richard no one is "compelled" to serve. Anyone who speaks of the separation of powers and then castigates "Vice-Emporer Cheney" for
"snarling in a TV interview with an obsequious Bush toady that regardless of what the public or Congress might say about it, the White House intends not only to continue the war, but to escalate it." [ibid]
Has lost my interest because he has a fundamental misunderstanding of our government and the way it functions. That is precisely what the separation of powers is all about. Congress could, if they had the will, end the war tomorrow, simply by cutting off all funding for the war in Iraq, but they lack the numbers and the will.
We live in a REPUBLIC, not a "democracy" so the will of the people as reported by the polls, is irrelevant. If the people are unhappy enough with the war and they make their will known loudly enough to their members of Congress, the war will end. This has not happened so the war continues.
Back to the point at hand though, Mr. Mynick is free to spew all the bile and hatred he wishes, tell all the lies and half-truths he chooses, that is his right under the constitution.
Five, No man with a militia is one who suddenly became a militant man. Muqtada al Sadr was a militant Shiite before American ever arrived. What we did was inadequately prepare for the mayhem that would result following the fall of Saddam. We and I include myself in that (although I was against the starting of the war) "misunderestimated" what the reaction to sudden freedom would be. That is the President's and his advisors' fault, but incompetence in and of itself is not an impeachable crime.
Thank-you for your quote as well it is a sad testament to the horror of WWI and of all wars in general, but some causes are worth dying for and some causes are worth the sacrifice. We can disagree on the worth of the war in Iraq, and probably do, but it is not a reason for hatred nor is it a reason for impeachment.
President Bush has not "threatened World War III" he has called our attention to the dangers which exist in the Middle East. This is especially so if a sponsor of terror, Iran, which has repeatedly called for the extermination of the state of Israel, which is the sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas, and which has sent members of Qud into Iraq to train and equip terrorists to kill American Soldiers becomes a nuclear armed society.
Yes Israel has nukes, but they value human life and do not indescriminately and intentionally kill civilians. They are not bent on eliminating the so called "Palestinian people" ( I use the term so-called because there was never a state called "Palestine," they are Arabs from the surrounding countries).
And No Israel is not faultless in all of this. How that state was established and the fact that the land was siezed was a travesty, but I have a hard time blaming the Jews for their reaction to the Holocaust, and their desire for their own state.
Eight. There is only one reason that troops returning home from Iraq would not be able to be proud of their service and that is if they are treated as were the troops returning from Vietnam and allow me to point out that it was those on the Left, not the Right who were spitting on them and calling them "baby-killers." To me they have always been and will always be called heroes.
Get this straight, we cannot lose in Iraq by military force. It is an impossibility. We can only lose by giving up, by quitting before the job is done. We can only lose by failing to give the people who so courageously stood in line at great personal risk to get their thumbs dyed purple a chance to have what we have; as stable and free goverment with a democratically elected parliament. We cannot lose unless we leave Iraq and it descends into a morass of murder and chaos; becoming another hotbed for terrorism.
Lastly, they do not belong to the World International Court, they are prisoners of war and as such subject to the will of our military until such time as hostilities cease.
