|
2008 Elections (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
So do you really think these are trivial issues trumped by a much bigger issue of "gay rights?"
|
Shaolin_Z, I completely agree with you that there are far more issues that deal with larger problems and more people than just the gay population of the United States. That's a no brainer. What I don't get is how there is absolutely no reason why gays can't have equal rights. It's a simple question I'm asking and the only answer I get is, "You're stalling other important issues with your trivial issues." But I'm not stalling anything. Republicans are. They are to blame for taking their time to draft, bring to the floor, and vote on issues dscriminating against gays. They could have used that time to work on real issues.
It would be a miracle if you responded to this post and without being passive so that I can see whether you get the overall picture. But you'll probably get fumed by the ongoing name-calling we've thrown at each other and completely read over this post. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| Check your pm box^^^ |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I didn't avoid your point at all. I showed it had nothing to do with restoring the contitutional protected civil libereties, but rather expanding constitutional protected civil liberties. How's that avoiding your point again? |
You played on semantics. You knew what I meant that Ron Paul was distorting the constitution with the gay marriage ban. But instead of addressing exactly that, you went on a tangent explaining how a gay marriage ban is not the same as restoring the constitution. Yes, that's obvious. But now address my point: Ron Paul is distorting (which I believe is just as bad as not restoring) the constitution with a gay marriage ban.
Can you address the point? We'll see...
| quote: |
I was talking in relative terms, and you know that. But apparently you'd rather misrepresent what I said. That's nothing new really, you've done it before on different issues. If you want, I'll dig up some of those threads. |
I understand that there are more important issues than gay rights. But when you call my issues "trivial bull," that doesn't sound like you're saying anything other than empty jargon. How do I misrepresent you when you don't make a valid point? You misrepresented your point to begin with.
| quote: |
Umm.. ok, I now know not to ever take you seriously again. And I think you've proven beyond all doubt that you're a complete moron. |
How am I a moron? Other than the fact that you just called me a moron...
| quote: |
Wow, just wow. Apparenly you don't understand jack about tyranny, power, and have obviously never studied history. |
That was humor I used. You just don't like it because you were at the other end of the joke. How do you figure I never studied history? Oh I know. Because you are a Muslim, that's why.
| quote: |
I don't care about the fact that you're gay. The fact that you're a highly selfcentered nuerotic pretentious blind sheep is what makes you a jack ass, not your sexual orientation. |
I'm not a blind sheep. I'm so cool I don't follow anyone's rules, not even my own.
Go blow yourself up in public. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
MisterOpus1,
:haha: :haha: You are the by far the closest minded Dem I have encounter. |
Oh no, I'm sorry, I forgot to tell you - I'm not a Dem. any more than you are a Repub., right?
And you seem to really take a liking to the smiley laughy faces. They are cute, aren't they? Not exactly the best substitute for supporting opinion, but they're cute to use nonetheless.
| quote: | | You are like Michael Moore, you would bend over to have the a Dem in charge. |
Ahh yes, I was waiting for the shill paint brush to paint everyone who disagrees with you in the extremist corner.
You know, there's a few other well-known pundits out there that partake in the exact same generalization smear as you. Strangely, they're all hard-core far-right Conservatives.
Again I ask, are you sure you're not a Republican? Because the characteristics you're displaying are just, well, a bit too coincidental.
As for your charge of being a close minded Dem., given what we've discussed so far, let's see how far "close-minded" of a Dem. I am compared to the rest of the nation:
Redeployment of our troops with a timeline and benchmarks:
| quote: | CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 20-24, 2007. N=1,052 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). RV = registered voters
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"
Approve – 24%
Disapprove – 71%
Unsure – 5%
"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?" 4/20-24/07
Should – 64%
Should not – 32%
Unsure – 4%
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). April 20-23, 2007. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults). RV = registered voters
"When it comes to the debate on Iraq who do you agree with more: the Democrats in Congress, who say we should set a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq; OR, President Bush, who says we should NOT set a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq?" 4/20-23/07
Democrats Deadline – 56%
President No Deadline – 37%
"Do you think the U.S. goal of achieving victory in Iraq is still possible, or not?" Half sample (Form B)
Still Possible – 36%
Not Possible – 55%
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. April 18-22, 2007. N=1,508 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). RV = registered voters
"The Congress is now debating future funding for the war in Iraq. Would you like to see your congressional representative vote FOR or AGAINST a bill that calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq to be completed by August of 2008?"
"The Congress is now debating future funding for the war in Iraq. Would you like to see your congressional representative vote FOR or AGAINST a bill that calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq to be completed by August of 2008?" 4/18-22/07
For – 59%
Against -33%
"Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?" 4/18-22/07
Right Decision – 45%
Wrong Decision – 47%
"Do you think the war in Iraq has helped the war on terrorism, or has it hurt the war on terrorism?"
4/18-22/07
Helped – 38%
Hurt – 44%
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm |
Now there's a sample of 3 different polls on the American sentiment with Iraq and the Democrats versus Bush.
Funny, I didn't realize just how many of us Michael Moore's there were out there? I mean, how many fringe Moonbat tree-huggin libruls are there? Surely those polls are wrong?
Let's see, what else did we cover?
Ah yes, rolling back tax cuts on the top 1%. Well let's take a look at one of your Republicans favorite pollsters, Rasmussen:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/200...ntonTaxPlan.htm
By golly, 59% of American adults favor the Clinton plan of rolling back tax cuts on the top tier. My God, I myself didn't realize just how many fringe whacko Democrats make up the majority American public! That's just unbelievable, ain't it?
Moving on:
| quote: | | On a more serious note, you want to talk about tax breaks? sake your saying to increase tax on the rich? Those are the people creating jobs and investing. I say not only tax break for the rich but for all americans. |
Because you have evidence that demonstrates a direct influence of tax breaks creating jobs and investment, right? I'll bite, because I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. In fact, I've seen evidence directly to the contrary:
http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points1-23-07.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm
Your last two Republican presidents had a vague understanding of fiscal responsibility (Bush Sr. a bit more than Reagan), which was why they INCREASED taxes after a tax cut. Your current president and party has absolutely no ing clue what fiscal responsiblity is, and has unfortunately left our future generations to pay the credit card bill your party has created. You want to talk about taxes, YOUR PARTY has created a birth tax on our future generations for footing the debt and deficit you continue to create and support.
That is the biggest tax increase any Dem. could ever rollback.
| quote: | | Is like their proposal to increase the minimum wage... its a joke. |
Hmm, yes, I guess that's why the huge majority of Americans want an increase, because we all think it's a joke too:
| quote: | Associated Press-AOL News Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. Dec. 19-21, 2006. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
.
"Do you favor or oppose an increase in the minimum wage?" 12/19-21/06
Favor – 80%
Oppose – 18%
CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 2006. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.
"Do you favor or oppose Congress passing legislation that would raise the minimum wage?" 8/30 - 9/2/06
Favor – 86%
Oppose – 13%
http://www.pollingreport.com/work.htm |
You know, it might be a bit crazy to think this, but maybe, just maybe folks like myself who agree with 80-86% of the rest of Americans just happen to think that the minimum wage should be raised and kept up with inflation just as it's always done historically, because folks like myself know that there's no evidence to support the Wingnut notion that increasing minimum wage has ever hurt businesses?
Naaahh, I shouldn't think that. That would just be a bit too, uhh, too much of a librul conspiracy. Nevermind.....
| quote: | | The Dems didnt do in their first 100 hrs. They havent done to this day... |
You mean all those bills that they voted on, those bills in the first 100 days that had the broad majority of public support, in your words "didn't do "? Hmmm, perhaps you're right, considering it's up to the ING PRESIDENT TO SIGN THOSE BILLS, AIN'T IT CHAMP?
But who would want to think of the thought of the Demcratic Congress doing what the majority of Americans want them to do? Let's just get rid of that nasty thought right now!
| quote: | | all they do is come up with bills that endanger the lives of our brave soldiers but they are promoting failure. |
Uhh, guess what, champ? Take a wild guess on who's vetoing the bill that's funding our troops? Is that the Democrats? In fact, is there anything in that bill that says it's cutting off funding for our troops? Could you cite any info. from that bill that specifically states as such?
And spare me your bull about Democrats not protecting the troops. It was YOUR ing idiot president and party who sent our military to war without proper protection:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...r_humvee_armor/
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topsto..._305195404.html
Refuses to provide adequate health care to our National Guard members:
http://www.theolympian.com/home/new...ge/131364.shtml
Have been completely exposed to not taking care of our disabled veterans:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7021701172.html
To which my future job in Physical Therapy will have to pick up the mess spilled over from inadequate care your President has created for our Iraqi veterans. So keep your GOP talking point rhetoric to your "Independent" self, sir.
| quote: | | Instead of progressing you are going backwards... you are still debating the WMD evidence :haha: :haha: :haha: buddy we are in this war already, LETS FIND A SOLUTION! |
I believe the order of events in our debate was that I made a comment about manipulated intelligence, then you gave the talking point line that everyone thought Iraq had WMDs, and then I pointed out to you with evidence that there were definite discrepencies once that intelligence was more closely examined by us as well as counterevidence being ignored.
It's absolutely disingenuous of you to attempt to portray me as the one going back and pointing out WMDs when you were clearly discussing it as well. If you have something further to add to the evidence I laid out in my last post, then by all means do so. Otherwise your attempts to downplay the events and mischaracterize my stance in this discussion with WMDs does not go unnoticed.
| quote: | | A solution is not to withdraw... Dont give me this that its Bushs fault we are there. Congress approved the war, both Rep and Dem :rolleyes: |
Correction, nearly all Republicans and the minority number of Democrats voted for the war. And yes, it is Bush and this Adminstration's fault we are there, as the evidence I laid out to you in regards to false al Qaeda connections, lying sources like Curveball, and lack of WMD intelligence clearly demonstrate. If you wish to debate this in detail, then do so. Otherwise you are being disingenuous by blatantly ignoring what I previously posted and pretending to lay the blame on everyone else.
| quote: | | If all you want is to withdraw, have the dems provide you with free health care, for them to drag you by the hand for the rest of your live, tax the living out of the rich and save the fish and tress go ahead and vote for them. |
I'll tell you what I want – I want what the broad majority of Americans want: gradual redeployment of our troops from Iraq while keeping some forces on the ground to go after al Qaeda and train the Iraqi soldiers, i.e. a more diplomatic strategy rather than a military one as described by the Bush-appointed Iraqi Study Group, an increase in minimum wage, FISCAL ING RESPONSIBILITY, i.e. balancing the budget and getting us out of the red, a rollback on tax cuts for the top 1%, a revamp on the medicare system so there's actual competition (i.e. capitalism) between insurance companies and the government, healthcare for all children, and yes, tighter restrictions on greenhouse gases as well as better tax incentives for clean fuel.
Now I'm sorry if all this sounds really whacko to an "Independent" like yourself, but again, these simple policies are the same ones that the majority of Americans have consistently wanted as well. I'm wondering if YOU happened to realize just how far out of the mainstream YOU are?
| quote: | | My point: The dem presidential candidates are a joke! Obama/Clinton etc.. |
Yes, and you've done ample evidence thus far to demonstrate that.
Wait. No. Actually, you haven't presented jack so far. I wait with baited breath.
| quote: | | The only one that is more convincing is Edwards. |
I like him too. Yea, yippie, we agree on something.
| quote: | | The GOP in the other hand have way better candidates. |
Yeah, they're WAY cooler. It's like, like, they're just WAY cooler, man. And Spiderman would definitely kick Thor's butt! He's WAY better!
| quote: | | If you want to attack the GOP by the number of wifes theyve had your sad. |
So's your grammer.
Regardless, how is it sad to demonstrate the affairs of one president to the multiple affairs of presidential candidates whom you support? You really are having a hard time answering direct questions, aren't you?
| quote: | | In contrast, Clinton i keep repeating, the same desk that your president is seating at to find a solution for Iraq, Clinton was getting head by monica all day. Dude do you even know the past history of Clinton with other women? :haha: It wouldnt surprise me if he got other women to give him head in the presidential office. He was talking to some minister, cant recall his name, over the phone and monica was going at it. Im not lying this was confirmed when he was getting impeached, later on he called him and apologized lol. |
Hey, speaking of affairs, what's with your party anyway?:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070428...YKLbE9GVpes0NUE
You got gay Republican Congressmen ing around with their aides, now you've got Republicans tripped up in prostitute rings?
Hmm, I thought you guys were the party of "moral values"?
| quote: | | Clinton knows he was ineffective. If you know history... what is the best way to have your history and legacy written? |
Uhh, I dunno, perhaps the best economy with over 20 million jobs this country has ever seen?
You also realize that despite his little affair to which no one in their right minds would approve of, Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating?
Gee, that's some "embarrassing" legacy that the majority of Americans remember, ain't it?
Perhaps if it wasn't for you Wingnuts that keep trying to remind us about how horrible things were back in the 90's, I guess we'd be SO MUCH MORE THANKFUL for the lovely wonderful man we have in office today, huh?
Because in the end, everything is always Clinton's fault, ain't it champ?
| quote: | To write it yourself lol that is what Clinton did with "My life" he talked about monica like in three sentences... usually it takes up to 10yrs for historians to go back and he did it before that time frame lol. To help himself, that is why you have him with all these like promoting healthy foods in school etc.. helping the people in africa. Im not saying thats bad, but that is the truth!
== |
Yes, you've amply demonstrated your skills with the truth here so far. I've got one more thing for you to think about : it's a comparison of your current president to Clinton:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05...poll/index.html
And my goodness, how about that? Despite all the rhetoric of painting Clinton as some evil sex fiend with Monica and others, the majority of Americans would STILL CHOOSE CLINTON OVER BUSH hands down.
Now that's gotta get your panties all bunched up. I know if I were an "Independent" like you who supports Bush and candidates just like him, I wouldn't want to look at polls like that. I would just ignore them, much as you've been doing thus far, and continue harping on a point about how great your candidate is by attempting to knock down everyone else. Hey, it's alright. I understand. If I were an "Independent" like you, I'd be mad too.
But ya know, the rest of us Americans in the majority are just plain tired of your bull rhetoric, so when we decide to go a different direction for a new President like we did last November for a majority Democratic Congress, you're just gonna have to find some good anger management skills. If those skills involve coming here to gripe, rest assured I'm here to listen......
....and happily point out how silly your arguments are altogether. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| go check your pm box^ |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
I like a guy who isn't afraid to blame the REAL culprits of problems.
A guy like Newt:
| quote: | “I want to say to the elite of this country - the elite news media, the liberal academic elite, the liberal political elite: I accuse you in Littleton…of being afraid to talk about the mess you have made, and being afraid to take responsibility for things you have done, and instead foisting upon the rest of us pathetic banalities because you don’t have the courage to look at the world you have created.”
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3544 |
Yes, because the shooting out at VTech was DIRECTLY result of libruls.
Just like Susan Smith in 1994 who drowned her two children in S. Carolina - incidents like these would be avoided according to Newt if you just vote Republican:
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natco...umns/112794.htm
And when Foley had to resign, you see according to Newt, Conservatives didn't want to stop Foley's little boy habits because "they would have been accused of gay bashing":
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216962,00.html
You see, libruls are to blame for everything, according to Newt.
And of course, let's not leave out the ghettos either:
| quote: | “We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto,”
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/p...atinos-for.html
I like a guy who wants neverending war and wants to take direct action on Iran and North Korea:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/
But then again, this is a bit strange - he thought is was an "enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country (Iraq) after June of 2003"?:
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbc.../604110311/1001
Hmmm, that doesn't quite mesh well now, does it?
And let's not forget about some of those darn "ethics" problems our dear Newt faced when he was in Congress:
[QUOTE]“The House ethics committee recommended last night that House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) face an unprecedented reprimand from his colleagues and pay $300,000 in additional sanctions after concluding that his use of tax-deductible money for political purposes and inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented ‘intentional or . . . reckless’ disregard of House rules.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ries/011897.htm |
| quote: | “The heart of the ethics committee case against House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) involves his use of charitable organizations to subsidize his partisan political activities… Gingrich and his top advisers have tried repeatedly to use tax-deductible donations to help promote their political goals… [T]he availability of groups that could take tax-deductible donations was integral to his ultimately successful plan to wrest control of the House from the Democrats.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ries/010797.htm |
| quote: | “In his final opportunity to defend his client Friday night before the House ethics committee, an attorney for Newt Gingrich conceded that the speaker had made ‘glaringly inconsistent’ statements to the panel’s investigative subcommittee about a politically oriented college course financed with tax-exempt funds.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ries/011997.htm |
| quote: | “The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House’s 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.” The House voted 395-28 to approve the punishment. “Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House,” said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI). “If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ries/012297.htm |
Swell guy that Newt. Full of ethics and worthwhile thoughts.
Why, tell me why we shouldn't vote for a guy who thinks neverending war is okay, invading and pre-emptively attacking all countries that might be threatening because we need to:
Go Newt! Show the world your bucket full o' moral and ethical authority! |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
You mean all those bills that they voted on, those bills in the first 100 days that had the broad majority of public support, in your words "didn't do "? Hmmm, perhaps you're right, considering it's up to the ING PRESIDENT TO SIGN THOSE BILLS, AIN'T IT CHAMP? |
you mean all those two?
this "do nothing Congress" managed to pass all of two Bills in their first 100 days.:rolleyes:
H.J.Res.20 - Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (02/15/07)
NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007 (04/10/07)
whoopty frikken doooo!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
Shaolin_Z, our arguments aren't really getting anywhere. But I want to know your motives. I think it will help me understand your motives so I can better address the conversation.
Here's your public interview:
Please answer each question with a "YES", "NO", or "OTHER" and support each answer if you wish. Regardless, you MUST type in "YES", "NO", or "OTHER." Please answer EVERY question. Also, please don't argue semantics or relevance. If you do not understand the question in and of itself, please tell me.
1. Overall, do you support what Ron Paul did below? If you support some but not all of what he did, please explain WHY.
| quote: | (1)The Federal Marriage Amendment would enshrine discrimination into the U.S.
Constitution by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman
and prohibiting federal and state laws from conferring same-sex couples with marital
status and “the legal incidents thereof.” The amendment would thereby endanger
civil unions and domestic partnership benefits. The House of Representatives voted
on the amendment on July 18, 2006, needing a two-thirds majority to approve the
amendment. The amendment failed to reach a two-thirds majority by a vote of 236-
187-1 (Roll Call Vote 378, 2nd Session).
Ron Paul voted to block gay marriage.
(2) Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., offered an amendment to the Child Safety Act (H.R.
3132), adding the provisions of the HRC-supported Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act which would give the federal government jurisdiction to help
local law enforcement confront hate violence based on sexual orientation, gender
identity, gender and disability.
Ron Paul voted NO.
(3) Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation introduced May 26,
2005, that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes
perpetrated because of the “actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability” of the victim. As of Sept.
29, 2006, the measure had 160 co-sponsors: Democrats 149; Republicans 10;
Independents 1.
Ron Paul voted NO.
(4) Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation that would repeal "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on gay, lesbian and bisexual service people, and allow them
to serve openly in the military.
Ron Paul didn't co-sponsor this.
(5) Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation (formerly called the
Permanent Partners Immigration Act) introduced June 21, 2005, that would amend
the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and
lawful permanent residents the same immigration benefits legal spouses of U.S. residents
enjoy.
Ron Paul didn't co-sponsor this. |
2. If Ron Paul were to do all of the above, but were to replace each word "gay" with "Muslim," would you support his decision?
3. Do you think that gay people are entitled to every equal right that you as a heterosexual Muslim have?
3a. Do you think gay people should have the right to get married? If not, do you think they are entitled to an alternative, but equal status (i.e. civil unions)?
3b. Do you think that gay people should be allowed to serve openly gay in the military.
3c. Do you think that on top of gender, creed, race, ethnicity (and others I'm forgetting), the gov't should add "sexual orientation" to the list of what NOT to discriminate against in the work place?
3d. If someone is physically attacked based solely on the fact that they are gay, do you consider it a hate crime? If not, do you consider any attack based on race/ethnity a hate crime?
3e. Do you think people should be denied the right to adopt based on their sexual orientation?
4. If I were to have my way and gay people would magically be granted all equal rights, would we be arguing in this thread?
5. (Open question, you don't have to answer yes-no-other here)
Whose fault do you think it is that gay people don't have equal rights? Gay people (like me)? Republicans (like Ron Paul)? Or other? |
|
|
| erdega |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrSquirrel
If you truly believe that openly defrauding the American taxpayers by starting a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, over a trillion dollars, and totally destabilized a region of the world that was already on shaky ground is somehow less disgraceful than lying about having sex with an ugly fat chick, then I cannot help but feel sorry for you.
I disliked Bill Clinton almost as much as I dislike Bush. But the whole idea of impeaching someone for lying about something in a civil lawsuit that the supreme court had to agree was even allowable; and then to be told he was being impeached for perjury in regards to a statement he made that was contradicted by personal wire taps that would have been inadmissable in any court of law; all of this done at the end of a 4 year long investigation that had turned up absolutely nothing worth prosecuting anyone over in court was a sick perversion of the constitutional process.
But it did its job, it made the whole idea of beginning impeachment proceedings so unpalatable to the American people that, today, a president can do things that even Nixon would not have thought of doing and know that he will never have to pay the constitutional price for his high crimes and misdemeanors.
MrS |
Clinton signed a declaration 1998 to remove Saddam Hussein by all means, a so called "Iraq Liberation Act" which was a blueprint for Iraq invasion , not to mention that clinton democrats bombed iraq to bits for decade and he supported invasion so there is no difference between Clinton and Bush on Iraq |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by erdega
there is no difference between Clinton and Bush on Iraq |
actually there is a huge difference, but we won't get into that here.
The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by erdega
Clinton signed a declaration 1998 to remove Saddam Hussein by all means, a so called "Iraq Liberation Act" which was a blueprint for Iraq invasion , not to mention that clinton democrats bombed iraq to bits for decade and he supported invasion so there is no difference between Clinton and Bush on Iraq |
Patently false.
The Iraq Liberation Act was NOT a means of future military invasion:
| quote: | President Clinton's first explicit call for a "new government" in Baghdad and his pledge to implement a new plan for arming opponents of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein heartened opposition leaders yesterday. But Clinton's comments appeared to signal more of a heightened political effort to destabilize the Iraqi regime over time than any immediate military strategy for overthrowing it.
Senior administration officials said Clinton's words were intended to signal an "intensification" of support for a broad array of Iraqi opposition groups and in that sense represented a change in policy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...iraq111698b.htm |
Let's make sure we understand the difference:
| quote: | | But Clinton's comments appeared to signal more of a heightened political effort to destabilize the Iraqi regime over time than any immediate military strategy for overthrowing it. |
And the bombs that Clinton did on Saddam was a direct means of containment as drawn out by his predecessor, Bush Sr., as well as his targeted attacks of containment on Saddam's WMD programs:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stor...ts/clinton.html
To which according to the Duelfer Report, such means and methods worked in keeping Saddam from creating any future WMDs.
The stark difference between Clinton and Bush is simple: who invaded Iraq? If Clinton had indeed decided to weigh ALL of the intelligence given to him about Saddam's WMDs stockpiles and al Qaeda connections, had indeed decided to create a cute little separate intelligence branch called the Office of Special Plans to which bypassed CIA and State Dept. intelligence groups, and handwaved away any and all intelligence that this current Administration did in order to bolster their case for invasion, then Clinton would certainly have my anger directed towards him in the same manner.
But now if memory serves, Clinton didn't do these things now, did he? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
But now if memory serves, Clinton didn't do these things now, did he? |
Lewinski aside, he reflexively launched a couple hundred cruise missles into two different countries on "questionable" intel after the Embassy bombings and proved to be a complete disaster.
he left the U.S.S. Cole high and dry b/c he was near term.
gotta love that guy. |
|
|
|
|
