In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
GWB and His Spin
HAIRY
Member Posts: 23,606
"The courage of our military has brought us to this hopeful day [of Iraqi sovereignty], and the continued service of our military assures the success of our cause. In Iraq, we're serving the cause of liberty, and liberty is always worth fighting for." --President George W. Bush [:(]
Another spin: Note that he uses the word "fighting" instead of the reality "dieing". No wonder he doesn't want photos of the brave dead seen in America. [;)][}:)]
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
Another spin: Note that he uses the word "fighting" instead of the reality "dieing". No wonder he doesn't want photos of the brave dead seen in America. [;)][}:)]
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
Comments
Or is your contention that liberty is NOT worth dying for?
Which do you mean?
Scrappy Doo sleeps with the fishes.
I agree with Country Gunsmith. Usually your attacks on Bush are better thought out. What exactaly are you against in this statement?
While it is noble to die for your cause, it is better to let the other guy die for his. [:D]
Happiness is a warm gun.
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
Your 'contention' is obviously simple bias and is designed to do no more than irritate and cause further dissension. It's not even particularly thought-provoking. Fighting ANYWHERE means people are going to be killed. Anyone capable of grasping the basic idea of armed conflict should understand that. Apparently the entire bipartisan Congress understood that at one point before it became politically expedient for a certain faction to change their stories.
Here's some perspective:
http://www.rosenblog.com/2004/05/29/us_deaths_in_iraq_a_historical_perspective.html
Scrappy Doo sleeps with the fishes.
I checked your perspectives site. It does provide quite an example of the irrelative used to confuse an issue. Do you really believe there is a favorable comparison between WWII and the Iraqi farce. And did no one tell you that the "war" ended several months ago, therefore the statistics used are based on too long a time period. However, I am rather disturbed that you would recommend a site that states a commonality between WWII- a war caused by being attacked and having a country declare war on us, and the real sacrifices made by the soldiers to protect the U.S. from valid threats- and a preemptive whatever it is, it cannot be a war congress did not declare it, that is getting U.S. soldiers killed after the end of the "war" as stated by Bush, in a cause which presented no immediate threat to the U.S. and from which we gain nothing.
rcdis
Your "Fighting ANYWHERE means people are going to be killed. Anyone capable of grasping the basic idea of armed conflict should understand that." And not saying the words makes the distasteful easier to swallow, doesn't it?
And, your "Apparently the entire bipartisan Congress understood that at one point before it became politically expedient for a certain faction to change their stories." Surely, you don't mean the refusal to declare war, in accordance with our Constitution, was a cop-out by the Congress, do you? [;)][}:)]
(The link on your comment did not work)
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
As to the similarities between WW-II, or Korea, or VietNam, and the current situation in Iraq - the similarity is that US forces are on the ground, actively engaging opposing forces, and some are dying. The comparison is in the amount of US deaths in a relative time period which is far less in Iraq. The political aspect and your personal approval (which by the way makes ALL the difference) is not the point.
You seem also to believe that the US was not attacked. I am assuming, then, that the FAA will be releasing their findings on the terrible accidents that occurred in September 2001? The terrorist group(s) responsible and the client-states that nurture them HAVE declared war on the US - some have done so many years ago - and continue to publicy reaffirm that position. Whether Iraq was one of those states is currently under dispute but seemed to have widespread acceptance up until election year.
Hairy - yes you are right that the implication of the 'cause of liberty' phrase could mean unending war. I point to Grenada, Somalia, World War I, et al as recent examples NOT attributable to GWB.
I am not sure where you are going with the second paragraph. The fact that when armed troops clash people can get killed would seem to go without saying. It's tragic regardless of whether it's not talked about or whether some bag of offal makes a 'documentary' about it.
Congress approved the use of force in Iraq in October 2002. The resolution appears below:
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the Wap Xnwers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
They may not have used the word 'war,' but it doesnt look like they were authorizing a canasta game.
Scrappy Doo sleeps with the fishes.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (emphasis added)
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; (sic) and ...Unquote[;)][}:)][:(]
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
"Right is Right, even is everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it"
[}:)][:D][B)]
Scrappy Doo sleeps with the fishes.
Hmmm....
Seems to me that the mortality rate of the people that I went to college with was higher than the mortality rate of someone going to Iraq to support the war effort.
No. Soldiers are not dying "en masse". That's just spin.
CountryGunsmith--There's nothing wrong with what Bush said aboard the aircraft carrier. I'm not going to make any assumptions about your military service record. However, there are many missions to be accomplished in support of the ultimate mission in any major campaign. What George Bush did aboard that aircraft carrier wasn't for you or anyone else not currently wearing he uniform. It was for the Marines and soldiers and airmen on the ground andthe sailors on the sea.
It must just hurt and pain the liberals to see servicemen and women rally around someone they hate so much. It could have something to do with the fact that it was Al Gore's party that wanted all of their absentee ballots tossed out of the election.
I understand the multi-layering of missions. Perhaps the President might have saved that part of the speech for when the cameras weren't rolling. Regardless of his intention, or your description of the intended audience, his proclamation was broadcast far and wide to those that do not (or conveniently do not wish to) understand. And many have and will use that proclamation as political ammunition against him.
Perhaps I should have written "Very ill-advised, politically." to avoid misunderstanding.
Scrappy Doo sleeps with the fishes.
People laughed at the President when he visited soldiers in Iraq. They talked about him posing with a display turkey. So what. My heart swelled with pride--not because I'm a useful idiot--but because it made me proud to see my Commander-in-Chief willing to put on an Army physical fitness warm-up jacket and eat turkey with his soldiers. You [email protected] well better believe that the Clinton-esque elitists would not have done so nor would they have been welcomed to do so. President Bill Clinton's wife #choke# visited us (with the illustrious Tipper) in Honduras during the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch in 1998 in order to pattronize us and show up for her photo ops after we got done (and still continued to do) the hard work of minimizing human suffering and death. Nobody mocked her for taking photo ops nor does anyone mock any other politician for doing so. The cameras were rolling for a purpose. They weren't there to glorify President Bush. They were there to feed the folks who needed to find something that would stick to him.
I'm not much of one to quote movies but it couldn't have been said better than the way the Delta Force operator put it in the movie "Blackhawk Down". When it comes right down to it, it's all about the guy next to you. Good leaders will risk their own personal reputation and image in order to give credit to their subordinates when credit is due. Credit was DEFINITELY due at the point in time when President Bush said "mission accomplished".
President Clinton was embarassed of those who undertook the profession of arms. He didn't have the balls to do anything besides places us under the auspices of the United Nations. He let them call the shots in Mogadishu. He let them slap their emblems on our jets when he sent them over to Europe to fight someone else's civil war. You better believe that President Bush is a breath of fresh air to us and it's not because he's made our jobs any easier. If anything, it's tough all over. This war has made everyone's work more difficult. However, President Bush isn't "too good" to sit down and eat dinner with us.
Nobody bothered to read the entirety of the 9/11 Commission's findings. Nobody bothered to find out what they had to say about Al Quaeda and what this war on terror has done to them. It may not be important to the "hate Bush" crowd but I'll bet it's important to the families of the service-members who died on the Cole.
I only have one more observation with regards to this subject. It sure must be rough going through an election year with nothing but hate for one individual to drive your political discussion. Naturally, the hate-Bush crowd gratuitously tosses in the name of some unrealistic third-party politician just to make themselves feel good but they never go into detail about their "dream" or their "goal" for where they would like to see this country go and how that particular third-party politician or write-in would be best at accomplishing that goal. It's just usually the gratuitous drop of a name. It's like saying, "I'm not racist. See! I have a black friend! Look! Watch me shake his hand!"
Try a french news site!!!
www.awbansunset.com
"I will no longer debate a liberal because I feel they are beneath contempt. Just communicating with one contaminates a person." - whiteclouder
"If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another . . . So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass." Tom Diaz, Senior Policy Analyst, Violence Policy Center (VPC)
I apologize that this thread picked up the slime of a Troll. It's that time of the month, I guess. [:(]
CountryGunsmith: quote:Hairy, the question was whether Congress authorized the use of force. You are simply playing at semantics here in the absence of a substantive reply. Also, you underlined the wrong part of the sentence. Excuse me, but semantics is POLITICS in action! As you know, the majority of our Congressmen are/were lawyers, so they full well know how to use language. My underlining was to illustrate for you the point of responsibility--the President and not the Congress. [;)][}:)]
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
Hairy - I was unaware you are a politician, I stand corrected. It is obvious that Congress discharged its responsibility and authorized the use of force. The words and context are clear and your attempt to cloud that just isnt effective.
I will choose to believe you are not referring to my contesting your original post as 'the slime of a troll.' But if you are, rest assured I do not assume you act maliciously (as per your signature line).
Scrappy Doo sleeps with the fishes.
Your comment: "It is obvious that Congress discharged its responsibility and authorized the use of force. The words and context are clear and your attempt to cloud that just isnt effective."
As far as I know, the War Powers section of the Constitution should have been used, but our craven politicians ducked their responsibilities to the American people and gave GWB a blank check. Unfortunately, we are the ones cashing it!
BTW, not a politician, just an American who is powerless to change the direction of the neocons and their desire to create a Pax America. [:(][;)][}:)]
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
Hairy, the question was whether Congress authorized the use of force. You are simply playing at semantics here in the absence of a substantive reply.
And some people think the Constitution is just a bunch of semantics. Congress does not have the authority to defer their authority to declare war, to the president.
This Iraq resolution is not a Declaration of war- It is a resolution to give the president the authority to decide whether or not to go to war-which is unconstitutional.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Frog
GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY
Don't Mess with Texas / Don't Mess with Poland
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
Thanks for welcoming me back though. Love getting back to the GB fam (all the B**ching, bashing, politicizing[:p], etc.
Frog
GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY
Don't Mess with Texas / Don't Mess with Poland