Posted on 08/22/2002 6:44:48 AM PDT by KLT
Posts like yours inspire questions, but not much thought.
How old are you?
What is your IQ?
Have you been in battle?
Do you have children?
Are you sober?
I'm just scratching the surface.
You must agree with the majority.
Resistance is futile.
You will be assimilated.
All the evidence would mean one possible meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent.
Hopefully you realize that it is highly unlikely that Atta shared any details of the 9/11 attack with the Iraqi intelligence agent. After all, most analysts believe that Atta did not tell some of his fellow 9/11 terrorists the true mission until after they highjacked the planes. In addition, Iraqi had nothing that Atta needed to complete the terrorist attacks.
On the other hand, if the president does not make a compelling case for war and decides to act without Congressional approval, I for one will be gravely concerned about the precedent such action would set for a representative republic.
While I agree that we oughtta go after Saddam NOW, I believe the support of the people and Dubyuh in the White House will be a constant until 2008.
"Waiting until after the elections are over in order to appease the RATS may be too late.
Appeasing RATS is always wrong...gotta crush 'em and demonstrate to the Nation and the World what pitiful lowlifes they are and have been!! Personally, I'd like Dubyuh to announce that we've just commenced strategic military strikes on September 11, 2002!!
FReegards...MUD
Fine...he can do it in a televised prime-time speech to the Nation, but Congressional approval has already been obtained.
The DemonRATS in the Senate are spiteful enough to undercut American Security just to make a point against Dubyuh...we shouldn't give them the opportunity, IMHO. Plus, I think there's a strong possibility that the Iraqi Regime Change could happen much sooner than the so-called experts are predicting, and the surprise factor will be priceless in saving American lives.
FReegards...MUD
Impressive...however, I sincerely believe taking out Saddam sooner rather than later. And I believe the case has been made by any number of folks, although a nationally-televised wrap-up speech by Dubyuh couldn't hurt. I gather from your questions that you are a veteran...if so, I respect your recalcitrance in storming off half-cocked to "kick butt" when we all know it'll be kids the age of your grandkids getting shot at, not George Dubyuh. Still, the Middle East has been a thorn in the World's side for decades, and much of that is because folks have pussy-footed around the murderous regimes that have terrorized and misled their own people into hating the FReedom and Liberty and self-determination that America has represented.
To a certain degree, Iraq is nothing more than a symbol of Evil in the Middle East. By demonstrating our willingness to confront this Evil and ultimately defeat it, we will embolden freedom-loving peoples in any number of countries in the region to rise up against their oppressors. We couldn't do this in the 80's because of the Cold War and we couldn't do it in the 90's because we had an absolute DOLT as POTUS...we CAN do it now, and we should!! America's Liberation of Iraq is the first step in solving the long-existent Middle East Problem, and we shouldn't shirk our responsibility simply because we have a reasonable abhorrence for the Act of War!!
FReegards...MUD
Fair enuff question...I offer blind allegiance to no one, but Iraq is the most logical Middle East country to liberate first. Why? Because Hussein has boldly demonstrated himself to be a thug who has attacked his neighbors and murdered his own people. While I don't contest your assertion about the Saudis being primary proliferators of Terror, they've yet to gas their own citizens, attack neighboring countries with no justification, set oil fields on fire, or demonstrate a burning desire to acquire nuclear weapons. The Saudi Royalty is showing signs of instability already, and having a pro-American leader for Iraq may be enough to set off a toppling of their regime without us needing to move in militarily.
FReegards...MUD
"I have a number of criticisms of the Clinton administration, but they were not directly responsible for 9/11."
Of course it was...the terrorists had enjoyed eight years of White House inaction after every terrorist attack, and they figgered going after the WTC during Dubyuh's term would be more of the same. Plus, Osama bin Laden couldda been nabbed by the Clinton Adminsitration at least three times, and all his assets couldda been frozen, and political pressure brought to bear on those harboring the terrorists...but no, Clinton went so far as to divert resources from fighting foreign terrorists so that he could attack his political enemies in this Country. You really do need to read more on the Forum before you go opening yer yap!!
"BTW...go ahead and try to convince me you ain't a Wellstone Lackey!! TROLL ALERT!!"
"I voted for Pawlenty in my precinct caucus."
Pardon my ignorance of Minnesota politics, but is Pawlenty a RAT or a RINO?!
MUD
"Ah, the personal attacks begin."
I figgered that if yer a Clinton supporter, that wouldn't be an attack at all...MUD
ROFL!!!
The War Powers Resolution states that the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces.
It requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization.
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and one
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
When have I said anything remotely positive about Clinton?
True conservative
That's a ridiculous thing to ask of a person posting opinions on an internet forum.
The "evidence" you are seeking hasn't been made available to the general public yet.
It will, in time.
Something about those dates doesn't seem right, unless it was a retroactive undeclaration, or a very long war.
Not ridiculous if people are concluding that there is a link between Al Queda and the Iraqi government strong enough to warrant an invasion.
The "evidence" you are seeking hasn't been made available to the general public yet.
How do you know that the evidence exists?
It will, in time.
How do you know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.