Kay steps down and speaks up
 

Link


Just thought I'd post it for those who didn't catch it in their weekend edition. Is this another blow to Bush's rhetoric or something of little consequence? Much has been made of his reports, I wonder if his parting words will carry as much weight.

Thoughts?


SLM3

Little consequence. Is what this guy says really news at all? It isn't to me. I haven't seen much made of his reports either. I am pretty current affairs aware.

I did see a report which described him as "Replaced by the CIA." Looked like an attempt to spin his departure from one where he resigned to one where he was fired.

~Sigh~

If only politicians had the fucking balls to come forward and say...I was mistaken.

Unless Kerry is the nominee for the Dems...I'm voting Democratic.

God Damn you Bush....You had it going on, and lots of wind in your sails. Then you mistook the primary role of president as one of defending the constitution and the freedoms we cherish to one of national security and a doctrine of pre-emption, cherished freedoms be damned. You have sickened me.

out,

-bear

Reading that Powell says "they may not have had WMDs" kinda makes you wonder - what the hell happened?

Still found programs and materials that put Saddam in breach of 1441.

That would be A LOT of people, on both sides of the isle. (sp?)

Anyway, it won't happen.

Politicians never make mistakes. At least not to you and me.

What cherished freedoms have you lost? Perhaps it would make a good thread.

Military tribunals and enemy combatants? Purely and simply manufactured 'justice' strictly for the purpose of circumventing our existing system of jurisprudence, or other international treaty (see geneva convention). Death or detention (without charges) of suspects. International or Domestic, Citizen or Foriegner...Our way of life and the freedoms and/or rights, gauranteed and enumerated (sp?) in all of the US's founding documentations are meant for ALL MEN, IMHO...EVEN if they are 'enemy combatants'

I don't give a shit what 'danger' this puts the US in...They are fundamental GOD GIVEN (sic), unalienable rights, remember?

It's convenient and sellable...that doesn't make it right.

I am so sick of do what I say not as I do. That's what we are here in the US, hypocrits. We are better at everything then anyone else, no doubt about it...but that doesn't mean we have no room for improvement.

imho,

-bear

btw...I am sure I have committed many spelling and grammatical errors. If that is all or even a portion of your rebuttal, save it, because I don't care for style over substance commentary.

AMERICAN citizens are protected under the constitution, not foreign illegal combatants. Bush only has responsibility to protect us and our rights.

While I think you are very wrong, I'd never make fun of you for your spelling. I'm a horrible speller, and normally spelling is only brought up by those with no arguments of their own.

That's a point, but a disingenuous one. The Constitution is based on the idea that <u>all</u> people are entitled to certain rights. True, it is spelled out not in the Constitution, but rather in the Declaration of Independance, but the whole point of the Constitution is to take those rights recognized in the Declaration and build a system of government that respects those rights. It is only binding on Citizens, but that stands to reason. The folks who wrote the constitution were smart enough to know you can't bind people of other sovreign nations to your laws (unlike most American politicians since WWII at the latest). So you are legally correct, but completely missing the spirit of the law. This is why people don't much care for lawyers.

While I may actually be pursuaded by your argument, I must respectfully say that it does not "stand to reason". Many many many arguments in the field of law are made around the exact wording of the law, with "spirit" being second in consideration.

So this is not a trivial thing.

I thought that UN resolutions didn't matter because Saddam had those WMDs, he could attack us in 40 minuntes and thus had to be stopped. Unless we find out that infact he only had "WMD related program activities" in which case we run to the UN resolution of 1441.

Also as a side note, I really want a definition of what a WMD program related activity is.

Bottom line this is the biggest failure of world intelligence ever.

Saddam was in volation of treaties he signed, maybe he doesn't have the smoking guns, he was still in volation.

Can you tell me the difference between a POW and a "foreign illegal combatant" ? I thought that America was in a war against terror and, unless I am mistaken, anyone captured in that war is a POW. If Bush wants to play the game where foreign nationals don't have any rights in America, he needs to realize that "whats good for the goose, is good for the gander" and Americans will be burnt by this policy.

He may of been in violation of 1441 with conventional weapons but no proof has been found of WMD has been found, making the statements of Bush during the SOTU lies. Since the adminstration has all but agreed Saddam has no WMD and Iraq's cause was humanitarian, I expect that we will next invade Congo, Rwanda and NK for humanitarian purposes.

Oh yea I'm really worried that US troops or citizens will suffer worse then they already do in foreign hands. Hell I'd be grateful if they were treated as well as the prisoners are being treated in the US. Your argument is laughable.

I think his ~first~ priority should be that...those not of American Citizenship should come a very close second with EXACTLY the same protections. EXACTLY. Failure to do so is hypocritical, and violates both the spirit and letter of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Also, Bush IS NOT doing that. He is protecting 'National Security' or the 'Homeland' AT THE VERY EXPENSE of those rights.

I cite:

Unconstitutional searches, siezures, and wiretaps.
Secret/classified court room procedings.
Holding suspects without charges or access to counsel.
Refusing media access to names of those detained.
Eaves dropping or intercepting suspect/attorney communications.
Using Deception and lies to entrap and making it a crime for a suspect to do likewise.

He has even declared an American Citizen an enemy (I think you mentioned illegal, is there a difference?) combatant?

How do you reconcile that?

Again IMHO,

-bear

btw...I am proud and honored to be included in this American community and to have served to protect it's freedoms. Right now, I am ashamed of the way we are behaving.

I'm not ashamed, in fact I couldn't be more satisfied and proud of the way Bush has carried out the war against terror... this is war buddy, either you buck up and play to win or get "burned".

As stated in the SOTU we don't need a permission slip from foreign countries to protect ourselves and our interests.

I would respond by why bother when the other side of the board thinks ad homs are valid debate tactics.

That doesn't reconcile what I mentioned?

You show me a link between al-quada and Saddam or for that matter a link between Saddam and WMD. Invading Iraq isn't a war against terror, it is a war against daddy's mistakes.

I agree there is no link between Saddam and Al Qeada. But it protects our national interests and one of histories most nitorious' villians is out of power and will never kill another human being again.

And killing this villian helps out American security how ? If anything Sadaam's regime was a stable state that would not become part of Saudi. The very real possibility of Saudi annexing Iraq if reconstruction goes poorly exists. This will give Saudi more political clout and a bigger voice in Opec, bad for the US. On the terror angle just how many terrorist in 9/11 came from Saudi ? Because you have to remember that geo-politics HATES power vaccums and will not allow them to exist.

No way Saud will be able annex or forcefully grab Iraq, EVER!

I honestly don't know about the links, maybe they do or don't exist.

But this is certainly a war on terror.

Every mid-east nation that serves as a hot-bed of fundamentalist Islamic activity knows that at least W, Bush is not afraid to take them out.

Hell, that nut in Libya who has actively supported terrorists in the past finally caved and is letting inspectors in.

And it doesn't hurt to have Syria and Iran be afraid that they could be next.

Unfortunately, well meaning people (yes, you among them) are diluting the effect and some of those who should be afraid of us are wondering again if we *really* have the national will to take them out if necessary.

Remember, hatred of America isn't enough. Terrorists need safe havens and money to operate.

If the Iraqi government collapses after the US leaves, I am better a good 2/3 chance Saudi will make a bid for Iraq. What Western country really has the ability to stand-up to the country that supplies a 1/4 of the world's oil. If the Saudi's wanted they could make our economy scream, their would scream in return later but their sultans can kill dissidants, we can't.

I suspect this would result in one of swiftest over throws of a ruling family the history of the world has ever seen.

Not pretty, but pretty much garaunteed.

-bear

I wonder how come we didn't go after one of those 'hotbeds' of terror.

MAN HAVE I CHANGED my position, huh?

Not really. I am for the war* on terror, but against the sacrifices of freedoms.

Further more I believe Iraq is a DISTRACTION from the war on terror not progress in it.

-bear

*edited was to read war

We did.

Afghanistan.

And Iraq. (consider that SH did support the Palestinians blowing up busses and restaurants.)

I was certain you were speaking post Afghanistan.

None the less,

No we didn't.

The hotbeds of terrorism remain North Korea, Syria, Iran and others. Iraq doesn't/didn't even make the top ten.

-bear

Maybe not N.Korea, but they do pose a much more ominous threat to the US

Granted N.K. is a bad one.

And I would fully support taking out Syria AND Iran.

But I don't think we would have enough support.

While I would have rather have taken out Iran and Syria from a terrorism standpoint, they didn't have 12 years of UN violations in their record.

What about NK, don't they have a massive record of UN violations ? Do you think it would be feasable to attack NK under the "war on terrorism" ?

The Cheetoh Defense
 

Perhaps a quick analogy instead.

March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.

June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.

October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.

January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.


Every Additional Adjective makes the noun in question less true.


"Cheese" = cheese

"processed cheese" = cheese, sort of

"processed cheese food" = cheese, sort of, plus other stuff that's not cheese

"processed cheese food snack product" = the food in question is orange, but contains no actual cheese.

I do not mean to suggest it is, but when the law can be, right or wrong, argued against one, well, then it is time to argue morals. What I am getting at is regardless of the legality, the morality is that the constitution should apply to everyone in our power, or at least that's the way I see it.

More and more evidence of Bush and Blair's lies is building up. Not only that Iraq had no WMD, but that Bush and Blair KNEW this, or at least where reasonably sure of it, and outright lied to the people about it

The whole world knew he had weapons... according to their intelligence. Hell even France knew this.

I don't think there have been any reolutions to use force in NK's case.

NK violated Nuclear Proliferation treaty I believe, don't know about specific resolutions.

Good one.

What do you propose to do Lebell, kill every man woman and child in these god forsaken countries?

Sure would solve the problem and make pumping that oil out a whole heck of a lot easier.

Did you ever stop to wonder that there might be a reason that the countries in the middle east are not so enamoured with the USA?

Because beating someone into submission has never worked that I can think of.

It is the most simple minded of all responses that the USA could have mustered to the problem of terrorism.