PDA

View Full Version : Robertson endorses assassinating Chavez



oneupper
08-23-2005, 01:14 PM
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., Aug. 23 (UPI) -- U.S. televangelist and conservative Christian Pat Robertson has called for the assassination of left-wing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Speaking on his Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club," the conservative Robertson claimed Chavez was trying to make Venezuela "a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent."

Citing Chavez's close ties with Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Venezuela's significant supply of oil, Robertson said the need for his elimination is justified, CNN said.

We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator," he said. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

The White House denies trying to kill Chavez though does accuse him of trying to transform Venezuela into a Cuba-style state.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson during a broadcast of The 700 Club.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."





This may be the first time I agree with Robertson.

Unfortunately he was the wrong messenger for this.


(how do i get the text to wrap?)

pedro
08-23-2005, 01:17 PM
don't wrap it in code tags.

me? I'm not down with popping other countries leaders.

how would you feel about religious leaders in other countries calling on the assassination of Bush?

westofyou
08-23-2005, 01:18 PM
how would you feel about religious leaders in other countries calling on the assassination of Bush?

I'd create a reason to declare war on them... that's what I'd do by gum.

cumberlandreds
08-23-2005, 01:21 PM
Maybe Chavez is hiding the WMD in Venezuela? ;)

Chip R
08-23-2005, 01:30 PM
That's a good Christian thing to say, Pat.

LvJ
08-23-2005, 01:31 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/pughman/axfre1.jpg

oneupper
08-23-2005, 01:33 PM
how would you feel about religious leaders in other countries calling on the assassination of Bush?

I knew there would a lot of controversy here. I imagine Bush is on a number of "hit lists" around the world.

The "Chavez" problem has gotten out of hand, for a number or reason, not the least being the mismanagement of diplomacy by the US (read: Bush government).

Time will tell how large a threat he eventually becomes, but make no mistake, he is a threat. And Robertson's rhetoric about turning Venezuela into "a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent" is essentially true.

Chavez tries to play himself off as an "elected" leader. In reality he rigged the electoral system to ensure surviving a recall vote, and his permanent possession of power. He is a megalomaniac, and given the right circumstances will stop at NOTHING to extract vengeance from his "enemies".

According to Chavez, the US is THE enemy (or one of the at least).

Is he a "hot air baloon" or an "early-stage" Hitler? Time will tell. But it promises to be messy.

Kill him? Despite "agreeing with Robertson", its probably too late for that.

RBA
08-23-2005, 01:36 PM
He rigged the election? Do you have proof of that?

pedro
08-23-2005, 01:38 PM
I don't disagree that guy is crooked. But I do think it's best handled internally, and I do think it will be. At least half the people in Venezuela want him bounced. I think they should get that opportunity. It's not like they're not trying.

PickOff
08-23-2005, 01:41 PM
This may be the first time I agree with Robertson.

Unfortunately he was the wrong messenger for this.


(how do i get the text to wrap?)

What do we have to fear from Chavez? That he makes sure his country benefits from its oil reserves? That he has instituted far reaching progams to help the poor? Yes, the man has a relationship with Castro, whom we have no reason to fear either. Chavez is a democratically elected President, and watch dog groups on elections have worse things to say about our 2000 presidential election than his election in 1999 and the recent referendum.

From cia factbook:

Executive branch:
chief of state: President Hugo CHAVEZ Frias (since 3 February 1999); Vice President Jose Vicente RANGEL Vale (since 28 April 2002); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government
head of government: President Hugo CHAVEZ Frias (since 3 February 1999); Vice President Jose Vicente RANGEL Vale (since 28 April 2002); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government
cabinet: Council of Ministers appointed by the president
elections: president elected by popular vote for a six-year term; election last held 30 July 2000 (next to be held NA 2006)
election results: Hugo CHAVEZ Frias reelected president; percent of vote - 60%
note: a special presidential recall vote on 15 August 2004 resulted in a victory for CHAVEZ; percent of vote - 58% in favor of CHAVEZ fulfilling the remaining two years of his term, 42% in favor of terminating his presidency immediately
Legislative branch:
unicameral National Assembly or Asamblea Nacional (165 seats; members elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms; three seats reserved for the indigenous peoples of Venezuela)
elections: last held 30 July 2000 (next to be held July 2005)
election results: percent of vote by party - NA%; seats by party - pro-government 108 (MVR 92, MAS 6, indigenous 3, other 7), opposition 57 (AD 33, COPEI 6, Justice First 5, other 13)

His is a legitimate government, that does not put corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy above the interests of all Venezuelans, that is why he won by very large margains both times.

Here is what the cia factbook's overview of the country:

Introduction Venezuela Top of Page
Background:
Venezuela was one of three countries that emerged from the collapse of Gran Colombia in 1830 (the others being Colombia and Ecuador). For most of the first half of the 20th century, Venezuela was ruled by generally benevolent military strongmen, who promoted the oil industry and allowed for some social reforms. Democratically elected governments have held sway since 1959. Current concerns include: a polarized political environment, a politicized military, drug-related violence along the Colombian border, increasing internal drug consumption, overdependence on the petroleum industry with its price fluctuations, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples.


Replace Colombian with Mexican and take out the rain forest and indigenous peoples and the current concerns sound alot like America's current concerns.

This attitude once agin proves that many are only interested in Democracy if that means our corporate interests are shared.

pedro
08-23-2005, 01:45 PM
Oneupper, you do seem very concerned about the spread of communism. One thing to think about is that the south and central american communist movements are very much a reaction to the years of dictatorship and abuses fostered by the US against these countries. I know a lot of people don't want to hear it, but there are very good reasons why many people in these countries feel the US is the enemy, because for most the last century we were.

If we want to change that perception I don't think assasinating their leaders, whether they are good or bad, is the way to go. To me, that just seems like a good way to rile up a bunch of folks in a nationalistic panic; people who might otherwise be inclined to whack the guy themselves.

Rojo
08-23-2005, 01:49 PM
Is he a "hot air baloon" or an "early-stage" Hitler? Time will tell. But it promises to be messy.

Hyperbole much?

oneupper
08-23-2005, 01:53 PM
He rigged the election? Do you have proof of that?

The story of the August 2004 recall vote is a long one, but yes...in my opinion (and that of MILLIONS of Venezuelans), it was rigged.

There is "evidence" to support this, but "proof", I'd say not...since the electoral council was in Chavez' hands and access to key data was blocked by the council.

Just as an example, audits of the results (the vote was by 'touch screen" with a paper trail) were NOT allowed. Only a small sample was audited, and the council itself generated that "random" sample.

Exit polls had indicated a much different result.

In the end, the main international oberserver (the Carter Foundation) signed off on the results, much to the dismay of millions of freedom-loving venezuelans. The OAS also was an observer and signed off also, with some important qualifications.

The organization which denounced most of the electoral irregularities (Sumate) is being pursued actively by the goverment and many of its members are currently on trial.

No smoking gun...sorry.

pedro
08-23-2005, 01:58 PM
boy, that sure sounds like a certain election in a freedom lovin' country I've heard of before......maybe we oughta ....naaahh

oneupper
08-23-2005, 02:08 PM
Oneupper, you do seem very concerned about the spread of communism. One thing to think about is that the south and central american communist movements are very much a reaction to the years of dictatorship and abuses fostered by the US against these countries. I know a lot of people don't want to hear it, but there are very good reasons why many people in these countries feel the US is the enemy, because for most the last century we were.
.

My father fled Hungary in 1946 as it turned communist. I left Venezuela with my family two years ago due the same fears.

"Communism" itself is not the problem. It's the stripping away of freedom.
That is what is happening in Venezuela...not necessarily communism. The goal is as much power as possible. For that goal, institutions are dominated, the "private" or free economy is cornered. Not to necessarily "own" it, but to dominate. (sorry, this is hard to explain).

As for the US as the enemy. It is simply NOT true. Venezuelans, in general, have no special feeling for the US. However, a small group of cold war dinosaurs have made their way into power with Chavez and are trying to stir up hatred. Sure, if your president (who many admire) is on the air daily saying you're poor and unemployed because of the US...well the hatred picks up.

RBA
08-23-2005, 02:08 PM
boy, that sure sounds like a certain election in a freedom lovin' country I've heard of before......maybe we oughta ....naaahh

I was thinking the same thing.

oneupper
08-23-2005, 02:09 PM
boy, that sure sounds like a certain election in a freedom lovin' country I've heard of before......maybe we oughta ....naaahh

Difference: Gore gave it up. Venezuelan opposition to this day, have not recognized the "official" result.

RBA
08-23-2005, 02:11 PM
Difference: Gore gave it up. Venezuelan opposition to this day, have not recognized the "official" result.

I was thinking it sounded more like Ohio 2004.

Just because Gore gave it up, doesn't make it right.

pedro
08-23-2005, 02:12 PM
My father fled Hungary in 1946 as it turned communist. I left Venezuela with my family two years ago due the same fears.

"Communism" itself is not the problem. It's the stripping away of freedom.
That is what is happening in Venezuela...not necessarily communism. The goal is as much power as possible. For that goal, institutions are dominated, the "private" or free economy is cornered. Not to necessarily "own" it, but to dominate. (sorry, this is hard to explain).

As for the US as the enemy. It is simply NOT true. Venezuelans, in general, have no special feeling for the US. However, a small group of cold war dinosaurs have made their way into power with Chavez and are trying to stir up hatred. Sure, if your president (who many admire) is on the air daily saying you're poor and unemployed because of the US...well the hatred picks up.

That certainly sheds a lot of light on your POV and makes me understand where you are coming from.

oneupper
08-23-2005, 02:28 PM
Just because Gore gave it up, doesn't make it right.

No it doesn't.

Unassisted
08-23-2005, 03:14 PM
This seems to be Topic A on talk radio today. Most of the callers seem to favor pulling Robertson's tax exemption. Some callers are upset that anyone who professes to be a stalwart Christian would advocate killing a world leader.

In any case, I imagine that a former 2-time Presidential candidation spouting off like this is unhelpful to the administration's foreign policy goals in the region. The State Department has already denounced and distanced itself from the remarks.

traderumor
08-23-2005, 03:54 PM
The amazing thing is that anyone takes Pat Robertson seriously anymore than they do any other televangelist. And why doesn't he just issue a word of knowledge to get rid of the problem. "There is a political figure in South America who is dropping over dead to the judgment hand of God right now." :)

Rojo
08-23-2005, 04:20 PM
The amazing thing is that anyone takes Pat Robertson seriously anymore

Especially when you consider this nugget:


Robertson: Judges worse than Al Qaeda



BY DEREK ROSE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.
"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.

"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."

Robertson's comments came with a showdown looming in the Senate over seven of President Bush's conservative judicial nominees who have been blocked by Democrat filibusters. Republicans have threatened a "nuclear option" to pass the judges by rewriting Senate rules to stop the filibusters.

Sources told the Daily News that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist lacks the 50 votes he needs, which could be a blow to his presidential hopes. "I don't think Frist has the votes," a GOP aide said. "He's now in his own corner. If he doesn't have the votes, he's really screwed."

Robertson echoed that sentiment. "I just don't see him as a future President," Robertson said.

With James Gordon Meek



Originally published on May 2, 2005

M2
08-23-2005, 06:24 PM
There's plenty wrong with Chavez, but we in the U.S. don't get to question election legitimacy anymore. We punted that privilege.

Vladmir Putin sets himself up to be President for life? Oh well. A group of Haitians decides it's easier to win power with machine guns than at the polls? Have at it.

Muslim extremism? In Venezuela? Are there Muslims in Venezuela? That strikes me like worrying about a Hindu attack from Iceland.

Anyway, Chavez has committed the great sin of not liking us. Big deal. Honestly I'm not sure why Bolivia hasn't declared war on us for harboring the senior management of Bechtel, talk about having a terrorist enclave inside your borders. Let Chavez foment away. If we act responsibly and treat the nations in South and Central America with respect, it'll fall on deaf ears. If we reprise our usual act where we vacillate between ripping them off and strong-arming them, then Chavez will see a lot of heads nodding affirmations when he's tearing into us.

Pat Robertson is the master of the Christian fatwah.

alex trevino
08-23-2005, 07:09 PM
South American politics aside is it Christ like to call for somone's murder?

paintmered
08-23-2005, 07:10 PM
how would you feel about religious leaders in other countries calling on the assassination of Bush?


I feel pretty immune to it. It happens every day.

pedro
08-23-2005, 07:13 PM
I feel pretty immune to it. It happens every day.

true, but I thought we were supposed to be morally superior beings.

oh wait, that's the scientologists.

Chip R
08-23-2005, 07:37 PM
South American politics aside is it Christ like to call for somone's murder?
It is if you are the good guys and they are the bad guys. ;)

RedsBaron
08-23-2005, 07:38 PM
My father fled Hungary in 1946 as it turned communist. I left Venezuela with my family two years ago due the same fears.

"Communism" itself is not the problem. It's the stripping away of freedom.
That is what is happening in Venezuela...not necessarily communism. The goal is as much power as possible. For that goal, institutions are dominated, the "private" or free economy is cornered. Not to necessarily "own" it, but to dominate. (sorry, this is hard to explain).

As for the US as the enemy. It is simply NOT true. Venezuelans, in general, have no special feeling for the US. However, a small group of cold war dinosaurs have made their way into power with Chavez and are trying to stir up hatred. Sure, if your president (who many admire) is on the air daily saying you're poor and unemployed because of the US...well the hatred picks up.
Thanks for the explanation of your experiences.
I agree that Chavez is bad news, and I have little doubt but that he rigged the most recent election. Anybody who pals around with Fidel Castro is not someone whom I respect.
All that said, I totally disagree with Robertson's statement. I cannot support a policy of assasinating political leaders, even despots, with whom we disagree. I have real moral misgivings about such a policy, and the unintended results of such a policy can be severe. I'm sure that you can recall all the reports that the attempts of the Kennedy Administration to kill Castro possibly resulted in Castro in turn deciding to try to kill JFK.
Could I accept limited exceptions to a no assasination policy? Sure. Once war commences, then I would regard a nation's leader as another soldier. Absent actual war, no.
With 20-20 hindsight it is easy to say the world would have been much better off had someone put a bullet in Hitler's brain in 1933 or 1938 or any other time prior to his actual death in 1945. Unfortunately, we usually do not have the benefit of 20-20 foresight to state with certainty who is such a monster that he should be killed before he kills millions. Henry Kissinger once speculated that had Hitler been deposed in 1936, many pundits today would argue that it was an overreaction, that Hitler was a simple German nationalist who was no real threat, etc.

M2
08-23-2005, 07:48 PM
Henry Kissinger once speculated that had Hitler been deposed in 1936, many pundits today would argue that it was an overreaction, that Hitler was a simple German nationalist who was no real threat, etc.

A sort of German Pinochet if you will.

pedro
08-23-2005, 07:59 PM
A sort of German Pinochet if you will.

although some will say Allende

GAC
08-23-2005, 08:38 PM
Poor Pat. What would Jesus do?

George Foster
08-24-2005, 12:39 AM
What do we have to fear from Chavez? That he makes sure his country benefits from its oil reserves? That he has instituted far reaching progams to help the poor? Yes, the man has a relationship with Castro, whom we have no reason to fear either. Chavez is a democratically elected President, and watch dog groups on elections have worse things to say about our 2000 presidential election than his election in 1999 and the recent referendum.

From cia factbook:

Executive branch:
chief of state: President Hugo CHAVEZ Frias (since 3 February 1999); Vice President Jose Vicente RANGEL Vale (since 28 April 2002); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government
head of government: President Hugo CHAVEZ Frias (since 3 February 1999); Vice President Jose Vicente RANGEL Vale (since 28 April 2002); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government
cabinet: Council of Ministers appointed by the president
elections: president elected by popular vote for a six-year term; election last held 30 July 2000 (next to be held NA 2006)
election results: Hugo CHAVEZ Frias reelected president; percent of vote - 60%
note: a special presidential recall vote on 15 August 2004 resulted in a victory for CHAVEZ; percent of vote - 58% in favor of CHAVEZ fulfilling the remaining two years of his term, 42% in favor of terminating his presidency immediately
Legislative branch:
unicameral National Assembly or Asamblea Nacional (165 seats; members elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms; three seats reserved for the indigenous peoples of Venezuela)
elections: last held 30 July 2000 (next to be held July 2005)
election results: percent of vote by party - NA%; seats by party - pro-government 108 (MVR 92, MAS 6, indigenous 3, other 7), opposition 57 (AD 33, COPEI 6, Justice First 5, other 13)

His is a legitimate government, that does not put corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy above the interests of all Venezuelans, that is why he won by very large margains both times.

Here is what the cia factbook's overview of the country:

Introduction Venezuela Top of Page
Background:
Venezuela was one of three countries that emerged from the collapse of Gran Colombia in 1830 (the others being Colombia and Ecuador). For most of the first half of the 20th century, Venezuela was ruled by generally benevolent military strongmen, who promoted the oil industry and allowed for some social reforms. Democratically elected governments have held sway since 1959. Current concerns include: a polarized political environment, a politicized military, drug-related violence along the Colombian border, increasing internal drug consumption, overdependence on the petroleum industry with its price fluctuations, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples.


Replace Colombian with Mexican and take out the rain forest and indigenous peoples and the current concerns sound alot like America's current concerns.

This attitude once agin proves that many are only interested in Democracy if that means our corporate interests are shared.

You really like Stalin too...Right?

savafan
08-24-2005, 01:44 AM
Poor Pat. What would Jesus do?

He would probably tell a story about a man and his sons, or write something in the dirt. It would have something to do with love for one's enemies and peace, but probably be misunderstood.

RedsBaron
08-24-2005, 11:17 AM
Andy Borowitz is now "reporting" that Pat Robertson has announced that the U.S. should also covet Chavez's wife. :laugh: http://www.borowitzreport.com

RBA
08-24-2005, 11:35 AM
You really like Stalin too...Right?


That's right up there with comparing people liking Hitler and it's uncalled for. I don't know everything about the Chavez situation, but a lot of the information I have gotten have come from the Right Wing Echo chamber. It makes you wonder.

traderumor
08-24-2005, 12:44 PM
He would probably tell a story about a man and his sons, or write something in the dirt. It would have something to do with love for one's enemies and peace, but probably be misunderstood.Yes, because that was the only message Christ ever delivered. [In effemenate voice] "You brood of vipers! C'mon, sthtop being mean, guys."

But, from his time on earth, I don't recall Christ getting involved in the kingdoms of this world. He even let himself be killed by a corrupt government that practiced cesar worship, so the dealings of a dictator would likely not concern him during his ministry. However, Robertson's command is un-Biblical according to the following verses:


Romans 13:1-7 KJV
(1) Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
(2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
(3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
(4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
(5) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
(6) For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
(7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

In other words, Robertson would have to have direct knowledge from God that He wanted a leader removed from power by being put to death. And Pat has no such knowledge, trust me. If someone did have that power, they wouldn't even know it.

Chip R
08-24-2005, 01:23 PM
It looks like Pat's backed off his statements somewhat.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050824/pl_nm/venezuela_robertson_dc

Evangelist backs off Chavez assassination call

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative U.S. evangelist Pat Robertson, who called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, said on Wednesday he was misinterpreted and there were a number of ways to "take him out" including kidnapping.

"I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping," Robertson said on his "The 700 Club" television program.

"There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted," Robertson added.

Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition and a presidential candidate in 1988, said on Monday of Chavez, one of Bush's most vocal critics: "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability." He made the comments during his "The 700 Club" television program.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday dismissed Robertson's remarks, but the White House remained silent despite calls for repudiation from Venezuela and religious leaders including the Rev. Jesse Jackson. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called "without fact and baseless" any ideas of hostile action against Chavez or Venezuela.

The leftist Chavez has often accused the United States of plotting his overthrow or assassination. Alongside Cuban President Fidel Castro in Havana on Sunday, Chavez scoffed at the idea that he and Castro were destabilizing troublemakers.

Chavez survived a short-lived coup in 2002 that he says was backed by the United States. Washington denies involvement.

Venezuelan officials said Robertson's remarks, while those of a private citizen, took on more significance given his ties to President George W. Bush's Christian-right supporters.

"Mr Robertson has been one of this president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House," Venezuela's ambassador to the United States Bernardo Alvarez said.

Jaycint
08-24-2005, 01:44 PM
"I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping," Robertson said on his "The 700 Club" television program.


Riiiiiiiight. Sure that's what you meant.

registerthis
08-24-2005, 01:51 PM
"I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping," Robertson said on his "The 700 Club" television program.

"There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted," Robertson added.Oh, stuff it, Pat. Just admit you screwed up. You thought the neocons and uber-right wingers would rally around you with a chorus of "yeahs!" when you made that comment. You never expected the backlash you received, and you certainly weren't prepared to offer an apology for them.

TR was right--who could possibly take this guy seriously?

traderumor
08-24-2005, 01:58 PM
religious leaders including the Rev. Jesse Jackson.Well, now something has gotta be done. Jesse has spoken :evil:

westofyou
08-24-2005, 02:08 PM
"I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping," Robertson said on his "The 700 Club" television program.

http://afallahi.com/images/filmandart/GiJoe.jpg

RedsBaron
08-24-2005, 04:24 PM
Pat Robertson now says he meant we should just "kidnap" Chavez? Yeah, like that would go over well in Venezuela. This isn't Panama, where Noreiga was an unquestioned thug with no political legitimacy. I don't respect Chavez, I fear for where he will take his country, and he's bad news-but kidnap an elected foreign leader?
I would hope at least one or two liberal Democrats here might have been upset if a foreign country had kidnapped President George W. Bush following the 2000 election, regardless of their rhetoric against Bush. :) I would expect any kidnapping of Chavez would merely unite his entire country against America.

alex trevino
08-24-2005, 05:37 PM
perhaps W. should just invite Chavez for tea at the white house and when he is not looking barbara bush could tackle him :D

But seriously, why anyone would advocate asasinating the A's thirdbasemen is beyond me...Sure he is no Sal Bando but Gessh!

dsmith421
08-24-2005, 07:13 PM
perhaps W. should just invite Chavez for tea at the white house and when he is not looking barbara bush could tackle him

Well, that would at least keep her "beautiful mind" off unpleasant things like thousands of young Americans killed in Iraq.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0429-11.htm

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths," Barbara Bush said on ABC's "Good Morning America" on March 18, 2003. "Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

Chip R
08-24-2005, 11:11 PM
I never really thought bad of Pat Robertson. I thought he was a pretty legit televangelist - which, back in the late 80's, was no small feat. I didn't think any better or worse of him than I did of any of the televangelists like Robert Schuller or Billy Graham. But when the Gulf War started back in 1991, I happened to come across him one night on the 700 Club. He was talking about the war and emphasizing how this could be the beginning of Armegeddon. And then he started pimping his book about the End of Days. That's when he lost me for good. I'm thinking, this guy doesn't really care if this could be Armegeddon, he just wants us to buy his book.

Chip R
08-25-2005, 10:01 AM
Pat's sorry now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_re_us/robertson_assassination;_ylt=AqFox07ph92j3aH_iHMR6 nKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Robertson Apologizes for Chavez Remarks

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson apologized Wednesday for calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, only hours after he denied saying Chavez should be killed.

"Is it right to call for assassination?" Robertson said. "No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him."

Chavez, whose country is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush. He accuses the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

On Monday's telecast of his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club," Robertson had said: "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

He continued: "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

On Wednesday, he initially denied having called for Chavez to be killed and said The Associated Press had misinterpreted his remarks.

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson said on his show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."

He later issued the apology on his Web site.

When the AP had called Robertson on Tuesday for elaboration, spokeswoman Angell Watts said Robertson would not do interviews and had no statement about his remarks. He also declined several interview requests Wednesday.

On Tuesday, the State Department called Robertson's remarks "inappropriate."

Rychian
08-25-2005, 12:22 PM
As a minister, it is embarrassing to say the least. The unfortunate thing with televangelists is that they are nowhere near what most pastors think theologically (Graham being the exception, though he probably wasnt a televangelist). They just happen to be the loudest and most obnoxious (benny hinn, parsley, purple haired lady on tbn). I groan everytime a news show wheels out for the "lets see how offensive falwell/robertson can be today!"
It is okay for people to make mistakes, he let his own feelings of chavez get in the way and he opened his mouth. He could have just said "I got ahead of my self, i was an idiot. Sorry. " and let it go, but now he is pimping kidnaping?!! what is up with this guy?

flyer85
08-25-2005, 12:23 PM
Robertson retracted his statement after removing his foot from his mouth.

Maybe he only wants Chavez "mostly dead". Cancel the call to Miracle Max.

GAC
08-26-2005, 08:52 AM
I never really thought bad of Pat Robertson. I thought he was a pretty legit televangelist - which, back in the late 80's, was no small feat. I didn't think any better or worse of him than I did of any of the televangelists like Robert Schuller or Billy Graham. But when the Gulf War started back in 1991, I happened to come across him one night on the 700 Club. He was talking about the war and emphasizing how this could be the beginning of Armegeddon. And then he started pimping his book about the End of Days. That's when he lost me for good. I'm thinking, this guy doesn't really care if this could be Armegeddon, he just wants us to buy his book.

I agree Chip. I really don't know what has gotten into this man over the last several years. I was never an avid follwer of the 700 Club, but I do have several of his teaching series on tape. They were excellent.

But he sometimes does not practice what he preaches. ;)

But as Christians, we are told that our "eyes" are not to be on men.

I have some of Swaggert's teaching series from back in the late 70's and early 80's. Also very good. But what amazed me was when he "fell" (along with some of these other televangelists) that the flock scattered in disillusionment. Their eyes were on the wrong person IMO.

GAC
08-26-2005, 08:53 AM
As a minister, it is embarrassing to say the least. The unfortunate thing with televangelists is that they are nowhere near what most pastors think theologically (Graham being the exception, though he probably wasnt a televangelist). They just happen to be the loudest and most obnoxious (benny hinn, parsley, purple haired lady on tbn). I groan everytime a news show wheels out for the "lets see how offensive falwell/robertson can be today!"
It is okay for people to make mistakes, he let his own feelings of chavez get in the way and he opened his mouth. He could have just said "I got ahead of my self, i was an idiot. Sorry. " and let it go, but now he is pimping kidnaping?!! what is up with this guy?

a huge sin that is characteristic of all men.... a lack of humilty when we screw up. It bruises the ego. ;)

RedsBaron
08-26-2005, 10:14 AM
Borowitz is now "reporting" that, in a show of solidarity with Chavez, Fidel Castro has announced he plans to violently overthrow Robertson from the "700 Club." http://www.borowitz.com/

Chip R
08-26-2005, 10:21 AM
Borowitz is now "reporting" that, in a show of solidarity with Chavez, Fidel Castro has announced he plans to violently overthrow Robertson from the "700 Club." http://www.borowitz.com/

I tried to access that page but I get a message in German and a sign of a guy digging. :confused:

registerthis
08-26-2005, 10:28 AM
I tried to access that page but I get a message in German and a sign of a guy digging. :confused:I think it should be this:

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

Chip R
08-26-2005, 10:31 AM
I think it should be this:

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

OK, that's much better. :lol:

GAC
08-26-2005, 10:31 AM
I tried to access that page but I get a message in German and a sign of a guy digging. :confused:

That was me trying to get to the Warsteiners - and my language was censored! :lol:

RedsBaron
08-26-2005, 11:07 AM
I tried to access that page but I get a message in German and a sign of a guy digging. :confused:
Sorry-my bad.

savafan
08-26-2005, 11:36 AM
Yes, because that was the only message Christ ever delivered. [In effemenate voice] "You brood of vipers! C'mon, sthtop being mean, guys."


I think you mistook my intent, which can easily happen on message boards. I was in no way trying to disrespect Jesus, I was merely saying that most of what He said and did during His life was misunderstood by those of His time, and that probably would be no different were He here with us in person today.

traderumor
08-26-2005, 11:45 AM
I think you mistook my intent, which can easily happen on message boards. I was in no way trying to disrespect Jesus, I was merely saying that most of what He said and did during His life was misunderstood by those of His time, and that probably would be no different were He here with us in person today.I understood you to be saying that if he did speak on the issue, it would be a "love and peace" message. I was saying, not necessarily.

registerthis
08-26-2005, 11:50 AM
I understood you to be saying that if he did speak on the issue, it would be a "love and peace" message. I was saying, not necessarily.Maybe he would smite Pat Robertson in the thigh or something.

GAC
08-26-2005, 12:12 PM
Even Jesus, when he knew his departure was near, told his disciples to take a sword with them. Why?

Not for aggressive purposes; but for defense and protection.

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

savafan
08-26-2005, 12:21 PM
I understood you to be saying that if he did speak on the issue, it would be a "love and peace" message. I was saying, not necessarily.

I think I said "probably", but you're correct. Of course the Jews of that time believed that the Messiah would come and overthrow the government and rule them like a king, but that wasn't really the plan.

traderumor
08-26-2005, 12:30 PM
I think I said "probably", but you're correct. Of course the Jews of that time believed that the Messiah would come and overthrow the government and rule them like a king, but that wasn't really the plan.And that has always been my objection to those who denied Christ's messiahship. They weren't really arguing from the Scriptures, they were arguing from the "messiah" they had created based on not understanding the Scriptures. I think he ripped the scribes and Pharisees a few times, and some are even recorded, for that very thing. And of course, as you pointed out, the misunderstanding continues. Sorry for the abrasive reply to your point.

savafan
08-26-2005, 12:36 PM
Sorry for the abrasive reply to your point.

No problem. Frankly, I don't see why everyone wouldn't want a Messiah who's first miracle was changing water into wine just to keep the party going, but then maybe that's just me. ;)

GAC
08-26-2005, 12:39 PM
And that has always been my objection to those who denied Christ's messiahship. They weren't really arguing from the Scriptures, they were arguing from the "messiah" they had created based on not understanding the Scriptures. I think he ripped the scribes and Pharisees a few times, and some are even recorded, for that very thing. And of course, as you pointed out, the misunderstanding continues. Sorry for the abrasive reply to your point.

He was in the lineage of David, who was a warrior-king, and Israel's greatest ruler, who vanquished the Jews enemies and united/built their earthly kingdom to a stage they have never seen since.

So the Jewish community was earthly-minded in that sense.

Some believe it was why Judas, a member of the Zealots, betrayed him - to possibly force his hand.

Even after his resurrection the disciples asked Jesus..."Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6)

KittyDuran
08-27-2005, 07:38 AM
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/PatRobertson/images/donwright.gif

RedsBaron
08-27-2005, 08:17 AM
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/PatRobertson/images/donwright.gif
Nobody will accuse that guy of being a "chickenhawk." ;)

GAC
08-27-2005, 08:31 AM
I'm not a member of the Christian Coalition (don't even know what membership constitutes), but that cartoon is pretty dishonest and demeaning if you ask me. I wonder if that individual who created it had used a Muslim, some other religion, or maybe an ethnic group such as African-Americans, simply because one of their leaders made a stupid remark, how it would have been accepted? Does that then mean that it is representative of ALL? Hardly. Yet it just seems acceptable to malign believers in this country, and characterize them as this cartoon does....mindless fanatics waiting for their marching orders to kill.

Lets see how many Christians are gonna answer the call. People will be waiting a long time.

Can anyone show me evidence of where Christians in this country have organized into groups/causes who have adopted and initiated violence, murder of the innocent, violent opposition to government, and destruction in order to exert their beliefs?

I'm not talking about some lone nutcase, such as a Eric Rudolph, who committed the atrocities he did and them claims it was in the name of God- or this Phelps character who perverts the Bible to preach hate against homosexuals. They are fringe nutcases, and are no way representative of Christians in this country as a whole. And If one would examine Rudolph's religious beliefs, they'd see they weren't biblical or Christian (regardless of what he says). We, as Christians see that - many can't.

Christians, as a whole, may oppose such political "hot button" issues as abortion and gay marriage; but we have never, nor would we ever, condone the methods used by someone who feels God is calling them to violence.

We can differ and offer up our views in protest with having to do so. And we've done a very good job at upholding that principle.

We don't need violence when we win via the ballot box. ;) And even if/when we lose, we never resort to violence in retaliation.

What abut those groups on the far left that use such tactic and disregard for life when supporting their causes such as the environment and animal rights? Does that mean they are representative of everyone on the left/liberal?

But even more importantly - when someone does do something like this, and then use the Bible/Christianity as their reasoning - they are immediately condemned by evangelical Christians - not approved of or accepted.

I haven't talked to an evangelical yet who hasn't stated that what Robertson said wasn't wrong and way out of line. They are embarassed by these types of comments by people of prominence. Many are now even offering apologies for his actions, as it does not represent their views, and more importantly, those of Christianity as a whole.

GAC
08-27-2005, 08:59 AM
Nobody will accuse that guy of being a "chickenhawk." ;)

The chicken-hawk line is the “Oh, yeah? Your mama!” of antiwar arguments.

I'll post that article by Lowrey from the National Review on this "chickenhawk" term being thrown out by the left. I could care less WHO it's from. WHAT it says, and the counter analogies it uses are RIGHT ON! ;)

It's not like its gona ruin my reputation on here with those from the left anyway! :lol:

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200508260811.asp

“Chicken-Hawk!”
Same old ad hominem.

Invariably, whenever columnists like myself write in support of the Iraq war without having served in the military there, letters flood in deriding us as “chicken hawks.” How can writers support the war without fighting in it themselves? these letter writers ask, although usually not so politely.

The Cindy Sheehan controversy has revived the long-running chicken-hawk argument, since so much of her appeal has to do with her unique standing to pronounce on the war given the sacrifice of her son. Amazingly, after three years, President Bush critics still write chicken-hawk letters as if they have arrived at something clever and cutting, when they are really rehashing a bottom-of-the-barrel ad hominem argument. The chicken-hawk line is the “Oh, yeah? Your mama!” of antiwar arguments.

Its logic, if taken seriously, actually would boost the hawks. If only members of the military — who are overwhelmingly conservative — were considered competent to decide the nation’s posture on matters of war and peace, we would have an even more forward-leaning foreign policy. I’m comfortable letting the 82nd Airborne decide what we do about anti-American rogue states. Are opponents of the war? I’m guessing that even if you let only mothers of fallen soldiers in Iraq direct our Iraq policy, the result would be stay-the-course rather than the immediate pullout favored by Sheehan.

The chicken-hawk argument is nakedly partisan. During the Kosovo war waged by Bill Clinton and supported by Democrats in 1999, a cry didn’t go up from the Left that no one could support the war unless they were willing to strap themselves into B-2 bombers for the 33-hour ride from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to Belgrade and back to degrade Serbian infrastructure.

By the same token, we could say to proponents of leaving Saddam Hussein in power: “That’s an illegitimate position unless you yourself are willing to move to Tikrit to live for the duration of Saddam’s regime.” Or to supporters of “containing” Saddam: “You’re a hypocrite until you go help patrol the no-fly zone.” Or to advocates of inspections: “You can’t support them unless you don a baby-blue cap and sniff around his suspected chemical-weapons sites yourself.”

Why should this line of argument be limited to Iraq? “You think we should help fight AIDS in Africa? Well, go work in a clinic in Lavumisa, Swaziland.” “You oppose land mines? Go clear them from the Korean DMZ.” “You think there should be a new U.N. protocol in favor of [insert fashionable cause here]? Then spend interminable hours helping negotiate it yourself.” “Support jobless benefits? Become a clerk at an unemployment office.”

Alas, the argument only swings one way. A few radical antiwar groups, including Code Pink and Veterans for Peace, have released a statement supporting the Iraqi insurgency. But no one is badgering its members about whether they are going to go set off roadside bombs in Baquba. Jihad is so easy when it’s someone else’s son or daughter doing all the suicide bombing!

The chicken-hawk argument is, of course, made in bad faith. If anyone should be — and usually has been — in favor of rigorous civilian control of the military, it is the left. Since when do liberals favor government on the model of Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany, with the military running amok since civilians don’t have the standing to direct it? Maybe Harry Truman was wrong to fire Douglas MacArthur after all. Maybe no one should have contradicted Curtis LeMay when he offered to bomb North Vietnam back into the Stone Age.

The Iraq war was arrived at through the democratic deliberation of the American public, who — this is how it works — get to decide all sort of questions, even if they are not experts or don’t have personal experience with whatever is at issue. The anti-war movement would have a better chance of convincing the public of its position if it weren’t so fond of arguments that are juvenile, opportunistic and irrelevant.

RedsBaron
08-27-2005, 09:38 AM
Man oh man GAC-you are going to get flamed now. ;)

GAC
08-27-2005, 01:38 PM
char-broiled chickenhawk is a delicacy in some parts of the country! :D

RBA
08-27-2005, 06:27 PM
I don't care how the "right" defines a chicken-hawk. I know one, when I see/hear/read one.

RedsBaron
08-28-2005, 07:41 AM
It is rather obvious that GAC has received his "talking points" and is simply repeating them like a mindless robot. ;)

GAC
08-28-2005, 09:37 AM
I don't care how the "right" defines a chicken-hawk. I know one, when I see/hear/read one.

You standing in front of that mirror again? ;)

I really don't care how the left defines it either. Just find it kinda funny when trying to apply the term, they ignore the hypocrisy.

The thing is - when people do stand up and get involved in causes they are passionate about (say - abortion protest for instance. I could sight many others), you can't call them a chickenhawk, so you would find some other derogatory labels for them simply because it doesn't line up with YOUR ideology.

RBA
08-28-2005, 10:05 AM
US campaign to ring Chavez alarm fails to resonate
Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:33 PM BST





By Saul Hudson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Since when did Venezuela become a threat?" asked U.S. radio sports talk show host Tony Kornheiser.

"Since gas went over $3," his co-host joked, referring to soaring U.S. prices and the fact Venezuela holds the largest oil reserves outside the Middle East.

The Bush administration has accused leftist President Hugo Chavez of seeking to destabilise Latin American governments and doing too little to combat drug traffickers and Marxist rebels operating around its border with U.S. ally Colombia.

But Washington's campaign to raise the alarm over a major U.S. oil supplier has failed to resonate among members of congress, editorial writers, think-tank analysts and the public.

In the void, Pat Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and key supporter of President George W. Bush, called last week for Chavez to be assassinated for exporting communism and Muslim extremism.

As wild as his charges appeared, the attack came against the backdrop of largely unsubstantiated Bush administration accusations and Chavez said they represented the view of the right-wing U.S. elite.

"The Bush administration has tried to make Venezuela seem like a spooky, murky place," said Larry Birns of the Washington based think-tank the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. "But they have cried wolf too often. Without serious evidence, you can't take their accusations seriously."

The Bush administration distanced itself from Robertson and the evangelist leader grudgingly apologised but by the end of the week even sports talk radio was ridiculing the idea Venezuela posed a threat.

ACTIONS LOUDER THAN LOUD WORDS

Venezuela's ambassador in Washington, Bernardo Alvarez, said U.S. complaints were baseless and driven by American right-wingers, who fear Chavez's ideology of spreading oil wealth to the majority poor resonates in a region rejecting American-prescribed free-market models.

Chavez, who routinely insults Bush and claims Washington plots to oust him, can match Robertson's rhetoric.

But this month he let his actions undercut U.S. charges that he funds groups trying to oust Ecuador's government

With Ecuador facing a political crisis where protesters halted oil production, Chavez helped rescue the fragile government by lending its poor neighbour crude so that it would meet its export commitments.

The Bush administration is under pressure to hold off on its accusations.

Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, complained that U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's repeated criticism of Venezuela during a Latin American tour could undermine efforts to improve cooperation on such issues as drug trafficking.

"It may well be helpful to at least have a moratorium on adverse comments on Venezuela," the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote to Rumsfeld last week.

But that advice seems to go against the administration's instincts.

A congressional official, who asked not to be named because he was relating a private conversation, said a bipartisan delegation of U.S. legislators met Condoleezza Rice before she became secretary of state to urge her to reach out to Chavez.

According to the official, Rice cut the lawmakers off and said, "We just don't like him."

Rojo
08-28-2005, 05:03 PM
If only members of the military — who are overwhelmingly conservative — were considered competent to decide the nation’s posture on matters of war and peace, we would have an even more forward-leaning foreign policy.

Or at least we would have gone in with enough forces to get the job done, as the military brass advocated. But it was the politicians who decided not to listen.

You don't get an automatic "chickenhawk" label from me for going to war without having served. You do get one, however, when you hide behind the troops to deflect criticism.

GAC
08-28-2005, 09:01 PM
You don't get an automatic "chickenhawk" label from me for going to war without having served.

That's good. But go back and read the thread that was started that accused and placed that label on anyone who supports the war and hasn't grabbed their gun from the rack and headed to Iraq, and dropped their kids off at the recruiter's office..... http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38993&highlight=chickenhawk

What does the link posted at the bottom of RBA's threads imply?

On a separate thread from that one, I was accused of being one because I wasn't forcing my son to join (even though he's not even of age).

It's nothing more then a "talking point" (a nice catch phrase) picked up by the left/anti-war crowd.

Those Dems/liberals that supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and felt it was right - are they chickenhawks for not running right down to the induction centers and joining up?


You do get one, however, when you hide behind the troops to deflect criticism.

Who is hiding behind the troops? And how does that deflect criticism? And again - how does that make one a chickenhawk? Wouldn't that make almost every past President a chickenhawk then when their administration was involved in war, and they never possibly served themselves? How dare they send those young men off to war, when they themselves never served. Guys like Lincoln, FDR, and Clinton?

RedsBaron
08-29-2005, 12:37 PM
For what it is worth, the August 29 issue of National Review had an article by Mark Falcoff on Chavez. In the September 12 issue, there is a letter to the editor, critical of the article apparently because Falcoff didn't advocate America taking action against Chavez. In response, Falcoff wrote:
"I fully share Mr. Halvorssen's opinion of Hugo Chavez--he is self-evidently a dangerous thug and a killer who 'befriends, equips, and cooperates with Columbian terrorists," among others. This and much more anyone could have learned from reading my article.
"With all due respect, however, for the 'freedom and dignity of the Venezuelan people," let's remember that Chavez has been chosen consistently, by the people, as their president-dictator. I regret this; someday they will too. Meanwhile, I believe that for the United States to care more about these values than the vast majority of Venezuelans seem to care would be futile and even counterproductive. If we were to follow the policy prescriptions Mr. Halvorssen has lately been retailing in other publications, we would be failing precisely into the trap Chavez continues to set for us."

Rojo
08-29-2005, 01:03 PM
Who is hiding behind the troops? And how does that deflect criticism?

When the response of war supporters is "I support our troops", the implication is that I, or anyone who opposes the war, do not. Its a disengenous attempt to re-frame the argument by evoking the sacrifices endured by our men in women in the line of fire. And its doubly disgusting when it comes from men like Cheney and Bush who shirked when their number was called.

ochre
08-29-2005, 02:35 PM
http://www.colgate.com/Colgate/US/HouseholdCare/ProductRecommender/HouseholdCleaners/WebPages/Ajax/ajax_main.jpg
nothing a little Ajax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax) wouldn't clean up.

savafan
08-29-2005, 04:05 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050829/pl_afp/venezuelauschavezrobertson_050829075736

CARACAS (AFP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has warned he will lodge a complaint against the United States at the
United Nations and other international bodies if the US government fails to act against television evangelist Pat Robertson, who has called for Chavez's assassination.

"If the US government does not take action that it must take, we will go to the United Nations and Organization of American States to denounce the US government," the Venezuelan leader said Sunday as he addressed participants at talks on a social charter for the Americas.

He added he believed that by failing to act against Robertson, the United States was "giving protection to a terrorist, who is demanding the assassination of a legitimate president."

Robertson caused a diplomatic stir last Monday when he said on the air that if Chavez believed the United States was trying to kill him, "I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."

Robertson apologized Wednesday, but then went on to compare Chavez to
Saddam Hussein and to suggest the United States could one day be at war with his oil-rich country.

Chavez, a twice-elected leftist and close ally of Cuban President
Fidel Castro, has often said Washington would like to assassinate him, and accuses the Bush administration of involvement in a coup d'etat that toppled him for 47 hours in April 2002.

US officials last week distanced themselves from Robertson's comments.

The Venezuela president said he had already instructed his foreign minister and the country's ambassador to Washington to begin the process in the international bodies.

He said Venezuela could use international treaties and conventions to demand the extradition of the television preacher.

Chavez pointed out he believed Robertson "should be sent to prison to serve as an example for the entire world."

Meanwhile, visiting US civil rights leader
Jesse Jackson lent his support to Chavez, saying Robertson's remarks were "repugnant, immoral, illegal."

Addressing the Venezuelan National Assembly, Jackson called for the US Justice Department to investigate the statement.

Jackson, on a three-day visit to Venezuela to meet Chavez, politicians and community leaders, also called on US
President George W. Bush to issue "a swift rejection" of Robertson's statement.

"It must be unequivocally clear that such a heinous act is not desirable nor designed nor planned. We must use power to reduce tensions, reduce the rhetoric of our threats," Jackson said.

The US State Department sought to distance itself from Robertson last week, calling his remarks "inappropriate but pointing out that the evangelist spoke as a "private citizen."

At the same time, the department said that US ambassador to Caracas William Brownfield had been in contact with a Venezuelan government official over the remarks.

RedFanAlways1966
08-29-2005, 04:55 PM
CARACAS (AFP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has warned he will lodge a complaint against the United States at the
United Nations and other international bodies if the US government fails to act against television evangelist Pat Robertson, who has called for Chavez's assassination.

Uh, Hugo Chavez... we have something here called freedom of speech. It has been here a lot longer than you have been alive. It will be here (the United States) a lot longer than your sorry buttocks will grace the earth. Get over yourself.

Uh, Hugo Chavez... Pat Robertson DOES NOT work for our government. He is not a gov't employee, nor is he in the military. Frankly, he is loudmouth. We have lots of those in our country. And I'd venture to guess that you have them in yours. Take a good look in that mirror, tough-guy.

Uh, Hugo Chavez... no one really cares about you. Except some "looking for attention-type" named Jesse Jackson. You know Jesse. He was the married one who had a love-child and paid off his mistress with non-for-profit funds. You see... no one listens or cares what Jesse says. And most Americans feel the same about you. We also feel the same way about this Robertson idiot. We DO NOT care. Perhaps you and Jesse can get together. You can kiss and have a good old time. Oh... Jesse thinks he is an expert at voting recounts and irregularities. Maybe while you and him are frolicking, Jesse can conduct an investigation into your election win. How about it, Hugo? You care about justice? I am sure you wrote the book on it. I am sure you personally have never had anyone killed or threatened to have someone killed. I am sure of it. That is the way of S. American politics as we know it, right?

Now that we have had our talk, let's move on to more important things, Hugo. What time does the sun rise tomorrow?!?!

GAC
08-29-2005, 05:01 PM
When the response of war supporters is "I support our troops", the implication is that I, or anyone who opposes the war, do not.

I understand where you're coming from Rojo. And I disagree vehemently with anyone who says that those who oppose this war do not support our troops - just as I disagree with anyone who implies that those who support the war are hiding behind the troops.

There have been some conservatives in the media (and organizations) who have opened themselves up for such criticism justifiable. There have also been some, who oppose the war, who have also opened themselves up for the same criticism by aligning themselves with, or agreeing with, certain far left anti-war movements such International ANSWER, Code Pink, the National Lawyers Guild, the International Socialist Organization, Socialist Organizer, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, who do express anti-American sentiment (and did so long before the invasion of Iraq). They now use and "hide" behind grieving mothers who have had sons killed in Iraq in order to further their own agenda.


Its a disengenous attempt to re-frame the argument by evoking the sacrifices endured by our men in women in the line of fire.

I don't think that has been done at all. But should we, as anti-war activist Tom Hayden and several other anti-war representatives suggested the other night on a nightly news interview - to cut our losses and get the hell out of both Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Middle East all together? According to them, we should have never went into Afghanistan in the first place. When asked what we should have done in response to 9-ll then, their only response was "All we are doing is making the Muslims even madder at us". That's sound IMO. They murder our citizens, and we are suppose to do nothing because we don't want to upset them. :rolleyes:

And what does that say about those soldiers who have died up to this point if we just cut and run? To me, that would be to dishonor their sacrifice and loss, and possibly cause civil war in Iraq. Is that logic "hiding behind the troops" then?


And its doubly disgusting when it comes from men like Cheney and Bush who shirked when their number was called.

When was their "number" called? Alot of young men avoided going to active service in Viet Nam by joining the National Guard, getting a student deferrment (Cheney and Clinton), or got cozy assignments because their family had a name/position...

Gore's Dad kept his son out of harm's way with a nice journalism assignment in Nam.

How many of John, Robert, or Ted Kennedy's kids (large family there) were ever drafted or served in the military? Strange? Ted Kennedy served a 2 year stint as a military police "honor" guard during the Korean War (1951-53).

John Edwards - never served.

Gephardt served in the Air National Guard during the Viet Nam War. Disqualified to run/serve as Prez?

Clinton sent U.S. troops into harm's way in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo. Chickehawk?

Terry McAuliffe, Michael Moore, and Bill Maher were some of the high profile people last year who led the charge of calling Bush a deserter, AWOL, and other derogatory terms. None ever served. Maher dodged the draft by filing as a conscientious objector.

To use this argument that one had to serve in the military in order to be somehow qualified to send troops into combat would disqualify a majority of our political leaders (on both sides of the spectrum) from ever being President or serving in a capacity where that judgment had to be made.

As far as I'm concerned - those on the left who love this chickenhawk attacks, are just as bad as the Swiftboat ads (and I strongly disagreed with them at the time for attacking Kerry's service record; but not his anti-war antics after returning home).

The fact is that neither political party has a monoploy on patriotism or on men/women who served. We can sight good/bad on both sides.

registerthis
08-29-2005, 05:40 PM
Maher dodged the draft by filing as a conscientious objector.I just wanted to fire off a quick reply to this point.

"Conscientious objector" can hardly be classified as "dodging" the draft. A conscientious objector is just that--someone who disagrees with the principle of war and doesn't want to fight in it. Maher would be hypocritical if he didn't fight in Vietnam due to being a conscientious objector of that war, and then turned around and pushed for a war in Iraq.

Rojo
08-29-2005, 08:57 PM
As far as I'm concerned - those on the left who love this chickenhawk attacks, are just as bad as the Swiftboat ads (and I strongly disagreed with them at the time for attacking Kerry's service record; but not his anti-war antics after returning home).

Baloney. Here's your post from October of last year.

Swiftboat (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28970&page=2&pp=20&highlight=swiftboat)


You've never read the book RBA. It gives hundreds of testimonies by former Viet Nam vets (Not just O'Nell) that are on file. And just because they allow his book to be advertised on their website, does not discredit what they have to say and report.

Disprove Steve Pitkin's sworm testimony, who is just one of thousands who sponsor this site.

These guys are are liars? :rolleyes:

GAC
08-29-2005, 09:28 PM
While I understand what you are saying Ben, and I cetainly have no qualms with those who use such a status due to their beliefs that killing another human being, bearing arms, even in war, is a deplorable act (such as the Quakers for instance). But Maher does not show consistency in those beliefs. Yet he has demonstrated alot of hypocrisy.

He says that he himself is a conscientious objector, and yet is on record many times as showing support for the Viet Nam War. It's a matter of record that he has stated that we, as a nation, needed to find a geographical spot to "take a stand" against the Russians and Communism. And Viet Nam was that spot. And he supported it.

In the past on his show, Maher has asserted that the many violence-based U.S. interventions in Central America during the late 1980's were necessary to "stop Communism" there.

Chickenhawk then? If he believed so firmly in those causes, then he could have served in the military as a conscientious objector and in a non-combatant capacity. Why didn't he?

Maher, when interviewed on Hardball last year during the Presidential election, and in reference to the Viet Nam War, said "you either went, or you were a draft dodger".

Vietnam veterans represented 9.7% of their generation. 3,403,100 (including 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China sea waters). But, 9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the official Vietnam era (Aug 5, 1964 - May 7, 1975). In other words, and according to no less an authority than Bill Maher, 90.3% of the generation eligible to serve in Vietnam were draft dodgers, as were the over five and a half million Americans who served during that time outside the Southeast Asia Theater ... and that latter group included ME.

Many seem to think that draftees made up a majority of those who fought in Viet Nam, or if you were drafted back then, you ended up in Viet Nam. Wrong. Two-thirds of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. One-third, or approximately 1.1 million of all those who served in the Southeast Asia Theater during the Vietnam War were drafted.

Maher has made some very distasteful and demeaning remarks about our men serving in the miltary in the past that as a veteran myself, I'd be tempted to deck him if he said them to my face. ;)

As fas as I'm concerned, he has the right to say what he wants - and also receive the criticism he gets.

GAC
08-29-2005, 09:29 PM
Baloney. Here's your post from October of last year.

Swiftboat (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28970&page=2&pp=20&highlight=swiftboat)

Wow! You found one post where I state that those men who served with Kerry on those swift boats dispute some of Kerry's statements/claims. All I stated was that their testimony should not be so easily discounted.

What did I state in my responses on the rest of that thread Rojo? Care to not be so selective and show everyone here where my focus was? - on his post Viet Nam anti-war activities with folks like VVAW and Jane Fonda.

Or how about where I stated that Kerry's service during the war should not be an issue? Care to find that post on that thread?

Rojo
08-29-2005, 09:51 PM
Wow! You found one post where I state that those men who served with Kerry on those swift boats dispute some of Kerry's statements/claims. All I stated was that their testimony should not be so easily discounted.

You "disagree" with that tactic yet you took the time to vouch for swiftboats veracity. Can you not understand my confusion?


What did I state in my responses on the rest of that thread Rojo? Care to not be so selective and show everyone here where my focus was? - on his post Viet Nam anti-war activities with folks like VVAW and Jane Fonda.

Yes, you levelled criticism about his post-war activities. I'm withholding my applause.


Or how about where I stated that Kerry's service during the war should not be an issue? Care to find that post on that thread?

Oh I'm sure you said that. If I was supporting Bush/Cheney, I'd be none to eager to bring up war heroics either.

Falls City Beer
08-29-2005, 10:01 PM
The thing is, calling Bush and Cheney chickenhawks is the truth.

The swiftboaters were/are liars and smear-artists.

I see a difference there.

You may not think the term "chickenhawks" is "fitting" or "appropriate" or "up to your standards" but it does its job; it accurately portrays both men as hawks who dodged the draft. I'm not sure what your beef with the truth is.

Falls City Beer
08-29-2005, 10:11 PM
Gore's Dad kept his son out of harm's way with a nice journalism assignment in Nam.

How many of John, Robert, or Ted Kennedy's kids (large family there) were ever drafted or served in the military? Strange? Ted Kennedy served a 2 year stint as a military police "honor" guard during the Korean War (1951-53).

John Edwards - never served.

A couple of points. Gore at least was in country. None of the Kennedy kids was old enough to serve in 'Nam and well, you know John served doubly honorably in WWII, so pick on another family besides the Kennedy's. Edwards: too young for Viet Nam.

But here's the kicker (and I hate to rain on your hunt for hypocrisy): None of the above mentioned men started a pre-emptive war. Takes the whole "hawk" out of chickenhawk.

(Just an FYI about journalists in Viet Nam--they got killed too; no, maybe not as much as infantry, but they did).

RedsBaron
08-30-2005, 06:39 AM
John Edwards was born on June 10, 1953. I'm not criticizing him for not serving in the military during the Vietnam War, but he was not too young to have served during that war. The ceasefire agreement officially ending the war was signed on Jan. 27, 1973. Given Edwards's age, I assume he graduated from high school in 1971. He could have served any time after that.

RBA
08-30-2005, 07:31 AM
Please give reference where John Edwards approved of and campaigned for the Vietnam War. Because, aren't we talking about being a Chickenhawk? Bush and Cheney both supported the war in Vietnam, that is as long as they didn't have to go. As long as others were drafted in their place would go and fight for them.
Cheney had more important things to do and Bush used his family's influence to avoid active duty and was able to play hooky from the guard without prosecution.

GAC
08-30-2005, 08:56 AM
The thing is, calling Bush and Cheney chickenhawks is the truth.

The swiftboaters were/are liars and smear-artists.

Your opinion. All I stated last year, when this all came down, was that there sure was an awful lot of vets who served with Kerry over there (alot more then were vouching for him) who were speaking out against him. And not all were in those Swift Boat ads either.

And obviously an awful lot of vets didn't agree with your assessment of the "truth" on Bush, because they supported him pretty vigoriously over Kerry. Anbd even before the Swift Boat ads. ;)

But what astounds me is that those who supported Kerry seemed to want to look the other way, and supported, those like Soros, Micheal Moore, MoveOn, Maher, DNC chairman McAuliffe, who were gallavanting around the country calling Bush a draft dodger, a coward, and playing "Karl Rove" with his military record/service, making exaggerated and fictious movies with outrageous claims that was trying to sway an election.... and then showing outrage (and hypocrisy) when the same tactics were dished out at their boy.

If they had some much factual information on Bush's service, then why the faked documents/Dan Rather debacle just prior to the election? Grasping at straws maybe?

I always agreed with the article and statement that McCain came out with last year on this matter (paraphrase) - neither's military record should be a central issue in this election. It's was nothing but dirty politics at it's best on BOTH SIDES, and really achieved nothing with the populace as a whole. John went on to say that these events all happened 30 years ago, and the facts are always gonna grow hazy with time - "he said, she said". And one, depending on which side of the issue you are on, can always dig up person(s) who will give testimony to support their claims/accusations. And isn't that exactly what we saw?.... there were people who served with Bush who supported his claims, and there were some who countered that. There were those who served with Kerry who supported his accounts, and there were those who didn't.

So I guess it all boils down to who you want to believe.

Yiu want to call Bush a liar. No problem. I think the same of Kerry. So lets call it a day and not go into this again.


You may not think the term "chickenhawks" is "fitting" or "appropriate" or "up to your standards" but it does its job; it accurately portrays both men as hawks who dodged the draft. I'm not sure what your beef with the truth is.

Application, and the fact that it was broaden by the anti-war crowd to include only those who support this war, yet somehow isn't running off to join and fight, or drop their kids off at an induction center. It was stated thusly on here.

You want to call Bush and Cheney chickenhawks? Fine. But I think the above article by Lowrey hit the nail on the head. Excellent analogies. Are you taking a pro-active/get involved approach to everything you believe in? If not - you're a chickenhawk according to some on here. What about some of the illustrious Dems in the role of leadership - former Presidents, such as Clinton (student deferrement like Cheney) - Gephardt (Air National Guard during Nam like Bush).

As I stated earlier - To use this argument that one had to serve in the military in order to be somehow qualified to send troops into combat would disqualify a majority of our political leaders (on both sides of the spectrum) from ever being President or serving in a capacity where that judgment had to be made.

It's simply a juvenile argument by an angry anti-war crowd who can't think of any other way to respond. But it makes for a nice "talking point".

GAC
08-30-2005, 08:57 AM
Cheney had more important things to do and Bush used his family's influence to avoid active duty and was able to play hooky from the guard without prosecution.

So did Clinton, Gore, Gephardt, and a few other Dems. Care to be fair?

GAC
08-30-2005, 09:06 AM
A couple of points. Gore at least was in country.

Ah yes - and far from any harms way - thanks to Daddy. But it looks good on one's political resume later. Same with Teddy (below). The Bush family is being railed on for possibly using their influence to get their son a safe, cozy assignment; but it was OK that the Kennedy and Gore Dad's did it. :rolleyes:


None of the Kennedy kids was old enough to serve in 'Nam and well, you know John served doubly honorably in WWII, so pick on another family besides the Kennedy's. Edwards: too young for Viet Nam.

Excuse me? Some of those Kennedy boys are older then me, and I had to register for the draft. I joined the Navy. And I made no reference to JFK did I? But his younger brother Ted got a nkce cozy assignment during the hight of the Korean War - honor guard.


But here's the kicker (and I hate to rain on your hunt for hypocrisy): None of the above mentioned men started a pre-emptive war. Takes the whole "hawk" out of chickenhawk.

Again - doesn't fit the broad definition given by many in the anti-war crowd now, and by RBA on here a few weeks age. Check up on that. ;)

RedsBaron
08-30-2005, 09:16 AM
A minor point about Ted Kennedy's military service. I can recall reading years ago that Ted enlisted in the military without first consulting with his father, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. When Joe learned of what Ted had done, he supposedly cursed Ted for being dumb enough to enlist during a war, and then used his influence to see that Ted got safe duty.
Given the death of Joe Jr. during World War II, and John's service in the same war, the actions of Ted's father are understandable, as he may have believed that his family had served and suffered enough, and it is to Ted's credit that he enlisted.
Now I will add that I have never read this story elsewhere-has anyone else?

RBA
08-30-2005, 09:27 AM
So did Clinton, Gore, Gephardt, and a few other Dems. Care to be fair?

Big difference, Clinton was not a supporter of the Vietnam War and I have seen right wing hate sites that said he even protested the war. We are TALKING about CHICKENHAWK status. Yes it's wrong for all of them to use their familes influence to avoid service, but let's not avoid the real issue, SUPPORTERS/CHEERLEADERS OF A PARTICULAR WAR who beat their chest and of Military Age who avoid service IN THAT PARTICULAR WAR for themselves and their families.

registerthis
08-30-2005, 09:33 AM
While I understand what you are saying Ben, and I cetainly have no qualms with those who use such a status due to their beliefs that killing another human being, bearing arms, even in war, is a deplorable act (such as the Quakers for instance). But Maher does not show consistency in those beliefs. Yet he has demonstrated alot of hypocrisy.

He says that he himself is a conscientious objector, and yet is on record many times as showing support for the Viet Nam War. It's a matter of record that he has stated that we, as a nation, needed to find a geographical spot to "take a stand" against the Russians and Communism. And Viet Nam was that spot. And he supported it.Well I'm not much of a Bill Maher fan...honestly the man gets on my nerves, and I certainly disagree with him about his views on Vietnam, if indeed that is his stance. I was only pointing out that a true conscientious objector could hardly be accused of "dodging" the draft.

registerthis
08-30-2005, 09:38 AM
Dick Cheney is the living, breathing personification of a "chickenhawk." the man who had "better things to do" than serve during Vietnam now suddenly has nothing more important to do than start a "pre-emptive" war against a non-threat, a war that has cost thousands of lives.

That, my friend, is a chickenhawk.

GAC
08-30-2005, 10:00 AM
You "disagree" with that tactic yet you took the time to vouch for swiftboats veracity. Can you not understand my confusion?

One post, while ignoring the other things I stated on this very topic that said no such thing, is somehow vouching for their veracity?

No where did I say that what they said was true or false. All I did, while some were ranting about lies and smear campaign (while trying to do some smearing themselves ;) ), was simply state that those vet's, and there were an awful lot of them, shouldn't have been so easily discarded simply because they were, at that time, hurting your Presidentila candidate.



Yes, you levelled criticism about his post-war activities. I'm withholding my applause.

And I can understand your distaste and apathy towards that since you weren't old enough to not only experience it, but that it didn't effect you personally, since you weren't in the miltary at the time.



Oh I'm sure you said that. If I was supporting Bush/Cheney, I'd be none to eager to bring up war heroics either.

Kerry's war heroics obviously didn;t give him much of an edge now did it? ;)

He should have never made his military service and issue in this election IMO, knowing what would come of it. And I'm referring specifically to his bragging/holding up his service in Viet Nam and his "comrades", when he wasn't saying the same things for the several years after he returned home.

He was the one who opened the door. Big blunder IMO. ;)

registerthis
08-30-2005, 10:06 AM
He should have never made his military service and issue in this election IMO, knowing what would come of it. You're right, he certainly should have forseen that the Republicans would trot out the swiftboat vets to lie, smear and attack his story. And Kerry should have been much quicker to respond. I don't disagree with that at all.

I just found it incredulous that the Republicans could label not only Kerry, but someone like Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in the Vietnam war, as unpatriotic, during their last campaign--particularly amusing coming from a camp whose candidate went AWOL during his Guard service during the war. Ultimately, though, I just came to accept it as the way the Bush team runs their campaign--you're either with us, or against us. Couldn't be any cleaerer than that.

GAC
08-30-2005, 10:21 AM
Big difference, Clinton was not a supporter of the Vietnam War and I have seen right wing hate sites that said he even protested the war. We are TALKING about CHICKENHAWK status.

Go back and review the thread you started a few weeks ago, and WHO YOU included in the term "chickenhawk" Rob. Your definition, and the MSNBC video you provided, was to show that anyone who supports this war, and yet is not grabbing their gun or forcing their kids to join up, is a chickenhawk.

And then of course there is that little link to a military induction form at the bottom of your posts. ;)

That is what I am addressing. And you know what you were inferring. It had nothing to do with Bush/Cheney alone; but anyone who supported this war.


Yes it's wrong for all of them to use their familes influence to avoid service, but let's not avoid the real issue, SUPPORTERS/CHEERLEADERS OF A PARTICULAR WAR who beat their chest and of Military Age who avoid service IN THAT PARTICULAR WAR for themselves and their families.

Sorry - that doesn't alone fit the definition you gave.

As far as I'm concerned, and according to the broad defintion given by the radical anti-war crowd, the principle of a chickenhawk is not, and can not, simply be applied to to whatever war YOU FEEL is right and just or wrong.

I know that is what YOU want it to be, because keeping it within that narrow definition, helps you, and so many others, protect your leaders, while fueling your anti-Bush anger. But as far as I'm concerned, it has a universal principle (remember - you broadened the definition, not me), and quite a few of our illustrious politicians on both sides qualify. Including Clinton who had no problem sending men to die in Somalia and in harm's way while he avoided military service (and showed disdain for the military when younger), and several Dems who "dodged" Viet Nam in the 60's with National Guard service.

And to say they were jsutified in "dodging" the war because they opposed it to begin with, is pure BS IMO. They dodged it because they didn't want to risk getting put in harm's way and getting killed.

It's why Bush and Cheney did it. it's why Gephardt and Clinton did it. And why tens of thousands of young men during that period also did it when they could.

I registered for the draft (because I had to), and then turned around and joined the Navy- why? Because them gooks would have to swim along way to get my butt, that's why. And at the time, I wasn't for or against the war. I was simp,y an 18 yr old kid (like so many in this country at that time) who knew he didn't want to possibly place himself in the position of dying. It had nothing to do with so many as to whether the war was right or wrong.

Self preservation - and any of us who say they don't struggle with i, when facing possible death, are deluded.

RedFanAlways1966
08-30-2005, 10:26 AM
... particularly amusing coming from a camp whose candidate went AWOL during his Guard service during the war.

Got proof of that? No documents from the 70's that use modern font styles, please. Proof please. Otherwise, it sounds like hate-filled rhetoric.

GAC
08-30-2005, 10:29 AM
You're right, he certainly should have forseen that the Republicans would trot out the swiftboat vets to lie, smear and attack his story. And Kerry should have been much quicker to respond. I don't disagree with that at all.

I just found it incredulous that the Republicans could label not only Kerry, but someone like Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in the Vietnam war, as unpatriotic, during their last campaign--particularly amusing coming from a camp whose candidate went AWOL during his Guard service during the war. Ultimately, though, I just came to accept it as the way the Bush team runs their campaign--you're either with us, or against us. Couldn't be any cleaerer than that.

Isn't that how alot of campaigns are run though Ben? - you're either for us or against us. Both sides ran an effective smear campaign IMO. Whether it was Karl Rove and Swift Boat, or Micheal Moore, George Soros, and MoveON.

There was enough "ammo" on this issue with these two guys, that both sides should have left it alone and not wandered there IMO. All it did was drag alot of people through the mud and achieved what? That is the bottomline for me Ben- what did it achieve by examining and dissecting these two candidates past military service? It was simply about who could smear who the worst and influence the voter the most. To heck with the issues that the American public really wanted to hear about.

GAC
08-30-2005, 10:30 AM
Well I'm not much of a Bill Maher fan...honestly the man gets on my nerves, and I certainly disagree with him about his views on Vietnam, if indeed that is his stance. I was only pointing out that a true conscientious objector could hardly be accused of "dodging" the draft.

I agree Ben. I actually like Maher's show though. I may not agree with the pothead, but he can be quite humorous. :lol:

GAC
08-30-2005, 10:32 AM
I gotta go to bed guys. I'm a 3rd shifter, and you're depriving me of my beauty sleep. if I don't get my 10 hours, I'm a bear! :lol:

RBA
08-30-2005, 10:37 AM
GAC,

Sorry, but I said all along I know what a CHICKENHAWK is. I did not define it earlier as you say I did. I just said I know one when I see one. Just because you have defined it one way to suit you and support your HATERED for John Kerry/Bill Clinton/Al Gore does not make how I define it wrong.

And yes, if your are beating your chest for this war in Iraq and of military age and able, you should be clicking on the link below.

registerthis
08-30-2005, 10:43 AM
Got proof of that? No documents from the 70's that use modern font styles, please. Proof please. Otherwise, it sounds like hate-filled rhetoric."Hate-filled rhetoric"? :laugh:

Nope, sorry buddy...just the truth. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html)

registerthis
08-30-2005, 10:46 AM
Isn't that how alot of campaigns are run though Ben? - you're either for us or against us. Both sides ran effective an smear campaign IMO. Whether it was Karl Rove and Swift Boat, or Micheal Moore, George Soros, and MoveON. the difference there, though, is that Michael Moore, Soros and MoveOn weren't working for the Kerry campaign. Rove was Bush's capaign ADVISOR. He works in the White House...and I don't buy the "everyone's doing it" line...as in, have we really been reduced to that? It's OK that I smear you because you'll smear me? Pathetic.


It was simply about who could smear who the worst and influence the voter the most. To heck with the issues that the American public really wanted to hear about.Yep. Sad, ain't it?

registerthis
08-30-2005, 10:47 AM
I agree Ben. I actually like Maher's show though. I may not agree with the pothead, but he can be quite humorous. :lol:I much preferred his show over that blowhard Colin Quinn. He wasn't funny on SNL, and he wasn't funny on Comedy Central.

westofyou
08-30-2005, 10:51 AM
I much preferred his show over that blowhard Colin Quinn. He wasn't funny on SNL, and he wasn't funny on Comedy Central.

Bill's funny on his show, however I find his standup BORING... I like potheads too, they're easier to watch then guys on coke and easier to listen to then guys on oxycontin.

RedFanAlways1966
08-30-2005, 10:57 AM
"Hate-filled rhetoric"? :laugh:

Nope, sorry buddy...just the truth. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html)

Although this thread has diverted from the original topic (imagine that!)... I am supposed to believe "straight dope" from Cecil? Is Cecil anymore believable than the Swiftboat Vets? I don't know and I do not think anyone can prove anything that Cecil or the Swifties say... for sure. Cecil may be on some sort of dope as far as I know. His answer starts off with a reference to his comments about the Bush family having a tie to Nazis. Despite that cheap shot (which makes straight doper Cecil's agenda obvious), I read on.

Personally, I will believe that the man was AWOL when he faces charges and is convicted of being AWOL. Being AWOL is a crime. Yeah, yeah... so is speeding in your car and just b/c you are not convicted does not mean you do not do it. However, Cecil does not sell me. He can sell you and that is fine. But do not try to make this set-in-stone-truth b/c straight doper Cecil says so. Even Dan Rather would not use Cecil's words and that must count for something.

Jaycint
08-30-2005, 10:58 AM
Here ya go guys.....

http://lp.org/

Everybody get on board then we won't have to argue on here anymore. ;)

RedFanAlways1966
08-30-2005, 11:01 AM
Here ya go guys.....

http://lp.org/

Everybody get on board then we won't have to argue on here anymore. ;)

That's good, Jay! :laugh:

Jaycint
08-30-2005, 11:10 AM
That's good, Jay! :laugh:

LOL, I figured everybody else was pimpin their party, might as well pimp mine too. :laugh:

registerthis
08-30-2005, 11:22 AM
Although this thread has diverted from the original topic (imagine that!)... I am supposed to believe "straight dope" from Cecil? Is Cecil anymore believable than the Swiftboat Vets? I don't know and I do not think anyone can prove anything that Cecil or the Swifties say... for sure. Cecil may be on some sort of dope as far as I know. His answer starts off with a reference to his comments about the Bush family having a tie to Nazis. Despite that cheap shot (which makes straight doper Cecil's agenda obvious), I read on.

Personally, I will believe that the man was AWOL when he faces charges and is convicted of being AWOL. Being AWOL is a crime. Yeah, yeah... so is speeding in your car and just b/c you are not convicted does not mean you do not do it. However, Cecil does not sell me. He can sell you and that is fine. But do not try to make this set-in-stone-truth b/c straight doper Cecil says so. Even Dan Rather would not use Cecil's words and that must count for something.Actually, you obviously didn't read it that closely, or else you would have noticed two things:

1-The Nazi Reference was made by the person writing the letter, concerning an earlier column.

2-The term "the straight dope" implies a lack of bias--in other words, its akin to the urban legends sites that you see, that serve to either confirm or debunk stories, not offer opinions on them.

That you saw a bias in this story is more reflective of your own bias, not Mr. Adam's (after all, you neglected to point out his last line, which was "Bush's enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense. He was a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn't he called on it in a serious way during the 2000 election? Probably because Democrats figured they'd get Clinton's draft-dodging thing thrown back at them.") If you believe the story is inaccurate, feel free to provide evidence or links which refute what was included. If you can't do that, then your dismissal of the response is nothing but baseless whining.

registerthis
08-30-2005, 11:25 AM
And, BTW, since you were so curious about the reference you decided NOT to look it up, here is what was written about the Bush's and the nazis. Oh, the bias is overwhelming! :rolleyes:


Dear Cecil:

I read in the New Yorker that George W. Bush's grandfather and great-grandfather worked for Brown Brothers Harriman, and had clients who funded the building of the Nazi regime. I searched the Net and found hundreds of sites giving volumes of details and listing sources like the New York Times and the Library of Congress. Conspiracy theories aside, what's the truth about our president's family? --Matt Tiegler

Cecil replies:

Remember how during the Clinton era there were all those rabid EOBs (Enemies of Bill) who seemingly devoted their every waking hour to propagating scurrilous stories about the president and his family? Well, an equally dedicated crew is now spreading sensational allegations about Dubya and his forebears. (Sample: the president's grandfather not only financed the Nazis, he used concentration-camp prisoners as slaves.) So each side gets a chance to drag the other through the mud. Is this a great country or what?

Though the Bush family's detractors are legion, one of the most prominent is John Loftus, a former federal prosecutor and past president of the Florida Holocaust Museum in Saint Petersburg. In 1994 Loftus coauthored a book with Mark Aarons entitled The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. The book alleges various misdeeds by George W.'s father, George H.W., his grandfather, Prescott Bush, and his great-grandfather, George Herbert Walker. Since space is limited we'll focus on the accusations against Prescott Bush, which in my opinion are the most serious.

The central charge against Prescott Bush has a basis in fact. In 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the U.S. government seized several companies in which he had an interest. Prescott at the time was an investment banker with Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), which had funneled U.S. capital into Germany during the 1920s and '30s. Among the seized companies was the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) of New York, which was controlled by German industrialist Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financier of the Nazi party--in fact, in 1941 he published a book entitled I Paid Hitler. Ergo, Prescott helped finance the Nazis.

An article by journalist Toby Rogers posted on Loftus's Web site makes an even more explosive charge. Another company in which Prescott and his associates had a stake was the Silesian-American Corporation (SAC), which owned several industrial concerns in Poland. The Auschwitz death camp was established in a district where SAC already had a steel plant. The plant allegedly used forced labor from Auschwitz during World War II. The article asserts that "a portion of the slave labor force in Poland was 'managed by Prescott Bush,' according to a Dutch intelligence agent." (See www.john-loftus.com/Thyssen.asp.)

The slave labor charge is easy to dismiss. SAC plants in Poland were taken over by the German government after the Nazi invasion of 1939, and the Auschwitz prison camp wasn't established until 1940. No one can seriously claim that Prescott Bush managed camp inmates in any of those plants.

Prescott's involvement with Nazi finance is more complicated. Though Thyssen had been an ardent backer of the Nazis in the early days, he broke with them in 1938 after the Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews. He fled to Switzerland the following year, and Hitler confiscated his fortune and stripped him of his citizenship. In I Paid Hitler Thyssen confessed his role in financing the Nazis and denounced the Führer. Arrested in Vichy France, he spent the balance of the war as an Axis prisoner. Prescott Bush, for his part, owned a single share of stock (of 4,000) in UBC, the Thyssen bank. According to a 2001 Boston Globe piece, the New York Herald Tribune ran a story in July 1942 headlined "Hitler's Angel Has 3 Million in US Bank," in which Prescott and other BBH partners "explain[ed] to government regulators that their position [as directors of UBC] was merely an unpaid courtesy for a client."

So, did Bush and his firm finance the Nazis and enable Germany to rearm? Indirectly, yes. But they had a lot of company. Some of the most distinguished names in American business had investments or subsidiaries in prewar Germany, including Standard Oil and General Motors. Critics have argued for years that without U.S. money, the Nazis could never have waged war. But American business has always invested in totalitarian regimes--witness our dealings with mainland China.

Loftus tells me there's more to it than that. He says that the value of German industrial assets in which Bush and friends invested increased during World War II, in part due to slave labor, and that Bush benefited from this increase when the assets were returned--supposedly he got $1.5 million when UBC was liquidated in 1951. I'll buy the claim that Bush got his share of UBC back--it was an American bank, after all--but the idea that his German holdings increased in value despite being obliterated by Allied bombs is ridiculous.

RedFanAlways1966
08-30-2005, 11:28 AM
President Straight Doper Cecil. A man who has all the answers... and truthful. Sounds like Straight Doper Cecil would be a good man to lead this country... and perhaps a Dem that is actually electable (a novel concept).

Whine? Did I whine when Pres. Clinton won twice? NOPE. Anyone from the other side done any whining during the last two pres. elections? Tell me all about whining. Or perhaps Straight Doper Cecil is an expert in this whining thing? If he says it, it must be true.

:)

registerthis
08-30-2005, 11:30 AM
President Straight Doper Cecil. A man who has all the answers... and truthful. Sounds like Straight Doper Cecil would be a good man to lead this country... and perhaps a Dem that is actually electable (a novel concept). Actually, someone who had no preconceived biases, provided thorough research to support his findings, and was an avowed independent would be an EXCELLENT person to run this country, I completely agree with you.


Or perhaps Straight Doper Cecil is an expert in this whining thing? If he says it, it must be true. I've given you an opportunity to refute it. Can you?

<waits>

RedFanAlways1966
08-30-2005, 11:34 AM
And, BTW, since you were so curious about the reference you decided NOT to look it up, here is what was written about the Bush's and the nazis. Oh, the bias is overwhelming!

Oh, yes. I have heard through the internet that the last Bush family reunion included goose-stepping, swastikas and chants of "Heil Hitler". But I do not want to sttttrrrrreeeetttttcccchhhhh things. Nor would I hold something against a person due to actions of ONE family member. But such is life on the other side of the fence. No pics of Prescott and Hitler shaking hands (ala Rummy and Sddam)? I am surprised.

:laugh:

registerthis
08-30-2005, 11:39 AM
Oh, yes. I have heard through the internet that the last Bush family reunion included goose-stepping, swastikas and chants of "Heil Hitler". But I do not want to sttttrrrrreeeetttttcccchhhhh things. Nor would I hold something against a person due to actions of ONE family member. But such is life on the other side of the fence. No pics of Prescott and Hitler shaking hands (ala Rummy and Sddam)? I am surprised.

:laugh:Did you even read the article? You're simply posting nonsense, as he essentially vindicates Prescott Bush. Then again, you're so dead set on finding something wrong with the piece that...well, you didn't read it and simply ASSUMED what it said, didn't you?

Still waiting on evidence to refute anything in either of the two pieces I've posted.

<waits>

Then again, when someone doesn't have any facts/evidence to support their position, it's always good to resort to smart-alecky statements. :thumbup:

westofyou
08-30-2005, 11:40 AM
Prescott's involvement with Nazi finance is more complicated.

FDR's daddy made a bundle in the opium trade, George Walker Bush was saved from the ocean by a rope made of "hemp", Lindberg was a Natzi and on and on and on.

This stuff is as old as the sun and moon, power corrupts.

RedFanAlways1966
08-30-2005, 11:53 AM
Then again, when someone doesn't have any facts/evidence to support their position, it's always good to resort to smart-alecky statements. :thumbup:

No problem. I will step-aside. No sense in creating friction.

I still find the whole Robertson-Chavez issue ridiculous. Both of these men should be put into a cage-wrestling-match thing. Or perhaps an Ultimate Death Match. I might actually pay money to watch that!

Nice points, woy. And most of us know about the days of old with the "original Kennedy".

Rojo
08-30-2005, 01:23 PM
And I can understand your distaste and apathy towards that since you weren't old enough to not only experience it, but that it didn't effect you personally, since you weren't in the miltary at the time.

No. I wasn't old enough to experience it but my thoughts on the war in Vietnam are more complicated than you imagine. I was born in the Naval Hospital in Beaufort, S.C. in 1968. My dad was a Marine who got his orders to go to Vietnam the day I was born. I spent the first couple of years of my life living with my grandparents in Atlanta and the next 15 living on military bases. Growing up, the shadow of Vietnam was just a few beers away. I heard stories about kids in Vietnam selling Cokes filled with battery acid to G.I.s, booby-trapped old ladies and spitting civlians. I was imbued with a hatred of self-righteous, indulgent hippies. Yet, I came to the conclusion that the war was a bad idea, even if the soldiers, like my dad, were not. And that's why I admire someone like John Kerry. He consistently did the right thing, not the ingratiating thing. He served when called and called B.S. when he got back.

I had a fundamentalist Christian friend a few years ago who told me that the thing that will bind you to your friends are shared values. At the time I thought that was crap. This was during the Bush I years when the Right was busy coining the term "family values", so I tuned out. But now I realize he was right. Most of my friends and family do have similar values. Kerry put his money where his mouth was. That to me is character. To others, I suppose, cheerleading and deference to authority are far more important and that's where they and I part company.

GAC
08-30-2005, 04:35 PM
GAC,

Sorry, but I said all along I know what a CHICKENHAWK is. I did not define it earlier as you say I did. I just said I know one when I see one. Just because you have defined it one way to suit you and support your HATERED for John Kerry/Bill Clinton/Al Gore does not make how I define it wrong.

And yes, if your are beating your chest for this war in Iraq and of military age and able, you should be clicking on the link below.


Nobody who suopports this war is beating on their chest in support of this war. :lol:

Fully understand the implications of this war and what has to/needs to be achieved. I beleived back as far as the ealr 90's, after we didn;t finish the job in the first place and left him in power, his attempts to distablilize the Middle East and attacks on Israel, along with the rise if Islamic terrorism attacks, that this confrontation was enivitable. Didn't look forward to it at all. And look forward to when it ends.

Falls City Beer
08-30-2005, 04:39 PM
So I guess it all boils down to who you want to believe.


No. No, it doesn't.

It boils down to truth and falsehood.

GAC
08-30-2005, 04:46 PM
the difference there, though, is that Michael Moore, Soros and MoveOn weren't working for the Kerry campaign.

Ah c'mon Ben. They were all heavy contributors to his campaign, and yes, in a "roundabout" way were working "for" the Kerry campaign. But if you are gonna use that analogy then neither was Swift Boat. Friends and contributors to the Bush campaign? Sure. But not working directly for them. Just as the others were for Kerry. Respectfully - simply semantics. That's like someone getting someone to do your dirty work for you, in an inadvertant kind of way, and then standing on the podium with a halo over your head saying "they don't work FOR me, or represent our business" (while at the same time you're glad of their help).

Both the Bush and Kerry campaigns did this. Smear campaigns, IMO, have heavily escalated due to the deep political divisions that have developed in this country over the last 20 some years. And I don't like it at all.

Yes, it is sad.

GAC
08-30-2005, 04:48 PM
No. No, it doesn't.

It boils down to truth and falsehood.

Yep. And what you want to believe as truth and falsehood. What you want to see, and what you want to look the other way at in defense of your ideology.

Dead end street IMO.

Falls City Beer
08-30-2005, 04:56 PM
Yep. And what you want to believe as truth and falsehood. What you want to see, and what you want to look the other way at in defense of your ideology.

Dead end street IMO.

How many times are you going to trot this tired line of argument out there and still remain as distant from the truth as you were when you first carted it out, lo these many months ago, as the truth spread about Bush and his numbers tumbled accordingly?

The Dems warned America. America ignored the warning. They messed up. The numbers show it--and more, they admit it.

The only dead end street I see in these parts is the cul-de-sac you've backed your argument into.

GAC
08-30-2005, 05:18 PM
He served when called and called B.S. when he got back.

Kerry put his money where his mouth was. That to me is character. To others, I suppose, cheerleading and deference to authority are far more important and that's where they and I part company.

Yes, character is important. So why did he throw in with a group of radical anti-war protestors (VVAW), and during those meetings in Detroit, sponsored by Jane Fonda, and which helped to set the stage for his Senate Intelligence testimony, use the direct testimony of guys who claimed to be Vets who saw atrocities in Viet Nam, and yet, after further investigation, some of them never set foot in Nam? They fabricated and lied. And that has been proven.

Not all. Some of what Kerry said was truth. I don't deny that. But it was "built up" to give more weight to his testimony.

He called Viet Nam vets "thugs and murderers". Look it up.

His campaign several times said he "never, ever" attended a Kansas City meeting of antiwar leadership where members discussed and voted on an assassination plot against pro-war U.S. senators. Then, when confronted with FBI surveillance records of the meeting, the campaign acknowledged his presence.

Yes, character is important. Like standing on the steps of the Capitol and throwing medals that he CLAIM were his, and which turned out to be a buddies. His are sitting in his mantle in his office. Political posturing.

Character is running around the country, while we still have men over there in harm's way and suffering in POW camps, burning effigies dressed in military garb and the American flag, and staging mock skits that purposely demeaned his "comrade in arms" still over there.

His friendship with Hanoi Jane who was used by the Viet Cong as propaganda.

Back 30+ years ago, he stated he was ashamed of that war and what his comrades did. He called Viet Nam vets "thugs and murderers".

Thirty years later he is draping himself in that flag he was burning, praising that miltary service (and men) he was once ashamed of.

And like Bush - Kerry has refused to release military records.

That's character. :rolleyes:

Falls City Beer
08-30-2005, 05:27 PM
Yes, character is important. So why did he throw in with a group of radical anti-war protestors (VVAW), and during those meetings in Detroit, sponsored by Jane Fonda, and which helped to set the stage for his Senate Intelligence testimony, use the direct testimony of guys who claimed to be Vets who saw atrocities in Viet Nam, and yet, after further investigation, some of them never set foot in Nam? They fabricated and lied. And that has been proven.

Not all. Some of what Kerry said was truth. I don't deny that. But it was "built up" to give more weight to his testimony.

He called Viet Nam vets "thugs and murderers". Look it up.

His campaign several times said he "never, ever" attended a Kansas City meeting of antiwar leadership where members discussed and voted on an assassination plot against pro-war U.S. senators. Then, when confronted with FBI surveillance records of the meeting, the campaign acknowledged his presence.

Yes, character is important. Like standing on the steps of the Capitol and throwing medals that he CLAIM were his, and which turned out to be a buddies. His are sitting in his mantle in his office. Political posturing.

Character is running around the country, while we still have men over there in harm's way and suffering in POW camps, burning effigies dressed in military garb and the American flag, and staging mock skits that purposely demeaned his "comrade in arms" still over there.

His friendship with Hanoi Jane who was used by the Viet Cong as propaganda.

Back 30+ years ago, he stated he was ashamed of that war and what his comrades did. He called Viet Nam vets "thugs and murderers".

Thirty years later he is draping himself in that flag he was burning, praising that miltary service (and men) he was once ashamed of.

And like Bush - Kerry has refused to release military records.

That's character. :rolleyes:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

R.W. Emerson

My uncle, who was a Marine, has "wonderful" Nam stories. He was smelling burning flesh on a daily basis and whiffing Agent Orange--now his two boys have deformed urethas, making urinating a painful exercise. He said that it was chaos, plain and simple--both U.S. and Viet Cong killing and raping at will--civilians used as target practice, torture, you name it. When Kerry called his kind murderers and thugs, he was telling the truth: he was one of them. It takes courage to admit it. War is hell and when you're given the marching orders you better follow, even if it means killing civilians.

registerthis
08-30-2005, 05:37 PM
How many times are you going to trot this tired line of argument out there and still remain as distant from the truth as you were when you first carted it out, lo these many months ago, as the truth spread about Bush and his numbers tumbled accordingly?

The Dems warned America. America ignored the warning. They messed up. The numbers show it--and more, they admit it.

The only dead end street I see in these parts is the cul-de-sac you've backed your argument into.Bush's approval ratings for August are going to be several points lower than they were for July--and THAT was a new record low for him.

It's like George the First all over again. It's also amusing to watch the Bush supporters "Stay the Course" in supporting him, through thick and thin.

GAC
08-30-2005, 05:40 PM
The Dems warned America. America ignored the warning. They messed up.

The Dems warned America? More condescending elitism by a disgruntled segment in this country who think Americans are simple morons for not listening to them? The Dem leadership signed on and and supported this war when they saw it was politically expedient for them to do so. And then did a reverse when it was politically convenient not to do so. Their contractions are astounding. They should never get behind a mike or give a speech! :lol:

Now they are running around like a bunch of capons trying to figure out what they should do in time for '08.

And I guess you won't be voting for Hillary or Biden then, if either gets the nomination. They haven't been in total agrreement with the Bush policy over there. But they sure have offered the tough talk that many on the left seem to look the other way at, and don't advocate this "cut and run" policy that some want to take. But then, they are running for President in '08.

Polling numbers are up, then poll numbers are down. What will they be in six months to a year? I find it interesting that even as Bush's polling numbers have fallen - polls show that the American people still don't hold the Dem's in Congress in high regard either.... 45% to 42% Bush. ;)

GAC
08-30-2005, 05:45 PM
Bush's approval ratings for August are going to be several points lower than they were for July--and THAT was a new record low for him.

It's like George the First all over again. It's also amusing to watch the Bush supporters "Stay the Course" in supporting him, through thick and thin.

Because we still believe that what is trying to be accomplished in Iraq, even with the casualties, is the right thing to do.

I don't understand how the Democratic leadership could vote to go to war, knowing the costs and risks, and then lament when casualties occur. No one is belittling or making light of that. Just understanding the risks.

If we had lost 1800 men fighting in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Bin Laden, would that have made it more palatable?

Falls City Beer
08-30-2005, 05:45 PM
The Dems warned America? More condescending elitism by a disgruntled segment in this country who think Americans are simple morons for not listening to them? The Dem leadership signed on and and supported this war when they saw it was politically expedient for them to do so. And then did a reverse when it was politically convenient not to do so. Their contractions are astounding. They should never get behind a mike or give a speech! :lol:

Now they are running around like a bunch of capons trying to figure out what they should do in time for '08.

And I guess you won't be voting for Hillary or Biden then, if either gets the nomination. They haven't been in total agrreement with the Bush policy over there. But they sure have offered the tough talk that many on the left seem to look the other way at, and don't advocate this "cut and run" policy that some want to take. But then, they are running for President in '08.

Polling numbers are up, then poll numbers are down. What will they be in six months to a year? I find it interesting that even as Bush's polling numbers have fallen - polls show that the American people still don't hold the Dem's in Congress in high regard either.... 45% to 42% Bush. ;)

Can the Dems really be blamed when they have no say in the matter?

Falls City Beer
08-30-2005, 05:47 PM
If we had lost 1800 men fighting in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Bin Laden, would that have made it more palatable?

In a word: yes, it would have made it much, much, much more palatable.

(You shouldn't have left that door open so wide there, GAC old buddy). ;)

registerthis
08-30-2005, 05:48 PM
Polling numbers are up, then poll numbers are down. What will they be in six months to a year? I find it interesting that even as Bush's polling numbers have fallen - polls show that the American people still don't hold the Dem's in Congress in high regard either.... 45% to 42% Bush. ;)Well THERE'S a nice old shot-in-the-arm for Bush.

Many libs and dems displeasures with the Dems in Congress have been well documented. You're not raising anything new here, that's for sure.

And, yes, there were many Dems and other progressives who sounded the alarm about the Iraq war, but they were scoffed at--both by Republicans and other Dems, unfortunately.

And it's time that Iraq clean up this mess that we helped create. I'm tired of Americans dying for this futile war. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if my brother was somehow drafted into this war, I would personally drive him to Toronto. What an absolute waste of human life this whole thing is.

registerthis
08-30-2005, 05:51 PM
Because we still believe that what is trying to be accomplished in Iraq, even with the casualties, is the right thing to do.

I don't understand how the Democratic leadership could vote to go to war, knowing the costs and risks, and then lament when casualties occur. No one is belittling or making light of that. Just understanding the risks. There's a huge difference between voting to "support a war" and voting to "approve the use of force", which is what the Dems did. I'm not going to re-hash all of the details behind this--you have a brain, you can figure it out. But to paint the Dems who voted for use of force in Iraq with the same war-mongering brush that Bush is painted with is just ludicrous.

...and I can see your reply to this now: It's just "semantics", which is a favorite reply when there's really nothing of substance to respond with. Bush wanted this war, Bush pushed for this war, Bush got this war. the Dems aren't blameless in the matter, but make no mistake--this is BUSH'S war. Period.

EDIT: By the way, what exactly *is* being accomplished in Iraq? I'm really curious about this one.

Rojo
08-30-2005, 06:09 PM
Because we still believe that what is trying to be accomplished in Iraq, even with the casualties, is the right thing to do.

Really, I don't think that's it.

GAC
08-30-2005, 09:10 PM
There's a huge difference between voting to "support a war" and voting to "approve the use of force", which is what the Dems did. I'm not going to re-hash all of the details behind this--you have a brain, you can figure it out. But to paint the Dems who voted for use of force in Iraq with the same war-mongering brush that Bush is painted with is just ludicrous.

Have you ever read the wording in that resolution passed Ben? Congressional memory is apparently not very good because they were the ones who passed a joint resolution on September 14, 2001 which states the following:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


This resolution is clear that it gives the President broad authority “to use force” against any nation “he determines.”

Gott ahead to work. But I had the gov website that contained that Resolution; but need to find it, so you can read it for yourself. I read it word for word, and it doesn't suggest or imply what Kerry inferred later on.

I find it funny that the other Democrats, some who even opposed and voted against that resolution, didn't seem to misinterpret what it was stating concerning preemptive strike. That's why some vehemently voted against it.

Rojo
08-30-2005, 09:50 PM
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Your right! Shame on them for trusting Bush -- a man who wouldn't know the truth if it had him bent over a pool table.

GAC
08-31-2005, 09:43 AM
Ones who can be so easily misled obviously aren't qualified to lead IMO. ;)

Here it is.... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Pretty straightforward language.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

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,

SEC. 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--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) 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 there after 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 2 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 War Powers 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The below is, IMO, an excellent analysis of the events surrounding the drafting and adoption of that Resolution. It's called "The Week Of Shame". I read the whole article/synopsis - quite enthralling (and revealing).... http://www.mafhoum.com/press4/shame.pdf

Those Dems, such as Boxer, Graham, and others, who voted against the resolution knew and understood completely the language of that draft. It's why they voted against it!. But Kerry didn't for some reason. Yet he still voted for it, when the langauge is pretty plain.

Maybe Democrats should be upset with Dems like Gephardt and Lieberman, who through their bi-partisan effort got "concessions" that basically gave the President what he wanted, and helped to get enough Democrats on board with yes votes to pass it. ;)

Or as I've stated before - they wanted to stay closely aligned with this Prez (political expediency and all with elections looming), and not be found on the other side of the fence when we went to war and things went well?

And if things didn't go well? - they can jump off, and blame it all on this adminsitration. Again with upcoming elections, it could be a win-win scenario for them. Not a bad strategy. It just didn't turn out that way though.

Anyway - here's an insert from that synopsis/link) above.....


When the Democratic leaders in Congress saw in September 2002 the breathtaking, unprecedented war-starting authority Bush was seeking, they knew they had a problem. They did not want to hurt their chances for winning control of Congress in the November elections by showing any daylight between themselves and the president on a national security question. But, they also knew they could hurt their relationship with their own political base, and all-important voter turn out in the elections, if they endorsed such a blatant blank check for Bush. They knew they had to appease their political base, but they also knew they had to keep themselves joined at the hip with Bush on the question of war: A tricky posture to assume, but one that skilled politicians know how to adopt.

The desired posture was achieved on Oct. 2. That day, in a ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House, Bush announced bipartisan agreement on revised legislation on the question of war with Iraq with congressional leaders from both parties. Standing beside him at the podium were Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and then-Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott. Also there was Democratic Leader of the House Richard Gephardt and Sen. Joe Lieberman, who while not a titular DemocraticParty leader, was certainly a prime catch. The new legislation was the product of masterful politics, if not draftsmanship. The insignificant, rhetorical “whereas” clauses in the front of the legislation were completely rewritten. Also, three new sections were added to the part that had legal bite: 1) Congress stated its support for efforts to work with the UN Security Council; 2) the president was required to report to Congress no later than 48 hours after he went to war with Iraq that diplomatic means weren’t working and hostilities against Iraq would not impede the war against other terrorists, and 3) reports every 60 days, as already required by the War Powers Act and other laws, had to be submitted.

The key section of the draft legislation that opened the door to war had two alterations of note. First, the language still read that the president was “authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate,” but he could do so only to“defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all rel-evant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” Gone was the language that authorized the president to make war to “restore international peace and security in the region.” Under this formulation, the president was still authorized to go to war against Iraq to enforce “all relevant” UN resolutions, such as those addressing Ku-waiti prisoners and property still in Iraq. But, he couldn’t go to war against any one else in the Middle East whom he might deem to impede “international peace and security.” An objective he was not seeking was withdrawn; the objective he was seeking was left completely intact.The new language urged, but did not require, working through the United Nations and using peaceful means. Only reports were required on efforts to solve problems through diplomacy and to continue the war against al Qaeda terror. The changes in the legislation were pure window dressing. The president had clearly retained every bit of freedom of action he could ever want. Second, the new language added the word “continuing” to the phrase “threat from Iraq.” With this revision, supporters of the new “compromise” legislation were openly conceding that the threat was both pre-existing and extant: it could thus be assumed to be “imminent” as defined by the new doctrine. The president had achieved not only endorsement of an open door to war, but also, arguably, of his new doctrine.The changes were, however, just enough for the Democrats, such as Gephardt and Lieberman, to be able to say they obtained some concessions.

The new text threw rhetoric at the desirability of working through the United Nations and with allies. Gephardt, Lieberman and any who joined them could claim they had added this dimension to the president’s policies. [b]It was a dimension the president remained free under the text of the legislation, to totally discard if he cared to – and that he had already rhetorically embraced more than three weeks earlier when he spoke tothe UN General Assembly. In reality, the Democratic leadership extracted no meaningful concession from the president’s original draft resolution. And, because each and every change in the legislation was accepted by the president (he would have been a fool not to), the Democrats remained joined at the hip with him against Saddam in the run up to the November mid-term elections. They got their cake, and they were eating it, too. In politics, that’s pretty good. They thought. That cake must feel rather dry in their mouths today.

registerthis
08-31-2005, 11:12 AM
I find it funny that the other Democrats, some who even opposed and voted against that resolution, didn't seem to misinterpret what it was stating concerning preemptive strike. That's why some vehemently voted against it.A pre-emptive strike against a nation that posed a legitimate, immediate threat--yes. Well, Greg, I guess it's the Dems fault for trusting the President, his office, and the intelligence department. I hope they don't make that mistake again.

You're right, though...there WERE Democrats who vehemently opposed any type of pre-emptive doctrine. Russ Feingold comes to mind. What also comes to mind is that such senators and representatives were derided as "soft on defense" and other harsher terms for holding the stance that they did.

I've never held the Dems blameless in this war--they should have done significantly more to prevent it, IMO. Much of their stance was political maneuvering, unfortunately, and it ultimately cost them the election. But, as I said earlier, make no mistake: this is SOLELY Bush's war. The blood of this is on his hands.

Falls City Beer
08-31-2005, 12:30 PM
I've never held the Dems blameless in this war--they should have done significantly more to prevent it, IMO. Much of their stance was political maneuvering, unfortunately, and it ultimately cost them the election. But, as I said earlier, make no mistake: this is SOLELY Bush's war. The blood of this is on his hands.

Isn't funny how NOW this war is the Dems fault? :rolleyes:

I guess that's the only tactic left to the right wing: a game of hot potato.

GAC
08-31-2005, 12:38 PM
this is SOLELY Bush's war. The blood of this is on his hands.

And I don't agree with that at all. If concessions had to be made to the Democratic leadership/party in order to get the votes to pass the resolution, then why did the Democratic leadership allow it to pass in it's current form - knowing fully it's stipulations, and what it was enduing the President to do?

During the whole process there was hardly any dissent or opposition from Democratic circles (except a small minority).

The Democrats, if they really believed THEN about the war in Iraq, like they do NOW, and if they were had really been earnest in their endeavours - they could have caused this resolution to fail. They seem to have no problem getting the numbers among themselves to defeat other Bush initiatives/bill/judges/etc. They seem to be able to muster enough to do that.

Where would that have led us? That I don't know.

Now would that have caused a political backlash from the Repubs? Sure.

But do you stand on character and principle - or political expediency? That has always been my point of contention with the Democrats who wanted to ride along, but "jumped off the train" when things started going south. And all because of the upcoming elections.

I have not agreed with everything that Bush has done in his handling of this war. This adminstration has made plenty of blunders. But then, I don't know of many previous administrations who were able to plan/chart out the perfect war before implementing it, and not make mistakes and hit brickwalls.

But the one thing I have admired in Bush is that he is not driven by polling numbers and stays the course when he believes firmly in what he is doing. Even when others believe it is wrong.

The BIG question is - when you hit those areas - can you recover and regain the momentum? That is yet to be seen or forcast IMO.

So they can do their Pontius Pilate routine all they want, and stand before the American public and innocently try to wash the blood off their hands. But if people are gonna lament the bloodshed, and that it is being done as a waste, then it is to spread all around washington IMO.

Question: Bush's numbers have been dropping. But why haven't the Dem's popularity among the American public been rising? Bush has been vulnerable for quite some time. No denying that. Why, when compared to Bush's popularity, are they lagging?

And I think it boils down to the simple fact that the Democratic Party has a HUGE identity crisis. And when it comes to the American public, the public has no idea what they stand for, or what their agenda is. Except to - GET BUSH. ;)

GAC
08-31-2005, 12:38 PM
Isn't funny how NOW this war is the Dems fault? :rolleyes:

I guess that's the only tactic left to the right wing: a game of hot potato.

And nowhere did I say that Mr left wing. You're using the Kerry interpretation method again. ;)

Rojo
08-31-2005, 03:29 PM
During the whole process there was hardly any dissent or opposition from Democratic circles (except a small minority).

Actually, the majority of rank-and-file Democrats opposed the war. As far as the pols go, yes, the vocal opponents were fewer. And those pols that did oppose it vehemently were diminished and ridiculed by the press. (ie. Howard Dean).

The election of Howard Dean to the DNC post was, in a sense, a coup by state-level Democratic parties over the DC/DLC hierachy. I, for one, welcome it. Neocon-thinking has inflitrated the press, academia and both parties. Its only the labor and urban/progessive base of the Democrats that has prevented the total takeover of the party.

registerthis
08-31-2005, 03:46 PM
And I don't agree with that at all. If concessions had to be made to the Democratic leadership/party in order to get the votes to pass the resolution, then why did the Democratic leadership allow it to pass in it's current form - knowing fully it's stipulations, and what it was enduing the President to do?I'm going to assume you are joking. Do you HONESTLY think that this war WASN'T going to happen? regardless of what the Dems did--even if they stood toe-to-toe in complete agreement in opposition to the war resolution, do you HONESTLY think it wouldn't have gone down? You're simply deluding yourself by ignoring significant amounts of evidence to the contrary--that Bush wanted, from the day he took office, an excuse to enter Iraq and depose of Hussein.

Sorry, Greg, you can't spin out of this one: Bush wanted this war, Bush got his war. Again, the blood is on HIS hands. As Iraq falls apart, I blame BUSH and BUSH alone. He created this mess, now we've all got to lie in it.

registerthis
08-31-2005, 03:47 PM
The election of Howard Dean to the DNC post was, in a sense, a coup by state-level Democratic parties over the DC/DLC hierachy. I, for one, welcome it. Neocon-thinking has inflitrated the press, academia and both parties. Its only the labor and urban/progessive base of the Democrats that has prevented the total takeover of the party.Agreed. The Dems biggest weakness is the lack of a consistent message and a hesitancy to take a firm stand on practically anything. Howard's job is to correct that for 2006 and, eventually, 2008.

M2
08-31-2005, 03:51 PM
Actually, the majority of rank-and-file Democrats opposed the war. As far as the pols go, yes, the vocal opponents were fewer. And those pols that did opposes vehemently were diminished and ridiculed by the press. (ie. Howard Dean).

The election of Howard Dean to the DNC post was, in a sense, a coup by state-level Democratic parties over the DC/DLC hierachy. I, for one, welcome it. Neocon-thinking has inflitrated the press, academia and both parties. Its only the labor and urban/progessive base of the Democrats that has prevented the total takeover of the party.

Excellent synopsis.

The Dems made a politically suicidal decision in each of the past two national elections (2002 and 2004) to walk a "nuanced" line on Iraq. They were for and against it, at least that's the way the party leadership played it. I think a lot of the base was nervous about cutting off the head so that the body could thrive, but Dean's managed to put the Republicans on their heels for the first time since 1996.

registerthis
08-31-2005, 03:56 PM
I have not agreed with everything that Bush has done in his handling of this war. This adminstration has made plenty of blunders. But then, I don't know of many previous administrations who were able to plan/chart out the perfect war before implementing it, and not make mistakes and hit brickwalls.This war has been the furthest thing from perfect you could get--it has been an abysmal failire on every single front. The insurgency is gaining momentum (over 700--700!--were killed yesterday in a stampede to get away from a suicide bomber), there is virtually no security, tribal factions are fighting each other, and basic services like elctricity and water have yet to be regularly established.

This isn't a simple blunder, it's a gross miscalculation that has cost thousands of lives.


But the one thing I have admired in Bush is that he is not driven by polling numbers and stays the course when he believes firmly in what he is doing. Even when others believe it is wrong.
That's a very admirable trait to have--refuse to admit when you've underestimated and miscalculated the plan for a war. Does "staying the course" also mean apologizing for being so grossly wrong on WMDs? Does "staying the course" mean refusing to admit that the power of the insurgency was wildly unerestimated? Does "staying the course" mean refusing to comprehend when to cut our losses and allow Iraq to fix the problem themselves?

Bush operates seemingly out of a soundproof chamber, refusing to hear the truth about the war he started, and blindly repeating his administration's lines--a free Iraq, stay the course, stop the terrorists, etc. I don't believe he even operates in reality.

Rojo
08-31-2005, 04:14 PM
Excellent synopsis.

The Dems made a politically suicidal decision in each of the past two national elections (2002 and 2004) to walk a "nuanced" line on Iraq. They were for and against it, at least that's the way the party leadership played it. I think a lot of the base was nervous about cutting off the head so that the body could thrive, but Dean's managed to put the Republicans on their heels for the first time since 1996.

Whats most galling is the punidocracy's habit of hammering the Democrats for not defining themselves or taking a strong stand and then slamming them when someone actually does. The NYT's Nicholas Kristoff is especially good at this. Kristoff is one of the "even-the-Democrat" school of editorial writing. Republicans can point to him and say "even the Democrat Nicholas Kristoff supports private accounts" or some such garbage. Get out of my party, Nick!

Rojo
08-31-2005, 04:21 PM
Venezuala to offer cheap gas (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1738)

Venezuela's CITGO to Provide Cheap Gas for U.S. Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Schools

Monday, Aug 29, 2005

By: Cleto Sojo - VenezuelAnalysis.com

Caracas, Venezuela. August 28, 2005 (VenezuelAnalysis.com).- Rafael Ramirez, president of Venezuela's oil company PDVSA, offered some details of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's offer to provide cheaper gasoline and heating oil to U.S. poor communities.

Speaking shortly after a press conference held by President Chavez and U.S. Reverend Jesse Jackson, Ramirez said that CITGO Petroleum Corp., the wholly owned subsidiary of PDVSA, is currently refining up to 664.000 barrels of oil through the refineries it owns and operates in the United States.

Venezuela is the world's fifth largest oil exporter and the fourth largest supplier of oil to the United States. Venezuelan oil accounted for 12% of U.S. oil imports.

Ramirez said that under the Venezuelan government plan, CITGO will set aside up to 10% of its refined oil products to be sold directly to organized poor communities, and institutions in the U.S. without intermediaries.

The plan calls for the sale of heating oil and gasoline to hospitals, nursing homes, schools and organized poor communities in U.S. soil, according to Ramirez.

Other Venezuelan government officials, who asked not to be named, said that Venezuela will not lose any money with this program because the idea is to "cut the middle-man", the intermediaries.

Ramirez said the beneficiaries will see a price reduction of about 30%.

Ramirez, who is also Venezuela's Minister of Oil and Energy, denied that Reverend Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition would be the recipient of the cheaper oil.

The Minister said Reverend Jackson's organization could help Venezuela identify those who are in need, but that they will not be the recipients of the products.

Ramirez was confident the program will be implemented before the U.S. winter begins.

CITGO Petroleum Corp. owns and operates eight refineries in the United States.

It is unclear how the CITGO gas will reach the consumers, as CITGO does not own any of the 14.000 CITGO-branded gas stations operating in U.S. territory through franchising.

"Impact on seven to eight million persons"

“There is a lot of poverty in the U.S. and I don’t believe that reflects the American Way of Life. Many people die of cold in the winter. Many die of heat in the summer,” said Chavez on Sunday during his weekly TV show, explaining why Venezuela was interested in providing discounted heating oil to the U.S. poor.

“We could have an impact on seven to eight million persons,” Chavez added.

Venezuela’s ambassador to the U.S. Bernardo Alvarez, had told Chavez that the embassy in Washington DC has already received over 140 requests about the plan, even though it has not been formally announced yet.

Venezuela also plans to provide free surgery for certain eye conditions for U.S. poor.

registerthis
08-31-2005, 04:35 PM
Thank you, Venezuela. :)

I wonder what Robertson has to say about this?

Jaycint
08-31-2005, 04:39 PM
Venezuala to offer cheap gas (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1738)

Venezuela's CITGO to Provide Cheap Gas for U.S. Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Schools

Monday, Aug 29, 2005

By: Cleto Sojo - VenezuelAnalysis.com

Caracas, Venezuela. August 28, 2005 (VenezuelAnalysis.com).- Rafael Ramirez, president of Venezuela's oil company PDVSA,

This guy?

http://www.georgesstamps.com/sports/Autographed_Cards/Braves_1982/Braves_1982_Rafael_Ramirez_536.jpg

dsmith421
08-31-2005, 05:19 PM
Personally, I respect a man who admits his mistakes and fixes them far more than a man who sticks to his guns even when he is wrong.

GAC
09-01-2005, 12:39 AM
This war has been the furthest thing from perfect you could get--it has been an abysmal failire on every single front. The insurgency is gaining momentum (over 700--700!--were killed yesterday in a stampede to get away from a suicide bomber), there is virtually no security, tribal factions are fighting each other, and basic services like elctricity and water have yet to be regularly established.

That's funny. I follow that progress pretty avidly, and have been reading different reports as far as to the progress and restoration of services and other institutions in Iraq. You want everyone to believe that everything going on in Iraq is a total disaster and waste. Just one huge mistake.

And are your biases against this war influencing that? To you, nothing positive is happening in Iraq at all. It's worse then when Saddam was in power. We're like a bunch of chickens running around over there with our heads cut off. And I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

I've read GAO reports that show we are lagging in some areas, and making progress in others.

Nobody, who supports this war denies the harsdship, trials, and "hard road" the Iraqi's face to rebuilding this nation. We don't deny the insurgencies impact - their continued attempts to thwart that reconstruction - nor many of the hurdles faced daily (such as the restoration of basic services, etc).

We do not paint a "rosey" picture, or try to gloss anything over.

But I've heard it so much on here over the last year or so, by those who oppose this war, that nothing positive is being accomplished at all in Iraq and to put these people on a better path. And that is totally wrong and misleading.

Have security issues slowed that reconstruction in certain sectors of Iraq? Yes it has. But overall, it is progressing.

And by the way - many, many other nations/outside sources are stepping up and investing and involved in the reconstruction process.

Electrical power generation and distribution, curtailed due to combat operations and sabotage, has been restored to above prewar levels. German firm Elbe Maschinenbau has signed an agreement to build three new power plants in Iraq, and three new ones have already been completed in the Anbar region. The PCO has crossed the halfway completion mark of planned infrastructure projects assigned to it by the U.S. Department of State in Iraq. More than 1600 of the planned 3200 projects—such as power generation and distribution, water treatment, schools, oil production and courthouses (see photo) ―have been certified as successfully completed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Finished structures are subsequently consigned to the appropriate Iraq ministry.

The Al Sharquat Bridge, which spans the Tigris River, is one of eight major projects planned under Grant Agreements with the Ministry of Construction and Housing. The existing pontoon bridge will be replaced with a modern concrete bridge, lighting systems will be installed, and asphalt approach roads will be constructed. The Al Sharquat Bridge Project is expected to generate more than 500 jobs during peak construction and employ 300 Iraqis in stable jobs during the regular construction period

Under the reconstruction of Iraq, the Ministry of Health now has a $1 billion (US Dollars) budget, about $40 per Iraqi citizen. By mid-2004 all 240 of Iraq's hospitals were up and running. Salaries for doctors and nurses have been greatly increased, and maintenance is being performed on some health care facilities.

The first modern landfill in Iraqi history is currently being developed in southwest Baghdad, with the capacity to handle 2,230 cubic meters of waste per day. USAID is helping to build a second landfill north of Baghdad, which will handle 3,000 cubic yards (2,300 m³) of waste per day. Both landfills will be built to international environmental standards.

Water Project on schedule in Southern Iraq...http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/releases/recon060905.html

Out of the 97 railway stations being renovated by the Facilities & Transportation (F&T) Sector of the Project & Contracting Office (PCO), only 28 remain to be finished, remarkable progress since the $42 million PCO railroad program first ramped up in October 2004.

Almost all schools have reopened -- including all 22 universities. 800 school rennovations have been on-going (83% complete).

Iraqis now enjoy freedom of speech, with the one stipulation that there be no direct attempt to incite insurrection against the new government. This freedom is currently being exercised by the several hundred new newspapers that have sprung up since the fall of Saddam in April, 2002. Television stations, both satellite (Al Fayhaa, etc.) and terrestrial (Al Sharqiya, Alhurra, etc.), and radio stations (Radio Dijla, etc.) broadcast freely, and no longer have their content dictated by the government.

The 2003 war severely disrupted telecommunications throughout Iraq, including international connections. USAID is overseeing the repair of switching capability and the construction of mobile and satellite communications facilities.

Many Iraqis were left jobless by the collapse of the old government and by the war. An American public works program was created to provide new jobs, and there are projects to attract foreign investment and to encourage local business development. According to the Gulf Daily News, the Iraq Project and Contracting Office employed 80,000 Iraqis each day in the early weeks of August 2004. 100 job sites have opened across Iraq, and 900 more are expected to open in late 2004.

Iraq's bond market opened in mid-June, 2004. Interest rates are being set by the free market, as opposed to government control, for the first time. The Iraq Stock Exchange also opened in June, and 500 million shares were traded on the first day, which is more shares than the previous stock exchange, the Baghdad Stock Market, had ever traded. As of August, 2004, it has 27 listed companies, with about 100 more due to go public through September and October.

I could sight many more on Iraqi reconstruction (good and bad); but don't want to waste RZ band width.

Iraq Investment and Reconstruction Task Force

http://www.export.gov/iraq/

You can get weekly updates on the recontruction progress in Iraq http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/portal/page?_pageid=75,80126&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&Regid=1&pDetid=2401

Go there and scan around some of the various sections that chart/track what is being done from village to village, and on the local levels. Pretty amazing stuff if you ask me.

Trying to tell everyone that it's nothing but a mistake and chaotic mess over there is, with nothing being accomplished is, IMO, not being totally honest with the situation over there.

This isn't a simple blunder, it's a gross miscalculation that has cost thousands of lives.



Bush operates seemingly out of a soundproof chamber, refusing to hear the truth about the war he started, and blindly repeating his administration's lines--a free Iraq, stay the course, stop the terrorists, etc. I don't believe he even operates in reality.

Many say/beleive the same thing (about operating in reality) when it comes to those who want to "cut and run" and leave this nation to possible civl war, while further damaging our reputation around the world. And yes, whether you want to beleive it or not - it would be damaged further.

You talk of the thousands who have already died. But you'd have no problem with the tens of thousands who would probably die, and the civil war that would probably errupt, if we "cut and run".

Rojo
09-01-2005, 12:50 AM
Many say/beleive the same thing (about operating in reality) when it comes to those who want to "cut and run" and leave this nation to possible civl war, while further damaging our reputation around the world. And yes, whether you want to beleive it or not - it would be damaged further.

Quite a pickle: a damaged reputation or a very damaged reputation. But at least there are bond traders in Bagdhad.

And according to the government's very own websites everything is coming along nicely.

GAC
09-01-2005, 06:13 AM
Quite a pickle: a damaged reputation or a very damaged reputation.

That's right. It would far worse if we cut and run. And like I stated - you wouldn't seem to care about the greater loss of life once it did. Or the possible strenghtening/emboldening of terrorism in the Middle East.

None of the "externals" should be weighed or considered - just get the heck out!


And according to the government's very own websites everything is coming along nicely.

It's obvious that you didn't want to take the time to browse those sites and see what is going on. Because if you had, then you'd have seen that they are not glossing over anything, or saying "everything is coming along nicely." They acknowledge and show those areas of concern, and where they are lagging behind due to the insurgency, along with what progresses are made.

I posted the inserts I did above, showing numerous positives, and progress being made - along with readily acknowledging the negatives, the setbacks, the hardships - you see, that 's called objectivity (looking at the whole scenario) - to counter those who oppose this war's position that it nothing but a nightmare over there - nothing good is happening - it's a lost cause - cut and run.

Here's one that shows the progress that Bechtel, contracted by the U.S. government, has made. Pretty thorough....http://www.bechtel.com/iraq.htm

Since Bechtel entered Iraq in late April 2003, we have:

* restored the Port of Umm Qasr, enabling its opening to commercial and humanitarian shipping;
* completed repairs to Baghdad and Basrah International Airports, enabling them to receive commercial flights;
* reopened three major bridges (Khazir, Al Mat, and Tikrit) to two-way traffic;
* increased by more than 50 percent the output from one of Baghdad's major power plants;
* restored water treatment facilities serving 40,000 residents
* completed work on the Sweet Water Canal, more than doubling the drinking water supply available to residents of Basrah; and
* completed restoration of Baghdad's landline telecommunications system, enabling the Iraqi Telephone & Post Company to restore service to more than 250,000 subscribers; and
* repaired more than 1,200 schools serving more than a million students.

All of these achievements have been made despite the continual challenges and security situation.

That is just one of the thousands of contractors, both foreign and domestic, that are working there.

But I'm sure you'll find some why to discredit and disavow that too.

No one disavows, or looks the other way, at the troubles/complications/set backs in the Sunni triangle and around Baghdad. But what about the majority of Iraq? The insurgency has weakened, and is not as effective.

Rojo
09-01-2005, 08:51 PM
Oh yeah, this thread....


It's obvious that you didn't want to take the time to browse those sites and see what is going on. Because if you had, then you'd have seen that they are not glossing over anything, or saying "everything is coming along nicely." They acknowledge and show those areas of concern, and where they are lagging behind due to the insurgency, along with what progresses are made.

What do you want me to say, "Hurray, we've rebuilt some of the stuff we bombed -- in the parts of the country we actually control"? Its spin, GAC, pure and simple.

GAC
09-02-2005, 05:43 AM
What do you want me to say, "Hurray, we've rebuilt some of the stuff we bombed -- in the parts of the country we actually control"? Its spin, GAC, pure and simple.

You make it sound like we just haphazardously went into this country and were blowing the hell out of anything we came across, with no regards for life or property. Like when Sherman made his march to Atlanta. Sorry - it just didn't happen that way.

Most reports that I have read, including the GAO and others, have shown it to be the insurgency doing the majority of the destruction, killing the innocent, terrorizing the populace, and trying to hinder those efforts.

Around Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle, where the resistance had been the stiffest? Yes. I'd hope you could understand our military's aversion to being shot at and having suicide bombers targeting them, and therefore shooting back and taking offensive actions by going into some of those towns that were bases of operation.

Obviously you don't.

And the recontruction is not solely about rebuilding from the fall-out of the invasion; but also involves heavy investment in creating and restoring those institutions, systems, and basic services that were either none existent or were allowed to deteriorate under the Saddam regime in those Kurd and Shi ite regions (a vast majority of the country from a geographical standpoint), that he and his sons so readily ignored and oppressed for decades. Alot is going on in those villages and towns to rebuild the roads, install sewage systems, water treatment facilities, build schools, investment in technology for the local councils/government -yadda yadda yadda

And they are providing jobs by hiring Iraqi's to do the work too.

As of March 2005, the United States, Iraq, and international donors had
pledged or made available more than $60 billion for security, governance,
and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

No one, including myself, has denied the hardship and setbacks that have occured in that reconstruction due to the insurgencie's efforts to thwart that.

Yet you, and others, seem to want to deny that any progress is being made at all - and IMO, that is spin.

registerthis
09-02-2005, 10:17 AM
That's funny. I follow that progress pretty avidly, and have been reading different reports as far as to the progress and restoration of services and other institutions in Iraq. You want everyone to believe that everything going on in Iraq is a total disaster and waste. Just one huge mistake....

You talk of the thousands who have already died. But you'd have no problem with the tens of thousands who would probably die, and the civil war that would probably errupt, if we "cut and run".All I'm going to say, Greg, is that for the past two years we have been told by Bush that our "Mission was accomplished", that the "insurgency is in its death throes", that "we'll be welcomed as liberators". And you know what? None of it is true. NONE of it. This administration lies on a daily basis, doing everything they can to positively spin what has become an extremely damaging situation for them. I do take solace in the fact that somewhere near 40% of people polled now approve of Bush's handling of the war. People seem to be getting the message--that we had no idea what we were getting ourselves into and, clearly, have no strategy to get out.

As far as your last comment, it's ridiculous even on face value. My PROBLEM is that this war was fought to begin with, for reasons I have clearly stated before. And meanwhile we're fighting this ridiculous war, we have an American city in utter turmoil that our government can't seem to help. :angry: