Perverted, God-Hating Frenchies vs. Inbred, Sex-Obsessed Yokels

[USMC the Almighty]

There is plenty of corruption and scandal plaguing both major parties to make good cases from...

That's what I've been trying to get across.

 

[Coyote]

That's what I've been trying to get across.

Stop it now damnit! We seem to be agreeing. This is not good for our partisan hack ideologue images!

It's Bush's fault.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Stop it now damnit! We seem to be agreeing. This is not good for our partisan hack ideologue images!

It's Bush's fault.

Bush lied, people died.

 

[Popeye]

Bush lied, people died.

Congratulations! I'm glad to see you have finally bridged the gap between blind loyalty to a corrupt administration and true discerning patriotism.

 

[palerider]

I'm no lawyer either but I think that is a very vague area to make a call. This is not the same as a child and scout leader or a teacher. It was certainly highly inappropriate but illegal? More - it was clearly consenting and they stayed together until Studds died. If it was that clearly illegal you know darn well it would have been prosecuted. He should have resigned - same as Foley and same as others, but he didn't and his constituency supported him.

Well you are correct in that this is not the same as a child and a scout leader. Since the child, as a page to congress, clearly had political aspirations of one sort or another, the good graces of gerry studds could have an impact on his future within polics as opposed to a scout leader who has no impact on a child's future employment.

And the law is the law coyote. You can apologize for gerry studds as much as you like, and twist logic and reason in an attempt to relieve him of guilt (which is dissappointing) but you can't change it.

And would it have been prosecuted? You know as well as I that a great deal of illegal activity in DC goes unprosecuted even though much of it is public knowledge.

You are clearly stretching to make a case that the Democratic Party supports in any way the activities of NAMBLA. One could likewise claim the same of the Republicans since Foley's activities were known to the leadership for two years prior to being exposed in the media. So, is it only "wrong" once it becomes public?

Actually, it is more of a statement on the results of the moral relativism that is required of all good liberals. And with regard to foley's activities, high ranking democrats knew as well and didn't do a thing. Anyone who knew should be prosecuted for aiding and abeiting a child molester but once again, it was just a case of politics as usual. Although there is no evidence that foley actually crawled between the sheets with a minor. You also know as well as I that republicans who are caught in such activity are forced to resign. Hell, newt was forced to step down after having an affair. But democrats never resign and in fact, gain stature among their peers. Often they don't even resign when convicted of crimes and are technically still representatives even after they are serving their sentences in prision.

I would be interested in any clear confirmation of "standing ovation". I can find no solid record of it except "hearsay" in blogs - it is not mentioned in wiki even though other insulting acts are by Stubbs towards Congress are and the fact that he recieved multiple ovations from his constituency.

I saw the video on the news. CNN I believe. Those were not constituents standing on the floor of the house. And wiki is hardly a credible source for anything.

There is plenty of corruption and scandal plaguing both major parties to make good cases from but I think in this you are wrong.

Wrong about what? That studds broke the law by having sex with a minor? The law is what is and a congressman to a congressional page is a signifigant relationship.

 

[palerider]

Congratulations! I'm glad to see you have finally bridged the gap between blind loyalty to a corrupt administration and true discerning patriotism.

Exactly which lie did Bush tell. I hear that from liberal ideologues often, but they don't seem to be able to produce quotes from him that constitute lies.

Maybe you can provide a couple?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Palerider...anyone who reports good news from Iraq is lying. Whether it's the President, the General, or some Marine Lt.

 

[Popeye]

Exactly which lie did Bush tell. I hear that from liberal ideologues often, but they don't seem to be able to produce quotes from him that constitute lies.

Maybe you can provide a couple?

WMD's? How about the yellowcake uranium the Bush regime claimed was purchased by Iraq, yeah that was the truth. The whole lead up to the war was punctuated with lies, half truths, and fear-mongering, something that has become a constant with this sorry administration.

 

[Coyote]

Exactly which lie did Bush tell. I hear that from liberal ideologues often, but they don't seem to be able to produce quotes from him that constitute lies.

Maybe you can provide a couple?

A lie is a lie whether it is overt or covert - in other words if they know the truth, but keep silent on it, it is still a lie.

Prior to invading Iraq rumors were allowed to spread (encouraged perhaps?) that there were direct links between Saddam and 9/11. Before invading Iraq the majority of the American public believed this. 6 months after invading Iraq, the Administration (Bush) finally came out and said there was no link and never had been.

That is a lie - and a lie of the worst magnitude possible because it was allowed to perpetuate to gain public support for war.

 

[palerider]

WMD's? How about the yellowcake uranium the Bush regime claimed was purchased by Iraq, yeah that was the truth. The whole lead up to the war was punctuated with lies, half truths, and fear-mongering, something that has become a constant with this sorry administration.

Did bush fabricate that claim or did he repeat intelligence that a large number of top level democrats also had access to and believed? The brit's spy agencies still stand by their claim on the yellowcake and no credible proof has been offered up to refute the claim. And a large amount of radioactive materials were removed from Iraq but the discovery and transfer recieved very little notice from the media. Here is a short article from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/

Tell mE, when you repeat liberal ideology and sound bytes like the one above, that you can't defend on an intellectual level, are you deliberately lying, or just repeating what you have heard based on your faith in the one who told it to you?

 

[palerider]

A lie is a lie whether it is overt or covert - in other words if they know the truth, but keep silent on it, it is still a lie.

Prior to invading Iraq rumors were allowed to spread (encouraged perhaps?) that there were direct links between Saddam and 9/11. Before invading Iraq the majority of the American public believed this. 6 months after invading Iraq, the Administration (Bush) finally came out and said there was no link and never had been.

That is a lie - and a lie of the worst magnitude possible because it was allowed to perpetuate to gain public support for war.

These are the stated reasons for invading Iraq. Kindly show the lies. Rumors are rumors and can hardly be attributed to anyone.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq





Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

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;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

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;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. 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 Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

 

[jb_1430]

Thats a lie. September 13,2001 78% of Americans believed Saddam was likely involved in 9/11. That percentage declined after that. Likely due to the Bush administrations repeated statements that they had no evidence of his involvement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

A lie is a lie whether it is overt or covert - in other words if they know the truth, but keep silent on it, it is still a lie.

Prior to invading Iraq rumors were allowed to spread (encouraged perhaps?) that there were direct links between Saddam and 9/11. Before invading Iraq the majority of the American public believed this. 6 months after invading Iraq, the Administration (Bush) finally came out and said there was no link and never had been.

That is a lie - and a lie of the worst magnitude possible because it was allowed to perpetuate to gain public support for war.

 

[jb_1430]

Joe Wilson told them and THEY BELIEVED HIM!!!!

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

Did bush fabricate that claim or did he repeat intelligence that a large number of top level democrats also had access to and believed? The brit's spy agencies still stand by their claim on the yellowcake and no credible proof has been offered up to refute the claim. And a large amount of radioactive materials were removed from Iraq but the discovery and transfer recieved very little notice from the media. Here is a short article from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/

Tell mE, when you repeat liberal ideology and sound bytes like the one above, that you can't defend on an intellectual level, are you deliberately lying, or just repeating what you have heard based on your faith in the one who told it to you?

 

[Coyote]

Thats a lie. September 13,2001 78% of Americans believed Saddam was likely involved in 9/11. That percentage declined after that. Likely due to the Bush administrations repeated statements that they had no evidence of his involvement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062103A.shtml

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

and, 6 months into the War, the first official statement from Bush on this:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11 attacks"

Why wasn't this clarified before the invasion? Why were people allowed to believe what was patently false?

Lies.