"Dr. Blunt" <ufocalypse@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cinqk501i5t@enews1.newsguy.com...

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:6hF3d.63749$KU5.16688@edtnps89...

Dr. Blunt a écrit:

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:SVh3d.86068$XP3.34193@edtnps84...

bollogs a écrit:

Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message

news:<B%53d.78332$XP3.69919@edtnps84>...

Dr. Blunt a écrit:

http://www.glcq.com/

Probably the most complete site with all the details, ANG

procedures,

and

documentation available before the latest flurry of newly found

evidence

came forth on Bush's military service.

A tremendous research project that lays the foundation for the

growing

belief that Bush shirked some of his duty in the ANG.

It'll cause the food to come up in neocons, and their mouths to

foam,

but

liberals should be able to digest it all quite well. You might

want

to

begin the exploration by first reading the author's FAQ page.

That's

at --

http://www.glcq.com/me.htm

Dr. Blunt

Funny that your propaganda link doesn't measure up to Min's post
news:y053d.52$Mp5.45807@news.uswest.net

LOL

Min...MIN...did you say MIN scruffy guernon?

LOL!

WH

Yes WH, min posted a more sensible post

http://www.google.ca/groups?selm=y053d.52%24Mp5.45807%40news.uswest.net

than this loser's lies which lies are nothing in disgusting

fartitude

compared to your pure anti-semite ***** though, I must say.

Wallow in your fartitude, Nazi *****.

J.

Calling for a bloody civil war against "treasonous Democrats" by

Bah, they lost a battle on that subject hey. Today' CBS bogus lies

have

been debunked. So Min was right on.

Fucking weasels like you can wallow in your weasel merry-go-round all
you want. I call making up fake documents to frame the commander in
chief in times of war treason by definition.

He was right on on this one.

J.

Times of war, huh? When did Congress ratify in both houses the War on
Terror? No nation state to deal with, no standing army. Passing a
Resolution supporting Bush to have authority to go to war with Iraq, is
not the same as the Constitutional ratification needed to officialize a
state of war exists.
Roosevelt was the last Prez who had this formal declaration by both
houses. No war since has gone the Constitutional route to make it
official.
Viet Nam had the same status as this so-called war. It was
constitutionally illegitimate, and so is this one.
Little difference between an executive order to go to war and a dictator
ordering war action. Congressional reps. are mostly bypassed,
constitutionally, and the American people (who will give their lives up
for it) are largely left out of any democratic process to okay it or
reject it.
It is not only a war that is illegal in obviously ambiguous UN

Resolution

legal terms, but against the Security Council's lack of a 9-member
majority to legitimize ANY kind of military action. Additionally, it is

a

violation of the UN Charter laws the US agreed on long ago, as Annan
accurately pointed out and France backed up.
Aside from the illegality of it, the immorality of killing over 11,000
Iraqi civilians in an unjustified war (due to lack of an invasion or
evidence of imminent threat) is a crime that your Cmdr. Bushy should be
impeached for.
It's far beyond a few (likely) faked documents. As a betrayal of the

faith

of the people to use military power wisely and preserve human life,

Cmdr.

Bushy is a traitor in the worst sense.
No lives have been lost or injured from the faked documents. Just an
embarassed news organization.
Dr. Blunt

The First Lie


John C. Bonifaz is an attorney in Boston and the author of
Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush. (NationBooks-NY,
January 2004)


While all of the Democratic presidential candidates (except Sen. Joseph
Lieberman) criticize President George W. Bush for his unilateral
recklessness in starting a war against Iraq, they are missing a larger
point: The invasion was not just reckless. It was unconstitutional.

It is time to set the record straight. The United States Congress never
voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October
2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making
power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United
States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send
the nation into war solely in the United States Congress.

Those members of Congress-including certain Democratic presidential
candidates-who voted for that October resolution cannot now claim that
they were deceived, as some of them do. By unlawfully ceding the
war-declaring power to the president, they allowed the president to start
a war against Iraq based on whatever evidence or whatever lies he chose.
The members of Congress who voted for that October resolution are as
complicit in this illegal war as is the president himself.

Imagine this: The United States Congress passes a resolution which states:
"The President is authorized to levy an income tax on the people of the
United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
pay for subsidies to U.S. oil companies." No amount of legal wrangling
could make such a resolution constitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution grants the power to levy taxes exclusively to the United
States Congress.

Now let us turn to reality. In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution
which stated: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the
United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
1) defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United States
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." As he determines to be
necessary and appropriate.

Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare
war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such
a transfer is illegal. These are non-delegable powers held only by the
United States Congress.

In drafting the War Powers Clause of Article I, Section 8, the framers of
the Constitution set out to create a nation that would be nothing like the
model established by European monarchies. They knew the dangers of
empowering a single individual to decide whether to send the nation into
war. They had sought to make a clean break from the kings and queens of
Europe, those rulers who could, of their own accord, send their subjects
into battle. That is why the framers wisely decided that only the people,
through their elected representatives in Congress, should be entrusted
with the power to start a war.

The wars of kings and queens of Europe had brought not only havoc and
destruction to the lives of those forced into battle and those left to
suffer their loss. They had also brought poverty. They were stark symbols
that the subjects living under such monarchies lacked any voice or any
control over their destiny.

The War Powers Clause of the Constitution emerged from that collective
memory: "Congress shall have power...To declare war... " No other language
in the Constitution is as simple and clear.

Thomas Jefferson called it "an effectual check to the Dog of war." George
Mason said that he was "for clogging rather than facilitating war." James
Wilson stated: "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated
to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a
single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important
power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."

Several years after the adoption of the Constitution, James Madison would
write: "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in
the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the
legislature, and not to the executive department."

Some might ask how George W. Bush's war against Iraq is different from
other U.S wars. Congress has not declared war since World War II. While
some of the U.S. military actions since that time have received the
equivalent of a congressional declaration, others have not. There have
been other violations of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.

But today we face an extraordinary moment in United States history. The
president of the United States launched a premeditated, first-strike
invasion of another country, the likes of which this nation has never
before seen. This massive military operation sought to conquer and occupy
Iraq for an indefinite period of time. This was not a random act of raw
power. It was the first salvo of a new and dangerous U.S. doctrine, a
doctrine which advocates the unprovoked invasion and occupation of
sovereign nations. This new doctrine threatens to destabilize the world,
creating a new world order of chaos and lawlessness.

Now more than ever, the Constitution and the rule of law must apply. And,
now more than ever, the truth must be told. The first lie about the Iraq
war was not that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or ties to Al Qaeda.
The first lie told to the American people is that Congress voted for this
war.

In the midst of the rushed congressional debate in October 2002, U.S. Sen.
Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) warned that the resolution under consideration
was unconstitutional. "We are handing this over to the President of the
United States," Byrd said. "When we do that, we can put up a sign on the
top of this Capitol, and we can say: 'Gone home. Gone fishing. Out of
business.'" Byrd added: "I never thought I would see the day in these
forty-four years I have been in this body... when we would cede this kind
of power to any president."

The Iraq war is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. The
president and the members of Congress who voted for that October
resolution should be held accountable for sending this nation into an
illegal war.

It is time to hold up the Constitution to the faces of those who dare to
defy it. It is time to demand our country back.

http://bfn.org/~nuclear/TP-1-28.htm

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:y%G3d.63819$KU5.8562@edtnps89...

Marvin The Paranoid Android a écrit:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:17:11 -0700, "Dr. Blunt" <ufocalypse@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:SVh3d.86068$XP3.34193@edtnps84...

bollogs a écrit:

Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message

news:<B%53d.78332$XP3.69919@edtnps84>...

Dr. Blunt a écrit:

http://www.glcq.com/

Probably the most complete site with all the details, ANG

procedures,

and

documentation available before the latest flurry of newly found

evidence

came forth on Bush's military service.

A tremendous research project that lays the foundation for the

growing

belief that Bush shirked some of his duty in the ANG.

It'll cause the food to come up in neocons, and their mouths to

foam,

but

liberals should be able to digest it all quite well. You might

want

to

begin the exploration by first reading the author's FAQ page.

That's

at --

http://www.glcq.com/me.htm

Dr. Blunt

Funny that your propaganda link doesn't measure up to Min's post
news:y053d.52$Mp5.45807@news.uswest.net

LOL

Min...MIN...did you say MIN scruffy guernon?

LOL!

WH

Yes WH, min posted a more sensible post

http://www.google.ca/groups?selm=y053d.52%24Mp5.45807%40news.uswest.net

than this loser's lies which lies are nothing in disgusting fartitude
compared to your pure anti-semite ***** though, I must say.

Wallow in your fartitude, Nazi *****.

J.

Calling for a bloody civil war against "treasonous Democrats" by
"patriotic" goofy Republicans like you and Danny Boy, is what you call

a

more sensible post?

LOL!! Jean's not even an American. He might have been at one time, I
dunno ... regretably he's Canadian ....

Nah. Never been American. Married one though. The fact i that Min was
right (in his own way) on that one. His post on that is, strangely, more
accurate than most of yours on most subject. Must put you to shame, hey.

LOL

J.

I think there's a 50/50 chance that Republicans, or rightist extremists,
were behind the falsification of the documents. I concede now that the
documents are likely fakes, but it's a question as to which partisan side
did it.
I am surprised that CBS would not have noticed the proportional spacing
issue. I know that during that period proportional mechanical typesetters
were used primarily for publication or for professional document
presentation (for example, legal papers). It amazes me how CBS, with a
long history of good investigative journalism, wouldn't have researched
this matter better.
It seems that someone wanted this to be an embarassment for the Democrats
because I'd expect the public would immediately think it was them.
However, considering Watergate, and the current Nam vet attacks on Kerry,
it's equally possible these documents came from the Right.
In any case, we don't need faked documents to cast considerable doubt on
Bush's military record. That was my point in presenting the website's
research, which is quite thorough and well thought out.
These documents, though, might tend to make the public more apt to dismiss
the whole ANG issue--and that may be the main reason the Right may have
devised this little scheme.
Dr. Blunt