TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Surprised by the lack of Cindy Sheehan Threads...
Pages (2): « 1 [2]
For starters, it wasn't about trying to "blame" Clinton, rather it was a response to the above tool who still maintained that WMD's never existed. It is a fact they existed. Dead kurds littered in the streets because they were attacked by their own leader with chemical weapons should've been all the proof necessary. Mass graves, yeah must've been a weather phenomenon or something. So not blaming Clinton, the fact remains that this country and her allies have maintained for years that Hussein was in possession of WMD's and certainly had the capability and desire to manufacture and pursue a WMD development operation. They were not destroyed after the first Gulf War. Furthermore, it's no big secret that containment is a bullshit policy that is the rough equivalent of turning a blind-eye to something awful as long as it isn't happening in your own back yard. There are some (not you) who maintain that there is some massive conspiracy by the current administration to start this whole terror war for political gain(a la Howard Dean suggesting that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened). If Dubya lied, they all lied. And if they all lied, so be it, but goddammit, it's not about some dark Sith Lord pulling strings behind the scenes. The anti-crowd seems to think a zebra can change its stripes. I don't need to read one of your long diatribes to know that. Frankly (and no offense to you), I simply don't have the time to read every word in your post. You know I respect you, but I think you may have jumped to the wrong conclusion based on my post. My response to you was more on the topic of Cindy Sheehan.
The argument about Tammy Pruett is more that she has a whole lot more on the line to lose than Cindy. I don't think it's right to try to even assign value to loss, but since everyone else is doing it, I'll offer my 2 cents on the matter. It sucks that Cindy lost her son. It sucks hard. But if you are trying to tell me that the Moveon.org crowd isn't pulling the strings now, I'll call BS. Not that I think Cindy's feelings on war have changed, but her message has certainly become more virulent as certain leftist mouthpieces have picked up on it and are running with it. And it's a harsh reality for her to face, but Casey died doing something he believed in, and her latest round of bashing seems more and more like a proverbial kick in the balls to her dead son's memory. And sure, Cindy has gotten a lot of attention and the supporters of what we're doing in Iraq are certainly aware of that and are playing some defense. That doesn't mean that one is definitively right while the other is definitively wrong. My spiteful (you call it being an asshole) tone probably stems from the fact that I listen to Randy Rhodes on the way home, and if there is one political pundit that makes me want to rip my eyes out and cut off my own balls and use them for earplugs, she is it. I guess I bring that on myself.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka For starters, it wasn't about trying to "blame" Clinton, rather it was a response to the above tool who still maintained that WMD's never existed. It is a fact they existed. Dead kurds littered in the streets because they were attacked by their own leader with chemical weapons should've been all the proof necessary. Mass graves, yeah must've been a weather phenomenon or something. So not blaming Clinton, the fact remains that this country and her allies have maintained for years that Hussein was in possession of WMD's and certainly had the capability and desire to manufacture and pursue a WMD development operation. They were not destroyed after the first Gulf War. Furthermore, it's no big secret that containment is a bullshit policy that is the rough equivalent of turning a blind-eye to something awful as long as it isn't happening in your own back yard. There are some (not you) who maintain that there is some massive conspiracy by the current administration to start this whole terror war for political gain(a la Howard Dean suggesting that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened). If Dubya lied, they all lied. And if they all lied, so be it, but goddammit, it's not about some dark Sith Lord pulling strings behind the scenes. The anti-crowd seems to think a zebra can change its stripes. I don't need to read one of your long diatribes to know that. Frankly (and no offense to you), I simply don't have the time to read every word in your post. You know I respect you, but I think you may have jumped to the wrong conclusion based on my post. My response to you was more on the topic of Cindy Sheehan. The argument about Tammy Pruett is more that she has a whole lot more on the line to lose than Cindy. I don't think it's right to try to even assign value to loss, but since everyone else is doing it, I'll offer my 2 cents on the matter. It sucks that Cindy lost her son. It sucks hard. But if you are trying to tell me that the Moveon.org crowd isn't pulling the strings now, I'll call BS. Not that I think Cindy's feelings on war have changed, but her message has certainly become more virulent as certain leftist mouthpieces have picked up on it and are running with it. And it's a harsh reality for her to face, but Casey died doing something he believed in, and her latest round of bashing seems more and more like a proverbial kick in the balls to her dead son's memory. And sure, Cindy has gotten a lot of attention and the supporters of what we're doing in Iraq are certainly aware of that and are playing some defense. That doesn't mean that one is definitively right while the other is definitively wrong. My spiteful (you call it being an asshole) tone probably stems from the fact that I listen to Randy Rhodes on the way home, and if there is one political pundit that makes me want to rip my eyes out and cut off my own balls and use them for earplugs, she is it. I guess I bring that on myself. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Fair enough. Why do you keep listening to Rhodes, for God's sakes man? I can't even listen to her for very long. It's like putting yourself in the Clockwork Orange scenario room with your eyes stuck open. |
| quote: |
| Dean suggested Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened? Haven't heard that one. Did he maybe state that Bush had warnings ahead of time and SHOULD have known, or did he flat-out suggest Bush was behind it all? |
| quote: |
| Diane Rehm: "Why do you think he [Bush] is suppressing that [Sept. 11] report?" Howard Dean: "I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?" |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka What happened was that he said there was a theory going around that Bush knew, but that it was purely a theory. I guess what angered the right so much was simply that he would bring it up when it was so proposterous. I'm sure he knew it was BS, but by dropping that little piece of bait he gave a lot of ammo to the conspiracy crowd. Probably not that big a deal, but nevertheless, he did drop it and called it "the most interesting theory". I think he did it on purpose, but as Dean says, "it can't be proved." When asked why Bush was trying to suppress the release of the 9/11 report, he said: With hindsight being 20/20, a lot of people probably should've seen something coming, though I doubt anyone would've predicted exactly what happened and the timing of it. But no, I don't think he suggested Bush was a mastermind of sorts. OK--looking back at my above post, I think I mixed two thoughts together to imply Dean said Bush was a mastermind. I meant that he gave fodder to those that wanted to believe the outlandish theory. My head hurts. |
| quote: |
| So how is school going? My job is kicking my ass. Off to Hilton Head tomorrow for a week to try and find my wits. God knows I need it! |
Re: Re: Re: CBSFOX: STFU or Proof
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 Stop wishing that your boy is not a liar. BTW, you can still hunt for those WMD's by enlisting. |
| quote: |
| "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |
The Nanci Pelosi and Ted Kennedy quotes are my personal favorites.
Re: Re: Re: Re: CBSFOX: STFU or Proof
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo BTW i am currently enlisted (active). have been for over 9 years now. so go fuck yourself |
Re: CBSFOX: STFU or Proof
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I think what has Dems so riled up is that Dubya did what Clinton never had the sack to do and now they're fighting an uphill battle to get back the power and control they're so obsessed with. So Clinton lied too, and of course all of the Dems(John Kerry in particular) who proclaimed that Saddam/Iraq had WMDs before the war were all liars too, but the only one that really lied was Dubya, right? Because he actually did something about it instead of having a talkathon. I guess your boys are liars too, eh? Oh wait, I forgot, Dubya only wants oil. Unless of course you still maintain that all of the WMD capabilities were destroyed in the early 90's or that they never even existed in the first place!  The hardest decisions to make are often times the least popular. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo should i post other countries intelligence reports about what was thought to be true about his WMD's prior to 2000? |
| quote: |
| you suffer from a severe case of ideological myopia son. |
| quote: |
| you're the one that has fallen for the Democratic Party, anti-war, Socialist, propagandist agenda (lies) |
| quote: |
| BTW i am currently enlisted (active). have been for over 9 years now. so go fuck yourself |
it was a friendly quip saying "go f**k yourself". hence, . responding to your friendly quip for me to enlist and look for WMD's. once again i find us getting off track here.
i didn't label you as anything. really. just that there is an agenda or agendas out there that would see Bush impeached for so much as being a Texan as being a liar that Sheehan is suggesting. it's not going to happen. it's a tired argument. anyone that hasn't fallen in to the incoherency of the "Bush lied about WMD's" black hole knows this. that would be 98% of the smartest people in the world. i'll take that "regimented individuality" any day of the week.
before i enlisted i made eyeglasses for a few years (you know, the dweebs in the labjackets that work behind the windows at those 1 hr. places) Myopia (near-sightedness) is just a fancy term to me.
You're denying that he got this country into a war about lies.
Of which, if you go back on all my Iraq related posts they would mention that he lied.
I am not on the camp casey bandwagon nor plan on being there.
For you or anyone to equate me with having a partisan slant is silly at best to outrageous at large.
But you are in the pro-war camp. So it goes without saying that you would be in danger of violating US Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 47 Subsection 1001 which in part reads:
| quote: |
| (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, WHOEVER, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully� (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by ANY trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or USES any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to� (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate. |
The majority of American public opinion is on Cindy's side now (except for her demanding the troops be brought home immediatly).
It just took a little longer for the opinion of most Americans to catch up to the world's opinion of Iraqnam, but considering we don't have a viable media here (everything is gossip-oriented), it's not too much of a surprise.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5580679.html
Results of AP-Ipsos poll on attitudes about Iraq
Associated Press
August 26, 2005 POLL0827.METHOD
Click to learn more...
The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about the war in Iraq is based on telephone interviews with 1,001 adults from all states except Alaska and Hawaii. The interviews were conducted Aug. 22-24 by Ipsos, an international polling firm.
Results were weighted to represent the population by demographic factors such as age, sex, region, race and income.
No more than one time in 20 should chance variations in the sample cause the results to vary by more than 3 percentage points from the answers that would be obtained if all Americans were polled.
There are other sources of potential error in polls, including the wording and order of questions. Results may not total 100 percent because of rounding. An asterisk indicates less than 1 percent.
1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Bush administration has conducted the war in Iraq? (IF APPROVE/DISAPPROVE, ASK Is that strongly or somewhat?(Results from June 2005 in parentheses)
--Strongly approve, 20 percent (26)
--Somewhat approve, 16 percent (15)
--Somewhat disapprove, 13 percent (11)
--Strongly disapprove, 45 percent (45)
--Not sure, 5 percent (3)
TOTAL APPROVE -- 37 percent (41)
TOTAL DISAPPROVE -- 58 percent (56)
2. All in all, thinking about how things have gone in Iraq since the United States went to war there in March 2003, do you think the United States ...
(Results from June 2005 in parentheses)
--Made the right decision in going to war in Iraq, 43 percent (42)
--Made a mistake in going to war in Iraq, 53 percent (53)
--Not sure, 4 percent (5)
3. How likely is it that a stable, democratic government will be established in Iraq? Is it ...
(Results from February 2005 in parentheses)
--Very likely, 11 percent (10)
--Somewhat likely, 40 percent (41)
--Not too likely, 30 percent (31)
--Not at all likely, 16 percent (16)
--Not sure, 3 percent (2)
4. Has the military action in Iraq ...
(Results from April 2004 in parentheses)
--Increased the threat of terrorism in the world, 50 percent (47)
--Decreased the threat of terrorism in the world, 20 percent (25 percent)
--Had no effect on the threat of terrorism, 28 percent (25 percent)
--Not sure, 3 percent (3 percent)
5. Should the United States keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or should the United States bring its troops home from Iraq immediately?
(Results from June 2005 in parentheses)
--Keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, 60 percent (59)
--Bring its troops home from Iraq immediately, 37 percent (37)
--Not sure, 3 percent (4)
6. Do you think it is OK for people who oppose the war in Iraq to express their opposition publicly, or not?
--Yes, 87 percent
--No, 12 percent
--Not sure, 1 percent
7. Do you have a friend, colleague or family member who has served in the military effort in Iraq at any time since March 2003?
--Yes, 54 percent
--No, 45 percent
--Not sure, 1 percent
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 You're denying that he got this country into a war about lies. |
| quote: |
| I am not on the camp casey bandwagon nor plan on being there. |
| quote: |
| For you or anyone to equate me with having a partisan slant is silly at best to outrageous at large. |
| quote: |
| But you are in the pro-war camp. So it goes without saying that you would be in danger of violating US Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 47 Subsection 1001 which in part reads: And if you are in the military your have sworn to uphold the law. |
i really don't know what to say to that...other than i'm not so sure that title 18 has jurisiction applicable to myself or others like me more than title 10 does. either way, you're way off base with a statement like that. i'm sworn to uphold the orders of the office of the President and the officers appointed above me.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 And if you are in the military your have sworn to uphold the law. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo no. i'm denying that he lied. something you can't prove. you won't. because he didn't. however, yall do have at least one thing in common. you're being a little defensive for no reason. i have been guilty of the same once or twice. i haven't equated you with anything but with maybe others who have fallen for the afforementioned "Bush lied" agenda's. okay i really don't know what to say to that...other than i'm not so sure that title 18 has jurisiction applicable to myself or others like me more than title 10 does. either way, you're way off base with a statement like that. i'm sworn to uphold the orders of the office of the President and the officers appointed above me. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King what did he do then?/ Tell the truth?? |
| quote: |
| you are so saturated with this patriotic american bullshit that its making you blind |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King If that monkey didnt lie.. as you proclaim.. what did he do then?/ Tell the truth?? man.. you are so saturated with this patriotic american bullshit that its making you blind |
I hesitate a bit at stating flat out that our President lied to us to get us into war, only because in the most objective manner this would be extremely difficult to prove (say in a court of law, for example). I mean, yes, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but simply demonstrating that there were no WMD found, no AQ links, etc. does not in of itself demonstrate a willful act of lying. It could very well also demonstrate idiocy or incompetence as well (and that does include the intelligence gatherers).
But again, let me be clear - do I believe he and his Administration likely lied? Well Jesus, he is a politician, right? Most given politicians will go to great lengths, even lying, to get their given policy passed through and sold. Bush just happens to be the most powerful politician, and his policies just happen to matter the most, so you can see where his push to get his policy passed would lead. Now at this time, Sen. Roberts of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee has REFUSED to start Part 2 of the SCSI report pertaining to this very question of whether or not the White House misused the intelligence to make their case for war. Instead he's attempted to defer that part to last March's Intelligence report from Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction :
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/
In which they stated WITHOUT TIMING ONE SECOND INTO INVESTIGATING THE QUESTION THEMSELVES that the Administration didn't misuse intelligence. As Reid states in the article above:
"I believe it is essential that we hold both the intelligence agencies and senior policy-makers accountable," the Nevada Democrat said.
Reid called on the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, "to investigate whether Bush administration officials misused intelligence."
And leave it to CNN and the rest of the bend-me-over-I-love-it-hard MSM press not to push this question further on Roberts.
My point is we have not yet fully investigated this question, and to be honest with my hack Kansas Senator Roberts who does nothing but tow the GOP party line, I don't expect to see one. And the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, Sen. Rockefeller, is still looking for his backbone from the part 1 report that came out in August 2004.
So the bottom line is I can't form a solid conclusion on the matter. Do I have my suspicions? Uh, yeah. I just produced a page of counterintelligence that this Administration willfully ignored prior to invasion. And I do think the words:
"intelligence was being fixed around the policy"
is a bit telling from the Downing Street Memo. But this story is nothing but a fart in a windstorm with our darn "liberal media", so what else can be said?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I hesitate a bit at stating flat out that our President lied to us |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I hesitate a bit at stating flat out that our President lied to us |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo okay i really don't know what to say to that...other than i'm not so sure that title 18 has jurisiction applicable to myself or others like me more than title 10 does. either way, you're way off base with a statement like that. i'm sworn to uphold the orders of the office of the President and the officers appointed above me. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office Article II Section 1 Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article IV Section 3 Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. United States Constitution US CODE TITLE 5, PART III, Subpart B, CHAPTER 33, SUBCHAPTER II, � 3331 � 3331. Oath of office An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: �I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.� This section does not affect other oaths required by law. US CODE TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART II, CHAPTER 47, SUBCHAPTER X, � 932 � 932. Art. 132. Frauds against the United States Any person subject to this chapter� (1) who, knowing it to be false or fraudulent� (A) makes any claim against the United States or any officer thereof; or (B) presents to any person in the civil or military service thereof, for approval or payment, any claim against the United States or any officer thereof; US CODE TITLE 50, CHAPTER 40, � 2302 � 2302. Definitions In this chapter: (1) The term �weapon of mass destruction� means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of� (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity. US CODE |
| quote: |
Trudeau claimed that MPs turn into instant nobodies the moment they were 50 yards from the House of Commons. Chretien learned everything he knows from Trudeau. He was Trudeau's justice minister. They wrote the flawed Charter together. Canadians are just now beginning to realize that they are in deep trouble because they reelected the Liberals to Ottawa last November 2000. This latest 20% pay hike that the Liberals just took is only a drop in the bucket. They are only getting started. The lesions are about to continue. Stay tuned. Canadians should have known because the list of Liberal shenanigans is long and peculiar. Liberals have little or no concern for taxpayers' money. The money is there to be taken or given to friends. Legally of course, through pay hikes or giveaways through HRDC or CIDA. They deny all conflict of interest in these giveaways. Prove it, they say. 1. Liberals promised to abolish Mulroney's GST and it was a major 1993 election promise. When Liberal MP John Nunziata voted against the 1996 budget for this reason, Mr. Chr�tien kicked him out of the Liberal Caucus and excommunicated him from the Liberal Party. He was a living breathing example to the others -- what would happen to them if they showed the slightest independence. 2. They expropriated British Columbian property at Nanoose Bay, B.C. 3. They breached a signed contract in the Pearson Airport scandal. They denied compensation to the wronged parties. Then they were forced to pay $60-million in damages only taxpayers money. 4. They breached a signed purchase contract in the EH-101 helicopter scandal. They were then forced to pay $500 million in cancellation fees only taxpayers money. 5. They cut off the Somalia inquiry after it found uncomfortable evidence about the Liberals. 6. Protesters at APAC were pepper-sprayed by the RCMP and the Liberals covered the connection to the prime minister. The $5-million Inquiry sent Chretien an invitation to give evidence instead of a subpoena. He declined the invitation. Surprise. Surprise. 7. Liberals moved closure about 50 times in Parliament to cut off debate on their bills, including Sheila's Bill C-55. 8. Prime Minister Chretien showed his arrogance to Albertans when he appointed a senator-for-life from Alberta despite the fact that he knew Albertans had paid for an election to elect their own senators. The Governor General -- not the prime minister is supposed to appoint senators. 9. Prime Minister Jean Chretien was too busy skiing to attend the funeral of King Hussein of Jordan. Canada was the only member the Security Council or the G7 which did not send a Leader or Head of State to the funeral. 10. The party-disciplined Liberals defeated a Reform motion to use the notwithstanding clause to overturn a B.C. court decision declaring possession of child pornography legal. (143 to 129) 11. Liberals have an open-door policy to refugee claimants, spies and foreign terrorists. They also have strong connections with the huge immigration industry. 12. Both the arrogant socialist Liberals and the (NDP) B.C. government made a deal with the Nisga people without input from the citizens of B.C. Our politicians did not allow British Columbians to be heard. 13. Jean Chr�tien gave his friends in Shawinigan: The Canoe Hall of Fame ($500,000); A tourism museum ($5 million); Several hotels ($3.8 million); A congress centre ($3 million); a fountain in the river - all complements of the Canadian taxpayer. More money than all the western provinces received. And no questions allowed or answers given. 14. Several shady people in Chretiens constituency received millions of dollars in taxpayers money to create jobs. There are so many unanswered questions about the shenanigans in Shawinigan that it would take an independent government inquiry to get to the bottom of this obvious conflict of interest. The Liberals refused to allow this inquiry. Surprise, surprise. 15. Liberals blamed the RCMP for building a private road into Chretien's cottage. 16. Liberals allow parliament to sit as seldom as possible (90 days in 2000). One way to cut down on the repetitive questions about Shawinigan. 17. Liberals refuse to talk about the flawed constitution. 18. They shred all incriminating papers. 19. They stall all scandals and cancel all inquiries. 20. They buy all elections with billions of taxpayers' money. 21. They buy all culture groups, have-not provinces, lobby groups and special-interest groups in Canada. 22. They vehemently represent all special-interest groups, minority groups, feminists, multicultural groups, aboriginals, deviate groups, the huge immigration industry, the vast CBC, the unions, the entertainment industry, the environmental movement, the nuclear industry, the monstrous federal bureaucracy and the Quebecois but have forgotten the average English-speaking Canadian. 23. They brought us the Airbus fiasco, which benefited Mulroney (He of the GST got more millions.). 24. They brought us unnecessary gun control for law abiding Canadians which benefited the criminals. 25. They brought us unemployment twice as high as the U.S.? 26. They brought us a 63-cent dollar. 27. They brought us forced bilingualism ($4 billion a year) and multiculturalism from coast to coast to coast. 28. They control 50% of the economy compared to government control of only 33% in the U.S. 29. They brought Canadians the highest taxes in the industrialized world. 30. They brought us a $600 billion national debt? 31. They ensured that all those appointed to the Supreme Court are not asked questions about their vested interested or hidden prejudices. 32. This ensured that these left wing appointees to the Supreme Court made left wing legal decisions -- pornography, homosexual rights, Indian land claims and Quebec separation. 33. They refused to use the notwithstanding clause while waiting for the leftist Supreme Court to put a leftist spin or cancel every law in the land. (58 laws since 1982) 34. They sent bombers to bomb civilians in Yugoslavia, all for human rights. 35. They sent our soldiers to Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda (While a million people were being slaughtered), the Republic of Central Africa, Haiti and East Timor -- anywhere the United Nations pointed a finger. 36. They allowed all prisoners to vote. Guess who these criminals voted for? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office Article II Section 1 Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article IV Section 3 Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. United States Constitution US CODE TITLE 5, PART III, Subpart B, CHAPTER 33, SUBCHAPTER II, � 3331 � 3331. Oath of office An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: �I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.� This section does not affect other oaths required by law. US CODE TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART II, CHAPTER 47, SUBCHAPTER X, � 932 � 932. Art. 132. Frauds against the United States Any person subject to this chapter� (1) who, knowing it to be false or fraudulent� (A) makes any claim against the United States or any officer thereof; or (B) presents to any person in the civil or military service thereof, for approval or payment, any claim against the United States or any officer thereof; US CODE TITLE 50, CHAPTER 40, � 2302 � 2302. Definitions In this chapter: (1) The term �weapon of mass destruction� means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of� (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity. US CODE |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo wow. i guess i gave you too much credit. |
Oh the hypocracy of this woman...
| quote: |
Rosen: Tide turning on Sheehan August 26, 2005 pictureIn spite of her glorified treatment in the liberal media, the tide of public opinion is turning against Cindy Sheehan. Her words and actions simply don't stand up to objective scrutiny. She's a veritable supermarket of rants, cliches and conspiracy theories about President Bush and the United States of America. She opposed U.S. action against the Taliban in Afghanistan. She wants Israel out of Palestine. Because her son was killed in 2004 ("murdered" by George W. Bush, as she puts it), she's refused to pay her income taxes. She's severed relations with her in-laws as punishment for their voting for Bush in 2004. She believes the "mainstream media" (The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time Newsweek, The Associated Press, ABC, CBS, NBC?) are "a propaganda tool for the government," and that were it not for left-wing bloggers on the Internet, "we would already be a fascist state." She wants the president to be impeached, tried for war crimes and sent to jail. She brands the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and declares that "this country is not worth dying for." Last April, she spoke at a San Francisco State University rally supporting Lynne Stewart, the radical left-wing lawyer who was convicted in 2003 of complicity in a terrorist conspiracy, passing information from her client in jail to his agents on the outside. Stewart's client was Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the "blind sheikh"), an Egyptian terrorist with links to al-Qaida, who was given a life sentence in 1995 for his role in a plot to launch a "Day of Terror" in New York City, to include blowing up the U.N. building, the George Washington Bridge, the Holland Tunnel and other landmarks. At the Stewart rally, Sheehan asserted that Bush and "his band of neo-cons" deliberately allowed the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to happen so that it would serve as "their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through." She went on to compare Stewart to Atticus Finch, the courageous lawyer in To Kill A Mockingbird. Finch, you'll recall, defended a black man who was falsely accused of raping a white woman in a segregationist Southern town. What a ludicrous comparison! Does Sheehan believe that Rahman and Stewart were unjustly convicted? And is she so blind that she can't see the connection between Rahman and the terrorists in Iraq who murdered her son? Sheehan has also echoed the argument of others on the left that if George W. Bush truly believes in this war, he should prove it by sending his daughters to fight in Iraq. (Instructively, this comes from a woman who tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade her son to let her take him to Canada so that he could desert the U.S. Army.) This piece of silliness is worth spending some time on. For openers, imagine the practical complications of having the president's daughters in a combat zone in this kind of a terrorist war with no front lines. What a prize they would be. Al-Qaida would be working overtime to take them hostage for political leverage, endangering everyone around them. On a more general level, parents don't "own" their children, certainly not their adult children. They can't be "sent" anywhere they don't choose to go. The Bush twins, Jenna and Barbara, are free to oppose the war, regardless of their father's views or station. But even if they support it, they have no obligation to join the military, nor does anyone else who supports the war, for that matter. We have an all-volunteer force today, and a relatively small one at that. At present, there are 1.4 million active-duty military personnel in all branches, combined. That's down from 2.2 million in 1986, a one-third reduction. We had 3.5 million in 1968 during the Vietnam War, 3.6 million in 1952 during the Korean War and more than 12 million in 1945 during World War II. Arguably, it might be prudent to add a couple of hundred thousand to today's active-duty force, but we don't require a million more, much less 10 million. We're not involved in a major mobilization. We certainly don't need a universal draft. The military represents less than 1 percent of the American work force. Anyone's free and welcome to enlist, but the great majority will contribute more by continuing to do what they do best. The military is a highly professional and specialized force these days. We need a few good men and women who have the skills, the aptitude and the desire. If Jenna and Barbara don't fit that description, they don't belong in the service. The military is about performance, not politics. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.