WP, TH, ANO
These are posts over at the morons wanting to impeach GWB…these are NOT my posts…
The following are conversations from the moron lib site…
This is my latest “comment” over there…I think I’m being pretty decent so far!
“Thank you for your courtesy Mikael, but I must respectfully disagree with you. I have seen way too many people, left and right, who, quite simply, hate the current administration so much they would rather jeopardize our troops and our safety here at home. It’s almost a rabid, pavlovian reaction and I just can’t support it. I also find that many people I discuss this with, often very well read, very well educated people, simply cannot get past this blind spot and project possible scenarios of consequences resulting from these actions in their hate. Furthermore, I don’t see a whole of sites like this giving credit to the good coming out of Iraq and the Middle East; another blind spot. The “juggernaut” to “get Bush” at all costs is extremely grave, filled with potholes and blind spots rather than logic and common sense.
One question I have posed on other sites, repeatedly, and granted, you may not have seen it, is this: we are not dealing with a logical enemy. We are dealing with rabid dogs. I’m not a military person, although I come from a long, proud line of warriors, one a noted Brigadier General, retired. He was also an undersecretary to the defense and a professor at Georgetown. So I tend to listen when he speaks–he’s been there, done that. When I ask him this question, he turns very pale and refuses to even consider the possibilities. That question is this: We already know we’re dealing with insane, rabid, bloodthirsty people who have no regard for the United States or anything standing for freedom. If these people will not sit down at a negotiating table with MALE “infidel” leaders, what makes you think they’ll sit down with a FEMALE leader? How can you be so sure they won’t simply decapitate said female leader (after much rape and torture, of course)? Is this something that has even crossed your mind in your push to put Pelosi in power? Or Hillary? I don’t think so. This enemy doesn’t believe in civil rights, religious freedom, women’s rights, gay rights, etc. Have those issues even crossed your mind? Again, I don’t think so.
Continuously stating “talk” is the only answer is facile at best. Talk won’t accomplish anything with an enemy bent on wiping us off the face of the earth, as they themselves have stated. And doing your utmost to put a FEMALE leader in charge is disingenuous. They have no respect for anyone now; they certainly won’t for Pelosi. And that’s what this boils down to…we’re not used to dealing with such an enemy. We’ve never had to deal with an enemy such as this before. That’s not recognized by anyone who thinks “talk” will solve this. Keep in mind, WE didn’t start this–they did on 9/11. And they wouldn’t have had the chance to do so if Clinton had taken custody of Bin Laden in 1993 AND 1996, when Syria offered Bin Laden to Clinton.
I tend to believe my cousin, and I will keep supporting the troops. I hope, however, I’ve given you something solid to think about that perhaps hadn’t been considered before.
It’s HARD not to lose my temper, but I’m TRYING to be a good representative of our side!
From another post on the same site…
If this war requires impeachment, then we need to include these fine people as well:
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
“Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor, February 18, 1998
Addressing the lack of WMD’s found, “”The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.” Senator Hillary Clinton, Larry King Live, April 21, 2004
Please note, all but one of these was made long before George W. Bush was elected to office. How does anyone claim they were lied to when they were saying the same thing a few years before Bush was even elected?
Our enemies watch every step we make and they are emboldened as they see us fractured. Since 1979, when they invaded our embassy in Tehran and held hostages for over 400 days, there have been some 15 terrorist attacks against U.S. interests, twice on our own soil. These aren’t petty crimes, they are acts of war that must be addressed and defeated.
Instead of all the infighting, we need to come together and defeat this enemy before they defeat us. Left or right, liberal or conservative won’t mean anything should they win.
“We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction…”
“This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.”
“Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted–which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun–the United States must not lose its resolve to take action.” Senator John F. Kerry, Senate speech given November 9, 1997
Another post soon coming…
“These comments as far as I can tell aren’t impeachable offenses. Bush mislead congress into a war. The evidence is clear…”
Yes, the evidence is indeed clear, and what I see through this alleged clarity is a desire to “cherry pick”; to once again blame everything on Bush…part of the rabid, pavlovian reactions I referred to earlier. You can’t pick and choose while expecting to maintain any kind of credibility…I guess you’re saying it’s okay for Kerry, Pelosi, Clinton, etc. to say whatever they want in support of a war, but when it comes down to brass tacks, and the only person who had the wherewithal to do what needed to be done–BUSH–you now want to get rid of. And all those in support of this action, long before Bush even considered running for office, you want to cherry-pick out of the equation while ignoring their complicity.
“You’re right, we should come together. We should all hold officials accountable for their actions, and maintain our Constitution”
Perhaps this should read, “You’re right, we should come together. We should all hold ALL officials accountable for their actions and maintain our Constitution”.
That includes, again, Kerry, Pelosi, Clinton, Berger (whom, by the way, is an egregious criminal; however, I don’t see you pushing for legal action against him), Daschle, Albright, Feinstein (by the way, do you like the idea of a National ID and having to provide your papers while traveling from city to city, a la Nazi Germany? Well, Feinstein introduced that idea), Miluski, Lieberman, ad nauseum. While we’re at it, why not include Reid for his land scams in Nevada? And isn’t it amazing how quickly the MSM covered up the shady land deals of Obama in Chicago? Not a whole lot of air time was dedicated to that, was there?
You can’t cherry-pick and that’s just what you’re doing.
Allow me to pose a few more questions. Do you enjoy worshiping as you please–even if that means you choose NOT to worship? Do you like voting? Do you like your freedom? For the women, do you enjoy being able to drive a car? Appear in public in “normal” clothing? Pursue a career? Voice an opinion? For those who live alternate lifestyles, do you enjoy being able to be “out of the closet” and not in fear of your life for your choice of whom to love? Do all of you enjoy having your right to free speech protected–so protected those very troops you would put in harms way in this clash of civilizations, moreso than they already are, are fighting for your right to disrespect them and the CIC? If you enjoy all those rights, and we have many, why then are you so willing to throw them away to our enemy? For that’s exactly what you’re doing. I don’t understand your thought process; I honestly don’t understand why you would choose to live under the fear and terrorism the Middle East is now going through–and that’s exactly what will happen if there is not a RESOUNDING VICTORY in this war.
To sit and Monday morning quarterback a war, to encourage this kind of cherry picking, blindered micromanagement is completely anathema to me. And, being in the legal field, I can recognize when someone is trying to change the subject, or wants me to watch the right hand and ignore the left. I asked an earlier question of you and you haven’t answered. Why not?
Further, by the way? Ultimately, all of the quotes above are indeed impeachable offenses under the same standard you’re using for Bush. Ultimately, if the Constitution were to be rigorously enforced, every last member of Congress who voted for the non-binding resolution would be branded and prosecuted as–and rightly so–a traitor, subject to the death penalty. Not to mention the ludicrous waste of taxpayer time and money for all of that little show.
Labels: GWB, Leftinistra, WMD
|