From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Stop the nuclear option!

May 22, 2005 1:57 PM

Recently, I was talking with a friend of mine who was really upset over yet another crazy thing done by the radical right. I just kind of smiled, and told them that it doesn't bother me any more. I've become desensitized to it all, and have learned to accept it. They are determined to ensure a Republican majority for decades. Every policy move is designed to either further their grip on power, or destroy a Democratic funding source, or both. Simple as that. So I'm focused, along with countless others, on building the essential infrastructure we need to put a stop to this, acknowledging that it's going to take awhile.

But this is insane. On Tuesday, the radical right will pull the trigger on the "nuclear option", seizing absolute control to install whoever they want onto the courts, including the Supreme Court. No longer will they need a 60 person Senate majority to end a filibuster, only a 51 person majority, clearing the way for any judge the administration wants to ram through. This would end centuries old Senate rules designed to protect the checks and balances of our government. The very bedrock of our representative democracy. The implications are both immediate and will have a profound long-term impact on this country.

But it will be an incredibly close vote, so MoveOn PAC has an emergency petition set up, They will be delivering signatures to the Senate floor every 3 hours Monday and Tuesday until the final vote goes down, in a desperate attempt to put a stop to this. Please sign it here.

They've got the executive and legislative branches locked, and they are using that power to seize control over the judicial branch. Don't let them.

UPDATE: According to MoveOn, "there are at least 6 moderate Republicans still on the fence and only 3 more votes needed to win."

UPDATE: It's all over.

More from the archive in Corruption, Legislation.

Stop the nuclear option! (05.22.2005)

Next Entry: The funniest online video ever (05.23.2005)
Previous Entry: The Progressive Worldview (05.14.2005)

Read the 68 comments.

Sponge Bob:

If Sheets Byrd hadn't jacked with the filibuster rules twice already I would be apposed to ending the filibuster. I think having a senator take the floor and refusing to yield so that a vote is blocked is good to gain exposure so that the public can weigh the merits of their argument. Much like the democrat filibuster to the 1964 civil rights act - after 57 days Byrd yielded the floor after seeing that public opinion had turned against him and his colleagues. If a senator (or group of) could use a filibuster to block an action like legislative pay raises, a day or two of intense press coverage might make senators “see the light” when answering to angry voters. Instead such actions slip silently through the senate with nary a word spoken. The current filibuster rule prevents a small group of senators (or an individual senator) from exposing such actions. It has effectively silenced the minority voice within the Senate.

The current "filibuster" is in name only. It blocks the introduction of legislation (or confirmation) to the senate floor without a word of debate being spoken. Effectively giving the minority party veto power that is reserved to the executive branch. If the democrats proposed to return the rules to their pre-Byrd status I'd be all for it. It sickens me to hear the MSM refer to a senate filibuster as an "endless debate", shows how little they know or how biased they are in hiding the truth.

Mon May 23 2005 9:14 AM


Tom from Madison:

Bob:

Byrd has renounced his affiliation with the Klan which ended decades ago. He deserves to be forgiven. Moreover he has become a catalyst for positive change. Many Southern White politicians on both sides of the aisle took a similar path.

Christians on the Right need to remember Jesus' teachings about forgiveness. They also need to remember what some of the current Republican power brokers and politicians were doing during the Civil Rights movement.

Consider: while in Andover, young George W Bush had a large Confederate flag up in his room. This was in the early 1960s. At that time, flying that flag was a symbol of support for segregation. W's background needs to be brought to light just as much as Senator Byrd's.

Now, let's recall Pat Robertson's and Jerry Falwell's history in Virginia during the civil rights movements. These people helped SHUT DOWN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS in parts of Virginia rather than integrate them. Do we really want to trust these same people to choose who sits on the Supreme Court?

Conservatives are not being true to their moniker. They are throwing away years of effective tradition for the sake of having ultimate power and achieving one-party rule. This is certainly not in the national interest and contrary to what the founding Fathers intended!

Mon May 23 2005 11:05 AM


Dave E.:

"after 57 days Byrd yielded the floor after seeing that public opinion had turned against him and his colleagues."

ahh...if only Bush had the moral clarity to do the same...

But no. He doesn't care about polls, nor does he read the paper.

"veto power that is reserved to the executive branch"

This is also called a 'check and balance'. In no way is the sole check on legislative power "reserved for the executive". Mechanisms were built throughout each branch, none exclusive over the other. The Supreme Court is the only body considered to be first among equals, and that is largely due to nothing but respect.

What dictatorship were you raised in?

Mon May 23 2005 11:46 AM


Anonymous:

"Byrd has renounced his affiliation with the Klan which ended decades ago. He deserves to be forgiven. Moreover he has become a catalyst for positive change. Many Southern White politicians on both sides of the aisle took a similar path."


Byrd can fry in Hell for all I care.

The point I am making (that you can't seem to grasp) is that he made a public stand on an issue that the public didn't care for much. He had to defend his position that blacks don't count - and once enormous public pressure was mounted and forced the democrats to cave. The same case can made with an opposite outcome - like the midnight pay raises that congress keeps voting themselves. The democrats should be forced to voice their objections to judicial appointees through floor debate.

Today's "filibuster" rule makes no such demand upon those who attempt to use it, and even worse the MSM has no understanding of its function. It is to PREVENT debating piece of legislation, nearly the exact opposite of its original intention.


Dave E.: NEW

"after 57 days Byrd yielded the floor after seeing that public opinion had turned against him and his colleagues."

ahh...if only Bush had the moral clarity to do the same...

The day Bush refers to entire race as less the human let me know. Byrd is shit for brains moral cretin that keeps getting elected in a state that hasn't gotten past the civil war.

I was raised in a dictatorship created by the democrats that allow a minority party to hold the majority hostage at their whim. I have no problem with a filibuster that provides for debate, but the current method is simply a way for a minority to stifle opposition – trait of must “successful” dictatorships.

What is truly remarkable is that the democrats are threatening to "slow" legislative action if the Republicans go nuclear - an outcome that could have achieved through the filibuster had they not screwed with the senate rules.

Mon May 23 2005 12:57 PM


Tom from Madison:

Dave's right. When is Bush going to admit his failure in Iraq? Tens of thousands of Iraqis, maybe hundreds of thousands, are now dead as a result of Bush's bogus scheme to bring democracy. Who is W to be sacrificing THEIR lives?

...Ultimately filibuster didn't keep civil rights legislation from passing. Byrd saw the error of his ways. He cleaned up his act and his contsituents forgave him. I view that as a triumph of CHRISTIAN VALUES, especially with regard to FORGIVENESS.

The nuclear option debate is all about process, not about individual men. In a constitutional republic, you can't always get everything you want when you want it--even when you have the votes. That's a VERY GOOD THING!

Mon May 23 2005 3:37 PM


NJGuardsman:

OK people

What good is majority if you can’t exercise the rights and privileges that come with being a majority? Does this mean that in the future, if Democrats have a majority we can do the same to them?

Again they can’t win elections and they are in denial of their loss of power (they’re going thru withdrawal).

More and more Democrats seem like sore losers and are doing all they can, not to do anything for the betterment of the country but seem to be engaged in a “scorched earth” type of mindset because the opposition party happens to be in power and they cant take it (stop the Republicans at all costs).

Just recently a judge took it upon himself to go against the will of 70% of the people by declaring a law they voted for unconstitutional, I understand that pure democracy is mob rule I’m not going to that extreme but these judges in these matters need to have some sort of accountability.

Speaking of judges, doesn’t the Constitution state “with the advise and consent of the Senate” on one senator or a few but all and it’s the right of the nominees to be voted on, if the democrats wanted to “preserve the filibuster” why don’t they go with the vote (and save the filibuster for another day) instead of this all or nothing gambit they’re trying to pull.

Just a reminder “W” won by a majority not seen since at least Reagan so he pretty much has the backing of the American people and sorry he’s not Clinton and lives and dies by polls, W does not wet his finger and stick it in the air to see which way the winds blowing. One of the marks of a leader is to make decisions (even if they are unpopular) and stick to them.

All this talk about Byrd, “he should be forgiven” did you forgive Strom Thurmond? didn’t a certain Republican leader lose his post/position because of comments knowingly misinterpreted?
Again the Dems want us to forgive them for their shortcomings but will not do the same for “ U. S. “

Mon May 23 2005 4:15 PM


NJGuardsamn:

Sorry I ment: "advice" and "not" instead of "on"

Mon May 23 2005 4:18 PM


Dave E.:

Only 51 votes to alter fundamental rules governing senate operations for 214 years? And the '51st' vote will be President of the Senate DICK Cheney, if it comes to it?

Ahhh. Life in the new Republican version of freedom.

This is stunning. 10 judges, out of over 200 approved. A better approval record than that of the previous few administrations. A Republican history of de facto filibustering Clinton nominees by simply killing them in committee, WITH NO OPPORTUNITY FOR DEBATE.

There is no crisis. This is a total illusion manufactured in order to commission radically conservative judges throughout the judicial branch. Bush's own Atty General has called Priscilla Owens an "activist judge". Justice Brown has written that social security is the elderly "cannibalizing" the youth. There exists extremely ideological judges from both sides. They are what the filibuster, and other checks, are designed to prevent.

There is no crisis. There is only the tyranny and hubristic intolerance of the Republican majority.

Mon May 23 2005 4:22 PM


NJGuardsman:

Thank you Dave, you've just made my point.

Remember there was a time that Democrats were in power and could do the very same things.

Mon May 23 2005 4:31 PM


Dave E.:

NJ...

Let's be clear: the Senate is not the House. The Senate was designed deliberately to protect the powers of the minority. Hence, each state, no matter the size, gets two senators. Equal voices.

It is not the House, nor should it ever be. That's why this country is technically a republic. Atrocities are rationalized and committed at the whims of the majority.

Mon May 23 2005 4:35 PM


Tom from Madison:

NJ:

Dave didn't make your point at all. Neither did you.

What you are defending IS mob rule--and UNINFORMED MOB RULE AT THAT. Bush has no mandate. When he was elected gas was cheaper, the war was going badly, but better than now. The lies about what really happened to Pat Tillman weren't yet exposed. The facts about Armstrong Williams, J.D. Guckert/ Jeff Gannon hadn't yet been shown. Bush's social security scheme hadn't yet been revealed for scrutiny, and the Schiavo fiasco hadn't yet unfolded. Every day more innocent detained individuals surface and tell tales of what our government has done in the name of freedom. The cause of freedom loses it's meaning when rights are taken away from innocent people in the name of liberty.

Polls show waning support for this president and his bogus agenda. We don't govern by polls, but they can indicate when the president is on the wrong track. That's what they're showing now.

Mon May 23 2005 5:02 PM


NJGuardsman:

TM

Gas is on it’s way down again, “the war was going badly but better then now” really?! Although one lost serviceman is too much to lose, our loses in Afghanistan & Iraq are extremely low (compared to other wars) you don’t hear about the schools being built, businesses being able to open simple because we’re there, yes they have a LLLOOONNNGG way to go but they’re on their way.

Pat Tillman paid the ultimate price serving his country; his patriotism is 2nd to none in my book and I defy anyone who says different.

Bush’s Social Security plan was announced during his campaign, everybody had an idea of what it was (and I’m all for it).

It is amazing to me you, Dave & MGWN scream at the top of you lungs about 500,000 children dead in Iraq and here you have a chance to help save a life no less worthy and by your silent support for her husband (and I use that term loosely) allowed him to kill Terry Schiavo (I will not forget/forgive how the government stood by and let this happen).

Newsweek, because of their arrogant “get Bush at all cost” mindset caused the deaths of at least 15 innocent people, and also because of their arrogance HELPED the terrorists, and this magazine gets a break from the likes of you. Had that been say the American Spectator with a story about Kennedy, you would have called for the editor’s head on a stick. Apparently Newsweek didn’t learn from Dan Rather.

You know as well as I do that polls can be manipulated, especially in the way the question is presented/asked so I doubt the situation is as bad as the polls suggest.

Can someone tell me who is going to define “EXTRAORDINARY” circumstances for the Dems to use the filibuster? Every other nominee? The GOP dropped this one.

“Only 51 votes to alter fundamental rules governing senate operations for 214 years? And the 51st vote will be President of the Senate Dick Cheney, if it comes to it?” DAMB Right!! Just the way the founding fathers intended!


Tue May 24 2005 8:11 AM


Sponge Bob:

"Only 51 votes to alter fundamental rules governing senate operations for 214 years? And the '51st' vote will be President of the Senate DICK Cheney, if it comes to it?

Ahhh. Life in the new Republican version of freedom."


To bad its the democrats that "found" that rule nd used it to change filibuster rules in the past:


In 1977, Byrd Broke A Filibuster Using A Simple Majority Of Senators. "In 1977, Byrd led a Senate majority in setting a precedent to address a loophole that then existed in Rule XXII's cloture device--the post-cloture filibuster. . . . The result was that a majority of Senators had succeeded in altering Senate procedures without changing the text of a Standing Senate Rule. . . . Byrd called up thirty-three amendments in succession, foreclosing all appeals along the way, and the filibuster was broken." (Martin B. Gold & Dimple Gupta, "The Constitutional Option To Change Senate Rules And Procedures: A Majoritarian Means To Over Come The Filibuster," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2004, pp. 2262-64) (internal citations omitted)

In 1979, Byrd Broke A Filibuster By Threatening To Change The Rules, Arguing "This Congress Is Not Obliged To Be Bound By The Dead Hand Of The Past" And That Senate "Rules Have Been Changed From Time To Time." "In 1979, faced with a potential filibuster on his rules-change proposal, Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) raised the possibility that the U.S. Constitution provides the majority with a method for overriding the Senate's cloture rule:

The Constitution in article I, section 5, says that each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we are at the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past.

Sucks when your own party is the one that fucks up you position. Gotta love the democrat view, democracy is being threaten when people are being allowed to vote and debate a subject.

Tue May 24 2005 9:24 AM


Sponge Bob:


In 1980, Byrd Changed Senate Procedure For The Consideration Of Executive Nominations. "In March 1980, Byrd led the Senate Democrats in changing the Senate's procedures for the consideration of nominations. The Senate's Executive Calendar lists both treaties and nominations, in that sequence. Prior to March 1980, it had `been determined by a precedent that a motion to go into executive session, being nondebatable, [would] automatically put the Senate on the first treaty.' . . . On March 5, 1980, Byrd offered a motion [to enter executive session and proceed directly to the nomination of Robert White as Ambassador to El Salvador] . . . Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) raised a point of order against the motion . . . . The Presiding Officer immediately sustained Helms's point of order: Under the rule . . . only a motion to go into executive session is in order. Byrd appealed the ruling, arguing that there was no logical reason for the Senate to distinguish between a motion to proceed to the first nomination and a motion to proceed to the first treaty. . . . That same day, the Senate rejected the ruling of the Chair by 38-54, almost completely on party lines. Due to Byrd's new precedent, motions to proceed to nominations are no longer debatable. (Martin B. Gold & Dimple Gupta, "The Constitutional Option To Change Senate Rules And Procedures: A Majoritarian Means To Over Come The Filibuster," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2004, pp. 265-67)


In 1987, Byrd Changed Senate Procedure "Contrary To The Plain Text Of A Standing Senate Rule." "In 1987, a Byrd precedent once again changed Senate procedure to run contrary to the plain text of a Standing Senate Rule. . . . Through a series of votes that ran almost entirely along party lines, Byrd succeeded in establishing three precedents that radically changed voting procedures under Rule XII." (Martin B. Gold & Dimple Gupta, "The Constitutional Option To Change Senate Rules And Procedures: A Majoritarian Means To Over Come The Filibuster," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2004, pp. 267-68)


Both of these changes were enacted with a simple majority vote. Blame Byrd for your mess.

Tue May 24 2005 9:46 AM


NJGuardsman:

GO GET 'EM

SPONGE BOB

Tue May 24 2005 9:47 AM


Tom from Madison:

Pat Tillman is definitely patriot. So how does the Bush Defense Department reward him? They lied to his family about what really happened to him! WHAT POSSIBLE EXCUSE IS THERE FOR THIS?

...On Iraq, there is a generally deteriorating civil war unfolding on the ground. The situation is chaotic with no end in sight and certainly no possible timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Civilian casualties and the general level of violence is rising. U.S troop losses continue, albeit they represent a small fraction of the loss of life there.

Speaking of U.S. withdrawal, the plans to construct permanent bases in Iraq belie Bush's claim that this is a war of liberation. This is a war of economic conquest. Bush is seeking to dominate, not liberate. That's anti-democracy, anti-Christian, and morally wrong.

Neo-cons are behaving like fascists. The term 'Dominionists' better describes their empire-driven aspirations for the rest of the world.

Tue May 24 2005 9:48 AM


NJGuardsman:

The Pat Tillman issue was this: there was a memorial and several honors I believe, rendered to him while the circumstances of his death were being investigated. His family was informed AFTER the investigation was concluded, it just so happened to be bad timing because of the public tribute to him.

Again would you be writing this venom if were talking about bases in Japan, Germany & S. Korea? Are S. Korea, Japan & Germany the 51st, 2nd & 3rd states respectively are these countries “under our heel” also?

Your last blog just goes to show that the accusation is more important then what is actually happening, the liberal press over sensationalizes the events in Iraq & Afghanistan in a combined effort to sell papers and destroy the current administration. Symbolism over substance. Destroy the Neocons in the public theater no matter what.

Tue May 24 2005 10:41 AM


Dave E.:

"GO GET 'EM

SPONGE BOB"

That's even funnier than the usual stuff you type.

Tue May 24 2005 11:04 AM


NJGuardsman:


Hay, I didnt pick that name for him.
I'm still waiting for one of you to counter his blog and up until now no takers.

Tue May 24 2005 11:13 AM


Dave E.:

"Martin B. Gold, a partner at Covington & Burling who is a former floor adviser to Frist, and Dimple Gupta, a former Justice Department lawyer who was hired in March by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701425.html

The Fair and Balanced proclivity on full display.
Nice study, but it does not illustrate what we see today. Your conflating semantics to present something that appears similar, when in fact it is not. And biased, no less.

I don't disagree that Senate history is rife with examples of skirmishes when all likes of senators have looked foolish. To deny that politicians act like politicians would be to appear...well, like you guys (i.e. no one on MY side can EVER make a mistake...everything they say or do is gospel and true and patriotic and right. amen).

Fact is, the bargain yesterday exposes the fissures now evident in the GOP. Moderates v. Fristians. I'm upset that a few completely radical judges may now see federal bench time, but stay tuned...the deal reached may go much deeper than the black letters of the agreement released. They emphasized "trust" and "good faith" so often yesterday, I'm led to believe there are understandings in place for future votes. Time will tell.

Tue May 24 2005 11:17 AM


Dave E.:

"Again would you be writing this venom if were talking about bases in Japan, Germany & S. Korea? Are S. Korea, Japan & Germany the 51st, 2nd & 3rd states respectively are these countries “under our heel” also?"

Those states are not the Middle East. Remember what inspired Bin Laden? I do, because I was one of those 'infidels' on holy soil. Permanent bases in the Middle East only exacerbates tensions. Contrary to your odd little punditry, the Afghani and Pakistani riots were rootly caused by the mean anti-American sentiment growing correlatively with the length of time we stay. It was not Newsweek, and most informed sources and people have declared as much. Us being there is much different than us being anywhere else. Most people who've been there can appreciate that statement.

Tue May 24 2005 11:42 AM


Anonymous:

"Fact is, the bargain yesterday exposes the fissures now evident in the GOP. Moderates v. Fristians. I'm upset that a few completely radical judges may now see federal bench time, but stay tuned...the deal reached may go much deeper than the black letters of the agreement released. They emphasized "trust" and "good faith" so often yesterday, I'm led to believe there are understandings in place for future votes. Time will tell."


The trust and good faith will last until the NEXT judicial appointee, at which point the democrats will go into filibuster mode. The sooner it happens the more the Rhino's will be affected by the shit storm that follows.

The Republicans had victory within their grasp and gave half of it away for a promise that will be broken in less then two months. The Democrats' bottom line is to retain a veto on Supreme Court nominations. They won, Frist lost, Bush lost - for now. The humiliation involved should galvanise the ascendant force in US politics to fix the problem. That means recess appointments, vertebrate candidates in 2006 and McCain's centrism tolled out loud like a bell. The Senate is THE place where political conflict should be played out in full. Fisk will have his ass kicked along with the Rhinos that went along with this deal.

Tue May 24 2005 12:12 PM


Sponge Bob:

The above is mine.

Tue May 24 2005 12:12 PM


NJGuardsman:

"Remember what inspired Bin Laden" delusions of grandeur, thinking he on a mission from God, His (OBL) is the only path – a direct parallel with Hitler. Thinking his was a higher calling, to purify the world for those he chooses.

We are doing the same things in Iraq & Afghanistan that we did in Japan & Germany they were beaten militarily and we rebuilt them. If we are/were wrong now we were/are wrong then, these two situations are similar in that we are fighting for much the same thing… OUR WAY OF LIFE.

Tue May 24 2005 2:08 PM


Tom from Madison:

NJ:

You left out many critical facts in your simplistic analysis.

Remember::
1) The US didn't start WWII
2) Osama Bin Laden was recruited by our CIA to fight commmunism in Afghanistan. Part of his anymosity to the US can be attributed to how he was treated by the US after serving as an anti-communist mercenary.

Causing the death of over 100,000 innocent people to defend the American way of life is twisted, sick and wrong.

Tue May 24 2005 2:57 PM


NJGuardsman:

The US didn’t start the War on Terrorism.
So the Twin Towers were brought down because OBL didn’t like the way he was let go from the CIA payroll – He was an asset, he was utilized as much and he didn’t mind while we were3 providing him weapons he could use on the Russians

Are you accusing the U. S. of deliberately killing 100,000 people? Bush & Rumsfeld actually got up one morning and decided they were going to commit genocide, is that what you’re saying?

Tue May 24 2005 3:26 PM


HOMER S:


Remember::
1) The US didn't start WWII
2) Osama Bin Laden was recruited by our CIA to fight commmunism in Afghanistan. Part of his anymosity to the US can be attributed to how he was treated by the US after serving as an anti-communist mercenary.

Tom, got any proof that OBL was ever a CIA operative? The 911 commission found that the CIA NEVER had dealings with OBL and that he was a product of a misguided Saudi venture into fighting in Afghanistan. Point 2 (your only point listed) is wrong and refuted as a matter of public record.

Tue May 24 2005 3:48 PM


Anonymous:

That's right. There can be no other reason this war other than: "they" hate us for "our freedoms".

1.Discounting the fact our presence in Saudi Arabia over the course of Operation Southern Watch was viewed by Saudi wahabbis as an abomination; most reasonable people understand that this was the underlying motivation for 9/11.

2.Discounting the fact that we've propped up the brutally oppressive King Saud royal family for decades, fomenting huge amounts of anti-American animousity amongst Saudi fundamentalists. The house of Saud continues to pay off clerics that spew vitriolic hatred of the US and it's foreign policies (too many to list).

3.Discounting the fact that Iraq is not, nor has ever been, part of this war on an adverb. How often must this FACT be repeated? Now look at North Korea. Look at Iran. But you apologists concede nothing for your King George.

4.Discounting the fact that the administration knowingly lied to Congress, the American people and the world to justify invading and occupying Iraq...(aka the crime of aggression).

Honestly...this list goes on and on. The Mayberry Machiavelli's have transformed the US into a caricature of what a superpower should be, and are BREAKING our military in the process of obtaining the vainglorious PNAC dream. In fact, they are nothing but PR slicksters. It's like having to play whack-a-Bush-apologizer with the big fact stick.

Tue May 24 2005 5:55 PM


Dave E.:

the above rant is mine.

Tue May 24 2005 5:55 PM


NJGuardsman:

Bob,
I stand corrected, thank you

S. Arabia has something we want/need unfortunately OIL. Until we’re able to drill in the nature reserve in Alaska & off the Gulf coast and anywhere else we need to, we’ll have to deal with this particular devil – BLEIVE ME I don’t like them any more then you do for much the same reasons (madrasas spewing hate America).

Iraq was used as a terrorist training ground. Iraq DID play a part in Terrorism & is pretty much the focal point of terrorists now because they know that if a Representative Republic from of government takes hold and works all these fundamentalist fanatics WILL fall by the wayside!

I’m REALLY getting Tired of repeating myself, Bush did not lie! The administration came to the same conclusion the world did. Bush was given that same information, and he believed to be true and acted on it, was it a lie that Iraq repeatedly violated UN sanctions NO, was it a lie that for 12 years Iraq took pot shots at our planes in the no fly zone NO, was it a lie that he has killed more Moslems then anyone else in history NO, was it a lie that he has had WMD as recently as 2003 I don’t believe so

Wed May 25 2005 8:28 AM


Sponge Bob:

Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism?

A U.S. district court judge in Manhattan ruled Wednesday [May 7, 2003] that Salman Pak, Saddam Hussein's airplane hijacking school located on the outskirts of Baghdad, played a material role in the devastating Sept. 11 attacks on America.
...according to courtroom testimony by three of the camp's instructors, the facility was a virtual hijacking classroom where al-Qaeda recruits practiced overcoming U.S. flight crews using only small knives - a terrorist technique never employed before 9/11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml

Wed May 25 2005 8:50 AM


Tom from Madison:

Sorry to have been away. I see the Neo-Scarabs have been playing on their war-driven dung-heap.

Bob, NJ, and Homer seem to believe that Iraqis were invovled in 9/11. That is an UNSUBSTANTIATED CONSPIRACY THEORY.

9/11 might jusfify a war with Saudi Arabia as the majority of hijackers were Saudis. As it is, we killed a lot of innocent Iraqis avenging American deaths caused by Saudi fanatics. Only in the mind of a twisted neo-con could this be jusified.

"Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism?"
--I didn't say that. Saddam probably wanted a lot of bad things to happen to Americans. He was in no position to do that--remember the NO FLY ZONE?

Iraq posed no threat and there was no necessity to go to war spending billions of $ and killing many inncocent people. Your source citation is irrelevant.

Once again, there is nothing honorable, heroic, or patriotic about causing the deaths on innocent Iraqis in the name of freedom, counter-terrorism, or anyother talking points. However, there is much shame in profiting from starting that unjust war.

Wed May 25 2005 4:47 PM


Dave E.:

I defy any of you Bush apologists to try and answer one question.

When will you know the Bush War on Terror(tm) is over and/or won?

I'd like a clear and succinct answer, once and for all. If you guys defend this administration so virulently, you should at least be able to define what means victory in this grandiose experiment of theirs. Next to volunteering to help relieve those that die on your frontlines, answering that question should follow closely.

I'm really interested in what the end result of your endgames looks like.

Observe my bated breath.

Wed May 25 2005 8:01 PM


NJGuardsman:

“Un just” according to who(m), you? The only people saying its an unjust war are those on the losing end, and those happen to be the terrorists, out of desperation driving car bombs into groups of innocent Iraqi people whose deaths you so viciously blame on the U.S.

It doesn’t matter where the terrorists come from, it’s that they have the same mindset/goal!

“Remember the No Fly Zone” Remember the revolt put down by Saddam’s helicopters with the “No Fly Zone” in place?

I agree with you that there is nothing honorable/patriotic or heroic about killing, there IS something honorable, patriotic & heroic about defending your homeland from those who despise the USA because we don’t subscribe to one particular notion or another.

I’ll give you a definite end date for the end of the War on Terrorism as soon as you give me a definite end date for the War on Poverty, or maybe the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, how about the War on AIDS.

Can you tell me if the US and it’s allies know EXACTLY when WWI or WWII would end when they became involved in both these conflicts? Or more recently how about Gulf War round 1, they had guesses nothing concrete.


Of course you consider Bob’s cite of the 9/11 report “UNSUBSTANCIATED” because it doesn’t support your side of this issue.

Thu May 26 2005 7:36 AM


NJGuardsman:

Sorry I ment CBS new cite.

Thu May 26 2005 7:42 AM


Anonymous:

"Iraq posed no threat and there was no necessity to go to war spending billions of $ and killing many inncocent people. Your source citation is irrelevant."


Training terrorist to hijack planes and fly them into skyscrapers might not seem like a threat to you, but think about the people that live and work in those buildings. The federal court system is irrelevant?

Thu May 26 2005 8:56 AM


Tom from Madison:

Hey nameless one. You must have been watching Fox news for too long. Althought the 9/11 Commission had it's flaws, they even found no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. You shouldn't lie. It violates a commandment.

Why must the right continue to DELIBERATELY confuse Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden? The former was a secular head of state, the latter a religious fanatic.

As Howard Dean said, attacking Iraq in response to 9/11 is like attacking Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.

Fri May 27 2005 10:45 PM


Right Wing Robby:

Tom,

You assume that all conservatives are religious people. Perhaps you should try and show some of that tolerance you claim to have instead of throwing religion in everyones face in almost every comment you make. Its insulting even for someone like me who could care less about commandments. Toms intolerance for people different then himself manifests itself often, especially catholics. It reminds me alot of Saddam, the secular head of state.

I have zero respect for you.

Sat May 28 2005 7:01 AM


Dave E.:

"Perhaps you should try and show some of that tolerance you claim to have instead of throwing religion in everyones face in almost every comment you make. Its insulting even for someone like me who could care less about commandments."
- RWR, see above post

Hmm. You must find every single speech Bush has given insulting then. Glad to hear you're finally coming around to a liberal point of view, little robby.

In fact, let's go out and find some research on it, shall we...?

Bingo! That took all of 5 seconds! Let's review a small snipet of an interview with a well-reasoned evangelical who understands our POV:

"Can you talk about the religious element that also seems to be there in the rhetoric regarding America's foreign policy and role in the world, post-Sept. 11?

When Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney talk about the necessity of American power and supremacy, military supremacy in the world as the only way to peace, I understand that as a foreign policy. I think it's not a wise foreign policy, but I understand it.

When President Bush adds God to their formulation and says God's purpose or intention is somehow linked with American military preeminence, that's a very dangerous thing. President Bush [and] the White House basically choreographed a liturgy at the National Cathedral. President Bush was a chief homilist. In the pulpit of the National Cathedral, he made a war speech. He called the nation to arms in the pulpit of the National Cathedral, and he claimed a divine mission for our nation to rid the world of evil.

That is not only bad foreign policy or presumptuous foreign policy -- I would say it's idolatrous foreign policy to claim God's purpose for that mission. And in the language that Mr. Bush has used, he does this again and again and again." - Jim Wallis, Editor-in-chief, Sojourners Magazine

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/president/invoking.html

I for one, just like you, find this insulting. And I also have zero respect for Bush, as I'm sure you also have now that you've seen how consistently insulting he is by "throwing religion in everyone's face in almost every comment he makes (your quote)". Really, next to running up deficets, asphyxiating the middle/lower economic classes, speeding up environmental destruction, clamping down upon and demonizing the voices of dissent, facilitating the indentured servitude of citizens to corporations, and pissing off virtually the entire world outside of bucolic, rural America, it's the only other consistency he shows.

Well. He's also not really a reader. But pshaw on me for demanding our Prez be well-informed, well-read, and well-reasoned. Now I'm just being overly critical. Better stop before my patriotism or my Love Of America(tm) is questioned.

Anyway. Welcome to the fold, little RWR. Glad you've finally come around to our point of view.

Sat May 28 2005 1:54 PM


Right Wing Robby:

I have no problem with Bush and his beliefs. I dont care if he mentions God. I would have a problem with it if he started telling people to obey the commandments like Tom did. I would also have a problem with Bush if he started to mock religion like Tom is doing.

I am tolerant of religion even if the person is President.

Im not in your fold, not even close.

Sat May 28 2005 6:05 PM


Tom from Madison:

RWR:

Sorry you feel that way, I respect you even though we profoundly disagree.

No I don't assume all conservatives are religious. There many flavors of conservatives I've come across:
1) Old school fiscal, small government conservatives who hate deficits, especially in a time of war.
2) Greedy bastards who always want a tax cut no matter what. These folks are usually white, rich, and want to stay on top by keeping others on the bottom.
3) Free market zealots who believe that all unregulated markets promote competition and lead to good things for corporations AND consumers. [despite factual evidence to the contrary]
4) Libertarians who want minimal or no government.
5) Religious fundamentalists who believe that science which contradicts their interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Rapturists are a subset of these. There are many other flavors as well. Obviously there are many permutations and combinations.

I particlarly take exception to those who condemn secular humanists such as myself.

You and the President should both understand. No matter what religion you practice, you shouldn't kill or lie. Most religious people, atheists and agnostics would agree. Do you disagree?

If Bush were really a devout Christian he would keep the commandments. His behavior suggests otherwise.

Sat May 28 2005 10:05 PM


Tom from Madison:

This thread and others on this site have exposed a lot of telling points about the far-right. Apparently there are some rules you must follow to be a neo-con:

If you're on the 'hard' right:
1) Only object to references made to religion when they are coming from the left or from someone attacking the President.
2) Never discuss ACCOUNTABILITY when it comes to comparing what the President has previously said with what he has actually done. This only applies when there is a Republican in the White House. When someone asks for accountability from the president, attack that person personally on some level. Feel free to suggest that the person asking for accountability may be a racist, homophobe, religiously intolerant, anti-American, or dishonest. In short, DISRESPECT those with whom you disagree!
3) Look the other way when republicans are accused of being racist, homophobe, religiously intolerant, anti-American, or dishonest.
4) Ignore constitutional separation of powers when it's politically expedient [Schiavo case] but insist on literal 'strict constructionist' interpretations of the constitution with regard to other hot button issues.
5) Cite self-serving think-tanks and news sources [American Spectator] rather than strive for objective sources of fact [the Economist].
6) Secrecy in government is AOK with the neo-cons. In order to get access to the government you should have to contribute to the campaign [rangers & pioneers], sign a loyalty oath [to get into a campaign rally or' town-hall meeting'], and preferably listen to country music!

OK, I made the part about country music up. Yes there is Toby Keith on the right, but Willie Nelson has a lot more soul. Of course they actually have performed duets together. There must be hope for the 2-Party system!

Sun May 29 2005 3:36 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

Actually i heard from my brother who is an avid country fan (lord knows why?) he read an interview that Toby voted democrat in the last election. Thought that was funny.

"I wonder when the milk cartons in Iraq will begin showing pictures of WMD?" - Me

Sun May 29 2005 5:12 PM


Tom from Madison:

Mike,

I don't listen to much country music as my tastes run more to jazz and blues. I'm aware of some of Keith's oeuvre like 'Shock and Y'All'. His long vibrato notes sound like sheep to me. If he really voted Dem he might be well-advised to keep it from his fans.

...Kudos for the WMD milk carton idea! Apparently W is counting on mass amnesia and apathy. Apparently THOSE WMDs have already robbed a lot of the neo-cons of their faculties.

Mon May 30 2005 12:08 AM


Spong Bob:

This thread and others on this site have exposed a lot of telling points about Tom and Dave. Apparently there are some rules you must follow to be a Kool-Aid Drinker:

If you're on the left wing:

1)Only make to references made to religion when they are coming from the left or from someone attacking the President.

2)Only discuss ACCOUNTABILITY when it comes to comparing what the President has previously said with what he has actually done by twisting facts and out right lying. This only applies when there is a Republican in the White House. When someone asks for questions your account, attack that person personally on some level. Feel free to suggest that the person asking for accountability may be a racist, homophobe, religiously intolerant, anti-American, or dishonest. In short, DISRESPECT those with whom you disagree!

3) Feel free to accuse republicans of being racist, homophobe, religiously intolerant, anti-American, or dishonest. Deny that your own party is harboring the same.

4) Ignore constitutional separation of powers when it's politically expedient [Schiavo case] but insist on literal 'strict constructionist' interpretations of the constitution with regard to other hot button issues.

5) Cite self-serving think-tanks and news sources [New York Times] rather than strive for objective sources of fact [the Wall Street Journal].

6) Secrecy in government is AOK with the liberal. In order to get access to the government you should have to contribute to the campaign, and maybe shoot up some election offices and slash some tires on election day.

Tue May 31 2005 10:17 AM


Sponge Bob:

By the way, Toby Keith is a registered democrat - always has been, says he always will be. But since he has committed the unpardonable sin of being patriotic and actually supporting the troops he is to be labeled a republican Neo-con. I guess if he had long hair and smoked dope he would be more acceptable like Willie Nelson, who shares many of the same views as Mr. Keith. As seen posted here earlier - Democrats are looking for heretics and the Republican are looking for converts.

Tue May 31 2005 10:23 AM


Tom from Madison:

Sp Bob,

My only point about Toby Keith is his songs appeal to those who confuse Patriotism with the desire to go to war. It's not about party-affiliation or hair length. His war sentiments are more in line with Zell Miller's views, certainly not mainstream Democrat!

I know plenty of Republicans who are NOT looking for converts. They are embarrassed by the evangelical right. I'm talking about those who follow John McCain, Olympia Snowe and other moderates.

Most Democrats aren't looking for heretics, rather they are interested in exposing hypocracy and demanding accountablity. Repulbicans are doing a PISS POOR job of that--especially in Iraq! BILLIONS OF $ ARE MISSING? Reminder to the Christian right: Stealing is against the 10 Commandments!

The solution to missing $ in Iraq has nothing to do with blaming the liberals or converting anybody into accepting this as a PRICE FOR FREEDOM!

I'd like to see more Democrats pointing out the absurd place that theocratically-based policies are taking us. Bush is justifying war without end in the name of Freedom and Peace. That's sick, wrong, anti-Christian, and anti-Democracy!

Tue May 31 2005 1:21 PM


NJGuardsman:

Bob,

"DISRESPECT"?!?!? more like DESTROY the personal life of those who disagree with you (Delay).

Ignore those on your side who do the same things you accuse the opposition of doing (Luis Gutierrez).

Tue May 31 2005 4:30 PM


Tom from Madison:

Tom DeLay is destroying himself. In America, violating the law still has consequences.

Equal justice under the law is a great idea. It's an egalitarian idea. It applies to Republicans as well as Democrats. No wonder the right is after the judiciary.

It's time to let the judicial system work it's magic on the likes of Tom DeLay. I only hope he finds himself in a roach-proof cell. Maybe Pat Robertson will be able to provide some spiritual guidance to ease the Exterminator's suffering during his time of tribulation!

Wed Jun 1 2005 11:10 AM


Sponge Bob:

Got to love the liberal idea of "justice". According to the head Kool Aid drinker OBL innocent until proven guilty and Delay should go to prison even though he hasn't been charged with a crime.

Wed Jun 1 2005 11:44 AM


NJGuardsman:

Again, guys like Tom deflect, redirect and protect their own all the while denouncing republicans, and never mentioning the fact that democrats are equally as “GUILTY”.

This practice was/is done on both sides of the isle BUT they only announce (more like yell at the top of their lungs) those in the opposite party.

Wed Jun 1 2005 3:00 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

Think ill just park my butt out on the porch and drink a beer and wait for the US to invade Saudi Arabia. Or ill wait till either hell freezes over, or the price of oil gets to high.

I mean comon... the US invaded Iraq because of WMD (more milk cartons please), liberation Israeli style, and because there were 'terrorist ties' that turned out to be 'there were no terrorists in Iraq till we came in and F*(&ED it all up REEEEEL good.'.

So why not invade Saudi Arabia? Where's the war parties gusto on these backward troglodites. I see NJ foaming at the mouth justifiying corrupt, BS intel which he claims "EVERYONE" believed (to which i destroyed that argument) Iraq had WMD. The fanatics also say if your against the war, your against the liberation of Iraqis. Right. You've helped install a theocratic model going to Iran. Womens rights go back a 1000 years. But lets just forget that. And we are always reminded that those damned terrorists that Saddamn kept in check that now run amok are the reason your there! Saddam was training and in league with the terrorists .cough.bullshit.cough.

And don't let the memory hole get you either! 17 of the highjackers were Saudi! Not Iraqi.

So here i sit, drinking my beer, waiting to hear news of an invasion to take out that terrorist stronghold S.A. with all of its madrassas, Bin Laden oil money and terrorist recruiting, overthrow of the monarchs and give power to the people, let them control their own resources in a free open market. Let them vote democratic up and down, purple fingers in the air! Let freedom march!

Comon NJ! Dont be a &(*%#ing hypocrit! join with me in one voice, demand Bush that just as he did so misguidedly in Iraq, he should do immediatly to Saudi Arabia, the REAL target!

Oh wait, is that Bush holding the Abdullah's hand in the rose garden...? Aw fiddlesticks.

Wed Jun 1 2005 4:43 PM


NJGuardsman:

MGWN

The US invaded Iraq because of: 12yrs of defiance of UN sanctions/resolutions, 12yrs of opening fire on allied planes in the no – fly zone, and yes, the making, selling, procuring of Chemical/Biological/Nuclear weapons and other reasons.

I’ve already written on this site I AM NO FAN OF S. ARABIA!! If you don’t understand that I’ll write it in Spanish for you, maybe you’ll understand it that way.
I have issues with Bush on: US borders, prescription drug plan, not doing enough with the patriot act, I’m still waiting to see when he’ll get the tax cuts made permanent, among other things.

Those terrorists you spoke of that “Saddam kept in check” the vast majority were members of HIS government the others are scabs from other Arab countries because the majority of the Iraqi people realize the opportunity they have been given. Even though you ridicule and belittle the Iraqi’s first steps toward a representative form of government, which is frankly just what I expected from the likes of you (it didn’t happen with a democrat in office, it didn’t happen the way you wanted it to).

“17 of the hijackers were Saudi” – are you (dare I say it) PROFILING? Unlike you I don’t look at race, I look at whom they are not where they were born.

Evil is what it is, it’s persistent it has no race, it knows no borders and we have to be persistent in the way we fight evil.

You destroyed nothing, don’t flatter yourself.

Yes please go have your beer in fact have a Corona on me, actually I’ll have one also.

Thu Jun 2 2005 8:22 AM


Tom from Madison:

NJ:

George W Bush is practicing when:

1) when he kills innocent Iraqis in the name of freedom, the search for WMDs, the violation of UN sanctions, .....
2) when he profits from his family's long association with Saudi Oil interests and thereby sells out America
3) when he turns a blind eye to terror in Uzbekistan and actually helps this country repress its own citizens
4) when he dismisses charges of torture at Abu Graib and Guantanomo
5) when he sanctions the detention of innocent Americans for years without charging them
6) when he violates the separation of powers in the US Constitution.

It's long since time to stop believing what this President says. His actions speak much louder than his words. He is taking us in a fascist direction. He deserves to be impeached for lieing us into war.

Thu Jun 2 2005 9:45 AM


Tom from Madison:

Correction;

NJ:

George W Bush is practicing EVIL when:

1) when he kills innocent Iraqis in the name of freedom, the search for WMDs, the violation of UN sanctions, .....
2) when he profits from his family's long association with Saudi Oil interests and thereby sells out America
3) when he turns a blind eye to terror in Uzbekistan and actually helps this country repress its own citizens
4) when he dismisses charges of torture at Abu Graib and Guantanomo
5) when he sanctions the detention of innocent Americans for years without charging them
6) when he violates the separation of powers in the US Constitution.

It's long since time to stop believing what this President says. His actions speak much louder than his words. He is taking us in a fascist direction. He deserves to be impeached for lieing us into war.

Thu Jun 2 2005 9:59 AM


Mike of the Great White North:

Let me just start by posting this rare gem in the rough.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158228,00.html

Amazing. That FOX carried a story regarding the implicit bias and media laziness i've accused it of. Also shows that American media in general is 'right wing' and the 'liberial' media is a myth within the dying republic of America.

Now on to you.

The US invaded because it scared the S#!T out of its citizens with images of mushroom clouds Iraq had no possibilty of making. (the link above indicates as well all the motives listed were red herrings, he just wanted to invade period)

I understand and i dont give a rats ass which language you write it in. FACT. More terrorism/ training/ ideology in SA than Iraq. 9-11 hijackers SA, not Iraq. Bin Laden from SA, not Iraq. FACT. N.Korea made the CLAIM they HAD a bomb! Inspectors said Iraq had allowed intrusive, go anywhere inspections in the run up to the war and found diddly squat. All follow up inspections found diddly squat. If i was to put these on a scale of 1-10 for imminent threat, i'd give NK a 10, Iran a 7, SA a 5 and Iraq a big F'N 0! Or would you like to correct the logic here and tell me again how Iraq becomes the most pre-emminent danger of our time?

Your concern over profiling is palpable. If you couldn't see the point i made, you're hopeless. If Sept.11 did not happen, there is no way in HELL that this war would be happening, despite all your brevado and excuses. But because 3000 died, you punish a country that had no connection at all while coddling the one you should have cracked down on. Its your hypocrisy that drives the world nuts and kills any credibilty you had. You keep saying your no fan of SA. Thats not good enough. You should be denouncing Bush for hitting the wrong country first, and holding his feet to the fire as you always claim for allowing real threats like NK, Iran and others to grow while you blew it all on a failed pipedream call PNAC.

I've consistantly crushed your arguments, delusions, and outright lies. Every time you pull a Cheney (9-11=Iraq) i have to remind you your lying. Every time you bring up sanctions violations, your credibility suffers because you wont acknowledge Israels violations. Everytime you bring up the no-fly zone potshots at your planes (foriegn warplanes flying over soverign territory) i have to ask how Iraq could launch WMD drones of death. Everytime you say what a savage Saddam was by killing more muslims than anyone in history (crusades?) and the rape/torture rooms(abughraib/guanton) and the people shredder(myth) and that was why you invaded, i ask with millions of people starving to death in N.Korea and a couple confirmed nukes, active torture and execution of dissidents in China, SA, Egypt, etc.... and everytime you say the whole world agreed with the cooked intel the US pumped out, i have to scream at the top of my lungs "DONT INCLUDE ME WITH THE REST OF YOU DUMF%^&S"

Ill have a Blue thanks.

Thu Jun 2 2005 5:45 PM


Tom from Madison:

Mike is correct on many counts.

The Downing St. Memo proves Bush was planning to invade and must have been telling lies when he was calling for Saddam to disarm. BUSH ABSOLUTELY KNEW SADDAM DIDN'T HAVE WMDs to turn over!

There is now substantial dissatisfaction with Bush, at least in some parts of the US, to the point where Rep John Conyers [D-Michigan] and 87 other Representatives are advocating for the impeachment of the President.

Conyers' site has a letter to sign in support of further investigation of impeachable offenses.

http://www.johnconyers.com/

Fri Jun 3 2005 2:05 PM


Homer S.:

Anybody ever verify the Downing Street memo? To my knowledge the orginator, Matthew Rycroft, has never done so.


Is ANY evidence that this memo was anything more than politically motivated, and written by a political hack just before the British elections?

Fri Jun 3 2005 4:54 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

If the memo needed disproving of, the White House would make a statement about it. The fact that they didn't says one of two things.

1. It's either true and they didn't bother to respond because your limp flacid 'left wing' media didn't pick up on it so there was no presure for them to release a statment or..

2. It's false and the White House didn't bother to make a statement.

Considering the memo is 10x more damaging than having Amnesty International saying the US is a human rights abuser, AND that Bush came out hours after that statement saying it was 'absurd' (to which i most definatly think otherwise) shows that the White House kept its mouth shut, hoping the memo scandal just dissapears as the media gives W another free ride.

And it wasn't a political hack who wrote it, it was the actual minutes of a meeting held.

From CNN.com
"British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity"...
"In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting."...
"Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.

The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."

Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT. Inspectors were in Iraq, doing their jobs and had to leave because Bush was going to start dropping bombs.

Fri Jun 3 2005 7:08 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

On a final note... i have to respond to something NJ said earlier to me that i passed over but must address.

"Even though you ridicule and belittle the Iraqi’s first steps toward a representative form of government, which is frankly just what I expected from the likes of you (it didn’t happen with a democrat in office, it didn’t happen the way you wanted it to)."

You're damn right im belittling it, when an election is run under the administration of an occupying army. Your damn right when the turnout excluded one whole ethnic group. I will continue to belittle it until the leash comes off and Iraqis solve their problems by themselves, not with the US pulling strings in the backround.

And frankly i could care less whether it was a republican or democratic president in office when it happens, im not American. You say it didn't happen the way i wanted it to. I say it didn't happen period. It wasn't France that came over to the colonies and liberated you from the big bad Brits and forced democracy down your throat. It was the people who suffered fought and died for their dream of a republic with no ruler, a voice and power to the people and no one being above the law. If your war of independence was fought like Iraq, youd be searched at checkpoint all throughout your state by French legionaires, your government would be reporting the the French civil authority, your car would be fired on if you didn't stop to the sound of "arręter le voiture", and your door would be kicked in at 3am and you and every other male on your street would be rounded up and sent to a holding camp on suspision of being an insurgent, just because you dont like the French telling you what to do. In other words, no country came to force democracy on you, you earned it yourselves.

Reagans term of 'that shining city on the hill' was a metaphor for people to look at what the US was and to fight to achieve the example set by you. Now you are an Empire, and force your standards upon the world, welcome or not. That shining city is now weathered rock and rotting wood.

Fri Jun 3 2005 7:39 PM


Tom from Madison:

Homer:

the Downing St Memo is a memo is an official account--not even disputed by Blair. Bush is counting on people either not believing it or not caring.

If you love America, you care. If you do minimal research, you believe it. If you do lots of research you will realize what a prevaricator Bush is.

The only question is what to do about President Bush lieing repeatedly to the American people to fight the war he wanted to fight.

John Conyers and hundreds of thousands of petitioners agree, further investigation needs to be done.

We are talking about an impeachable offense here. This is WHY we have impeachment in the US Consitution.

Mon Jun 13 2005 2:08 PM


Homer S.:

When has Blair acknowledged the Downing Street Memo? The only referance I have found is when he "vaguely" refered to it as a tactic by parties with little to run on.

Mon Jun 13 2005 3:55 PM


Homer S.:

How many investigations into this matter do you feel is warranted? This isn't a Washington state election with "do overs" until you get the result you want.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5395999/

“The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities,” the 511-page report said.

It specifically cleared Vice President Dick Cheney, a leading advocate of the war, of accusations that he tried to bend the evidence to fit his agenda.

“The committee found no evidence that the vice president’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts" or were perceived as attempts, the report said.


Mon Jun 13 2005 4:28 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

yeah... gotta love those commisions.

but onto the validity of the memo first.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html

1/3rd of the way down the article, you'll find this tidbit.

"The memo's authenticity was not disputed by Blair's office."

sounds pretty cut n dry dontcha think?

Back to your 511 page commision whitewash. Its funny that you can find no evidence when there are confirmed reports of Jon Bolton trying to get a senior CIA staffer fired because he wouldn't change his analysis to one favourable to Bolton. The Office of Special Plans was created to directly circumvent the CIA and use Chalabi's I.N.C. info that was constantly discredited by the CIA. Greenwald's documentary 'Uncovered: the whole truth about the Iraq war' has over 25 current or Ex CIA members going on the record to disavow any of the 'intel' Bush n Co. were piping, so for Condosleaza to say somewhere down in the bowels of the agency is flat out BS. They knew, chose to ignore, and twisted what they needed. You can choose to call it propoganda but you cant ignore that they constitute proof that they knew of the fixing well before this memo came out. The memo simply verifies what they said. And if you choose to ignore that... then you and the pet rock have striking similarities.

Mon Jun 13 2005 5:01 PM


Homer S.:

Does the Blair office dispute every piece of trash published by an anti Blair rag? Now that the election is over even they've dropped the story.

Can you site a MAINSTREAM media outlet instead of a propaganda smear piece? I'll take a bipartison congressional investigation over some Moore wannabe any day.

Mon Jun 13 2005 6:21 PM


Anonymous:

"The memo's authenticity was not disputed by Blair's office."

Bill Clinton has never denied the Fox piece that portrays him as having had sex with pigs, real live pigs. Under Mike's reasoning it is fair to assume that it is true and that the former president practiced bestiality (Hillary doesn't count).

Tue Jun 14 2005 11:55 AM


Mike of the Great White North:

You two guys are so f*ck*ng hopeless i shouldn't even bother responding.

Nameless braindead twit:
The context of "The memo's authenticity was not disputed by Blairs office" suggests that it was brought to Blairs attention (or his immediate underlings) and that this is their response to the piece. I have never heard of this "sex with pigs" piece on faux (though it wouldn't surprise me with their nonjounalistic ethics), but im almost positive that Billy probably would deny it if it was brought to his attention. Actually he'd laugh it off and say 'well what did you expect.. it's fox'. No under my reasoning it would be fair to say Terry Shiavo had more cognative ability than you at the time of her death.

Homer:
Mainstream media outlet? Sure, CBC, BBC, CTV, MSNBC. Even FOX of all f*ck*ng outlets (website) asked about the American medias complacency compared to the worlds attention of this piece. And ill take solid facts over a bipartisan congresisonal invstgtn anyday, when you consider your congress doesn't even bother to read half the bills put in front of it (ie PATRIOT Act) And speaking of trash rag pieces to respond to, remember all of Fox's BS about the Clintons destroying the white house and air force one as they left... or is the memory hole getting bigger? And contrary to your delusional view, the story has not been dropped... it's gaining steam. Everywhere except Jesusland i suppose.

In fact, i could bet everything i own that... should this situation have been reversed, that Clinton led a ground war into Kosovo (to which NJ despises for appropriate reasons, yet fails so in the Iraq model) and there were mounting casualties for the US, that it was breeding terror and insurgency around the globe, and republicans found out this 'smoking gun' memo... you'd all be on the front lines asking for his head. But with Bush you fawn like he's your God. But i guess thats ok, you already got your impeachment against Clinton so your satisfied.

Good thing Bush didn't get a BJ. All he did was get 1700 US servicemen, 100,000 Iraqis killed, many more wounded, destroyed US credibility, strengthened your enemies resolve, pissed off your allies, sullied the US rep around the world, and become the very thing you stood to destroy with your Gitmo's, Abu's, violations of Geneva, human rights violations, acceptance of torture, suspension of civil liberties all based on a proven lie. Like i said, good thing he didn't get a BJ.

Tue Jun 14 2005 7:10 PM


Homer S:

Mike, so what your saying is that you don't have a credible source?

Wed Jun 15 2005 8:24 AM


Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam

Email:







Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Last.fm Weekly Artists Chart