Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditA parallel new Bush doctrine is emerging, in the last days of the soon-to-be-ancien regime, and it needs to be strangled in its crib. Like the original Bush doctrine -- the one that Sarah Palin couldn't name, which called for preventive military action against emerging threats -- this one also casts international law aside by insisting that the United States has an inherent right to cross international borders in "hot pursuit" of anyone it doesn't like.
They're already applying it to Pakistan, and this week Syria was the target. Is Iran next?
Let's take Pakistan first. Though a nominal ally, Pakistan has been the subject of at least nineteen aerial attacks by CIA-controlled drone aircraft, killing scores of Pakistanis and some Afghans in tribal areas controlled by pro-Taliban forces. The New York Times listed, and mapped, all nineteen such attacks in a recent piece describing Predator attacks across the Afghan border, all since August. The Times notes that inside the government, the U.S.Special Operations command and other advocates are pushing for a more aggressive use of such units, including efforts to kidnap and interrogate suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. Though President Bush signed an order in July allowing U.S. commando teams to move into Pakistan itself, with or without Islamabad's permission, such raids have occurred only once, on September 3.
The U.S. raid into Syria on October 26 similarly trampled on Syria's sovereignty without so much as a fare-thee-well. Though the Pentagon initially denied that the raid involved helicopters and on-the-ground commando presence, that's exactly what happened. The attack reportedly killed Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidih, an Iraqi facilitator who smuggled foreign fighters into Iraq through Syria. The Washington Post was ecstatic, writing in an editorial:
"If Sunday's raid, which targeted a senior al-Qaeda operative, serves only to put Mr. Assad on notice that the United States, too, is no longer prepared to respect the sovereignty of a criminal regime, it will have been worthwhile."
Is it really that easy? To say: We declare your regime criminal, and so we will attack you anytime we care to? In its news report of the attack into Syria, the Post suggests, in a report by Ann Scott Tyson and Ellen Knickmeyer, that the attack is raising cross-border hot pursuit to the level of a doctrine:
"The military's argument is that 'you can only claim sovereignty if you enforce it,' said Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'When you are dealing with states that do not maintain their sovereignty and become a de facto sanctuary, the only way you have to deal with them is this kind of operation,' he said."
The Times broadens the possible targets from Pakistan and Syria to Iran, writing (in a page one story by Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker):
"Administration officials declined to say whether the emerging application of self-defense could lead to strikes against camps inside Iran that have been used to train Shiite 'special groups' that have fought with the American military and Iraqi security forces."
That, of course, has been a live option, especially since the start of the surge in January, 2007, when President Bush promised to strike at Iranian supply lines in Iraq and other U.S. officials, including Vice President Cheney, pressed hard to attack sites within Iran, regardless of the consequences.
On October 24, I went to hear Mike Vickers, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, speaking at the Washington Institiute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israeli thinktank in Washington. He spoke with pride about the vast and growing presence of these commando forces within the U.S. military, noting that their budget has doubled under the Bush administration and that, by the end of the decade, their will more than 60,000 U.S. forces in this shadowy effort. Here are some excerpts of Vickers' remarks:
"If you look at the operational core of our Special Operations Forces, and focus on the ground operators, there are some 15,000 or so of those -- give or take how you count them -- these range from our Army Special Forces or our Green Berets, our Rangers, our Seals, some classified units we have, and we recently added a Marine Corps Special Operations Command to this arsenal as well. In addition to adding the Marine component, each of these elements since 2006 and out to about 2012 or 2013 has been increasing their capacity as well as their capabilities, but their capacity by a third. This is the largest growth in Special Operations Force history. By the time we're done with that, there will be some things, some gaps we need to fix undoubtedly, but we will have the elements in place for what we believe is the Special Operations component of the global war on terrorism."Special Operations Forces, I think through this decade and into the next one, have been and will remain a decisive strategic instrument. ...
"There's been a very significant -- about a 40 or 50 percent increase in operational tempo and of course more intense in terms of the action since the 9/11 attacks. On any given day that we wake up, our Special Operations Forces are in some sixty countries around the world. But more than 80 percent or so of those right now are concentrated in the greater Middle East or the United States Central Command area of responsibility -- the bulk of those of course in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Notice what he said: operating in 60 countries.
Of course, the very invasion of Iraq was illegal in 2003, and it flouted international law. So some may say, these cross-border raids are small potatoes. But they're not. This is a big deal. If it becomes a standard part of U.S. military doctrine that any country can be declared "criminal" and thus lose its sovereignty, then there is no such thing as international law anymore.
When Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked about this, here's what he said, as quoted in the Post article cited earlier:
"'We will do what is necessary to protect our troops,' Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in Senate testimony last month, when asked about the cross-border operations. Under questioning, Gates said that he was not an expert in international law but that he assumed the State Department had consulted such laws before the U.S. military was granted authority to make such strikes."
Not an expert in international law? He'll leave it to the State Department? And this is the guy that Barack Obama's advisers say ought to stay on at the Pentagon under an Obama administration?
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
'When you are dealing with states that do not maintain their sovereignty and become a de facto sanctuary, the only way you have to deal with them is this kind of operation,' he said."
Wow......."we get to decide." The US is swimming in it, and these actions will put our troops at more risk. We are in deep trouble, and the neocon death wishers are trying to engage us in their ultimate Middle East endgame. The world is burning.
Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 11:07am
I heard there are some socialists that are buddies with the terrorist William Ayers gathering at a hotel in Montreal, how bout a little cross-border incursion?
Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2008 @ 11:12am
October 28, 2008 - 12:18 PM Russia's Medvedev shrugs off U.S. sanctions on arms By Denis Dyomkin
MOSCOW (Reuters) - U.S. sanctions on Russia's state arms exporter are short-sighted and will not have a significant impact on its sales, President Dmitry Medvedev said on Tuesday.
The U.S. State Department last week imposed sanctions on firms in China and Russia for alleged sales of sensitive technology that could help Iran, North Korea and Syria develop weapons of mass destruction or missile systems.
Source: 10/28/08 swissinfo.ch
Geez....wonder if this has anything to do with it......how long have we been unable to police and defend the Syrian-Iraq border....ever since we invaded? Timing is everything.....Russia knows this very well.
Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 11:42am
The incursions into Pakistan and Syria are news. Unfortunately, the fact that the US has made extraterritorial incursions is not a new doctrine - at least in fact. Can you not remember Laos and Cambodia?
-graydba
Posted by graydba at 10/28/2008 @ 12:00pm
Letter to the USA from a Canadian:
As an inhabitant of planet Earth, I urge you to get your government in hand. Do what you must.
May I suggest peaceful meditation and simple movements? May I recommend a vacation? A general-strike, anyone?
Stop moving.
All of America: Stop, now.
In other words, please relax.
As to what happened in Syria, I offer no conjecture. It is apparent though that the government's of many nations have moved away from the people's will.
What have we done to this generation of solider? What terrible machines our wills (and our lack of will) have made them. With young families at home, they are refused leave. They sign for successive tours, in some cases find themselves ‘redacted.' What mind would not break under such strain?
Much clearer now is Republican presidential candidate John McCain's "my fellow prisoner's" flub at a September rally.
The people are about to assume control of the government. Your vote decides who will mediate our collective presence. Be the decision.
Posted by directthegovt at 10/28/2008 @ 12:01pm
Would it be TOO easy a prediction to make that some right-winger will show up on this thread to essentially tell us that....
"President Bush HAS the authority to attack into Syria based on the authority he was given to invade Iraq by the Use of Force Resolution"?
IOW, "He's allowed to attack Syria or even Iran, because he was given permission to attack Iraq"?
Are they THAT predictable???
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 12:03pm
So what do you do ROBERT DREYFUSS when Al-Qaeda or some similar terrorist group continues to launch attacks that kill Americans from the sanctuary of a third country - impose sanctions? And if the killing of Americans continues despite sanctions, do we just accept the killing of Americans by these terrorists?
At some point we have to be practical. I am all for respecting the sovereignty of other nations, but when nations "knowingly" give safe refuge to terrorists that continue to kill Americans and are unwilling to act on their own to root out these individuals, targeted force that doesn't harm innocent civilians may be appropriate.
And just so you don't assume that I am supporting the Bush Doctrine, I believe America should be subject to the same rule. If American based terrorists kill citizens of another country, that country may have a right to use targeted force against such group if America "knowingly" gives safe harbor to such groups and refuses to hand them over to the country whose citizens are being killed by them.
I am also suspicious of the "timing" of the Bush attacks, as they seem calculated to try to change the subject from the economy to help McCain get elected. Are we to really believe that these targeted individuals could not have been taken out much sooner when there would be no "election value" to the Republicans? Given the extraordinary distraction that was pursued in Iraq, I have my doubts.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/28/2008 @ 12:08pm
Syria, Shmyria.
The US invades wherever it wishes, just try & stop US.
That goes for you too, Pakistan. And Iran.
Remember Laos?
And don't forget Cambodia. Panama. Grenada. Dominican Republic etc etc.
We're No. 1 & you subhumans forget that at your peril.
The fire, next time.
Obama, you better be a miracle worker, sir, to stop this madness.
For if you try, and you're not extremely fortunate, Special Ops will have you killed too.
Posted by sloper at 10/28/2008 @ 12:42pm
Is not President Bush just recognizing that Sen.Obama is going to be the next President and is just getting a start on the implementation of Sen. Obama's stated policy decision he made last summer when Sen. Obama stated that "the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan" and that "if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government."
Has Sen. Obama changed that position?
Posted by saddleshoes at 10/28/2008 @ 12:54pm
This special operations crap is getting out of hand. I totally disagree with any operations against Syria or any neighboring countries of Iraq. Almost all of our problems in the Middle East can be solved through diplomacy. Al- Qaida is a threat to them too, and we have worked with Syria on our mutual problem in the past. The only real enemy we have in the region is al-Qaida, which is an international threat. Most insurgents in the region have nationalist agendas which are none of our business. We should be working to resolve conflicts and not starting them! Israel is working on peace agreement with Syria, and it is not in their interest to start a wider war with her neighbors. But, more importantly, it is not in America's interest to start a wider war!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 10/28/2008 @ 1:26pm
Miscellaneous thoughts (none of them will be welcome here)
1. Robert Dreyfuss asks "Is Iran Next?"
Comment: I hope so.
2. Mr. Dreyfuss asks "The end of International Law?"
Comment: So what? I don't remember International Law concerning itself with the attacks on the World Trade Center, Palestinian homicide bombers killing Israelis, the massacre by the Communist Chinese in Tiananmen Square, etc.
3. Sloper tells Obama he had better be a miracle worker.
Comment: I thought Obama WAS a miracle worker. I thought this because of all the cultish worship of the man I have seen for several months now on leftist websites and in the media.
4. Maskdelta started in "Would it be TOO easy a prediction to make that some right-winger will show up on this thread to essentially tell us that.... "
Comment: Would it be TOO easy a prediction to make that if we need to attack Syria or Iran, that the left will crucify President Bush....
5. directthegovt says (in the "Letter to the USA from a Canadian")...."The people are about to assume control of the government. Your vote decides who will mediate our collective presence. Be the decision."
Comment: The people are about to have less control of the government, with the government having more control over the people (here in the U.S.). Fortunately, in Canada Stephen Harper will continue as Prime Minister, I am sure directthegovt voted otherwise.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 1:27pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 1:27pm
Didn't answer my question, SJ....
RIGHT NOW, in your opinion, does Bush have the authority to invade Syria or Iran?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 1:52pm
Er, hello-- lawless new con repub dic'tatorship.
"Pry it from my cold, dead hands"
OK.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2008 @ 1:55pm
Maskdelta,
I was not attempting to answer your question. Since you brought it up, however, as far as I am concerned, he does. You already know that (about what I think about things), so why would you need an answer from me anyway?
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 2:10pm
<i>Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 1:52pm </i>
I would agree with Metteya with regard to the special forces, just because you can't do hit-and-run operations from a sanctuary country and expect it to just be ignored. The authority, therefore, comes from the fundamental authority of self-defense; when someone's attacking you, you don't have to let them leave, regroup, and keep doing it another thousand times.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 2:32pm
Bush considers himself king, and thinks he can do anything he wants. It's up to us, the American people, to defend the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, as the founders of America intended. America is NOT a monarchy, and never will be!
Posted by beth128 at 10/28/2008 @ 2:44pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 2:10pm
Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 2:32pm
Now, wait a minute, THRAWN, don't get confused....and I want to make sure SJCHER isn't confused either.
Not talking about "incursions"....
I'm asking him (or LVLIB or you THRAWN)...
"Does George W. Bush NOW have the legal authority to INVADE Syria or Iran?"
When we decide that, we can move to the "incursions" question.
Yes/No???
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 3:10pm
His stupid policies are filling the worlds ground with the blood of our troops. Can someone not call the men with white coats and white trucks for him and just get him out of there?
Posted by ancientgirl at 10/28/2008 @ 3:20pm
Now, wasn't this what McCain was chastising Obama about during the debates. He said, "You shouldn't signal what you're going to do. Senator Obama just doesn't understand." (sad head shaking) sounds like McCain should have been listening to the current administration.
Posted by susie1776 at 10/28/2008 @ 3:34pm
Maskdelta,
I answered your question, and I am not confused.
I said as far as I am concerned, George W. Bush has the authority. To invade, to incur, to take action against, to strike, to attack, to bomb Syria or Iran or both.
Since my latest posting lvliberty1 has posted twice with explanations why President Bush has the authority:
=================
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 3:13pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 3:23pm
=================
But- you didn't answer MY question.
Since you no doubt know ahead of time though my past postings on this website how I would answer this question, why are you bothering asking it for?
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 3:58pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 3:23pm
LVLIB...all you have to do is say what SJCHER said...
"I said as far as I am concerned, George W. Bush has the authority. To invade.... Syria or Iran or both."----Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 3:58pm
You don't care if it's just an incursion OR an invasion...so why do you act so outraged?
Now...under what authority can Bush INVADE Syria or Iran or both? You (LVLIB...not so much SJCHER who knows little about it) OFTEN say you are a strict Constructionalist on the US Constitution....
so by what Constitutional authority does Bush have the right to invade Iran or Syria or both?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 4:21pm
He is such an incompetent ass nothing would surprise me. I just hope that if he does that Iran will wait for the new president before they retaliate.
Posted by lvdragonlady at 10/28/2008 @ 4:29pm
<i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 4:33pm </i>
I think we have to actually part ways here (and I realize some tricky line-drawing may be involved). Without authorization of Congress, I don't think he has the authority to invade. Construing his commander-in-chief power as the power to do what he feels necessary to protect US citizens is far beyond what the Constitution allows him, because it specifically vests Congress with the authority to declare war. Though I'll admit there's some ambiguity as to how far the President can go before crossing that line, a full-out invasion CLEARLY crosses it. Unless Congress gives him the OK, Bush (or any other President) has no authority to invade Iran or Syria.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 4:51pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 3:23pm
Since you brought up Libya....where do suppose the C-4 explosive was obtained that brought down the PAM AM flight?
Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 5:17pm
<i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 5:01pm </i>
Yes...and no. Granted, the War Powers Act does give the President some discretion in the use of force during a conflict. It does NOT, as far as I know, give him the discretion to launch an all-out invasion of a country. If it does, then SCOTUS should find it unconstitutional because it blatantly is.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 6:22pm
I have no idea. So tell us how Reagan shipped it to Qaddafi and told him to use it any way that he saw fit.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 5:24pm | warn this person
C'mon Liv.......that would be like saying that we provided the means by which Saddam developed WMD. Does Mr. Wilson ring a bell? Whats your take?
Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 6:40pm
Why is that you think the lives of American soldiers are worth more than lives of other soldiers and civilian men, women and children of other nationalities?
That George Bush, Dick Cheney and their cronies are doing this now makes me sick. They are playing god with the lives of other people. No terrorist act in the USA or any place else justifies more violence.
It isn't even worth debating who is right or wrong. Do you know the figures for civilian and Iraqui military deaths since the war began in 2003...??? Almost 100,000 compared with 4000 plus US soldiers. I don't think anyone deserved to die more than anyone else. None of them should have died in that illegal war.
The whole thing is a mind boggling waste of resources and human life and there is no justification for this. Not even routing out terrorists. It hasn't even proved affective.
Those terrible guys who were behind 9/11 were already dead, and what went on in Afghanistan fall 2001 was a crime we can see has solved nothing.
These are people, like us, with families, and jobs and homes, and needs, just like the rest of us. They aren't less in anyway, whether you "believe" it or not. They HAVE less, that's for sure, but that doesn't mean they are less. And that they want more is only natural, so do all of us who already have more than we know what to do with.
THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FOOLING AROUND WITH OTHER PEOPLES LIVES, ISRAELI, PALESTINIAN, IRISH, BASQUE, AFRICAN, GUATEMALAN, IDONESIAN, NONE!
More killing wont achieve anything. If you don't know this I guess there is no hope for you, although like most of the good citizens of the USA I remain an eternal optimist.
Now more than ever it is imperative to rid the WhiteHouse of these monsters who are so cavalier with the lives of others.
Posted by marilynm at 10/28/2008 @ 6:52pm
What do you need to make you feel safe? Do you really believe all this waring will make you safe? Do you think the Patriot Act and Homeland security make you safe? Do you think having a gun at home makes you safe? Do you think having big thick locks on your door, your bank account, your car and whatever else you have will make you safe.
None of it will that's for certain, with GWB and DC and the rest of those GOP sleezes, who have US blood and rest of the world's blood on their hands, who go on raising the ire of the developing world by rubbing the US' dwindling power and wealth in their hungry faces and killing their innocent peoples (or helping others kill them).
I wish I could feel safe out of the USA but that isn't possible either.
I can only hope when I look at our children (those of you have them)...we are lucky to have them and we should do everything for them and their future.
Posted by marilynm at 10/28/2008 @ 7:02pm
Don't get lost in minutia, that is where you are, lost in minutia. We all are.
It is important to be conscious too. Try to imagine what it is like to be one of those people.
I know a guy from Iraq, we knew him before the war in Iraq, a normal business man, trying to keep his family going, run his business and enjoy his Sunday lunch.
It breaks my heart to hear what has happened to his family since this whole debacle started.
He is not a practicing muslim, like many people in his family and aquaintance, just born in a muslim country, and lived under a dictatorship. He talks of compromises and uncomfortable moments before the war, of family in exile, of living in exile himself, but nothing like now.
Why does he have less right to live in peace? Please answer that.
Posted by marilynm at 10/28/2008 @ 7:09pm
'The leftist mentality consistently forgets or ignores (depending on your assessment of them) that our men and women in the military are trained and ready for combat. Not to serve as peacekeepers, not police officers, not aid workers in emergencies like Katrina. They are paid to kill, capture, or otherwise incapacitate enemies."
Actually, you're just making stuff up. The National Guard's (which is part of the military) primary mission, back in 2001, when I was BMT was to the state for things like Katrina. Let us not forget the Coast Guard which is also part of the military and its substantial civilian non-killing roles.
Simply put, the military's job is to service the martial needs whether those are combat or MOOTWs like peacekeeping and police work.
Nor is this just a leftist belief system-the USAF was deployed during Hurricane Iniki to assist with the evacuation of people back when GHWB was in charge.
Posted by I_am_so_wise at 10/28/2008 @ 8:07pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 4:33pm
So the Congressional power to declare war (in the US Constitution) can be totally circumvented by the President?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 8:21pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 4:33pm
okay...here is a start.
'In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons.[32] President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."[33][34] President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982.'
Source: Wikipedia
"Edwin P. Wilson (born 1928) was a former CIA officer who was convicted of illegally selling weapons to Libya. It was later found that the United States Department of Justice and the CIA had covered up evidence in the case.....
The most dramatic deal, and the one that brought Wilson to the attention from the U.S. government, was for some twenty tons of military grade C-4 plastic explosives.[4] This was a massive quantity that was equal to the entire US domestic stockpile.[1] Most of Wilson's connections were still under the impression that he was working for the CIA and a wide network in the United States supported his actions. The explosives were assembled by a California company and hidden in barrels of oil drilling mud. They were flown to Libya aboard a chartered jet."
Source: Wikipedia
Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 8:38pm
continued............
"While in prison, Wilson campaigned vigorously for his innocence and repeatedly filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the government. Eventually he found information linked to the memo and hired a new lawyer. His lawyer was David Adler, a former CIA agent who had clearance to view classified documents. Adler spent long hours poring through thousands of files and eventually found eighty incidents where Wilson met on a professional basis with the CIA and proof that the CIA had indirectly used Wilson after his retirement. A federal judge ruled that the prosecution had acted improperly. In October 2003, Wilson's conviction on the explosives charge was thrown out. Wilson was released from prison on Sept. 14, 2004, after being incarcerated for 27 years."
Source: Wikipedia....
Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 8:43pm
marilynm,
You ask about an Iraqi, as follows:
"Why does he have less right to live in peace? Please answer that."
He does not have less right to live in peace. Not now. He did before,under Saddam.
Now, he will live in peace someday if we do not give up in Iraq. We are not over there to deny him peace, but to bring him peace.
He did not live in peace before because of Saddam, and if he does not have peace now it is because the terrorists and insurgents do not want him to have peace. America, George W. Bush, et. al., are not trying to deny him peace.
You do not see this. I don't know what to suggest you do to change that. I don't know what you read or look at in print or on the Internet or who you talk to, but you have a very one-sided view of things.
This lofty concept of peace you have, with the concept that war doesn't solve anything, overlooks the hatred that some people seem to have. Such as the Islamic radicals. They hate us, and not because we are in Iraq. Just letting them kill us will not bring you peace, either. And you overlook that Saddam very likely would have been back making WMD again, and would very likely have given or sold it to terrorists, and then perhaps millions of people could have died all at once someday.
America prevented the possiblity of that. Your lofty peace concepts would not have stopped that from happening.
It is depressing to read stuff like what you have written, where you place blame on the wrong people and do not see that there is sometimes evil in the world that needs to be dealt with.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 8:53pm
SJCHER....what religion is your average Iraqi and what do you think, in general, of that religion?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 8:57pm
This is sadly Bush's way of remaining in Iraq, permanently. It is a sad day when nothing that the U.N., NATO and whatever peace keeping groups that the United States are supposed to be involved with no longer matter to a mad man. The idea of going to war just for something to do is absurd and very dangerous, I would even say deadly. What would Bush have people that are not multi-millionares do? Get involved in something knowing that they could potentially be killed or worse yet receive some horrible injury that prevents them from living a productive life? Enough is enough. The "war on terror" in Afghanistan and Iraq have devolved into nothing more than what was going on in Vietnam. Its time for everybody to open their eyes and realize this fact before it is too late.
Posted by jloughry1976 at 10/28/2008 @ 9:00pm
The right's positioning of the average American is so off target. Interesting that the real-life average American, the person found to be the nation's most statistically average man or woman after a long bipartisan search, has come out for Obama. Indeed, the news has been confirmed on the search's website, TheAverageAmerican.com.
Posted by worldly at 10/28/2008 @ 9:48pm
Oh, how the Constitution was raped a long time ago... it gave birth to a monster called the Military Industrial Complex, which controls all foreign policy for maximizing profit through war!
It seems like conspiracies are coming true... maybe the crazies were not that crazy after all.
Posted by malmassa at 10/28/2008 @ 10:57pm
Of course he can. the CIC can and should take all steps necessary ...
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 3:13pm
So imagine if a President Obama should deem it in the national interest to order a cross border action against, say Israel, you won't have a problem with that, correct?
You're knickers won't end up in a bunch?
Posted by skeletonman at 10/28/2008 @ 11:06pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 8:21pm
I think that this is what he is getting around to, though I doubt that he wants to hand that kind of power to anyone other than a wingnut stooge.
Posted by skeletonman at 10/28/2008 @ 11:09pm
<i>There is nothing in our constitution about having a military to function as first responders.
Only liberals have come up with this inane role for our military of being peacekeepers or police. It is a disgrace to the entire concept of military service.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 8:16pm</i>
A disgrace? That wording troubles me a bit, because it seems like you're suggesting that roles outside of killing are disgraceful. How can that be, and how in the world can that be consistent with the Gospel? I'm not saying that war isn't sometimes a necessary evil, but how in the world can peacekeeping be a disgrace for anyone?
One note on your constitutional argument. I think you bring up a very interesting point; the Constitution DOES appear to have a slight different approach toward the military than many people would like to believe. Here's the wording about Congress' power with regard to the military. Look at the verbs they use:
<<To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy>>
Look at the contrast. They talk about maintaining a navy...but raising up and supporting armies, and with no appropriation for longer than two years. History suggests that the framers weren't too thrilled about the notion of a standing army. I'm not saying they were wholly right, but I do think we should ask how much we're OK with complete power projection around the world, including military bases in over 50 different countries. I can't be sure what answer we'll come with, but I really think we should at least be asking whether we want that kind of global military presence.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 11:15pm
This lofty concept of peace you have, with the concept that war doesn't solve anything ...
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 8:53pm
Yep, wouldn't want to have people living in harmony, now would we?
I guess that the "War to End All Wars" (that would be WWI) worked out great.
Posted by skeletonman at 10/28/2008 @ 11:17pm
WTF are Americans doing in Syria? "Protecting their troops" in Iraq. And WTF are they doing in Iraq, and on what authority? They got there on the basis of lies peddled to them by Bush & cronies, in a mistaken attempt to plunder the oil resource.
The whole world is saying OUT! OUT! OUT! Just go home and solve the rather severe problems you have there. No more incursions. No more violations of the treaties that keep a fragile peace on the planet. No more killing people to protect troops that should not be there in the first place. Yankee Go Home. And tidy your house, before the torrent of garbage overwhelms us all.
Posted by mikecope at 10/29/2008 @ 01:23am
Posted by skeletonman at 10/28/2008 @ 11:09pm
No, according to LVLIB, he'll have "no problem" giving the same wide-spread authority to ANY President, even an Obama....
of course...
he's been known to lie and be hypocritical before!
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 03:20am
Somalia had been in chaos for many years, but in 2006 an umbrella movement called the Islamic Courts Union seemed close to uniting the country. The movement included both moderates and extremists, but it constituted the best hope for putting Somalia together again. Somalis were ecstatic at the prospect of having a functional government again.
Bush administration officials, however, were aghast at the rise of an Islamist movement that they feared would be uncooperative in the war on terror. So they gave Ethiopia, a longtime rival in the region, the green light to invade, and Somalia's best hope for peace collapsed.
"A movement that looked as if it might end this long national nightmare was derailed, in part because of American and Ethiopian actions," said Ken Menkhaus, a Somalia expert at Davidson College. As a result, Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism have surged, partly because Somalis blame Washington for the brutality of the Ethiopian occupiers.
NY Times Endorsement from Hell article - the militancy of the Bush Whitehouse has led to humanitarian and strategic disasters across the globe, may Obama truly lead to end militarism and warmongering as a foreign policy practice for our moronically naive "strategy" of attacking "terrorists" with "terror" and thereby ensuring more "terror" towards us !
Posted by nonukes at 10/29/2008 @ 03:50am
WOW !
Where did they get that picture of BUSH ?
I would like to see it blown up 50 times it's size on a billboard.............
Posted by timenotonmyside at 10/29/2008 @ 03:53am
It is interesting that Bush is ending his tenure as he began it-with war and warlike overtures. He isn't a defender of America, he is a pro-war, divisive force that should have never been elected to the Whitehouse! He has caused more harm to the World and America than any President in History! If he not attacked Iraq, would Iran have felt the need for Nuclear Weapons for their own National Security? Would Osama Bin Laden still been a force in the World if Bush had truly desired to protect the U.S. from all enemies foreign and domestic? President Bush is a walking example of the effect that the Oil Lobbies and the Pentagon's Agenda have had on the U.S. and the World and their influence needs to be sharply curtailed!
Posted by RITEON at 10/29/2008 @ 03:59am
I read everything, even the badly written stuff in the right wing press, as it has been part of my education from an early age to do so. It has also been part of my education through high school, a fine private and conservative institution, and on through a college full of very very smart people of all sorts of persuasions. It has also been part of my education to consider other positions other than my own, to seek out information and evaluate it even if it may contradict what I previously understood. And to be open to change.
I guess what you write makes me depressed too, as do many of things I read, both in the right and left wing press.
I think you didn't read what I wrote though, SCHJ, as the Iraqi friend is not muslim, like many of his aquaintance/family. They do not hate any group in particular (of course there may be some personal grudge, but certainly not a general hate of Americans, or christians etc. not then).
Lofty ideas apart, it would be just great not to think anyone is better than anyone else as it simply isn't true. This doesn't mean we are all the same, but we are equal. And speaking of lofty ideas what is the alternative? Believing in doom and gloom? Devaluing human beings and their experience? Feeling powerful and righteous by having more? Feeling better than others in order to dismiss their claims on respect and fair treatment? Perhaps one could see these as lofty to0.
It all smacks of insecurity, ignorance, fear and immaturity. The good thing though is all these four things can be remedied with education and time. So there is hope for you.
By the way I recommended a great book to one of your fellows, called "getting to yes", and I reiterate its important central message - no point being right if you are on your own! Read it, it may help.
Posted by marilynm at 10/29/2008 @ 08:22am
And the idea that it is disgraceful for soldiers to perform peace keeping missions is the absurdst thing I ever heard. For centuries armies have been doing this.
Another thing, there is such thing as evolution and natural progression, so just because something was one thing before it doesn't exclude the possibility that it could become something else. Although I guess perhaps for those "believers" this might be hard to take on board.
I always find it funny, this whole lefty righty thing. Especially in a land where people are more often than not libertarian in one respect or other, mostly fiscally conservative (without knowing what they really mean apart from not liking to pay taxes), and socially liberal.
I do remember the first time I was dinning with a faculty member of my college and they started to deride "lefties". I wondered what kind of social graces this person had, as most "lefties" I know would check first before insulting either their host or guests...??? Otherwise why invite them to do dinner? Or is this another right wing sport?
Posted by marilynm at 10/29/2008 @ 08:29am
The final section of the book "How the United States Fell" will begin with a chapter about abolishing International Law.
http://www.ryanhartman.wordpress.com
Posted by RyanHartman at 10/29/2008 @ 09:00am
marilynm,
I did read what you said. I DID NOT say your Iraqi friend was muslim.
I said that there is hate in the world, such as that fomented by Islamic radicals now.
I did not tie that to your Iraqi friend.
What I did say is that your Iraqi friend (whatever his religious beliefs are or whether he has religious beliefs or not) now has a chance at peace that he did not have before.
America under George W. Bush has made that possible.
America under George W. Bush saved him from Saddam. And America under George W. Bush is fighting now to save him from the radicals that want to deny him his freedom and peace.
You said above: "Lofty ideas apart, it would be just great not to think anyone is better than anyone else as it simply isn't true. This doesn't mean we are all the same, but we are equal. And speaking of lofty ideas what is the alternative? Believing in doom and gloom? Devaluing human beings and their experience? Feeling powerful and righteous by having more? Feeling better than others in order to dismiss their claims on respect and fair treatment? Perhaps one could see these as lofty to0.
It all smacks of insecurity, ignorance, fear and immaturity. The good thing though is all these four things can be remedied with education and time. So there is hope for you. "
You are just pulling things out of thin air, relating this to America or our efforts in Iraq.
America hasn't devalued anybody, we stopped Saddam who did devalue people and we are fighting terrorists who seek to devalue people now.
Americans don't "feel better than others". We are in Iraq because evil existed and there is evil that still exists, and America has the good fortune to have the wherewithal to stop it.
I will have to continue in a 2nd post
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:02am
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:02am
SJCHER....again...what is your view of the religion of Islam, in general?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 10:07am
It is not because we feel better than others - quite the opposite. We know that other people have the right to have what we have the good fortune to have, a free country with opportunity.
We are trying to make that possible for the Iraqi people, because we feel they are equal to us, and deserve it also.
We are in Iraq not because we feel superior, but because we have the good fortune to have the capability to help others have what we have.
Now, as far as people like Saddam or like the terrorists, if you are engaging in moral equivalence and think they have legitimate beefs against us, you are way off base. If you can not see that they wish to impose their limited view of the world that calls for death to anybody who is not like them, and then if you become like them you have no real freedom or opportunity, then you have a big time problem.
But, of course, you are not alone, because from what I see on this website, many others share the same belief system.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:07am
Maskdelta,
I have said over and over again that within the religion of Islam there is a disproportionate number of its adherents who advocate death to anybody who is not like them, and that in modern times they have gotten serious about implementing that agenda. And there is a disproportionate number of adherents of that religion who supposedly do not believe this stuff, but who are silent about it.
You know full well that my statement does not mean that all Islamics believe this or that all Islamics are bad. All Islamics do not believe this and all Islamics are not bad.
Next up - you will ask for the percentage again. I do not have the percentage, and I am not going to guess at it. There is no purpose in doing so.
You keep up with the same themes, like a giant recycling machine of BS.
We are trying to provide a better life for Iraqis. Many Iraqis are Islamic. There is no reason why Islamic people can not have freedom and opportunity.
We are at war against Islamic radicals, who are causing a big time problem in the world, and causing problems for many other besides America, involving reasons not related to George W. Bush, Iraq, September 11, Israel, or America.
But we are not at war against Islam. We are at war against Islamic radicals. I don't have your stupid percentage.
Just what about this don't you understand?
What do you do all day, just run around in circles making yourself dizzy? I know most on the left are big on recycling and I guess instead of cans or bottles you recycle your talking points and use them over and over again.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:16am
This is just an example of the post-International Law era rather than a sign of its end, and it's clear that the United States had the biggest hand in destroying that mechanism. I would say that Nicaragua v United States is a more appropriate date for the epitaph.
Pakistan should shoot down all U.S. aircraft that cross its borders, period. Syria should do the same. These attacks are violations of sovereignty under International Law, even according to the U.N. charter, which is quite clear about these things. If the administration wants to pursue targets inside another country, it should first go through the proper legal channels, ie the United Nations, which was formed, if you recall, to handle precisely these kinds of disputes. Of course, the United States has always acted in a way that scorns the UN as a limit to hegemony, so I don't see that happening at all (notice how it isn't even discussed. Anywhere.)
Posted by Scroot at 10/29/2008 @ 11:48am
Barack Obama's assertion this week that he will be the commander-in-chief that will hunt down Osama bin Laden and defeat the Taliban shows that he has learned little about the US's illegal military adventures. He's turning out to be a joke in truly understanding the nation's current crisis and it's not very funny.
This, at the same time, that Gates is telling the American people that Congress has to do something about the military's nuclear arsenal. Already, the rightwing is setting him up to underfund or continue to defund vital domestic social and infrastructural programs. Obama is taking the bait so far. For those of you looking for universal health benefits, for jobs outside the military industrial complex, or common sense leadership from Washington, bend over and kiss you know what good-bye.
Posted by afrothetics at 10/29/2008 @ 11:52am
Scroot,
You have presented a line of thinking, but I did notice that the hijackers did not go through legal channels and ask the United Nations for permission to attack us on September 11, 2001. (Although I suspect had they done so at least some in the United Nations would have said to go ahead).
And I think that whoever got their hands on and wanted to use the WMD against us that would have been manufactured by Saddam in the future, that they would not have sought U.N. permission first. The same goes if Israel would have been their target. They would have just done it.
Did you consider this?
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 11:59am
Posted by Scroot at 10/29/2008 @ 11:48am | ignore this person | warn this person
What would they call it if Syria chased our special ops into Israel?
Posted by OneVote at 10/29/2008 @ 12:08pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 11:59am I did notice that the hijackers did not go through legal channels and ask the United Nations for permission to attack us on September 11, 2001. Did you consider this?
No, because that's absurd. Let's adopt your line of thinking for a moment. Al-Qaeda is a rogue entity, and should be considered 'illegal,' agreed? Then why would an 'illegal' entity go through 'legal' channels and get permission for anything?
The United States, furthermore, is in no position to criticise the Nuclear policy of any country considering its open disdain and non-compliance with the NPT.
Why is it that rightists beat their chests about nuclear weapons so easily? Name some countries that have the ability to launch a nuclear attack on the United States.
Certainly Israel would be in danger if any neighboring state acquired nuclear weapons (but we aren't Israel and we would not be threatened.) But remember that Israel is a creation of the very entity you discount (the U.N.), an entity that has a stake in what happens to that particular country.
Posted by Scroot at 10/29/2008 @ 12:14pm
I have said over and over again that within the religion of Islam there is a disproportionate number of its adherents who advocate death to anybody who is not like them, and that in modern times they have gotten serious about implementing that agenda. And there is a disproportionate number of adherents of that religion who supposedly do not believe this stuff, but who are silent about it.----Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:16am
And yet a 95% Islamic country like Iraq will become a "stable, peaceful, open society democracy friendly to the US".....right?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 12:19pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/29/2008 @ 10:12am
Again, you seem to be weaving around my question. I'm not talking about "incursions" yet, I'm asking....
"Does George Bush have the authority to INVADE (1000s of troops) RIGHT NOW...to invade Iran or Syria?"
SJCHER says yes. As a Constitutional scholar, do YOU think he has such authority and when was it given or does it NEED to be given by the Congress?11
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 12:22pm
What would they call it if Syria chased our special ops into Israel? Posted by OneVote at 10/29/2008 @ 12:08pm ----------------
I don't understand what you're asking me.
Posted by Scroot at 10/29/2008 @ 12:30pm
Scroot,
Then what good is your "Internatial Law", then?
Answer: It is worthless, because if the illegal entities do not have to ask permission to attack somebody, but the "legal" entities have to get permission to defend themselves against the illegal entities, then obviously the illegal entities have an advantage.
Do the Palestinian homicide bombers have to ask U.N. permission to kill Israelis? No. They just do it. Is Israel supposed to ask permission to defend itself against these homicide bombers? The answer apparently is Yes, from everything I have seen over the years.
Except, in Israel's case, there is no point in even asking the question, because from what I have seen were Israel to seek permission, the permission would be always denied and Israel would be instructed to give up yet something else to appease their enemies - because then there will supposedly be peace.
Except, when Israel does do that, the result is more attacks by homicide bombers who do not need U.N. permission, with Israel being implicitly denied permisssion to fight back, as they get condemned and raked over the coal if they do that.
And it goes on and on, in a continual loop-de-loop with the ultimate goal of some entities being no more Israel to attack, because there is no more Israel.
See how worthless your International Law has become, and how pointless it is to adhere to International Law?
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 12:43pm
APOLOGY to BOTH the LEFT and the RIGHT,
I have noticed in my postings that I have made some careless typing/spelling errors, randomly.
I apologize, it is sloppy of me to do that. I should check my posts more carefully before I submit.
My sloppy typing does not reflect on whether my opinions are correct or not, it just reflects on my sloppy typing.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 12:46pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 12:43pm
It seems your gripe might be less with International Law than with juridico-political concepts in general. We can take your argument and apply it at home: if some guy kills another out of revenge, does he go through legal channels to get permission? No, but that doesn't stop him. So we should just have no law, because it happens anyway.
In our case there's a bigger problem, because the United States -- even though one of the chief architects of International Law since the 1940s -- is a convicted offender under the very rules it helped draft.
Perhaps if the United States adhered to International Law, and became a force for peace in the world instead of a neoliberal imperialist entity, there wouldn't be any threat of 'terrorist' attacks in the first place.
The idea of a war on 'terrorism' is a proxy for US aggression worldwide (much like a "war on drugs".) Notice how useful that proxy has been for engaging in oil-rich regions of the world rather than, say, Indonesia (the largest Muslim country on the planet.) These aren't coincidences.
But, of course, I would expect a proponent of the 'uselessness of International Law' to likewise advocate perpetual states of war, considering the former was created with the explicit purpose of limiting the latter.
I also notice how in these types of conversations the most violent people will insert something about Israel in order the turn the topic in that direction, even when it is not necessarily the point at hand (that goes for neoconservatives and extreme islamic terrorists together -- you both found something in common!)
Posted by Scroot at 10/29/2008 @ 12:59pm
See how worthless your International Law has become, and how pointless it is to adhere to International Law?-----Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 12:43pm
This is strange...SJ USED to like "international law" when it served his purposes?!?!!??!
"Saddam was required by U.N. resolution to come clean on his weapons programs. He never did this, he had no intention of doing this."----Posted by sjchermak at 03/27/2008 @ 3:27pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 1:14pm
Scroot,
1. There is no entity in Indonesia that threatened us like Saddam did in Iraq or that the Taliban/al-Qaeda did operating out of Afghanistan.
2. We fight back (or we do now while George W. Bush is President) against entities that threaten us. We don't attack Muslim countries because they are Muslim. What is the point of naming Indonesia, in your discourse? We haven't attacked India, either. We haven't attacked Brazil, nor have we attacked Austrialia. There are a lot of places we haven't attacked.
3. The U.S. is a force for peace in the world. In it's existence, the U.S. has done more than any other nation in human history to alleviate problems of others in the world, with humanitarian aid, military help, and through the example of freedom and democracy and free markets. The U.S. is not some kind of "neoliberal imperialist entity".
4. I bring up Israel for a good reason. Unique in the world, Israel and the United States share a common bond - the demand is placed upon them to adhere to "International Law", no matter what the threats are upon them. It seems like any other country does what they want, and the do what they want without being cited for violations of International Law. And forget entities, a lot of countries also do some nasty stuff sometimes, including support for illegal "entities" and even actions on their own. North Korea supplies weapons to rouge states and terrorists, is this not some kind of violation of International Law?
5. Basically, International Law can be sumamrized as: Anything Israel or America under George W. Bush does is wrong.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 1:21pm
This is strange...SJ USED to like "international law" when it served his purposes?!?!!??! Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 1:14pm --------------------
This is precisely one of the problems - International Law can be 'used' as an ad hoc justification for some action, a reinforcement of action, as long as that action complies with the goals of US hegemony. When it suddenly does not, when it's apparent that the United States will not get its way, it disregards that legal system entirely.
Also be aware that the neoliberal schema will discount International Law whilst favoring a 'multinationalism' only if it comes in the form of a military alliance (NATO) -- again, something inherently violent and imperialistic.
Should we laugh or cry at the fact that the nation most obsessed and invested in its own mythology -- that 'independence' was won from a 'tyrannical' imperialist overseer -- has no problem justifying military bases in almost a hundred foreign countries around the world?
Posted by Scroot at 10/29/2008 @ 1:22pm
Maskdelta,
Actually, that reinforces my point - because the U.N. was never going to enforce it's resolutions - never going to take action against Saddam for not complying.
So- another example of the uselessness of International Law.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 1:24pm
Maskdelta,
Since you brought up the U.N. ---
I have a good idea - disband the U.N.
The U.N. is a force for peace in the world? How so, when "blue helmeted" U.N. peacekeepers in Africa were found to be raping women.
How so, when during the president of Iran's recent speech at the U.N., when he was spewing venom about Israel, that many in the audience applauded his comments.
I think, when that happened, that Mayor Michael Bloomberg should have kicked the U.N. out of New York City.
If I had been mayor when that happened, I would have found some way to condemn the U.N. property. I would have found a way to determine that it was in violation of city fire codes or something and I would have condemned the property and told U.N officials to get out of the city ASAP.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 1:29pm
In other words, please relax.
Posted by directthegovt at 10/28/2008 @ 12:01pm
i keep telling them that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/29/2008 @ 1:36pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 1:21pm
If you are suggesting that the US is not a neoliberal entity, I suggest you look at the reality, not only in action, but of what rightist politicians explicity state in regards to foreign policy. This is not some secret that is getting exposed. Indeed, it is the fundamental driving force of your ilk that "freedom" and "democracy" and "free markets" be spread throughout the world. Of course, this comes at a high cost and often involves the intervention of the US military or CIA (think: South America).
If being an "example" has some innate efficacy, as you seem to suggest, then our example is this: put your military bases all over the world, strike when you think appropriate.
Please, please, please be realistic. It's been reported in the news plenty of times that there are terrorist organizations not only based out of, but convening in Indonesia. So yes, it's entirely relevant, unlike your argument about Saddam, who had no means by which to attack the United States (and therefore was not the 'threat' you claim.)
The United States has indeed contributed more humanitarian aid - in the form of money - than any other nation. Of course, most of that comes privately instead of from the government. Meanwhile, the United States spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined, while failing to pay dues to the UN and failing to contribute its share of peacekeeping forces.
Remember, Saddam's Iraq was a CONVICTED aggressor according to the International Court of Justice. BUT so is the United States. If the general undercurrent is that the US should "stoop to the level of..." then the present realities appear right in line with your wishes.
Posted by Scroot at 10/29/2008 @ 1:38pm
According to authorities, the guns came from Houston, Texas in what they call a cross-border gun pipeline. Last year border officials seized 180 guns, but it's estimated that over $1 billion of contraband, including guns and drugs, are smuggled across the border through these reservations every year. The result has been an increase in violent crime, particularly gang warfare, in major cities like Toronto and Montreal.
Guns and drugs aren't the only American imports to Canada. The gang that was raided, the Jamestown Crew, is affiliated with the well-known American Crips street gang. And like their American counterparts, members participate in hip-hop street DVDs glorifying gang violence.
HMMMMM?
"honey, warm up the helicopter. we're going south tonight!"
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/29/2008 @ 1:39pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 1:21pm --------- Furthermore, if the US is an "example" for the rest of the world to follow, then its example is the blatant disregard of International Law that produces the very scenarios you are arguing against me with.
Posted by Scroot at 10/29/2008 @ 1:51pm
What would they call it if Syria chased our special ops into Israel? Posted by OneVote at 10/29/2008 @ 12:08pm ----------------
I don't understand what you're asking me.
Posted by Scroot at 10/29/2008 @ 12:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Just a softball lobbed your way. Likely - " a gross violation of international law ".............
Posted by OneVote at 10/29/2008 @ 2:02pm
My sloppy opinions do not reflect on whether my typing is correct or not, it just reflects on my sloppy thinking.
Posted by Malcontent at 10/29/2008 @ 2:03pm
International Law as taught and practiced here at home........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugQ3_onV9QE
Posted by OneVote at 10/29/2008 @ 2:07pm
Scroot,
You requested above "Please, please, please be realistic"
That has been overcome by events. I watched replays of realism last week.
I went to a website that had archived footage from different networks from a day a little over 7 years ago.
Watching the replay of ABC news coverage, as the camera was showing the picture of a fire in the upper floors of 1 World Trade Center, into the picture came another aircraft and it flew into the second tower, with the ensuing fireball as the aircraft plowed in, and the anchorpeople expressing shock at what they saw happen live.
About less than an hour later, as the camera was panning on fires in both towers, all of a sudden there was a tremendous amount of clouds of smoke which spread throught the entire of lower Manhattan as 2 World Trade Center came down on itself, the weight of the upper floors too much for the weakened part of the burning structure to hold, and then there was plenty of smoke and dust and one burning tower.
I was quite realistic as I watched this. I know what it meant, what brought it about, and what was needed to be done (and was done) to stop at least one element from doing this to us in the same way or some other way in the future.
So, plenty of realism there, to be sure. Quite different from the theories you post.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 2:32pm
"I was quite realistic as I watched this. I know what it meant, what brought it about, and what was needed to be done"
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 2:32pm
And so did this administration. Divert attention and invade the country you had already planned on raiding.
Too bad it backfired and made us less secure.
So glad you "knew" the unknowable, as it was happening. Too bad you couldn't have used your omniscience to stop it.
Posted by Malcontent at 10/29/2008 @ 3:20pm
Question, SJ;
If you knew what "brought it about", why did you continue to support the policies that created the problem?
And why only the fear of "radical islam"? I too, share that fear. Those guys are as crazy as radical christians, radical zionists, radical hindu, etc. What will we do about them? And doesn't radical christianity hold more danger to us as Americans?
Posted by Malcontent at 10/29/2008 @ 3:25pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 1:24pm
So, SJCHER, the "Saddam broke 17 U.N resolutions" thing (that Dubya...as well as some of your mentors on AM radio) that keeps being brought up as one of the "reasons we had to invade Iraq"....
you just threw out the window????
Doesn't count anymore???
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 3:33pm
So- another example of the uselessness of International Law.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 1:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
A "new sheriff" in town eh Mak?
Posted by OneVote at 10/29/2008 @ 4:10pm
With Malcontent, we are entering bizzaro world now:
Malcontent says we are less secure. Since there has been no attack on the U.S. like September 11, since September 11, how are we less secure.
Since it is very likely that Saddam would have been back to making WMD again and then someday some terror group would have gotten possession of it by having Saddam sell it to them or give it to them, and then the terror group would have most likely used the WMD to wipe out an entire city, BUT SINCE THIS WON'T HAPPEN BECAUSE SADDAM IS NO MORE, how are we less secure?
Malcontent seems to think radical christianity holds a danger to us. Just how so? Just whose rear end are you pulling that concept from? Please provide the explanation for that whopper. I am sure it will be a classic.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 4:26pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 8:16pm
As much as I disagree with you on most things, you are correct in pointing out that the U.S. military is not a peacekeeping force. Example? See the article in, "Lessons in Command and Control from the Los Angeles Riots":
"Police officers responded to a domestic dispute, accompanied by marines. They had just gone up to the door when two shotgun birdshot rounds were fired through the door, hitting the officers. One yelled `cover me!' to the marines, who then laid down a heavy base of fire. . . . The police officer had not meant `shoot' when he yelled `cover me' to the marines. [He] meant . . . point your weapons and be prepared to respond if necessary. However, the marines responded instantly in the precise way they had been trained, where `cover me' means provide me with cover using firepower. . . . over two hundred bullets [were] fired into that house."[1]
There is a reason Marines are trained differently from police officers, and they are not fungible. If you want peacekeepers, then you'll have to train a peacekeeping force. That's not the Marines or any other traditional branch of the armed forces.
Another point, special forces are by definition special. You can't just grow your commando forces because people capable of being commandos are always going to be a small portion of your overall fighting force. No cow gives only cream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
Posted by srjenkins at 10/29/2008 @ 4:42pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 8:16pm
That said. Are you nuts?!?! I can think of no better way of making United States citizens, military and the government less safe than to disregard sovereignty.
Isn't sovereignty your concern about the United Nations? Don't you think other nations will have similar problems joining international organizations or negotiating treaties if they know that one nation - ours - has an explicit policy of attacking anywhere in the world it deems fit?
That pretty much defines "rogue nation", and it sounds like an excellent way to ask the rest of the world to give you an ass whoopin'.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/29/2008 @ 4:46pm
Sorry, wrong link. The L.A. Riots article is here:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/97summer/schnau.htm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/29/2008 @ 4:48pm
It is not because we feel better than others...many others share the same belief system. Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:07am
Not sure where you see this, the "us" helping "them" bit, please let me know. So far 100,000 Iraqis are dead, their cities and countryside alike are decimated, their historical patrimony destroyed and looted, no infrastructure to provide basics like electricity telephone internet etc. and a bunch of corrupt deals with US owned/based organisations (Halliburton etc) to put the country back on the feet, without much success. Yet another excuse to rip of the poor old American tax payer.
For the record I have never talked once in a post here (or anywhere else for that matter) about my beliefs. I strongly avoid the term, it is part of a rhetoric I feel inherently dangerous, as beliefs are not really up for discussion. Probably why you all bandy them about so much, so no-one can legitimately contradict you.
I really would like to know what it all means then? What do you think it will bring us (the whole world) to transgress the sovereignty of another country and kill their citizens? What will it bring to follow a crusade against countries where people simply practice another religion? Why is the hate in the USA, from the extreme Christian factions more legitimate, meaningful and justified than that elsewhere? If not all Christians in the USA don't hate Muslims what makes you think all Muslims hate all Christians and the USA?
Posted by marilynm at 10/29/2008 @ 4:51pm
It is not because we feel better than others...many others share the same belief system. Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:07am
Plus who is saying that anyone's murderous impulse is legitimate? Neither Al Qaeda and terrorists of any ilk, Saddam H, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Assad of Syria, crowds at Palin rallies nor anyone else who insights the killing of anyone has a leg to stand on.
There IS a difference, however, been the terrorists of 9/11 NYC, March 11 Madrid, July 7th London (and the daily, weekly, monthly bombings and attacks in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen et al), the man who murdered Theo van Gogh etc and a dictatorship in a single country. Saddam H did not threaten the USA with invasion, he had already been kicked out of Kuwait, his conflict with Iran was not of the slightest interest to the USA with respect to interference. So although SH was most assuredly a very repugnant figure he still wasn't a threat to the sovereignty of the USA. So why of all people was he a US target? Why not Robert Mugabe? Why not Purves Musharraf? Why not Vladimir Putin? Hugo Chaves? The Chinese? or any other head of a repressive govt. with animosities toward the USA? Could it just be they were interested in something else, those greedy GOP govt officials?
Don't tell me you still believe in the WOMD, I suppose that explains everything.
Posted by marilynm at 10/29/2008 @ 5:09pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/29/2008 @ 5:07pm
The point was about sovereignty and the impact not recognizing it has on international organizations and treaties - such as Geneva or perhaps Law of the Sea.
I also heard a few weeks ago that you, on some level, recognize Laws of Nations. You can't do that without sovereignty, and not just for the U.S. but for everyone.
I know you feel strongly about the United Nations, but let's not lose the plot shall we?
Posted by srjenkins at 10/29/2008 @ 5:34pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/29/2008 @ 5:02pm |
Okay, so Bush could invade Iran or Syria...with 1000s of troops...and wait 60 days to go back to Congress to say "Okay, you bunch of surrender monkeys, just you TRY to cut funding to our brave men and women in uniform and let them die on the field of battle!"?
And the Constitutional power for Congress to declare war...has been eliminated by the WPA?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 8:00pm
marilynm,
You will remember that it is a known fact that Saddam had WMD, Saddam would not come clean as to the status of his WMD, and that we do not know to this day what happened to the WMD he was absolutely known to have.
WMD can kill a lot of people quickly and without warning. All we know is that we did not find hardly any WMD when we went into Iraq. We don't know where it went, when it was disposed of or moved, etc.
This possible existence of the WMD, coupled with the fact that Saddam was growing as a promoter of instability in the Middle East, made him absolutely a threat to us. A threat that needed to be dealt with.
Given what we know now, it is clear that if we had not gone into Iraq, Hans Blix, wandering around Iraq looking for WMD and not finding any, would have someday declared Iraq free of WMD. World pressure would have been to drop the matter at that point. The sanctions would have been lifted, and nobody would have paid attention to Saddam anymore.
Saddam, meanwhile, fully intended to go back to the production of WMD again, his own people have said so.
Saddam probably would not have had the nerve to use it against us or others himself. But certainly terrorists would have gotten hold of the WMD, probably after having been given it by Saddam or after they bought it from Saddam. Then, at some point a catastrophe would have occurred as an entire city may have been wiped out by surprise, with WMD terrorists got from Saddam.
You display your true feelings with the remark about "crowds at Palin rallies". As I remember it from last week or the week before, the Secret Service determined there was no basis for the story that somebody said "Kill him" (about Obama) at a Palin rally. Another myth promoted by the left that was just a myth.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 9:04pm
Given what we know now, it is clear that if we had not gone into Iraq, Hans Blix, wandering around Iraq looking for WMD and not finding any, would have someday declared Iraq free of WMD.---Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 9:04pm
Why would Hans Blix have not found any WMDs and declared Iraq free of WMDs?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 9:52pm
God almighty Maskdelta,
By the time Hans Blix was wandering around Iraq, the WMD that was known to have existed was apparently not there anymore! We don't know what happened to it and probably never will.
We got no accounting from Saddam what happened to it, so we don't know to this day if it still exists someplace.
Regardless, that would have been the justification for letting Saddam off of the hook. And then getting started manufacturing the WMD again. Which would have been used by terrorists to kill people, probably lots of people.
Therefore, it is fortunate we did not let it go to the point where Mr. Blix would have let Saddam off of the hook.
Since Saddam intended to remanufacture WMD once off of the hook, discussions about the lack of WMD when we went into Iraq is totally moot. Because Saddam would have been back in business all over again if given the chance.
It is my personal opinion that at some point Saddam realized this, that he would have to go into abeyance for a while in order to have the chance someday to start up again, that unless he did this world attention would be focused on him.
So the lack of WMD when we did go into Iraq was likely intentional, but what Saddam didn't count on as he was jerking the world around is that George W. Bush and Tony Blair did not buy into his scam.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:12pm
1. Robert Dreyfuss asks "Is Iran Next?" Comment: I hope so.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 1:27pm
bonk!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/29/2008 @ 11:12pm
1. Robert Dreyfuss asks "Is Iran Next?" Comment: I hope so.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/28/2008 @ 1:27pm
bonk!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/29/2008 @ 11:15pm
bonk!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/30/2008 @ 01:06am
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:12pm
So, there were no WMDs in Iraq and that naive fool Hans Blix would have actually SAID there were no WMDs in Iraq...
and then Saddam, still under U.N. sanctions (which YOU say we should get rid of anyway, since international law is worthless...no point in keeping them, huh?) would have "re-constituted" his weapons program (which Cheney said he ALREADY had done)...and then built new WMDs and George W. Bush would have been helpless to stop him, because of the UN and Hans Blix...
so of course we HAD to invade and stop him before he started doing what he wasn't doing back before we invaded and some pansy-ass UN guy told us he wasn't doing what we thought he was doing and what Bush and Cheney told us he was doing, which he wasn't, but he would have if they said he wasn't....
gotcha!
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/30/2008 @ 09:25am
I actually appreciate the sovereignty issue with regard to individual states and systems of International Law, because it is actually a problem insofar as people are willing to make it one. Of course, very strict individual statist ideas of sovereignty are premodern, which is not bad on its own.
But the two WWs fundamendally changed that view for numerous reasons -- most important for our purposes is the fact that a lack of International Law and organization gave birth to the first War (and thus the second) through it's individual-based convoluted system of treaties and alliances. Remember, Internation Law and later the UN were both established with the explicit job of preventing wars like that from happening again. They also paint a fairly clear picture of Human Rights, which I think most would agree is an inherently 'good' development for the most part.
And SRJ: If you want to see what radical Christianity is capable of, look no further than the Bush Doctrine -- hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead compared to the 3,000 that died on Sept 11th, which you consistently exaggerate and dramatize in an attempt to form some apologetic for pretty blatant jingoism.
Posted by Scroot at 10/30/2008 @ 09:53am
Yahooo! Finally. Go get em George!!!!!
Posted by abell12ct at 10/30/2008 @ 11:05am
"When Iran appeared to be winning in 1982, Reagan and his advisers made a fateful decision to secretly supply Saddam's military, including permitting shipments of dual-use technology that Iraq then used to build chemical and biological weapons. Tactical military assistance also was provided, including satellite photos of the battlefield.
While congressional inquiries and press accounts have sketched out some of these facts over the years, the current Bush administration continues to plead ignorance or question the reliability of the stories.
Last September, for example, Newsweek reported that the Reagan administration in the 1980s had allowed sales to Iraq of computer databases that Saddam could use to track political opponents and shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" that could help produce anthrax and other biological weapons. [Newsweek issue dated Sept. 23, 2002]
Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va,, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the Newsweek story at a Senate hearing on Sept. 19. "Did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?" Byrd inquired. "Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown.".........
Before attacking Kuwait, however, Saddam consulted George H.W. Bush's administration. First, the U.S. State Department informed Saddam that Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." Then, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.".........
Source: Missing US-Iraq History, Robert Parry, In These Times, 12/16/03
Posted by OneVote at 10/30/2008 @ 11:21am
Posted by Scroot at 10/30/2008 @ 09:53am
"...which you consistently exaggerate and dramatize in an attempt to form some apologetic for pretty blatant jingoism."
Please feel free to quote me on where I have ever dramatized 9/11. Perhaps you meant sjchermak.
I don't read anything sjchermak posts here because he subscribes to the "from the gut" school where anyone's "opinion" is the same as anyone else's. That's the position of an idiot that's not terribly interested in truth or in making or responding to good arguments. I don't have time for that.
If you meant sjchermak, kindly say so. If not, provide some evidence for this claim because I call bullshit.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/30/2008 @ 11:46am
Posted by srjenkins at 10/30/2008 @ 11:46am ----- You are correct, I'm wrong. That should have been addressed to sjchermak. The names are similar when one reads through quickly. My--->bad.
Posted by Scroot at 10/30/2008 @ 12:31pm
Since Saddam intended to remanufacture WMD once off of the hook, discussions about the lack of WMD when we went into Iraq is totally moot
Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:12pm
we invade specifically because he 'has weapons of mass destruction'
he didn't.
where is the disconnect? when the police raid a house without a warrant (= to no UN approval. approval was given after the fact, but that hardly changes the concept under discussion since it was in the form of a resolution legitimizing the 'occupation' of iraq, not the invasion.) based on claims of weapons or drugs or whatever, and there turns out not to be any, they are sued, punished under the law, humiliated, etc. tell me why this concept should not apply to actions taken by a sovereign nation that could (and in this case did) get hundreds of thousands killed.
Posted by skawtee at 10/30/2008 @ 12:41pm
By the time Hans Blix was wandering around Iraq, the WMD that was known to have existed was apparently not there anymore! We don't know what happened to it and probably never will.
We got no accounting from Saddam what happened to it, so we don't know to this day if it still exists someplace. Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 10:12pm
not entirely true. documents were received prior to this whole situation detailing the dismantlement of some of these WMDs. this is understood, accepted, and verified even by those in this administration. their reasoning was that these documents and reports were either false or did not apparently cover Everything. also, they asserted that hussein had created additional weapons. which he apparently hadn't. the intelligence used to make this assumption has by the very results been proven inaccurate, but was also considered inaccurate before action was taken by a good many people in the position to know such things. if you want to put all this bickering to rest, just go ahead and admit Iraq was not about WMDs. it is part of a bush administration agenda to increase american presence in the middle east, gain greater control over and access to oil, and bring profits. if the right would just admit to this, we could move on to more productive debates about the morality and ethics of such positions and stop going back over the same old crap that has been proven/disproven over and over and over and over again. unless of course you can't in good conscience defend such policies, then i would expect your only course of action to be what you are doing now. distraction, evasion, or whatever you want to call it.
Posted by skawtee at 10/30/2008 @ 1:00pm
Posted by Scroot at 10/30/2008 @ 12:31pm
Easy mistake to make. Perhaps I should open a new account with a name more unique.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/30/2008 @ 1:10pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/30/2008 @ 1:10pm
How about "Mister Jenks"? A play on the old "Mr. Jinks" cat character from the cartoons?
We'd still know it was you SR.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/30/2008 @ 1:17pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/30/2008 @ 1:17pm
I have no doubt that even if I started posting as LVLiberty1, you'd still know it was me.
As for Mister Jinx, I think I might have to figure out how to work some variant of "I hate those meeces to pieces!" into my posts.
"I hate those neo-cons who think they're genghis-khan."
"I hate those ring-wingers, their smell just lingers."
Hmmm, maybe another name. That's way too much work.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/30/2008 @ 1:38pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/30/2008 @ 1:38pm
Sorry, but only other thing I can think of is "Brown Jenkins", a rat-like familiar of the witch Keziah Mason in the HP Lovecraft story "The Dreams In The Witch House".
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/30/2008 @ 3:29pm
<i>Posted by Maskdelta at 10/30/2008 @ 3:29pm </i>
That is WAY too specific a reference...by which I mean...I would never in a million years get the reference.
But yes...can I preemptively register my support for "hating the meeces"? I'm sure there's a way to apply this to current discussion, and we know this discussion could use some levity.
And speaking of which:
On the constitutional argument, Mask is precisely on point. If the WPA effectively circumvents Congress' exclusive war-making power (which, if Liberty's explanation is correct, it does), it is unequivocally unconstitutional.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/30/2008 @ 6:28pm
Chasing some asshole from Virginia into North Carolina is a lot different than unilaterally disregarding the sovereignty of a foreign country. Recent history has certainly demonstrated that it pisses off a lot of people.
Th Bush people never cease to amaze me with their arrogance. They just push the envelope as far as they think they possible can, and then some.
This mentality is one of the principal reasons the U.S. is so unpopular abroad (except with conservative governments in eastern and western Europe.)
This is Bush's parting shot. It's kind of like giving the world the finger then heading for Texas, where he will no longer be accountable for anything except clearing brush. Jesus! January can't get here fast enough.
Posted by jackwells at 10/30/2008 @ 8:03pm
Posted by Thrawn at 10/30/2008 @ 6:28pm
LVLIB is an authoritarian at heart and only dives into his "strict Constructionalist" love of the Constitution on domestic matters. (Effectively almost everything done since Teddy Roosevelt "quasi-socialism" according to his view of the Connie).
but on war?
Presidents are virtual dictators (and in fairness, he's said on more than one occasion, he'd allow even a "President Obama" that authority).
But you're right, by his standard the War Powers Act effectively negates the power of Congress to declare war since...once a President invaded, there would be little chance of Congressional pull-back without the political attacks of "They're cutting funds to the men in battle!"
And of course LL knows that...but doesn't care.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/30/2008 @ 10:30pm
<i>Posted by Maskdelta at 10/30/2008 @ 10:30pm </i>
One thing I have to confess myself curious about it. Congress' power to declare war is rooted in the notion of a separation of powers. If that's the case, any legislation that delegates that power to the President is unconstitutional. That would presumably include the War Powers Act (if it means what Liberty claims it means), but I wonder whether it might also include Congress' authorization of "whatever the President deems necessary" in Iraq. Since that legislation never mandated military action, it effectively handed to the President the power to decide whether or not to declare war.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/30/2008 @ 10:39pm
The WPA is a complete disaster, I think all of us can agree on that (except the most authoritarian among us.) But it's passage was simply a legal-formalization of what became a well established precedent: that the President, as the CoC, can deploy military forces abroad or at home, whenever he sees fit, specifically by NOT declaring war.
What we have is a two-hundred year old concept that when military troops are deployed somewhere else for battle, for fighting, that a declaration of war is what follows -- it used to be a common formality. So to take control of the military in an authoritative way you simply don't do it. We don't do it anymore.
The Precedent for that was set by some of the more well-regarded executives of the past: Lincoln, Jefferson come to mind immediately. Of course, if you think this kind of action is not only unconstitutional (as I would), you have a problem not so much with the Constitution itself as with the Anglo-American legal system that is its progeny; the legal system that places too-high an importance on precedent in the first place. That's precisely how we got here.
Posted by Scroot at 10/31/2008 @ 09:10am
#
Syria, Shmyria.
The US invades wherever it wishes, just try & stop US.
That goes for you too, Pakistan. And Iran.
<snip>
Obama, you better be a miracle worker, sir, to stop this madness.
For if you try, and you're not extremely fortunate, Special Ops will have you killed too.
Posted by sloper at 10/28/2008 @ 12:42pm | warn this person --------------------------------------------------------------
Making DEATH THREATS against US Senators, particularly Presidential Candidates, is not just foolish, it is the work of a dangerous fool.
People like you are the reason the GOP needs to be buried with a stake through it's lying, deficit-spending, evil, heart.
May you rot in your own filth.
BTW, I have been a Republican since 1964. Because of pinheads like you, we are reaping the rewards of our own hate and intemperance.
Posted by fudoki at 10/31/2008 @ 6:08pm
Posted by fudoki at 10/31/2008 @ 6:08pm
I believe you misread slopers post (or I did).
He is not threatening, he is warning.
He is not racist, he is paranoid. ( I mean, they are out to get him).
Or you didn't and I am wrong. In which case...nevermind.
Posted by Malcontent at 10/31/2008 @ 8:54pm
Between baiting Russia with Patriot Missiles in Poland reminiscent of our "Cuban" Missile Crisis-Strikes into Syria, Refusal to take North Korea off the "terrorist Nation" list, and just plain being a "Pain" in the butt, what amkes you think that this is a new agenda for Bush? He's been totally consistent throughout his Presidency-He believes in a three choice system-The right way, the wrong way and the most disastrous way and by George, number three is the best! I used to think that Cheney was actually running the Country but I later realized that he was busy with Halliburton in Iraq and his Defense Contracts-Then I thought the Pentagon was running the Country-Nope, too logical! Then it occurred to me-Bush was running the Country! I was terror stricken!
Posted by RITEON at 11/03/2008 @ 06:10am