Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
-- Marvie
--------------------
Rumsfeld: Iraq Must Take Over Security
By ROBERT BURNS
The Associated Press
Friday, October 20, 2006; 2:57 PM
WASHINGTON -- The Iraqi government is going to have to take over its
country's security "sooner rather than later," Defense Secretary Donald
H. Rumsfeld said Friday, as the violence there continued to escalate.
Rumsfeld said U.S. officials, including Gen. George Casey, the top U.S.
commander in Iraq, are working with the Iraqi government to develop
projections as to when they think they can pass off various pieces of
responsibility. He provided no detail.
"The biggest mistake would be to not pass things over to the Iraqis,
create a dependency on their part, instead of developing strength and
capacity and competence," said Rumsfeld. "It's their country, they're
going to have to govern it, they're going to have to provide security
for it, and they're going to have to do it sooner rather than later.
And that means they've got to take pieces of it as we go along."
Cont'd --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102000867.html
.
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
20 Oct 2006 09:42:15 PM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Below is a portion of an opinion piece I found interesting:
[quoting] The Democrats have not elected congressional majorities in 12
years, and they've occupied the White House in only eight of the last
26 years. The left's current unruliness seems a way of scapegoating
others for a more elemental frustration - that they can't gain a
national majority based on their core beliefs. More entitlements,
higher taxes to pay for them, gay marriage, de facto quotas in
affirmative action, open borders, abortion on demand, and radical
secularism - these liberal issues don't tend to resonate with most
Americans.
To compensate, leftist pundits, billionaire philanthropists and
politicians, from current officeholders to ex-presidents, work to
ensure that isolated moments of Republican ineptness (George Bush
strutting on a carrier deck in his flight suit) and wrongdoing
(repulsive e-mails from a perverted Congressman Mark Foley) blare out
as the only issues of the day. This distracting drumbeat, not their own
agenda, is the only strategy for success in the next election.
True, reactionaries in the 1990s expressed a Neanderthal hatred of Bill
Clinton. But now shouting leftists have lowered the bar. The danger, of
course, is that by emulating the rhetoric of a Cindy Sheehan or Michael
Moore, the feral Democrats - when they come back into power again as
tamed leaders who must govern - will have created Frankensteins. And,
as we know, such monsters always turn on their creators. [end quote]
By Victor David Hanson
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/liberals_gone_wild.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
20 Oct 2006 10:31:46 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform?
It seemed more like a personal opinion than a political platform.
Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Below is a portion of an opinion piece I found interesting:
Nice quote.
You found this interesting ? Did you have a point or opinion, or
is this just a 'request for comments' ??
[quoting] The Democrats have not elected congressional majorities in 12
years, and they've occupied the White House in only eight of the last
26 years. The left's current unruliness seems a way of scapegoating
others for a more elemental frustration - that they can't gain a
national majority based on their core beliefs. More entitlements,
higher taxes to pay for them, gay marriage, de facto quotas in
affirmative action, open borders, abortion on demand, and radical
secularism - these liberal issues don't tend to resonate with most
Americans.
To compensate, leftist pundits, billionaire philanthropists and
politicians, from current officeholders to ex-presidents, work to
ensure that isolated moments of Republican ineptness (George Bush
strutting on a carrier deck in his flight suit) and wrongdoing
(repulsive e-mails from a perverted Congressman Mark Foley) blare out
as the only issues of the day. This distracting drumbeat, not their own
agenda, is the only strategy for success in the next election.
True, reactionaries in the 1990s expressed a Neanderthal hatred of Bill
Clinton. But now shouting leftists have lowered the bar. The danger, of
course, is that by emulating the rhetoric of a Cindy Sheehan or Michael
Moore, the feral Democrats - when they come back into power again as
tamed leaders who must govern - will have created Frankensteins. And,
as we know, such monsters always turn on their creators. [end quote]
By Victor David Hanson
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/liberals_gone_wild.htm
l
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
21 Oct 2006 07:24:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:42:15 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
There is no "left" left, Steven. The current Democratic party would be
considered conservative anywhere outside of the likes of US, Korea and
Saudi Arabia. We're a fascist country now, and your perception of what
constitutes "Left" is skewed by how far off to the Right this country has
strayed.
<snipped the cut-n-paste>
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
21 Oct 2006 12:43:31 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:42:15 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
There is no "left" left, Steven.
There's plenty of "left" left. They are prominent at the universities
and in much of the major media (both news and entertainment). The
"left" is also quite vocal on the internet. My question pertained to
how those lefties will respond when the Democratic leadership does not
follow through on the hard left's ideology?
The current Democratic party would be considered conservative
anywhere outside of the likes of US, Korea and Saudi Arabia.
But the current Democratic Party has spent the past few years playing
to its leftist base -- so what will happen when the Democratic
leadership does not follow through on the hard left's ideology?
We're a fascist country now, and your perception of what constitutes
"Left" is skewed by how far off to the Right this country has strayed.
No, you see, that's why I posted the excerpt that you didn't bother to
respond to. There is a hard left in this country, though the Democratic
Party itself must try very hard to appear more centrist in order to get
elected.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
21 Oct 2006 06:58:52 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Gee Steve, could it be that the Demoncrats are just as bought and paid for as
the Repugnicans? Could be... Honest people don't get elected, they don't
even get on the ballot. You have to be a bought lackey of the Corporates to
even be in the running. The Corporates call all the shots here, and it's been
this way since the end of WW2. The government has a monopoly on physical
force, the Corporates have the monopoly on everything else. Just who do you
think is REALLY in charge here? I have yet to see a Boasrd of Directors that
took orders from the Security Guards. Why do you think that we haven't had
meaningful campaign finance reform, despite the furor generated for decades
in the media? One guess... it's bad for business. I'm reminded of an old
movie; "Li'l Abner". "He calls the shots, and he intends ro keep it
that-a-way; what's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA!"
Charly
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
21 Oct 2006 10:36:04 PM |
|
|
Charly the ***** wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Gee Steve, could it be that the Demoncrats are just as bought and paid for as
the Repugnicans? Could be... Honest people don't get elected, they don't
even get on the ballot. You have to be a bought lackey of the Corporates to
even be in the running. The Corporates call all the shots here, and it's been
this way since the end of WW2. The government has a monopoly on physical
force, the Corporates have the monopoly on everything else. Just who do you
think is REALLY in charge here? I have yet to see a Boasrd of Directors that
took orders from the Security Guards. Why do you think that we haven't had
meaningful campaign finance reform, despite the furor generated for decades
in the media? One guess... it's bad for business.
What would be "meaningful" campaign finance reform? I remember how
happy the libs were with McCain/Feingold, while most conservatives were
not happy with it. McCain/Feingold has turned out to be "The Incumbent
Protection Act." Now, only self-financing millionaires (like Ned
Lamont, just for example) can even think about running for national
office. Additionally, the law prevents outside advocacy groups from
running TV and radio ads within 60 days of the election. That measure
effectively protects incumbents from having to deal with pesky advocacy
groups (such as unions, chambers of commerce, environmental groups, the
NAACP, etc.) who would like to see an incumbent replaced.
I'm reminded of an old
movie; "Li'l Abner". "He calls the shots, and he intends ro keep it
that-a-way; what's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA!"
Anyone who supports McCain for President in 2008 must therefore also
support his (and Feingold's) "Incumbent Protection Act." Personally, I
don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
22 Oct 2006 09:25:17 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Charly the ***** wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Gee Steve, could it be that the Demoncrats are just as bought and paid for as
the Repugnicans? Could be... Honest people don't get elected, they don't
even get on the ballot. You have to be a bought lackey of the Corporates to
even be in the running. The Corporates call all the shots here, and it's been
this way since the end of WW2. The government has a monopoly on physical
force, the Corporates have the monopoly on everything else. Just who do you
think is REALLY in charge here? I have yet to see a Boasrd of Directors that
took orders from the Security Guards. Why do you think that we haven't had
meaningful campaign finance reform, despite the furor generated for decades
in the media? One guess... it's bad for business.
What would be "meaningful" campaign finance reform? I remember how
happy the libs were with McCain/Feingold, while most conservatives were
not happy with it. McCain/Feingold has turned out to be "The Incumbent
Protection Act." Now, only self-financing millionaires (like Ned
Lamont, just for example) can even think about running for national
office. Additionally, the law prevents outside advocacy groups from
running TV and radio ads within 60 days of the election. That measure
effectively protects incumbents from having to deal with pesky advocacy
groups (such as unions, chambers of commerce, environmental groups, the
NAACP, etc.) who would like to see an incumbent replaced.
I'm reminded of an old
movie; "Li'l Abner". "He calls the shots, and he intends ro keep it
that-a-way; what's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA!"
Anyone who supports McCain for President in 2008 must therefore also
support his (and Feingold's) "Incumbent Protection Act." Personally, I
don't.
re: Meaningful Campaign Finance Reform
No more soft money. No more corporate money. No more special interest money. Money
is NOT speech, regardless of what the bought-off Supremes decided. Burn K street to
the ground and build a park. Merit testing for prospective candidates; "just what
real managerial skills do you bring to this position?" Campaigns to be financed
from tax revenues, airtime to be mandated by the FCC (It's public airwaves after
all, check your station license.). Tax rebates to be given to printers ,publishers,
etc., for 'services rendered; independent accounting oversight required for ALL
claims. A national 'day off' on election day to allow workers to get to the polls.
Proof of vote participation required for government assistance programs
eligibility. Influence peddling to be a Capital Offense under the Treason statutes,
for everyone involved, including the messenger. Paper ballots counted by
independent auditing firms pro bono. Start with that, and give it twenty years or
so to settle in. It might just work.
Charly
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
23 Oct 2006 06:23:48 AM |
|
|
Charly the ***** wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Charly the ***** wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Gee Steve, could it be that the Demoncrats are just as bought and paid for as
the Repugnicans? Could be... Honest people don't get elected, they don't
even get on the ballot. You have to be a bought lackey of the Corporates to
even be in the running. The Corporates call all the shots here, and it's been
this way since the end of WW2. The government has a monopoly on physical
force, the Corporates have the monopoly on everything else. Just who do you
think is REALLY in charge here? I have yet to see a Boasrd of Directors that
took orders from the Security Guards. Why do you think that we haven't had
meaningful campaign finance reform, despite the furor generated for decades
in the media? One guess... it's bad for business.
What would be "meaningful" campaign finance reform? I remember how
happy the libs were with McCain/Feingold, while most conservatives were
not happy with it. McCain/Feingold has turned out to be "The Incumbent
Protection Act." Now, only self-financing millionaires (like Ned
Lamont, just for example) can even think about running for national
office. Additionally, the law prevents outside advocacy groups from
running TV and radio ads within 60 days of the election. That measure
effectively protects incumbents from having to deal with pesky advocacy
groups (such as unions, chambers of commerce, environmental groups, the
NAACP, etc.) who would like to see an incumbent replaced.
I'm reminded of an old
movie; "Li'l Abner". "He calls the shots, and he intends ro keep it
that-a-way; what's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA!"
Anyone who supports McCain for President in 2008 must therefore also
support his (and Feingold's) "Incumbent Protection Act." Personally, I
don't.
re: Meaningful Campaign Finance Reform
No more soft money. No more corporate money. No more special interest money. Money
is NOT speech, regardless of what the bought-off Supremes decided. Burn K street to
the ground and build a park. Merit testing for prospective candidates; "just what
real managerial skills do you bring to this position?" Campaigns to be financed
from tax revenues, airtime to be mandated by the FCC (It's public airwaves after
all, check your station license.). Tax rebates to be given to printers ,publishers,
etc., for 'services rendered; independent accounting oversight required for ALL
claims. A national 'day off' on election day to allow workers to get to the polls.
Proof of vote participation required for government assistance programs
eligibility. Influence peddling to be a Capital Offense under the Treason statutes,
for everyone involved, including the messenger. Paper ballots counted by
independent auditing firms pro bono. Start with that, and give it twenty years or
so to settle in. It might just work.
Charly
What's the matter Steve? No snappy comeback? I see that you've been back since I
posted this, and had plenty of time to argue with Marv and Perseid. Could it be that
these proposals make sense but not dollars? Do you fear that these proposals might
actually work, and change the political landscape for the better? Or is it that you
actually work on K street, and are afraid that the noose is waiting for you? Don't be
shy Steve, tell us what you really think. Enquiring minds want to know.
Charly
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
23 Oct 2006 10:37:08 AM |
|
|
Charly the ***** wrote:
Charly the ***** wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Charly the ***** wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Gee Steve, could it be that the Demoncrats are just as bought and paid for as
the Repugnicans? Could be... Honest people don't get elected, they don't
even get on the ballot. You have to be a bought lackey of the Corporates to
even be in the running. The Corporates call all the shots here, and it's been
this way since the end of WW2. The government has a monopoly on physical
force, the Corporates have the monopoly on everything else. Just who do you
think is REALLY in charge here? I have yet to see a Boasrd of Directors that
took orders from the Security Guards. Why do you think that we haven't had
meaningful campaign finance reform, despite the furor generated for decades
in the media? One guess... it's bad for business.
What would be "meaningful" campaign finance reform? I remember how
happy the libs were with McCain/Feingold, while most conservatives were
not happy with it. McCain/Feingold has turned out to be "The Incumbent
Protection Act." Now, only self-financing millionaires (like Ned
Lamont, just for example) can even think about running for national
office. Additionally, the law prevents outside advocacy groups from
running TV and radio ads within 60 days of the election. That measure
effectively protects incumbents from having to deal with pesky advocacy
groups (such as unions, chambers of commerce, environmental groups, the
NAACP, etc.) who would like to see an incumbent replaced.
I'm reminded of an old
movie; "Li'l Abner". "He calls the shots, and he intends ro keep it
that-a-way; what's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA!"
Anyone who supports McCain for President in 2008 must therefore also
support his (and Feingold's) "Incumbent Protection Act." Personally, I
don't.
re: Meaningful Campaign Finance Reform
No more soft money. No more corporate money. No more special interest money. Money
is NOT speech, regardless of what the bought-off Supremes decided. Burn K street to
the ground and build a park. Merit testing for prospective candidates; "just what
real managerial skills do you bring to this position?" Campaigns to be financed
from tax revenues, airtime to be mandated by the FCC (It's public airwaves after
all, check your station license.). Tax rebates to be given to printers ,publishers,
etc., for 'services rendered; independent accounting oversight required for ALL
claims. A national 'day off' on election day to allow workers to get to the polls.
Proof of vote participation required for government assistance programs
eligibility. Influence peddling to be a Capital Offense under the Treason statutes,
for everyone involved, including the messenger. Paper ballots counted by
independent auditing firms pro bono. Start with that, and give it twenty years or
so to settle in. It might just work.
Charly
What's the matter Steve? No snappy comeback?
Nope, I asked you the question, and you answered it. Go ahead and get
it enacted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
23 Oct 2006 11:05:37 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Charly the ***** wrote:
Charly the ***** wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Charly the ***** wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Gee Steve, could it be that the Demoncrats are just as bought and paid for as
the Repugnicans? Could be... Honest people don't get elected, they don't
even get on the ballot. You have to be a bought lackey of the Corporates to
even be in the running. The Corporates call all the shots here, and it's been
this way since the end of WW2. The government has a monopoly on physical
force, the Corporates have the monopoly on everything else. Just who do you
think is REALLY in charge here? I have yet to see a Boasrd of Directors that
took orders from the Security Guards. Why do you think that we haven't had
meaningful campaign finance reform, despite the furor generated for decades
in the media? One guess... it's bad for business.
What would be "meaningful" campaign finance reform? I remember how
happy the libs were with McCain/Feingold, while most conservatives were
not happy with it. McCain/Feingold has turned out to be "The Incumbent
Protection Act." Now, only self-financing millionaires (like Ned
Lamont, just for example) can even think about running for national
office. Additionally, the law prevents outside advocacy groups from
running TV and radio ads within 60 days of the election. That measure
effectively protects incumbents from having to deal with pesky advocacy
groups (such as unions, chambers of commerce, environmental groups, the
NAACP, etc.) who would like to see an incumbent replaced.
I'm reminded of an old
movie; "Li'l Abner". "He calls the shots, and he intends ro keep it
that-a-way; what's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA!"
Anyone who supports McCain for President in 2008 must therefore also
support his (and Feingold's) "Incumbent Protection Act." Personally, I
don't.
re: Meaningful Campaign Finance Reform
No more soft money. No more corporate money. No more special interest money. Money
is NOT speech, regardless of what the bought-off Supremes decided. Burn K street to
the ground and build a park. Merit testing for prospective candidates; "just what
real managerial skills do you bring to this position?" Campaigns to be financed
from tax revenues, airtime to be mandated by the FCC (It's public airwaves after
all, check your station license.). Tax rebates to be given to printers ,publishers,
etc., for 'services rendered; independent accounting oversight required for ALL
claims. A national 'day off' on election day to allow workers to get to the polls.
Proof of vote participation required for government assistance programs
eligibility. Influence peddling to be a Capital Offense under the Treason statutes,
for everyone involved, including the messenger. Paper ballots counted by
independent auditing firms pro bono. Start with that, and give it twenty years or
so to settle in. It might just work.
Charly
What's the matter Steve? No snappy comeback?
Nope, I asked you the question, and you answered it. Go ahead and get
it enacted.
Well, thanks for all your support. Feel free to pass this idea to your Erected
Reprehensibles in Congrease. I have, but I guess I didn't bribe them enough to offset the
massive graft provided by the Corporates. Unfortunately, I don't have dumptrucks filled
with hundreds to dump into their office doors, and relying on their 'better natures' just
doesn't seem to be doing the job these days, probably because they don't have better
natures.
Charly
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
21 Oct 2006 12:14:11 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Hey! Good to see you back!
The Whacky Left hasn't had a chance to conduct a proper accounting of
the decision making process and intelligence gathering leading up to
the Iraq War. Once that's completed, impeachment may seem like the next
logical step.
Read this --
Medics Beg For Help As Iraqis Die Needlessly
Half of all deaths preventable, say country's medics
Reconstruction seen as disaster
More than 2,000 doctors and nurses are killed
18,000 more leave the nation
Even the most basic treatments are lacking
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 20 October 2006
The disintegration of Iraq's health service is leaving its civilians
defenceless in the continuing violence that is rocking the country,
Iraqi doctors warn today.
As many as half of the civilian deaths, calculated at 655,000 since the
2003 invasion, might have been avoided if proper medical care had been
provided to the victims, they say.
In separate appeals, the doctors beg for help to stem the soaring death
rate and ease the suffering of injured families and children. They say
governments and the international medical community are ignoring their
plight.
In the first 14 months after the 2003 invasion almost $20bn (=A311bn)
was spent on reconstruction by the British and American funds,
including hundreds of millions on rebuilding and re-equipping the
country's network of 180 hospitals and clinics.
But billions went missing because of a combination of criminal
activity, corruption, and incompetence, leaving Iraqis without even the
essentials for basic medical care.
The violence for which the Allied forces failed to plan has meant a
$200m reconstruction project for building 142 primary care centres ran
out of cash earlier this year with just 20 on course to be completed,
an outcome the World Health Organisation described as "shocking".
Cont'd here --
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1904962.ece
Most of the 'rest of the world' was against Bush's decision to destroy
Iraq and were hoping the weapon's inspectors would have been given more
then just 3 months to continue their work.
So it's possible most of the rest of the world views the current U.S.
adminstration as war criminals for illegally invading another nation
and then bungling the occupation so badly that an uncontrollable cycle
of violence erupts. Rummie says to Iraq 'It's your problem now' and
intends to walk away. He's got blood on his hands, in my opinion. No
WMD's. No WMD programs. No link to 9-11. No imminent threat. Sounds
criminal to me.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
.
|
|
|
| User: "mukyuk" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
21 Oct 2006 03:00:03 PM |
|
|
"Marvin The Paranoid Android" <marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1161450851.836187.100020@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Hey! Good to see you back!
The Whacky Left hasn't had a chance to conduct a proper accounting of
the decision making process and intelligence gathering leading up to
the Iraq War. Once that's completed, impeachment may seem like the next
logical step.
Read this --
Medics Beg For Help As Iraqis Die Needlessly
Half of all deaths preventable, say country's medics
Reconstruction seen as disaster
More than 2,000 doctors and nurses are killed
18,000 more leave the nation
Even the most basic treatments are lacking
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 20 October 2006
The disintegration of Iraq's health service is leaving its civilians
defenceless in the continuing violence that is rocking the country,
Iraqi doctors warn today.
As many as half of the civilian deaths, calculated at 655,000 since the
2003 invasion, might have been avoided if proper medical care had been
provided to the victims, they say.
In separate appeals, the doctors beg for help to stem the soaring death
rate and ease the suffering of injured families and children. They say
governments and the international medical community are ignoring their
plight.
In the first 14 months after the 2003 invasion almost $20bn (£11bn)
was spent on reconstruction by the British and American funds,
including hundreds of millions on rebuilding and re-equipping the
country's network of 180 hospitals and clinics.
But billions went missing because of a combination of criminal
activity, corruption, and incompetence, leaving Iraqis without even the
essentials for basic medical care.
The violence for which the Allied forces failed to plan has meant a
$200m reconstruction project for building 142 primary care centres ran
out of cash earlier this year with just 20 on course to be completed,
an outcome the World Health Organisation described as "shocking".
Cont'd here --
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1904962.ece
Most of the 'rest of the world' was against Bush's decision to destroy
Iraq and were hoping the weapon's inspectors would have been given more
then just 3 months to continue their work.
So it's possible most of the rest of the world views the current U.S.
adminstration as war criminals for illegally invading another nation
and then bungling the occupation so badly that an uncontrollable cycle
of violence erupts. Rummie says to Iraq 'It's your problem now' and
intends to walk away. He's got blood on his hands, in my opinion. No
WMD's. No WMD programs. No link to 9-11. No imminent threat. Sounds
criminal to me.
Consider the spiritual fate of someone with such a karma..... I couldn't
imagine the pain......
Cheers!
-- Marvie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
21 Oct 2006 12:46:22 PM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Hey! Good to see you back!
The Whacky Left hasn't had a chance to conduct a proper accounting of
the decision making process and intelligence gathering leading up to
the Iraq War. Once that's completed, impeachment may seem like the next
logical step.
Read this --
Medics Beg For Help As Iraqis Die Needlessly
Half of all deaths preventable, say country's medics
Reconstruction seen as disaster
More than 2,000 doctors and nurses are killed
18,000 more leave the nation
Even the most basic treatments are lacking
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 20 October 2006
The disintegration of Iraq's health service is leaving its civilians
defenceless in the continuing violence that is rocking the country,
Iraqi doctors warn today.
As many as half of the civilian deaths, calculated at 655,000 since the
2003 invasion, might have been avoided if proper medical care had been
provided to the victims, they say.
In separate appeals, the doctors beg for help to stem the soaring death
rate and ease the suffering of injured families and children. They say
governments and the international medical community are ignoring their
plight.
In the first 14 months after the 2003 invasion almost $20bn (=A311bn)
was spent on reconstruction by the British and American funds,
including hundreds of millions on rebuilding and re-equipping the
country's network of 180 hospitals and clinics.
But billions went missing because of a combination of criminal
activity, corruption, and incompetence, leaving Iraqis without even the
essentials for basic medical care.
The violence for which the Allied forces failed to plan has meant a
$200m reconstruction project for building 142 primary care centres ran
out of cash earlier this year with just 20 on course to be completed,
an outcome the World Health Organisation described as "shocking".
Cont'd here --
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1904962.ece
Most of the 'rest of the world' was against Bush's decision to destroy
Iraq and were hoping the weapon's inspectors would have been given more
then just 3 months to continue their work.
So it's possible most of the rest of the world views the current U.S.
adminstration as war criminals for illegally invading another nation
and then bungling the occupation so badly that an uncontrollable cycle
of violence erupts. Rummie says to Iraq 'It's your problem now' and
intends to walk away. He's got blood on his hands, in my opinion. No
WMD's. No WMD programs. No link to 9-11. No imminent threat. Sounds
criminal to me.
Well, that brings it all right back around to my question -- why do you
think the Democrats are not campaigning on that platform? And what
about all those Democrats who voted to authorize the war? And I'm
talking about, for example, Democratic leader Gephartd, who said he did
not rely on Bush for his WMD intelligence, but went directly to the
Clinton appointed CIA director and other Clinton officials? Or what
about the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, who said Saddam was an imminent threat, and that we could
not afford to wait for further proof (because to wait for further proof
could put Americans in danger)? Should those guys be brought up on
charges as well?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
21 Oct 2006 11:06:48 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Well, that brings it all right back around to my question -- why do you
think the Democrats are not campaigning on that platform? And what
about all those Democrats who voted to authorize the war?
I have a better question for you Stephen. Why can't Bush define
what 'victory' in Iraq means ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
21 Oct 2006 05:08:45 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're going=
to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've got =
to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they pleased.=
No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Hey! Good to see you back!
The Whacky Left hasn't had a chance to conduct a proper accounting of
the decision making process and intelligence gathering leading up to
the Iraq War. Once that's completed, impeachment may seem like the next
logical step.
Read this --
Medics Beg For Help As Iraqis Die Needlessly
Half of all deaths preventable, say country's medics
Reconstruction seen as disaster
More than 2,000 doctors and nurses are killed
18,000 more leave the nation
Even the most basic treatments are lacking
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 20 October 2006
The disintegration of Iraq's health service is leaving its civilians
defenceless in the continuing violence that is rocking the country,
Iraqi doctors warn today.
As many as half of the civilian deaths, calculated at 655,000 since the
2003 invasion, might have been avoided if proper medical care had been
provided to the victims, they say.
In separate appeals, the doctors beg for help to stem the soaring death
rate and ease the suffering of injured families and children. They say
governments and the international medical community are ignoring their
plight.
In the first 14 months after the 2003 invasion almost $20bn (=A311bn)
was spent on reconstruction by the British and American funds,
including hundreds of millions on rebuilding and re-equipping the
country's network of 180 hospitals and clinics.
But billions went missing because of a combination of criminal
activity, corruption, and incompetence, leaving Iraqis without even the
essentials for basic medical care.
The violence for which the Allied forces failed to plan has meant a
$200m reconstruction project for building 142 primary care centres ran
out of cash earlier this year with just 20 on course to be completed,
an outcome the World Health Organisation described as "shocking".
Cont'd here --
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1904962.ece
Most of the 'rest of the world' was against Bush's decision to destroy
Iraq and were hoping the weapon's inspectors would have been given more
then just 3 months to continue their work.
So it's possible most of the rest of the world views the current U.S.
adminstration as war criminals for illegally invading another nation
and then bungling the occupation so badly that an uncontrollable cycle
of violence erupts. Rummie says to Iraq 'It's your problem now' and
intends to walk away. He's got blood on his hands, in my opinion. No
WMD's. No WMD programs. No link to 9-11. No imminent threat. Sounds
criminal to me.
Well, that brings it all right back around to my question -- why do you
think the Democrats are not campaigning on that platform? And what
about all those Democrats who voted to authorize the war? And I'm
talking about, for example, Democratic leader Gephartd, who said he did
not rely on Bush for his WMD intelligence, but went directly to the
Clinton appointed CIA director and other Clinton officials? Or what
about the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, who said Saddam was an imminent threat, and that we could
not afford to wait for further proof (because to wait for further proof
could put Americans in danger)? Should those guys be brought up on
charges as well?
There *was* intelligence 'suggesting' Saddam had WMD's -- but the
post-invasion evidence shows that nothing is a 'slam dunk' and that
some caution and restraint should be used.
Your legislative branch authorized the use of force with certain
conditions attached -- it wasn't a blank cheque for Bush to pull the
trigger at his own whim -- at least to my understanding.
Weapon's inspectors were on the ground in Iraq for a period of only 3
months. The U.S's traditional allies wanted more time given for the
inspectors to continue their work -- for a reason -- to be certain no
mistakes would be made and to allow for options other then deadly force
to be used.
It was NOT *necessary* for the U.S. to invade Iraq. A majority of the
rest of the world agreed with this.
If the Democrats backed fully the use of your military when Bush said
go then your whole political system is tainted. Either way, from my
vantage point at the time I saw the invasion as a set-up. I fully
agreed with getting the inspectors back in but when I saw your leader's
bellicose language demanding Saddam disarm with no hard evidence of
WMD's (that I ever saw produced) I knew the fix was in. Your country's
political parties are both stained with the blood of innocent people.
Someone needs to be held accountable.
After 9-11 the world gave your country it's full sympathy and
cooperation. But it saw it starting to be abused with the run-up to
Iraq. Iraq was not a threat -- instead the real threats from the 'Axis
of Evil' are now nuclear or going nuclear. Your military is staying the
course -- to ruin.
All I can say is I hope there is a severe change of course this
November. Because the course your country is on now is leading to
disaster.
Take care.
-- Marvie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
21 Oct 2006 10:32:03 PM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're goi=
ng to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've go=
t to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they please=
d=2E No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it's =
in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Hey! Good to see you back!
The Whacky Left hasn't had a chance to conduct a proper accounting of
the decision making process and intelligence gathering leading up to
the Iraq War. Once that's completed, impeachment may seem like the ne=
xt
logical step.
Read this --
Medics Beg For Help As Iraqis Die Needlessly
Half of all deaths preventable, say country's medics
Reconstruction seen as disaster
More than 2,000 doctors and nurses are killed
18,000 more leave the nation
Even the most basic treatments are lacking
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 20 October 2006
The disintegration of Iraq's health service is leaving its civilians
defenceless in the continuing violence that is rocking the country,
Iraqi doctors warn today.
As many as half of the civilian deaths, calculated at 655,000 since t=
he
2003 invasion, might have been avoided if proper medical care had been
provided to the victims, they say.
In separate appeals, the doctors beg for help to stem the soaring dea=
th
rate and ease the suffering of injured families and children. They say
governments and the international medical community are ignoring their
plight.
In the first 14 months after the 2003 invasion almost $20bn (=A311bn)
was spent on reconstruction by the British and American funds,
including hundreds of millions on rebuilding and re-equipping the
country's network of 180 hospitals and clinics.
But billions went missing because of a combination of criminal
activity, corruption, and incompetence, leaving Iraqis without even t=
he
essentials for basic medical care.
The violence for which the Allied forces failed to plan has meant a
$200m reconstruction project for building 142 primary care centres ran
out of cash earlier this year with just 20 on course to be completed,
an outcome the World Health Organisation described as "shocking".
Cont'd here --
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1904962.ece
Most of the 'rest of the world' was against Bush's decision to destroy
Iraq and were hoping the weapon's inspectors would have been given mo=
re
then just 3 months to continue their work.
So it's possible most of the rest of the world views the current U.S.
adminstration as war criminals for illegally invading another nation
and then bungling the occupation so badly that an uncontrollable cycle
of violence erupts. Rummie says to Iraq 'It's your problem now' and
intends to walk away. He's got blood on his hands, in my opinion. No
WMD's. No WMD programs. No link to 9-11. No imminent threat. Sounds
criminal to me.
Well, that brings it all right back around to my question -- why do you
think the Democrats are not campaigning on that platform? And what
about all those Democrats who voted to authorize the war? And I'm
talking about, for example, Democratic leader Gephartd, who said he did
not rely on Bush for his WMD intelligence, but went directly to the
Clinton appointed CIA director and other Clinton officials? Or what
about the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, who said Saddam was an imminent threat, and that we could
not afford to wait for further proof (because to wait for further proof
could put Americans in danger)? Should those guys be brought up on
charges as well?
There *was* intelligence 'suggesting' Saddam had WMD's -- but the
post-invasion evidence shows that nothing is a 'slam dunk' and that
some caution and restraint should be used.
Your legislative branch authorized the use of force with certain
conditions attached -- it wasn't a blank cheque for Bush to pull the
trigger at his own whim -- at least to my understanding.
I don't know where you got that. Maybe you could actually read the
thing, and let me know what you find in it that would back up your
understanding of it:
PUBLIC LAW 107-243-OCT. 16, 2002
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Weapon's inspectors were on the ground in Iraq for a period of only 3
months.
Actually four months, but what's an extra 33% when we're discussing
facts?
The U.S's traditional allies wanted more time given for the
inspectors to continue their work -- for a reason -- to be certain no
mistakes would be made and to allow for options other then deadly force
to be used.
The UN Security Council passed a resolution that called for *immediate*
compliance -- not a resolution giving Saddam an unlimited amount of
time to screw around with the inspectors. I've posted (many times)
articles from that period of time that explained how Saddam was
screwing around with the inspectors. Even Hans Blix, while reporting to
the Security Council, had to admit Saddam was not in *immediate*
compliance as required by Resolution 1441. And before anyone gives me
the argument that the UN didn't authorize the war, Bill Clinton has
said 1441 gave Bush and Blair all the authorization they needed remove
Saddam from power, and that they did not need a further resolution.
It was NOT *necessary* for the U.S. to invade Iraq. A majority of the
rest of the world agreed with this.
Well, with the benefit of hindsight, I agree it was not necessary. But
the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441 unanimously, with the
knowledge the US Congress had already given Bush authorization to use
military force against Iraq.
If the Democrats backed fully the use of your military when Bush said
go then your whole political system is tainted.
Many Democrats did not vote in favor of the authorization. But many
did, including John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Democratic
leaders Gephardt and Daschle, and Senate Intelligence Committee ranking
member Jay Rockefeller among many others.
Either way, from my
vantage point at the time I saw the invasion as a set-up. I fully
agreed with getting the inspectors back in but when I saw your leader's
bellicose language demanding Saddam disarm with no hard evidence of
WMD's (that I ever saw produced) I knew the fix was in.
Hans Blix produced a large report for the Security Council that listed
all the known weapons that Saddam had never accounted for. Saddam's
regime refused to cooperate with the inspectors. About 500 old chemical
weapons shells have been discovered in Iraq since Saddam was removed
from power. Those old weapons (among others that have never been found)
were supposed to have been accounted for by Saddam, and never were.
Your country's political parties are both stained with the
blood of innocent people.
Someone needs to be held accountable.
How about Saddam Hussein? No?
After 9-11 the world gave your country it's full sympathy and
cooperation. But it saw it starting to be abused with the run-up to
Iraq. Iraq was not a threat -- instead the real threats from the 'Axis
of Evil' are now nuclear or going nuclear. Your military is staying the
course -- to ruin.
All I can say is I hope there is a severe change of course this
November.
I've noticed that. And that's fine. But I haven't seen you give one
positive reason anyone should vote for Democrats, only negative reasons
why they shouldn't vote for Republicans. If you're only preaching to
the choir on this group, that's one thing. But if you're trying to
change minds, you're going about it all wrong.
Because the course your country is on now is leading to
disaster.
=20
How about some positive reasons to vote for Democrats? Got any?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
21 Oct 2006 11:11:25 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi
they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern
it,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're
goi
ng to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've
go
t to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's
borders
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they
please
d. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state
it's
in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge
and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the
ostensibly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the
Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not
follow
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Hey! Good to see you back!
The Whacky Left hasn't had a chance to conduct a proper accounting
of
the decision making process and intelligence gathering leading up
to
the Iraq War. Once that's completed, impeachment may seem like the
ne
xt
logical step.
Read this --
Medics Beg For Help As Iraqis Die Needlessly
Half of all deaths preventable, say country's medics
Reconstruction seen as disaster
More than 2,000 doctors and nurses are killed
18,000 more leave the nation
Even the most basic treatments are lacking
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 20 October 2006
The disintegration of Iraq's health service is leaving its
civilians
defenceless in the continuing violence that is rocking the country,
Iraqi doctors warn today.
As many as half of the civilian deaths, calculated at 655,000 since
t
he
2003 invasion, might have been avoided if proper medical care had
been
provided to the victims, they say.
In separate appeals, the doctors beg for help to stem the soaring
dea
th
rate and ease the suffering of injured families and children. They
say
governments and the international medical community are ignoring
their
plight.
In the first 14 months after the 2003 invasion almost $20bn (£11bn)
was spent on reconstruction by the British and American funds,
including hundreds of millions on rebuilding and re-equipping the
country's network of 180 hospitals and clinics.
But billions went missing because of a combination of criminal
activity, corruption, and incompetence, leaving Iraqis without even
t
he
essentials for basic medical care.
The violence for which the Allied forces failed to plan has meant a
$200m reconstruction project for building 142 primary care centres
ran
out of cash earlier this year with just 20 on course to be
completed,
an outcome the World Health Organisation described as "shocking".
Cont'd here --
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1904962.ece
Most of the 'rest of the world' was against Bush's decision to
destroy
Iraq and were hoping the weapon's inspectors would have been given
mo
re
then just 3 months to continue their work.
So it's possible most of the rest of the world views the current
U.S.
adminstration as war criminals for illegally invading another
nation
and then bungling the occupation so badly that an uncontrollable
cycle
of violence erupts. Rummie says to Iraq 'It's your problem now'
and
intends to walk away. He's got blood on his hands, in my opinion.
No
WMD's. No WMD programs. No link to 9-11. No imminent threat. Sounds
criminal to me.
Well, that brings it all right back around to my question -- why do
you
think the Democrats are not campaigning on that platform? And what
about all those Democrats who voted to authorize the war? And I'm
talking about, for example, Democratic leader Gephartd, who said he
did
not rely on Bush for his WMD intelligence, but went directly to the
Clinton appointed CIA director and other Clinton officials? Or what
about the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, who said Saddam was an imminent threat, and that we could
not afford to wait for further proof (because to wait for further
proof
could put Americans in danger)? Should those guys be brought up on
charges as well?
There *was* intelligence 'suggesting' Saddam had WMD's -- but the
post-invasion evidence shows that nothing is a 'slam dunk' and that
some caution and restraint should be used.
Your legislative branch authorized the use of force with certain
conditions attached -- it wasn't a blank cheque for Bush to pull the
trigger at his own whim -- at least to my understanding.
I don't know where you got that. Maybe you could actually read the
thing, and let me know what you find in it that would back up your
understanding of it:
PUBLIC LAW 107-243-OCT. 16, 2002
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Weapon's inspectors were on the ground in Iraq for a period of only 3
months.
Actually four months, but what's an extra 33% when we're discussing
facts?
The U.S's traditional allies wanted more time given for the
inspectors to continue their work -- for a reason -- to be certain no
mistakes would be made and to allow for options other then deadly force
to be used.
The UN Security Council passed a resolution that called for *immediate*
compliance -- not a resolution giving Saddam an unlimited amount of
time to screw around with the inspectors. I've posted (many times)
articles from that period of time that explained how Saddam was
screwing around with the inspectors. Even Hans Blix, while reporting to
the Security Council, had to admit Saddam was not in *immediate*
compliance as required by Resolution 1441. And before anyone gives me
the argument that the UN didn't authorize the war, Bill Clinton has
said 1441 gave Bush and Blair all the authorization they needed remove
Saddam from power, and that they did not need a further resolution.
You know you've got a problem 4 years after invasion and you're
still trying to convince everyone it's the right thing to do.
And what was the catalyst for this, Osama Bin Laden ?? How
come Bush gave up going after him ? He was, after all, the guy
who attacked us on 9-11.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
22 Oct 2006 08:16:49 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Rummy's ready to cut-and-run. The Chimporer tells Pelosi they're
stayin'.
Rumsfeld:"It's their country, they're going to have to govern i=
t,
they're going to have to provide security for it, and they're g=
oing to
have to do it sooner rather than later. And that means they've =
got to
take pieces of it as we go along."
The country was stable, not a threat and didn't have it's borde=
rs
opened wide to Islamic extremists to come and kill as they plea=
sed. No
it wasn't perfect but it was nowhere near the hellish state it'=
s in
now.
No plan, no leadership, no hope.
Good God -- charge and prosecute these criminals!
Do you think there is a great deal of popular support to "charge =
and
prosecute these criminals?" If so, why do you think the Democrats
aren't campaigning on that platform? Why do you think the ostensi=
bly
future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said the Democratic
leadership does not plan to impeach Bush? I wonder how the wacky
leftists will deal with a Democratic leadership that does not fol=
low
through with the wacky left's ideology?
Hey! Good to see you back!
The Whacky Left hasn't had a chance to conduct a proper accounting =
of
the decision making process and intelligence gathering leading up to
the Iraq War. Once that's completed, impeachment may seem like the =
next
logical step.
Read this --
Medics Beg For Help As Iraqis Die Needlessly
Half of all deaths preventable, say country's medics
Reconstruction seen as disaster
More than 2,000 doctors and nurses are killed
18,000 more leave the nation
Even the most basic treatments are lacking
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 20 October 2006
The disintegration of Iraq's health service is leaving its civilians
defenceless in the continuing violence that is rocking the country,
Iraqi doctors warn today.
As many as half of the civilian deaths, calculated at 655,000 since=
the
2003 invasion, might have been avoided if proper medical care had b=
een
provided to the victims, they say.
In separate appeals, the doctors beg for help to stem the soaring d=
eath
rate and ease the suffering of injured families and children. They =
say
governments and the international medical community are ignoring th=
eir
plight.
In the first 14 months after the 2003 invasion almost $20bn (=A311b=
n)
was spent on reconstruction by the British and American funds,
including hundreds of millions on rebuilding and re-equipping the
country's network of 180 hospitals and clinics.
But billions went missing because of a combination of criminal
activity, corruption, and incompetence, leaving Iraqis without even=
the
essentials for basic medical care.
The violence for which the Allied forces failed to plan has meant a
$200m reconstruction project for building 142 primary care centres =
ran
out of cash earlier this year with just 20 on course to be complete=
d,
an outcome the World Health Organisation described as "shocking".
Cont'd here --
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1904962.ece
Most of the 'rest of the world' was against Bush's decision to dest=
roy
Iraq and were hoping the weapon's inspectors would have been given =
more
then just 3 months to continue their work.
So it's possible most of the rest of the world views the current U.=
S=2E
adminstration as war criminals for illegally invading another nation
and then bungling the occupation so badly that an uncontrollable cy=
cle
of violence erupts. Rummie says to Iraq 'It's your problem now' and
intends to walk away. He's got blood on his hands, in my opinion. No
WMD's. No WMD programs. No link to 9-11. No imminent threat. Sounds
criminal to me.
Well, that brings it all right back around to my question -- why do y=
ou
think the Democrats are not campaigning on that platform? And what
about all those Democrats who voted to authorize the war? And I'm
talking about, for example, Democratic leader Gephartd, who said he d=
id
not rely on Bush for his WMD intelligence, but went directly to the
Clinton appointed CIA director and other Clinton officials? Or what
about the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, who said Saddam was an imminent threat, and that we could
not afford to wait for further proof (because to wait for further pro=
of
could put Americans in danger)? Should those guys be brought up on
charges as well?
There *was* intelligence 'suggesting' Saddam had WMD's -- but the
post-invasion evidence shows that nothing is a 'slam dunk' and that
some caution and restraint should be used.
Your legislative branch authorized the use of force with certain
conditions attached -- it wasn't a blank cheque for Bush to pull the
trigger at his own whim -- at least to my understanding.
I don't know where you got that. Maybe you could actually read the
thing, and let me know what you find in it that would back up your
understanding of it:
PUBLIC LAW 107-243-OCT. 16, 2002
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
[quote]
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;
[/quote]
This piece is a complete fabrication. If they were in Iraq they were
not there with Iraq's blessings.
[quote]
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the
lives and safety of United States citizens;
[/quote]
More B.S.
[quote]
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war
on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding
requested by the President to take the necessary actions against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including
those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
[/quote]
Bush's Iraq War has *nothing* to do with the war on terrorism. Iraq had
*nothing* to do with planning, authorizing, committing or aiding the
terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9-11. This only recently came to
light -- but I'm sure your Beloved Leader didn't realize that at the
time.
Weapon's inspectors were on the ground in Iraq for a period of only 3
months.
Actually four months, but what's an extra 33% when we're discussing
facts?
Don't let the 655,000 deaths get in your way either -- add another 30
days and that's enough to justify it for you?
I'm sure Jesus wouldn't even have bothered with the Weapons Inspectors
in the first place.
This Clown you call your leader needlessly killed approx 655,000 and
you can sit there and support this 'Christian'??? Gimme a break!
Life Is Life -- these people who are written off as 'collateral damage'
by your Beloved Christian Leader did not deserve to die -- there were
weapons inspectors on the ground, your Christian Leader's traditional
international allies did not want to turn to bloodshed and were willing
to give the weapons inspectors more then FOUR MONTHS to resovle the
situation.
Saddam may not have been cooperated fully right away, but some progress
was being made otherwise Blix would have given up.
The U.S's traditional allies wanted more time given for the
inspectors to continue their work -- for a reason -- to be certain no
mistakes would be made and to allow for options other then deadly force
to be used.
The UN Security Council passed a resolution that called for *immediate*
compliance -- not a resolution giving Saddam an unlimited amount of
time to screw around with the inspectors. I've posted (many times)
articles from that period of time that explained how Saddam was
screwing around with the inspectors. Even Hans Blix, while reporting to
the Security Council, had to admit Saddam was not in *immediate*
compliance as required by Resolution 1441. And before anyone gives me
the argument that the UN didn't authorize the war, Bill Clinton has
said 1441 gave Bush and Blair all the authorization they needed remove
Saddam from power, and that they did not need a further resolution.
Well there ya go! You win! Bill Clinton said so himself!
You've just managed to justify the chaos, death, slaughter and misery
of an entire nation. And the World bows at your feet with gratitude.
Legalized murder -- right up there with indefinite detention and
torture.
God Bless George W. Bush -- Christian Leader Of The Free World.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
22 Oct 2006 09:02:32 AM |
|
|
"Marvin The Paranoid Android" <marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1161523009.918728.241800@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
..
God Bless George W. Bush -- Christian Leader Of The Free World.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
Always love your passion, Marv!
Just want to note here that many Christians find Mr. Bush to be despicable.
We find his own christianity to be a sham and would be more likely to align
him with an anti-christ.
Christians wouldn't knowingly lie about Saddam's "Al Queda connections" and
Saddam's "willingness" to share WMD with terrorists. Reference the
administration's own NIE of September 2002 that they selectively edited for
public consumption that year.
I'd like to see the weak explanation for the change of heart the monkeys had
after 9/11. Before 9/11 their position was that Saddam was contained, was
not threat to us or her neighbors, sanctions were working, etc. Reality
changes when fear and anger can whip the American people into supporting a
neocon drive to remake the Middle East, claim the next century as another
American one, and load the pockets of our most important citizens with vast
amounts of wealth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Rumsfeld 'Tosses In The Towel' On Iraq |
22 Oct 2006 07:00:16 PM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
"Marvin The Paranoid Android" <marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1161523009.918728.241800@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.
God Bless George W. Bush -- Christian Leader Of The Free World.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
Always love your passion, Marv!
Thanks!
I was thinking on making a movie 'The Passion Of Buddha' but I don't
think it'd be very exciting without any killin' and crucifyin' ... just
people being peaceful and trying to help others see the Way to a
meaningful life.
Just want to note here that many Christians find Mr. Bush to be despicable.
We find his own christianity to be a sham and would be more likely to align
him with an anti-christ.
I think people who follow the word of Christ and take the Church with a
grain of salt generally see Bush with suspicion. I think it comes down
to how people deal with authortarianism.
A local Catholic priest (Ok -- local to my in-laws who are/were fairly
hardcore Catholics) took to the pulpit and said that the treatment of
women as second-class citizens within the Catholic Church is wrong. He
got discommunicated almost instantly.
He formed his own church and the new attendees outnumbered the local
Catholic church -- there's a desire for change.
Recently the priest learned his mother was dying and wanted to
officiate the funeral. The Catholic Church refused him permission to
perform the service. He's now back with the Catholic church.
Christians wouldn't knowingly lie about Saddam's "Al Queda connections" and
Saddam's "willingness" to share WMD with terrorists. Reference the
administration's own NIE of September 2002 that they selectively edited for
public consumption that year.
Here's my view of the setup:
Cheney-Rumsfeld go way back.
Bush is weak and not made of leadership material but prays, owns a
ranch, can swagger and smirks confidently and that goes over well with
a majority of the people willing to actually vote.
Cheney is in command of the information surrounding Bush.
Rumsfeld *should* have been relieved of his post long ago but wasn't
because of Cheney's influence over Bush.
American troops and Iraqi civilians are dying each and every day in
Iraq at an increasing rate *because* of this.
I'd like to see the weak explanation for the change of heart the monkeys had
after 9/11. Before 9/11 their position was that Saddam was contained, was
not threat to us or her neighbors, sanctions were working, etc. Reality
changes when fea | | | | | | | | |
