Bill of Rights Under Bush: A Timeline

[JPFair]

this President has, without doubt, distinguished himself as not only the most incompetent President in the History of this Country

He is certainly not incompetent. You said yourself he is carrying out his own agenda, truth, will of the people, or Constitution be damned. Sounds very competent to me!

Carrying out his own agenda, lying, misleading the American people, screw the Constitution? Competent?

Competent and George W. Bush can NEVER be used in the same sentence!

[JPFair]

what makes THIS President so despicable and pathetic is a)his blatant disregard for the will of the American people and b)the way he goes about carrying out the duties of the Office of President.

Here's a problem. At the time the US endeavored to invade Iraq, and to overthrow Saddam, the "will of the American people" was "right on! Kick gas and take names." At that time, I was still in the military, and was opposed, on both practical and political grounds:
1. There was no international consensus.
2. Such an action would require "nation building", a major, decade plus burden, which I was certain we were not prepared to do.
3. It really wasn't any of our farkin business.
4. It would distract assets from the necessary hunting down and termination of the sub-human forms known as al Qaeda.
5. It would increase the unecessary burden on our military to function as "the world police", which further violates my libertarian sensibilities.

Once a committment to such an action is made, however, those who pushed for it are responsible to finish it. We gained a moral and ethical imperative to re-establish the order in Iraq which WE disrupted. The job must be completed before leaving.

Those who pushed for this action, and are now demanding the removal of the troops are hypocrites, or cowards. If you opposed this action all along, bless you... please continue. If you were among the clear majority who screamed "mount up, move-em out", well... shut up, and get back in line. You are the reason we are in this. Have the guts to finish it. You know who you are. Be ashamed.

I opposed the action prior to the start. However, once engaged, our troops required us to have the backbone to see the job finished. That is why I continue to insist that we finish. This "we support the troops but don't support the war" pap is just trash. You can't have it both ways. It's like saying "We support our police... now, explain to me why they need those stupid guns."

Additionally, we encurred a debt, and a responsibility to the people of Iraq. They did not, as a society, ask us to overthrow their government. We did, however, and we are responsible to take care of them until they can care for themselves. Demands that they achieve certain milestones in order for us to continue are disengenuous. Again, they did not ask us to intervene. They had no vote in our actions.

No, HERE'S the problem:

Here's a problem. At the time the US endeavored to invade Iraq, and to overthrow Saddam, the "will of the American people" was "right on!

That's because the President had implemented a campaign of misinformation and outright lying to the American people to conjure up the image of Iraq being a, and as Colin Powell mentioned to the U.N., "grave and immediate" threat to the United States. Had Bush not doctored the intelligence, lied to the American people, and actually spoken up about the lack of WMD in Iraq, the American people would not have been "right on" with the invasion of a Country who was NOT a "grave and immediate" threat to the United States.

At that time, I was still in the military, and was opposed, on both practical and political grounds:
1. There was no international consensus.

Sure there was....the International Community had expressed their reservations about Bush's de-facto order for Hussein to get out of Iraq, and in fact, just about EVERY Country in the United Nations, save Great Britain, Poland, and Australia, actually advised AGAINST military action. To me, that's a consensus. And, what really makes me cringe, is that when people who support this illegal War try to justify it, they inevitably always say something ridiculous like "Well, everyone else had the same intelligence we had"......So, if they had the same intelligence we had, and they were urging us NOT to invade Iraq, what does that tell you?

2. Such an action would require "nation building", a major, decade plus burden, which I was certain we were not prepared to do.

It seems like WE, as in the American People, aren't, but George W. Bush is prepared to do it, although I'm sure he thought this whole thing would be over with in a few months.

4. It would distract assets from the necessary hunting down and termination of the sub-human forms known as al Qaeda.

Exactly how Bush had planned it!! The only thing is, now he tries to convince us that the two are linked, when there IS no link.

[KazooSkinsFan]

what makes THIS President so despicable and pathetic is a)his blatant disregard for the will of the American people and b)the way he goes about carrying out the duties of the Office of President.

Here's a problem. At the time the US endeavored to invade Iraq, and to overthrow Saddam, the "will of the American people" was "right on! Kick gas and take names." At that time, I was still in the military, and was opposed, on both practical and political grounds:
1. There was no international consensus.
2. Such an action would require "nation building", a major, decade plus burden, which I was certain we were not prepared to do.
3. It really wasn't any of our farkin business.
4. It would distract assets from the necessary hunting down and termination of the sub-human forms known as al Qaeda.
5. It would increase the unecessary burden on our military to function as "the world police", which further violates my libertarian sensibilities.

Once a committment to such an action is made, however, those who pushed for it are responsible to finish it. We gained a moral and ethical imperative to re-establish the order in Iraq which WE disrupted. The job must be completed before leaving.

Those who pushed for this action, and are now demanding the removal of the troops are hypocrites, or cowards. If you opposed this action all along, bless you... please continue. If you were among the clear majority who screamed "mount up, move-em out", well... shut up, and get back in line. You are the reason we are in this. Have the guts to finish it. You know who you are. Be ashamed.

I opposed the action prior to the start. However, once engaged, our troops required us to have the backbone to see the job finished. That is why I continue to insist that we finish. This "we support the troops but don't support the war" pap is just trash. You can't have it both ways. It's like saying "We support our police... now, explain to me why they need those stupid guns."

Additionally, we encurred a debt, and a responsibility to the people of Iraq. They did not, as a society, ask us to overthrow their government. We did, however, and we are responsible to take care of them until they can care for themselves. Demands that they achieve certain milestones in order for us to continue are disengenuous. Again, they did not ask us to intervene. They had no vote in our actions.

Exactly.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Here's a problem. At the time the US endeavored to invade Iraq, and to overthrow Saddam, the "will of the American people" was "right on! Kick gas and take names."

If that was the case then why didn't they declare war? It's a lot harder to get a war declared than it is to rely on presidential fiat—which is unconstitutional, as far as I can tell.

They did go to congress and get authorization, so it wasn't a declaration of war or a fiat, but in between. I think you, Trey and I would agree it's still a cop out. If Congress doesn't have the stones to declare war we should not do it. But we shouldn't have been there to begin with and that wasn't declared either.

[KazooSkinsFan]

So what of the argument that the only way to re-establish order is to leave? I don't fully understand why our politicians think that a stronger (or longer) military presence there will somehow make things OK. . .if they have enough time.

Without the talk of 'timetables' for withdrawal, how much time would it reasonably take just to achieve order? I submit we could be there for 15 years, doing what we are doing, without re-establishing order. The Iraqis are in it for the long haul. We cannot be, if only because we cannot afford to (I mean that in the literal, financial sense).

We can't leave the North because that would be stabbing the Kurds in the back for their consistent support. Now I wish we hadn't been involved in the first place, but we can only change the future, not the past.

Now if we ONLY stayed in the North and pulled out of the Shiite/Sunni areas then the only way I see "order" is for the Shiites to take over the Sunnis. There is no peaceful split there because there are too many Kashmir's in Iraq (i.e., areas no line CAN be drawn).

Now clearly if EVERYONE stays out of Iraq that could in fact bring order. But here's the thing. Even though Shiites are a majority in Iraq the majority of Muslims are Sunni who look down on Shiites and would have a big problem with them taking over. Would they allow it? I have a hard time seeing it.

And what about the other Shiite dominated country, Iran? What would they do? Would they allow other Sunni countries to allow the minority Sunnis to reestablish power over the Shiites? Our pulling out could lead not only to civil war but a true Middle East war.

Yes, we are stupid for being there. But that doesn't change we can only go forward.

[Deadskins]

If Congress doesn't have the stones to declare war we should not do it. But we shouldn't have been there to begin with and that wasn't declared either.

And you think they had the stones to declare that? Congress, and the masses who put them there, are sheep being led to the slaughter.

[KazooSkinsFan]

If Congress doesn't have the stones to declare war we should not do it. But we shouldn't have been there to begin with and that wasn't declared either.

And you think they had the stones to declare that? Congress, and the masses who put them there, are sheep being led to the slaughter.

I'm confused. As I said:

- I'm against Clinton's policy of occupying the North, shooting down planes and bombing ground facilities as an undeclared war AND Bush's policy of toppling the regime completely

- Both were undeclared wars and I'm opposed to undeclared wars.

What you said doesn't make sense to me given my views since I'm against undeclared wars and I was against them declaring war in Iraq. So what does your statement mean?

[Deadskins]

If Congress doesn't have the stones to declare war we should not do it. But we shouldn't have been there to begin with and that wasn't declared either.

And you think they had the stones to declare that? Congress, and the masses who put them there, are sheep being led to the slaughter.

I'm confused. As I said:

- I'm against Clinton's policy of occupying the North, shooting down planes and bombing ground facilities as an undeclared war AND Bush's policy of toppling the regime completely

- Both were undeclared wars and I'm opposed to undeclared wars.

What you said doesn't make sense to me given my views since I'm against undeclared wars and I was against them declaring war in Iraq. So what does your statement mean?

You stated Congress didn't have the stones to declare war. Then you said Congress should have declared that we should not be going into Iraq. I was saying that is ridiculous, because Congress has no stones at all.

[Countertrey]

That's because the President had implemented a campaign of misinformation and outright lying to the American people to conjure up the image of Iraq being a, and as Colin Powell mentioned to the U.N., "grave and immediate" threat to the United States. Had Bush not doctored the intelligence, lied to the American people, and actually spoken up about the lack of WMD in Iraq, the American people would not have been "right on" with the invasion of a Country who was NOT a "grave and immediate" threat to the United States.

In order to believe this, you must also believe that the intelligence services of Russia, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, and others were in league, as all had reached essentially the same conclusions. All believed that Saddam was continuing to collect and develop WMD's, and that this constituted a threat. We all believed it, because that's what the government AND the UN had been saying for over a decade. These nations, however, disagreed only about it's immediacy as a threat. ALL were wrong about the presence of WMD. Bush, Blair, France, Germany, Russia, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, all of them. Did they ALL lie, or was that only Bush?

Additonally, it does not change the FACT that there was a clear majority that supported... no... that RELISHED this action, and enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon. Whether right or wrong, their support threw this into high gear. If the current numbers were the norm then, Bush would have backed down. No one was asking "What's the plan when we take the country? No one was asking "What's this commit us to?"

Sure there was....the International Community had expressed their reservations about Bush's de-facto order for Hussein to get out of Iraq

It's also clear that you are deliberately coloring your interpretation of what I have said in order to convince yourself that I am a supporter of Bush's actions. Read again. My statement regarded a lack of international consensus IN SUPPORT of his action, which was petty clearly implied, which has the same effect as what you say. I suspect you knew this, but needed to box me in as a Bush supporter on starting the war... Congrats!

Nothing said relieves us of our moral responsibility to the Iraqi people. To suggest that "if we leave, all will be good... it our presence which is causing the problem" is naive and dangerous. If you think it's bloody now, just let us leave before it's time. It is OUR fault they are in this particular mess.

[Deadskins]

No one was asking "What's the plan when we take the country? No one was asking "What's this commit us to?"

General Shinseki was. And plenty of others were too, but they were silenced, or shouted down as unpatriotic for doing so. And the purportedly liberal press, let the resident's suppositions go unchecked, and even fomented the "war is inevitable" attitude.

[Deadskins]

In order to believe this, you must also believe that the intelligence services of Russia, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, and others were in league, as all had reached essentially the same conclusions.

That is simply not true.

[Countertrey]

In order to believe this, you must also believe that the intelligence services of Russia, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, and others were in league, as all had reached essentially the same conclusions.

That is simply not true.

I see your lips move. Back it up. Begin with the previous occupant of the White House.

[Deadskins]

I thought we were arguing foreign intelligence services had reached the same conclusions. How are you bringing Clinton into this? A quick Google search will easily debunk the foreign intelligence services myth. But the Downing Street memos are a good place to start.

[Countertrey]

No one was asking "What's the plan when we take the country? No one was asking "What's this commit us to?"

General Shinseki was. And plenty of others were too, but they were silenced, or shouted down as unpatriotic for doing so. And the purportedly liberal press, let the resident's suppositions go unchecked, and even fomented the "war is inevitable" attitude.

By whom? I believe that would be the 60-70% of the public who were piling on. How does that disprove what I am saying? Again, it should be clear that I was referring to the large majority who were supporting the intervention... I know there were people in opposition who were asking this question... I was one. How many of the supporters did you hear ask that question?

Heck, I heard Shinseki... problem is, I never felt I could trust him... he was a politician. I still can't forgive him for the stupid black berets (call me a dinosaur). How can you have any confidence in a man who thought that was a good idea?

[Countertrey]

I thought we were arguing foreign intelligence services had reached the same conclusions. How are you bringing Clinton into this? A quick Google search will easily debunk the foreign intelligence services myth. But the Downing Street memos are a good place to start.

Really? Here's what I said...

ALL were wrong about the presence of WMD. Bush, Blair, France, Germany, Russia, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, all of them.

You tell me. Did I include only intelligence services? You claimed that Bush manipulated the info. Perhaps. My point would be that he was consistent with what had been said for most of a decade... under a different administration.

[Deadskins]

I thought we were arguing foreign intelligence services had reached the same conclusions. How are you bringing Clinton into this? A quick Google search will easily debunk the foreign intelligence services myth. But the Downing Street memos are a good place to start.

Really? Here's what I said...

ALL were wrong about the presence of WMD. Bush, Blair, France, Germany, Russia, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, all of them.

You tell me. Did I include only intelligence services? You claimed that Bush manipulated the info. Perhaps. My point would be that he was consistent with what had been said for most of a decade... under a different administration.

Well, I quoted you saying it was the intellegence services of those countries. (See the orange below)

In order to believe this, you must also believe that the intelligence services of Russia, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, and others were in league, as all had reached essentially the same conclusions.

That is simply not true.

I see your lips move. Back it up. Begin with the previous occupant of the White House.

[Deadskins]

No one was asking "What's the plan when we take the country? No one was asking "What's this commit us to?"

General Shinseki was. And plenty of others were too, but they were silenced, or shouted down as unpatriotic for doing so. And the purportedly liberal press, let the resident's suppositions go unchecked, and even fomented the "war is inevitable" attitude.

By whom? I believe that would be the 60-70% of the public who were piling on. How does that disprove what I am saying? Again, it should be clear that I was referring to the large majority who were supporting the intervention... I know there were people in opposition who were asking this question... I was one. How many of the supporters did you hear ask that question?

Heck, I heard Shinseki... problem is, I never felt I could trust him... he was a politician. I still can't forgive him for the stupid black berets (call me a dinosaur). How can you have any confidence in a man who thought that was a good idea?

Once again, I was quoting your statement:

No one was asking "What's the plan when we take the country? No one was asking "What's this commit us to?"

And not saying Shinseki was a good General, or even to be trusted. My original statement was saying that Congress and the masses are sheep, and were being led by the resident and the corporate-owned media into this war of choice, and that dissenters were shouted down as unpatriotic. I think we actually agree on this point.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You stated Congress didn't have the stones to declare war.

Yes, I said this.

Then you said Congress should have declared that we should not be going into Iraq

No, I did not say this, re-read my post.

I was saying that is ridiculous, because Congress has no stones at all.

Saying congress didn't have the stones to declare in Iraq was is "ridiculous" because they don't have any stones at all?

[KazooSkinsFan]

In order to believe this, you must also believe that the intelligence services of Russia, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, and others were in league, as all had reached essentially the same conclusions.

That is simply not true.

Then why did they vote for resolution after resolution telling Hussein to disarm? Including right before the invasion? They said there were WMDs, they just said we didn't need to invade to remove them.

Anyway, so what?

Clinton committed clear acts of war in Iraq by enforcing no-fly zones, shooting down planes, bombing ground facilities and occupying the northern part of Iraq. This is clearly an undeclared war.

Bush invaded the rest of Iraq and toppled Hussein. This is clearly an undeclared war.

Both used the same justifications. Hussein had WMDs, violated the cease fire agreement from Gulf War I and was a threat to his neighbors.

Now Trey and I are arguing the intellectually consistent argument we disagree with both engaging in an undeclared war and Iraq wasn't our problem under either. Then we are saying despite that we ARE there now and we have to do the right thing.

You're ignoring all that except wanting to go back and argue the tired WMD argument that both parties told, but you only want to talk about the Republican having said it.

[Deadskins]

You stated Congress didn't have the stones to declare war.

Yes, I said this.

Then you said Congress should have declared that we should not be going into Iraq

No, I did not say this, re-read my post.

Okay:

If Congress doesn't have the stones to declare war we should not do it. But we shouldn't have been there to begin with and that wasn't declared either.

The second sentence following the first pretty much says you did say this.

I was saying that is ridiculous, because Congress has no stones at all.

Saying congress didn't have the stones to declare in Iraq was is "ridiculous" because they don't have any stones at all?

It was the second statement that I found ridiculous, not the first.

[Deadskins]

In order to believe this, you must also believe that the intelligence services of Russia, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, and others were in league, as all had reached essentially the same conclusions.

That is simply not true.

Then why did they vote for resolution after resolution telling Hussein to disarm? Including right before the invasion? They said there were WMDs, they just said we didn't need to invade to remove them.

Anyway, so what?

Clinton committed clear acts of war in Iraq by enforcing no-fly zones, shooting down planes, bombing ground facilities and occupying the northern part of Iraq. This is clearly an undeclared war.

Bush invaded the rest of Iraq and toppled Hussein. This is clearly an undeclared war.

Both used the same justifications. Hussein had WMDs, violated the cease fire agreement from Gulf War I and was a threat to his neighbors.

Now Trey and I are arguing the intellectually consistent argument we disagree with both engaging in an undeclared war and Iraq wasn't our problem under either. Then we are saying despite that we ARE there now and we have to do the right thing.

You're ignoring all that except wanting to go back and argue the tired WMD argument that both parties told, but you only want to talk about the Republican having said it.

Like I told CT, I'm in no way defending Clinton's actions. But the fact remains, that no governments, ours or foreign ones either, knew of active WMD programs in Iraq. The UN resolutions were not that he had to disarm, they were to force him to allow the inspectors back in to prove one way or the other about their WMD capabilities. Saddam actually complied, and it was Bush who ordered the inspectors out so that we could invade. The Niger yellow-cake story was totally fabricated, and the whole Treason-gate/Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame scandal came about as a result.

[Deadskins]

Anyway, this thread has gotten totally off topic. This is not about the war in Iraq. This is about the current administration's attacks on the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution in general. Please address how you feel about these issues, in particular, the two laws passed in the last couple of years that virtually insures (at least in my mind), that the current fascist regime has no plans of giving up power in the foreseeable future:

From Irn-Bru's link, these are the scariest portions to me:

John Warner Defense Authorization Act is passed. The act allows a president to declare a public emergency and station US military troops anywhere in America as well as take control of state based national guard units without consent of the governor or other local authorities. The law authorizes presidential deployment of US troops to round-up and detain “potential terrorists”, “illegal aliens” and “disorderly” citizenry.

and

National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) establishes a new post-disaster plan (with disaster defined as any incident, natural or man-made, resulting in extraordinary mass casualties, damage or disruption) which places the president in charge of all three branches of government. The directive overrides the National Emergencies Act which gives Congress power to determine the duration of a national emergency.

[KazooSkinsFan]

If Congress doesn't have the stones to declare war we should not do it. But we shouldn't have been there to begin with and that wasn't declared either.

Then you said Congress should have declared that we should not be going into Iraq

I just did not say what you said. Focus on my sentence. "we shouldn't have been there to begin with and that wasn't declared either."

We were in Iraq under Bill Clinton engaged in shooting down his planes, enforcing no fly zones, bombing ground facilities and occupying Northern Iraq. Those are clearly acts of war. A war that was not declared.

That does not mean that congress should have declared we should NOT be there. It means we were there engaged in an undeclared war already under Clinton "that wasn't declared either."

[KazooSkinsFan]

he fact remains, that no governments, ours or foreign ones either, knew of active WMD programs in Iraq. The UN resolutions were not that he had to disarm, they were to force him to allow the inspectors back in to prove one way or the other about their WMD capabilities. Saddam actually complied, and it was Bush who ordered the inspectors out so that we could invade. The Niger yellow-cake story was totally fabricated, and the whole Treason-gate/Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame scandal came about as a result.

The UN resolutions said he had to disarm AND cooperate to prove he did. Those were the terms of the cease fire to Gulf War I.

Joe Wilson did not disprove the yellow cake, he said he could not prove it. Those are different things.

[Deadskins]

I could go on debating you about the ins and outs of Bush's lies involving the Gulf war, but I see no use. We seem to agree that we should not be there. My question to you is: do you want to discuss the thread's topic or not?