For the other Americans: Urban renewal courtesy of the Islamic terrorism and the House of Saud
and the Murray-Kennedy pro al Qaeda Democrats.
Posted on 02/08/2003 4:06:46 AM PST by TheRedSoxWinThePennant
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:09:06 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
For the other Americans: Urban renewal courtesy of the Islamic terrorism and the House of Saud
and the Murray-Kennedy pro al Qaeda Democrats.
And, "what if" we just do nothing? Will there continue to be a humanitarian crisis of innocent Iraqis, such as these, or is this an acceptable treatment of innocents because Bush hasn't been "candid" about all the "what if" scenarios?:
No reasonable person questions Bush's power to defend the United States.
But what I question is how to limit the destructive power of our Congress "having it both ways"-criticizing Bush for action, criticizing him for inaction, blaming our officers for losses, blaming them for lack of aggressiveness, etc, etc.
That's what's different about a Declaration of War.
I don't contend it is necessary-I contend that it's Congress's DUTY, given that history has given us war, to allow our leaders and our soldiers, sailors and marines to operate with the full power of the nation behind them.
And if you think that a joint resolution which can be disvowed by individual members is the best manifestation of the full power of the nation, I think you're wrong.
Joint resolutions are passed by members of Congress. War is declared by the People of the United States.
Know something you're not telling us, Teddy?
BTW, looks like the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Your daddy ruined his political career with this same political posture. One can only hope you are on the same road, so to speak.......
"In 1938, Kennedy [This would be Papa Joe] reached the peak of his power when Roosevelt appointed him Ambassador to Britain, the first Irish-Catholic ever to hold the post. Kennedy felt sure that he was on the road to the presidency, but problems soon arose.
A staunch isolationist, Kennedy argued for the appeasement of Hitler and wanted the United States to stay out of any conflict that might occur between Britain and Germany. Needless to say, this line was not a big hit with the English people or with conservative leaders such as future Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Kennedy resigned under pressure in 1940, when war became inevitable.
We stop waiting to appease all you socialists.....very simple : )
Interesting. That's just what the President has been saying, Teddy...
The question is, how to do it in a way that minimizes the risks to the American people at home, to our armed forces, and to our allies.
We all want that, too, Teddy. I like your introduction. I even like your premise that Powell made the case and Saddam must be disarmed.
Even after Secretary Powell's strong presentation, however, the president must still answer key questions before resorting to war.
You just violated your own premise, El Grando Tedd-o...I mean, that is, unless you want GWB to come out and say the same things Powell did. Oh, wait, GWB *has* come out and said the same things Powell did...
The questions are obvious.
Definitely. 1) How much did you have to drink before writing this and 2) How the HELL do we keep electing you?
It is far from clear that war is in our national interest now.
Again, you said in your first pargraph, Teddy, Saddam is a threat we must deal with. Where's your alternative, here? What do you want? You're not giving me much here.
Won't war with Iraq divert the administration's attention from more immediate and graver dangers to our security from the Al Qaeda terrorist network and the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula?
No, and furthermore, war with Iraq will further disable funding for Al Qaeda and numerous other terrorist groups.
How much support will we have from the world community?
Hmm. Everybody except Libya, Cuba, Germany, and you?
What will be the cost in American lives, especially if the war involves hand-to-hand, door-to-door urban combat in Baghdad?
You know the costs will be minimal unless it involves hand-to-hand, "door-to-door" (*knock knock*, who's there, land shark?), which you are implying will happen. There is no reason to believe any of that tripe. What will be the cost of not acting now and having to face down a nuclear-armed Saddam 10-20 years from now? Higher. Much higher.
We will certainly win the war,
Oh, you snivelly little twit. You just drew a comparison to Vietnam "bogged-down" problems with your "door-to-door" combat worries, yet know you're assuring us we'll win the war? Make up your mind.
but how do we win the peace if there are massive civilian casualties,
There won't be. Thank you for trying to scare everybody, though.
if factional fighting fractures Iraq,
It won't.
if food, water, and medicine are in short supply and millions of Iraqis are displaced from their homes,
Wait, are we talking about life under Saddam? ;-)
or if a new wave of terrorism erupts against America as an occupying power, or because of the war itself?
Those are acceptable risks. No action of significance, military or otherwise, is risk-free. *thwap*
What if the war ignites a conflagration that consumes other nations in the Middle East.
I highly doubt it will, but if so, we find more coalitions of the willing to go after the meddling powers.
There is no more important decision by Congress or the president under the Constitution than the decision to send our men and women in uniform to war.
Actually, I believe that's technically *just* Bush's decision, not really yours, but I'm splitting hairs, so I'll let it go.
What if, Teddy, your entire editorial wasn't one "what if" after another? What if you weren't my Senator? What if you were sane? What if you weren't drunk all the time? What if you hadn't killed Mary Jo? What if, what if, what if.
How about we address the facts as presented by Powell before "what-iffing" everything to death.
The Administration says we can fight a war in Iraq without undermining our most pressing national security priority - the war against terrorism. But a war in Iraq may strengthen Al Qaeda terrorists, especially if the Muslim world opposes us. We have not broken Osama bin Laden's will to kill Americans.
This entire paragraph is just patent BS. Al Qaeda = state-supported terrorism = Iraq. Powell presented the direct links. The broader links should be obvious, even after a bottle of Scotch, Teddy...
Our nation has just gone on new and higher alert because of the increased overall threat from Al Qaeda. What if Al Qaeda decides to time its next attack for the day we go to war?
What if Saddam already has a nuke and is preparing to launch it in a month? Stop what-iffing. We can *all* what-if. What if space aliens land and inform us that you're actually Helen Thomas in drag?
War with Iraq could swell the ranks of terrorists and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts.
Could, would, what-if. STFU until you have something concrete to say.
As General Wesley Clark told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sept. 23 that a war would ''super-charge recruiting for Al Qaeda.''
Clark is someone whose position does bear far more weight than yours (well, at least in the metaphorical sense, Ted). However, Clark is 1) Used to the coalition approach and 2) Prepared for every contingency. I don't think he's right about that, but *you* quoting someone in the *military* after all the *bashing* you have done of the military for so many years is *despicable*. It would be akin to me trying to using rhetoric from Marx and Engels to support my conservative position. You have no place quoting the military, Teddy. NO PLACE.
These are real dangers that the administration has minimized or glossed over in its determination to attack Iraq.
They haven't glossed over a single one. That's a blatant lie. They have addressed most of these concerns explicitly, and the rest implicitly. STFU.
The administration maintains that there are convincing links between Al Qaeda and Iraq that justify war.
That would be because *there are* links, maybe?
There are links.
Oh, thank you for undermining your own argument for me. :-)
But there are also links to other Middle Eastern countries. Al Qaeda activists are present in more than 60 countries.
And we're active in all 60 of those countries trying to shut them down in some form or another. We start with Iraq, we worry about the rest later. Unless you'd like to name a country YOU'D like to start with...
Even within the administration, there are skeptics about the links with Iraq. CIA and FBI analysts are clearly questioning whether there is a clear and compelling pattern of links, and are concerned that intelligence is being politicized to justify war.
Where is your evidence of this?
The UN inspectors have found no evidence so far of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq,
BS.
but there is evidence in North Korea. With inspectors gone and North Korea gone from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we face an urgent crisis, with nothing to prevent that nation from quickly producing a significant amount of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons for its own use, or for terrorists hostile to America and our allies. Desperate and strapped for cash, North Korea can easily provide nuclear weapons to terrorist groups.
Ah, okay, I get it, attack North Korea. WHAT? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? North Korea is not an easy situation. North Korea is something that still CAN be solved by diplomacy. Teddy...are you...warmongering!?!? My *goodness*!
The UN's inspectors fully understand the nature of the repressive and deceitful regime they are dealing with,
No they don't.
but they need more time.
No they don't.
Why not give it to them?
Because they don't need it.
We accomplished more disarmament in Iraq in seven years of inspections than we did during the Gulf War.
More patent BS injected in here. I'd like to see how in heck you're spinning the figures to get that.
We are on the verge of war with Iraq because of its weapons of mass destruction.
I thought you just said they didn't HAVE any weapons of mass destruction...
Recently, we learned that the administration is considering even the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq - a reckless prospect that should set off alarm bells everywhere.
That's the point, ya moron. It's *supposed* to set off alarm bells. We threatened it in the first Gulf War. Nuclear deterrence is nothing new, and it sure as heck doesn't do any good if you promise never to use your nukes.
Using our nuclear arsenal in this unprecedented war would be the most fateful decision since the nuclear attack on Hiroshima.
We would never use our nuclear arsenal against Iraq unless the situation became LIKE the end of WW II in the Pacific Theater. Are you against the dropping of the a-bomb on Hiroshima? In other words, do you support the idea that 200,000+ more Americans should have died in WW II?
It is far from clear that we will be safer by attacking Iraq.
Maybe it is looking at it through the bottom of a whiskey glass...
In an Oct. 7, 2002 letter to the Senate Committee on Intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said the probability of Saddam Hussein initiating an attack on the United States was low.
Okay, you just undercut things you said earlier, but you seem to enjoy doing that, keep going.
But his letter said, ''should Saddam Hussein conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.''
Duh. And should Saddam Hussein suddenly have a bomb dropped on his head, he'd have a hard time whipping up any support for anything. But hey, Teddy, I guess you're right, after we attacked Al Qaeda we just had nothing but large-scale attacks on the order of 9-11 every other day. It was awful. /sarcasm
The administration must be forthcoming about the potential human costs of war with Iraq,
It has been all along. Show me where it hasn't.
especially if it pushes Saddam into unleashing whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.
Sounds like you've succumbed to nuclear blackmail...of course you said he didn't HAVE any nukes, I guess it's just chem and bio, and they really are so much nicer...well, whatever, that's a GREAT argument. Right. Saddam is so crazy that we shouldn't touch him because...he's so damn crazy. Where is the logic in that?
The administration has released no casualty estimates
Since when is the adminstration required to release casualty estimates? Ah yes, Warfare 101: Freaking Out Your Own People.
and they could be extremely high.
They could be, maybe if we decided to suddenly take, say, NORTH KOREA on right now at the same time...but they won't be. Probably wouldn't be if we fought a two-front war, either.
Many military experts have predicted urban guerrilla warfare - a scenario which retired General Joseph Hoar, who had responsibility for Iraq before the Gulf War, says could look ''like the last 15 minutes of `Saving Private Ryan.'''
Ah yes, when in doubt, make people think of Hollywood...now, correct me if I'm wrong, Teddy, but we *did* win World War II, right? I mean, not that your dynastic originator, ol' Joe, was known for anything other than supporting tinpot dictators...and "many military experts" my blooming arse (I'll give you five optimistic military analsyts for every one you cite that's predicting doom and gloom.
Nor has the administration been candid about the humanitarian crisis that could result from war.
What about the humanitarian crisis ALREADY GOING ON there? I guess that escaped your radar.
Refugee organizations are desperately trying to prepare for a flood of as many as 900,000 refugees.
Again, more pure appeals to panic and the worst-case scenario. Which organizations? Where did you pull 900,000 out of? Your enormous butt? Why didn't I hear from you during the refugee crisis in the Balkans?
Billions of dollars and years of commitment may well be needed to achieve a peaceful postwar Iraq,
They also may well not be, but you don't care.
but the American people still do not know how that process will unfold and who will pay for it.
Yes we do. It'll look like a modified Afghanistan model, dollars to donuts. You don't give up on what works...and technically the UN should pay for it. But they if they won't, we will. Because, unlike you, and your ol' pa Joe, *we stand up to petty dictators and thugs*.
No war can be successfully waged if it lacks the strong support of the American people. Before pulling the trigger on war, the administration must tell the American people the full story about Iraq. So far, it has not.
1. The war has the full support of the American people, if you haven't noticed, 2) The administration has told the full story about Iraq, 3) STFU.
Edward M. Kennedy is the senior senator from Massachusetts.
And I just live here in MA but man oh man, do I apologize to everyone here for the fact that this guy keeps getting re-elected...the horror, the horror.
If Bernie Sanders saw tanks headed down Pennsylvania Avenue he would say, "Now is not the time for war."
Piece of cake. Teddy left out the errr errr Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
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.