One of the more astounding post-9/11 liberal media affectations has been the extraordinary concern press members have for how terrorists looking to kill innocent Americans are treated at detention centers.
A fine example of this occurred on Thursday's "Hannity & Colmes" when the left-leaning part of Fox News's successful duo debated former White House adviser Karl Rove about the recent Supreme Court decision granting habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Readers are advised to get a big bag of popcorn for this barnburner (video embedded right):
ALAN COLMES, HOST: Hey, Karl, this is a great decision that dates back to the Magna Carta which is habeas corpus and refers back to Yick Wo versus Hopkins which ruled on the 14th amendment...
KARL ROVE: Alan...
COLMES: ... a couple of hundred years ago...
ROVE: Alan, Alan...
COLMES: ... which mean that the constitution -- let me get this out and I'll give you a chance to reply. The constitution applies to persons, not just citizens, and that is in keeping with what the constitution says.
ROVE: Alan, never in the history of the United States in any conflict have we granted enemy combatants habeas corpus rights.
We are now setting up so that if we're involved -- can you imagine fighting World War II where we'd have to have an attorney present for every Nazi whom we had in an Arizona, in Nevada or Utah prison camp.
COLMES: You can't just hold people without telling them a right to an attorney and...
(CROSSTALK)
ROVE: With all due respect...
COLMES: (INAUDIBLE) criminal justice.
ROVE: This is not criminal justice. This is a war. With all due respect, Alan...
COLMES: When was war declared?
ROVE: ... these people are people picked up on a battlefield.
COLMES: Did Congress declare war?
ROVE: Yes, the United States Congress authorized the use of force...
COLMES: When?
ROVE: ... in October of -- excuse me, 2002.
COLMES: No, it said the president -- once he used up all other options would have the...
ROVE: They authorized the use of force...
COLMES: There was no declaration of war by the U.S. Congress.
ROVE: With all due respect, Alan, read it, it authorized the use of force.
COLMES: Was there a declaration...
ROVE: And we're using that force.
COLMES: ... of war by the U.S. Congress?
ROVE: It is the authorization of the president to use military force. We're involved in a military conflict.
COLMES: That's not a war declaration.
ROVE: We're involved in a military conflict.
COLMES: But the U.S. Congress, which by the -- if you want to go by the constitution, don't they get to declare war and they haven't done that.
ROVE: I go by the constitution, Alan. If you feel strongly about this go get yourself an ACLU attorney and file a...
COLMES: I fell very strong about it.
ROVE: File a declaration in a court saying that this is an unconstitutional war, spend the money, fight it through the courts, and you will go nowhere with it.
COLMES: Well, t may well be the case except that if you're going to go by the constitution, you're going to go by the constitution. Leftist conservatives...
ROVE: It is the constitution, Alan.
COLMES: Strict constructionist...
ROVE: Alan, it is the constitution.
COLMES: But so habeas corpus is key to our constitution.
ROVE: Alan, the -- this is the first time in the history of America in which enemy combatants have been grated the right to habeas corpus.
COLMES: Do you think the president...
ROVE: Now you can...
COLMES: Can the president by himself declare an individual enemy combatant? Is that -- isn't that the first time that one individual can determine...
ROVE: No.
COLMES: ... anybody's an enemy combatant?
ROVE: No. No, no, it isn't, in World War II and World War I, presidents of the United States held people to be enemy combatants.
COLMES: We had declarations of war.
ROVE: We have -- we have had -- Alan, this is an authorization of the use of force. You may not think that the Congress by passing a resolution authorizing the use of force really did authorize the use of force, but it did.
And when you authorize the use of force as we did in this instance, we're confronting enemies of the United States, combatants, and we ought to treat them as we have treated combatants...
COLMES: Did Congress declare war?
ROVE: ... and POWs in every other conflict.
COLMES: Amazingly, Karl and I disagree. But I hope you have a very happy Fourth of July, Karl.
ROVE: But you're still an associate.
LOWERY: Have a great Fourth.
COLMES: No, I don't know if he'll still associate with me.
All right, Karl, thanks very much.
ROVE: Alan, I love you. I hate -- even when you're as wrong as you are tonight.
COLMES: Thanks for your kind words.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.















Comments Policy
The liberal media machine: Warm hearted celebrity's
July 4, 2008 - 18:34 ET by SevenSSevens
We
will find the gears of the media machine well oiled, with the slick
trickery of hate and propaganda. We will find the rich elitist
Hollywood movie stars sipping champagne, while professing their
humanity and their affinity for animal free organic granola. Yes, the
compassion and empathy oozes from these multi-million dollar
liberalites. They are out of touch with the family's struggling so
much to make their next car payment that they sacrifice food for
their thirsty auto's. Yet, they feel so comfortably obliged to speak
for the average unenlightened poor slob. We've become their
Frankenstein-like social experiment.
They
tell us we must accept eccentric men is lipstick and short shorts as
a legitimate part of our society. Teachers with gender reassignment
should be able to teach and mentor our children, as if teachers need
anymore controversy. John Cusack, from such blockbusters as,( well
let me get back to you on that. ) has rode his quick witted horse
into town, with his sharp wit and his shameless diatribe, he mocks
and chastises millions of church going hard working Americans. This
is from his blog ( he likes this stuff )
"We
have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world -- a nation
of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully.
We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate
and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history
will judge us. No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our
way, or we'll kill you. "Well,
shit on that dumbness, George W. Bush does not
speak for me or my son or my mother or my friends or the people I
respect in this world. We didn't vote for these cheap, greedy little
killers who speak for America today -- and we will not vote for them
again in 2002. Or 2004. Or ever. "Who does vote for these
dishonest shitheads?
Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood
on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who
get fleeced and fooled by stupid rich kids like George Bush? "They
are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for
refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid
and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate
mongers among us -- they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the
throats of these Nazis. "And I am too old to worry about
whether they like it or not. Fuck
them."
Hooray
for John Cusack, hooray!! This is your prototypical rich liberal
shining star, so out of touch with reality he subscribes to this
garbage. ( Not quite the granola crunching humanitarian that I though
he was) Is this hater the very same John Cusack who lit up the silver
screens in One crazy summer?
Oh
Johnny Q-sac, the 70% of family oriented religious American's who
don't subscribe to your Marxist, anti-America skepticism, are hurt
that you can't wrap your super brain around the real atrocities like
failing family's, a-moral children, terrorism, Jack Bull. It is the
hard working Americans dollar that affords whacko's like you the
freedom and the stage to denounce values and traditions. You know,
virtue, that is something that has been paid for in blood by Patriots
who love this country. The blue collar idiot who mattered long before
you Obamafied social geniuses ran rampant. I should suggest
boycotting your movies, but good taste beat me to it.
COLMES: That's not a war
July 4, 2008 - 18:59 ET by BDCOLMES: That's not a war declaration.
Poor Colmes
July 5, 2008 - 10:14 ET by ChuckM from PAI actually pity Colmes. He doesn't stand a chance when paired against most of the conservative guests they have on the program. He doesn't do liberals any favor when he speaks. I don't know if it because he hasn't thought through the issue well or is just plain stupid. All he seems to do is attack the other person and not debate the actual issues. Hey, liberals, get someone better to represent you on the show.
Pity the Fool
July 5, 2008 - 11:54 ET by tbbaxterAlan Colmes doesn't have a mind of his own or, if he does, he doesn't use it. He is a robot who regurgitates liberal talking points dictated by the leaders of the hard left. It's sad because his incompetence cheats the conservative guests out of an opportunity for honest debate. He truly is a weak link.
As Dan Quayle so appropriately said: "A mind is a terrible thing to lose."
→ Alan Colmes
July 5, 2008 - 12:04 ET by Cool ArrowI notice Colmes is getting better at treating women and men equally.
He used to butt in incessantly only when debating women.
Nowadays he's equally annoying regardless of gender.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Poster boy
July 5, 2008 - 12:36 ET by BacchusDoes Colmes think that congress approved "use of peaceful force," perhaps through superior force of rhetoric? What else could he possibly mean? Honestly, it boggles the mind how these 'citizens' can manage to confuse themselves.
→ LOL Bacchus
July 5, 2008 - 12:39 ET by Cool ArrowI can see Nancy Pelosi and Harriet Reid authorizing overwhelming rhetoric to defeat our enemies.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Happy Independance Day to
July 4, 2008 - 19:00 ET by RukusHappy Independance Day to everyone, (even the trolls), everyone! We are a great country and deserve this holiday! God Bless America!!! Home of the Brave and Land of the FREE!! God Bless my sons in the service and God Blass all men and women who serve out GREAT Nation!! I Love this country!! God Bless us all!!
OK, I'm done. God Bless America!!
"Nuke 'em 'til they... oh hell, just shoot 'em!"
It is insane to help your enemy out
July 4, 2008 - 19:08 ET by wdhorningIn any war, you do not put on trial regular soldiers or their militia who are captured and detained by you, because fighting in a war for a country is not a crime. In any war, prisoners are held until hostitlities have ended and via instrument of surrender or a truce aggreement, soldiers/militia are repatriated.
Since hostitilities by Taliban and their militia (al Qaida) have not ceased and they have neither signed a surrender or a truce, most all the prisoners at Gitmo, captured by American or UN soldiers, per the ordinary rules of war, shall be detained until such a surrender or truce is signed. Therefore, using the ordinary rules of war, they simply have no right to challenge their imprisonment, and I believe the judge that said they do should be tried in military court for treason.
I concur. THe libs
July 5, 2008 - 09:27 ET by BDI concur.
THe libs alternatingly wish us to follow the Geneva Conventions, and US Criminal law. But they cannot do both.
IF we close GITMO and transfer the Detainees to a US prison, we will be in violation of the Geneva COnventions which Disallow the inprisonment of POWs with common criminals.
IF we put the detainees on trial for crimes by a civil court, we will ALSO be in violation of the Geneva COnventions (Can you imagine the howling if John McCain had been tried by a Hanoi Criminal Court? Okay, maybe not by the libs in the US who saw US troops as criminals ANYWAY!)
If we bring the detainees back tot heUS, according to the conventions we will have to keep them seperate from the US prison system, and must not try them outside of military channels.
But libs like Colmes have never studied the Law of Land Warfare.
Does the nature of the War
July 5, 2008 - 10:37 ET by JasonCDoes the nature of the War on Terror not make this sound absurd, though? The Taliban could surrender all claims to Afghanistan and OBL himself could come out of the mountains and lay down his AK-47, there's not a single, remote chance that the prisoners and "persons of interest" would repatriated to wherever they were captured.
Rove might be more of an expert on wartime procedure than Colmes, but this was no "barnburner" nor was Colmes "schooled." Rove's very first point was the whole "Imagine if back in WWII we did this..." which is not only the single most tired talking point regarding judicial procedure in the WoT, but is wholly irrelevant given the asymetric nature of this war. In WWII, we didn't have the additional problem of worrying that a released German foot soldier, once we gave him back his personal belongings and fuhrer-issued copy of Thus Spake Zarathustra and shipped him back to Berlin to be repatriated and find his family, might turn out to be an integral part of some splinter-group bombing or hijacking somewhere.
As a known liberal on this site, I freely and openly acknowledge that problem. I do not, as has been suggested ad nauseum, wish for captured individuals, whether known combatants or suspected conspirists, to be transplanted to my community or for them to be turned loose because of some bleeding-hear mentality. These are rank misconstrusions of a very commonsensical position. We all know that Guantanamo will not be emptied out if an end to the WoT is somehow negotiated (which, because of how it has been defined, pretty much can't happen anyhow). We must devise a way of winnowing down the number of captured people - and since we all know torture is not the way to do it, a judicial system is the most logical answer. And no, I have zero interest in cagey replies about how if I was captured by Arab extremists they'd probably just cut my head off, and boy would I sing a different tune then - this is the whole point - we are not them, and there was time when the distinction was something most of us were proud of.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
Does the nature of the War
July 5, 2008 - 12:46 ET by BDDoes the nature of the War on Terror not make this sound absurd, though? The Taliban could surrender all claims to Afghanistan and OBL himself could come out of the mountains and lay down his AK-47, there's not a single, remote chance that the prisoners and "persons of interest" would repatriated to wherever they were captured.
"Imagine if back in WWII we did this..." which is not only the single most tired talking point regarding judicial procedure in the WoT,
In WWII, we didn't have the additional problem of worrying that a released German foot soldier,
I do not, as has been suggested ad nauseum, wish for captured individuals, whether known combatants or suspected conspirists, to be transplanted to my community or for them to be turned loose because of some bleeding-hear mentality.
We all know that Guantanamo will not be emptied out if an end to the WoT is somehow negotiated (which, because of how it has been defined, pretty much can't happen anyhow).
We must devise a way of winnowing down the number of captured people - and since we all know torture is not the way to do it, a judicial system is the most logical answer.
And no, I have zero interest in cagey replies about how if I was captured by Arab extremists they'd probably just cut my head off, and boy would I sing a different tune then - this is the whole point - we are not them, and there was time when the distinction was something most of us were proud of.
If it were only true
July 6, 2008 - 09:54 ET by blogonatorStarting a war with Iraq and not finding any WMDs seems pretty wrong. The whole Abu Gharaib fiasco seems pretty wrong. Having our President play fly boy in order to deliver a speech on an air craft carrier in front of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" was wrong in a few different ways.
Starting a war with Iraq
July 6, 2008 - 10:25 ET by BDStarting a war with Iraq and not finding any WMDs seems pretty wrong.
The whole Abu Gharaib fiasco seems pretty wrong.
Having our President play fly boy in order to deliver a speech on an air craft carrier in front of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" was wrong in a few different ways.
God, that was FUN. Please set me up for another round, I dare you.
and how this is read by a BDS moonbat...
July 6, 2008 - 11:07 ET by TruthMongerStarting a war with Iraq and not finding any WMDs seems pretty wrong.
The whole Abu Gharaib fiasco seems pretty wrong.
Having our President play fly boy in order to deliver a speech on an air craft carrier in front of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" was wrong in a few different ways.
blah-blah-blah-blahblah-BLAH-blah-blahblah-blah-blah-blahblah-blah-blah-blahblah-blah-blah.
Ha! (Sadly WAY TOOO
July 6, 2008 - 13:39 ET by BDHa!
(Sadly WAY TOOO accurate.)
Thank you TM, for the Sunday morning chuckle
I love how some self-described conservatives...
July 6, 2008 - 12:52 ET by blogonatorLike to refer to UN resolutions as a justification for the US going into Iraq then in the same breath rail against world government and the danger the UN represents in that regard. Can you have it both ways?
But go ahead, break it down. We had sixteen reasons for going into Iraq you say. Now with the benefit of what we know now and what many of us believed even then, how many of those reasons were justified by actual evidence now that we've literally turned that country upside down? Let's go down that list, shall we? Have you got anything that can stand the smell test?
I dunno blogo, after
July 6, 2008 - 13:13 ET by JasonCI dunno blogo, after Truthmonger's masterpiece of clarity and nuance just above, I wouldn't even try to argue with such a gifted rhetorician.
I could not care less about any of the bulleted reasons. We (the royal we) invaded a sovereign nation that posed us no harm and exploited 9/11 emotionalism in order to sell it. It was and is wrong. I've never been so disappointed in my country as I was watching Shock and Awe live on cable news.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
One of the ironies of history
July 6, 2008 - 13:34 ET by blogonatorIs that Saddam would have been more justified in attacking the US than we were in attacking Iraq by Bush's own pre-emptive war reasoning. Clearly Iraq posed no threat to us, but for Saddam the US definitely posed a "grave and gathering threat" that definitely could have resulted in a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud. We've got the bomb. No denying that. Iraq on the other hand was isolated by its neighbors, broke, starving and laughably lacking in defenses. Iran, Al Qaeda and the internal Shia and Kurd populations all hated Saddam's secular Baathist regime. Sure he could have held on like Mugabe is doing now, but time was against him. But he was looking at us funny. Don't look at us funny. We'll take your butt out. And he tried to kill W's daddy. Don't mess with W's daddy.
No threat? He had agreed
July 6, 2008 - 14:49 ET by BDNo threat? He had agreed to the armistice which disallowed him to do what he was doing. JUSTIFICATION????????
By the by, would we have been justified if Saddam had taken a shot at Bill, Hillary CLinton or Barack Obama? Then QUIT BITCHIN About him taking on our former president.
No threat? Really? We
July 6, 2008 - 14:45 ET by BDNo threat? Really?
We are living in an interconnected world where a thug half the world away was attacking innocent victims and sponsoring a culture of terrorism using bullets, bombs, and money to weaken western civilization, but you do not see this as a threat?
WHat would be a threat in your eyes?
Boy, I bet if it was in Rwanda or Darfur, the Libs would see it as a HUGE threat.
wrong blogonator the hypocricy is from the liberals
July 6, 2008 - 13:31 ET by Dee Bunkwho see the U.N. as having authority over us. Conservatives don't. Pointing to the resolutions proves that even the liberal U.N. agreed with many of Iraqs crimes.
All of those resolutions were based on lack of evidence from Saddam. The onus was never on us to provide evidence, it was on him. He didn't meet his obligations pure and simple.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
So when the UN tells us to do something
July 6, 2008 - 13:39 ET by blogonatorThe onus is on the US to do it? Not on my watch.
You can't have it both ways. Either we went to war because the UN allowed us, indeed mandated we do something (at least by inferrence since the only actual authorization to use force dated back to 1990), or we didn't and we didn't need them allowing us to do anything. Get off the fence please.
You can't have it both ways blogonator
July 6, 2008 - 13:57 ET by Dee BunkYou are the one (along with other liberals) who thinks they have authority over us. Conservatives don't think that.
It's only because YOU point to their authority that we use the resolutions against you. You need to get off the fence.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Thank you, Dee.
July 6, 2008 - 14:01 ET by BlondeI started to respond to blog's blather, but decied it was too nice of a day to school another liberal talking pointer.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Yeah Blonde - their arguments are usually strawman ones
July 6, 2008 - 14:11 ET by Dee BunkIt gets old. That's why we need lots and lots of us to respond to their nonsense. We all get tired of addressing their same weak points and sometimes they think silence means agreement. I didn't respond when I first saw it either because I figured someone else would.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
We're all conservatives here, right?
July 6, 2008 - 14:06 ET by blogonatorSo putting aside anything the UN said or did, please justify invading Iraq. Remember, no referring to the UN!
It is a nice day.
Our intelligence confirmed by all of our allies
July 6, 2008 - 14:18 ET by Dee Bunkintelligence as well as Russia's and China's all indicated that they had WMD's (chemical and biological) and were seeking nuclear capabilities.
We signed a cease fire agreement with them only because they agreed to conditions that they did not meet, thus making the cease fire agreement invalid.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
So if possessing WMDs is a good enough reason to go to war
July 6, 2008 - 14:31 ET by blogonatorHow come we haven't attacked China? Russia? Israel? Pakistan? India?
Our intelligence was flawed and conflicted. No denying that. It was presented to the public as something other than flawed and conflicted. Google Downing Street Memo.
Nope. We're not justified attacking a country that posed no threat to us.
there's your answer - Iraq
July 6, 2008 - 14:39 ET by TruthMongerthere's your answer - Iraq posed a major threat - those other countries not as much
if you refuse to see it - that's your right
it's my right to see it and demand action
there are more people like me around:)
Why would we attack China or Russia blogonator
July 6, 2008 - 20:25 ET by Dee Bunkor any of those others? That's crazy talk. Which country that you listed violated a cease fire agreement with us?
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Do not forget them engaging
July 6, 2008 - 14:59 ET by BDDo not forget them engaging US aircraft, sponsoring terrorism, and not releasing nor accounting for captured Kuwaiti's at wars end.
Good enough? ANy one of those is grounds for resuming hostilities.
→ Busted Blogo
July 6, 2008 - 14:25 ET by Cool ArrowSuppose you're an Iraqi RADAR operator inside the No Fly Zone during the Clinton Administration. You're given orders from Saddm's HQ to activate your RADAR. You know what happens to sites that "power up", don't you? They get wiped out by Ameican fire.
Here's a Press Briefing from Bill Clinton 12/18/98, stating he authorized Cruise Missile strikes 12/16/98 to "degrade Iraq's ability to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction" (WMD).
So let me get this straight. You're accusing Bill Clinton of murder to justify your own Bush Derangement Syndrome?
Ah, the classic "buh buh but Clinton!!!" defense
July 6, 2008 - 14:33 ET by blogonatorWe're talking about the current adminstration and the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Try to keep up.
→ No, blogo
July 6, 2008 - 14:39 ET by Cool ArrowI'm just proving to you the war NEVER ended.
You heard "ceasefire" and translated it "truce". It's possible someday you will realize words are often chosen for their specific meanings.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Yep, the war ended in an
July 6, 2008 - 15:00 ET by BDYep, the war ended in an Armistice which is a temporary halt to hostilities. No Peace Treaty was ever signed such as the libs seem to think happened.
The onus is on the US to do
July 6, 2008 - 14:52 ET by BDThe onus is on the US to do it? Not on my watch.
Gimme a break
July 6, 2008 - 15:50 ET by blogonatorIf the US was really interested respecting the role of the UN in the process, then we would have listened to Hans Blix and avoided this current mess. I don't like the logic of involving an intermediary party in the cecession of hostilities and then pushing them out of the way when we want more war. Again, are we following the UN or not? Did we go to war because the UN let us or not?
As an independant nation we
July 6, 2008 - 16:46 ET by BDAs an independant nation we do not give up our rights.
Iraq's WMDs?
July 6, 2008 - 13:43 ET by BacchusAP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq (Yes, that AP)
July 5, 2008
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program _ a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium _ reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" _ the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment _ was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
read it all...
Wow Bacchus - first I heard of this Newsbusters devote a thread
July 6, 2008 - 14:00 ET by Dee Bunkto this. Thanks for sharing. I'm sure blogonator and other liberals will ignore this with all of the other evidence.
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB
Let me instead embrace it
July 6, 2008 - 14:14 ET by blogonatorIf that's the best you got, I think you're the one better off ignoring it.
What a joke. I'm reminded of a popular comedy routine.
Except for one thing, the
July 6, 2008 - 14:55 ET by BDExcept for one thing, the Joint address to congress only claimed that the Brits had indications that Saddam was persuing GAINING yellowcake from Niger.
No inaccuracy present. (Ooops, except for Valerie Plame and her Hubby Wilson who claim the brits DID NOT HAVE SUCH A WORD, BUT ONY AFTER THEY ADMITTED THAT THEY DID.)
Still not any kind of resonable rationale for going to war
July 6, 2008 - 15:54 ET by blogonatorInvading Iraq for posessing yellowcake, for "persuing gaining" more yellowcake, is like shooting a man for posession of saltpeter.
blogonator
July 6, 2008 - 16:14 ET by Free StinkerInvading Iraq for posessing yellowcake, for "persuing gaining" more yellowcake, is like shooting a man for posession of saltpeter.
Is invading Iraq for having having Cyclosarin, Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun, VX gas, and (tons of) Uranium good enough?
was not sole reason.
July 6, 2008 - 16:47 ET by BDwas not sole reason.
Like to refer to UN
July 6, 2008 - 14:41 ET by BDLike to refer to UN resolutions as a justification for the US going into Iraq then in the same breath rail against world government and the danger the UN represents in that regard. Can you have it both ways?
But go ahead, break it down. We had sixteen reasons for going into Iraq you say.
All of these pass the "smell test."
Beautiful
July 6, 2008 - 16:15 ET by blogonatorSixteen reasons becomes twelve. Many of them dubious, none of them remotely good enough to justify all that's been already wasted in this, Bush's most lasting blunder. Again, clearly Saddam was no threat to you or me. Israel maybe sorta but not enough for them to do anything about it.
But you know BD, I learn things from you... after I start looking things up for accuracy. According to some sources Saddam had Abu Nidal killed. Doesn't sound like sheltering to me. Nidal himself had been attempting to take out Yassir Arafat who many, probably many right here, considered a terrorist himself. Tough call there.
I love your last point though: The Iraqi people deserve freedom and democracy. Delivered at the barrel of a gun, ruled by our lackeys, and don't you dare not give us our 58 military bases. And those Blackwater mercenaries, they can shoot you dead, but you can't prosecute them. That ain't my idea of freedom and democracy. That's not even sovereignty.
Here is paragraph 2 from
July 6, 2008 - 16:26 ET by Free StinkerHere is paragraph 2 from your link Saddam had Abu Nidal killed.
The Palestinian newspaper Al Ayyam said Nidal was suffering from a serious illness and apparently committed suicide in his Baghdad
apartment.
Doesn't sound like Saddam killed him. If Saddam wanted Nidal dead, why was he even living in Bagdad in the first place?
It's called reading comprehension.
Sixteen reasons becomes
July 6, 2008 - 18:04 ET by BDSixteen reasons becomes twelve.
Many of them dubious
none of them remotely good enough to justify all that's been already wasted in this,
Again, clearly Saddam was no threat to you or me.
Israel maybe sorta but not enough for them to do anything about it.
But you know BD, I learn things from you... after I start looking things up for accuracy. According to some sources Saddam had Abu Nidal killed.
Doesn't sound like sheltering to me.
Nidal himself had been attempting to take out Yassir Arafat who many, probably many right here, considered a terrorist himself. Tough call there.
I love your last point though: The Iraqi people deserve freedom and democracy.
Delivered at the barrel of a gun, ruled by our lackeys,
and don't you dare not give us our 58 military bases.
And those Blackwater mercenaries, they can shoot you dead, but you can't prosecute them.
That ain't my idea of freedom and democracy.
That's not even sovereignty.
Thanks for bringing it up
July 6, 2008 - 20:18 ET by blogonatorYes. Saddam better be marching down 5th avenue. It's called national defense, as in defense of this nation. If he's not threatening us, I see no need to attack him. Israel can take care of itself. Those nations with "western targets" can take care of themselves too. When did we become the world's policeman?
What does Israel do to protect itself from Saddam? They did bomb the Iraqi nuke facility in the '80s. Let them do that and whatever else they see fit. I pledge allegiance to my country's flag and I have no doubt Israel can take care of itself. Israel does not need the Americans to play big brother.
Do I have similar complaints about other military bases in countries that long ago became our allies? Yes, yes I do. What are we doing in Korea? What are we doing in Japan? What, what for the love of all that is holy, are we doing in Germany? What are we defending? NOTHING. Nothing that isn't already being capably defended by an indigenous military force. We, the US, don't belong there. Not one bit.
Or maybe, maybe we are the world's policeman and we need to accept that role. India, Pakistan, settle down. You're disturbing the peace. Sorry, that's a bad idea.
And, excuse me, honorable gentlemen and ladies have nothing to fear from living under the rule of law. The soldiers of fortune of Blackwater were accountable to no one. As in they can shed as much blood as they want and their worst punishment will be a ticket back to the US. Rule of law? Not in Iraq. It's disgraceful.
Maybe I haven't, but I've read US history. Show me the country that played our role in Iraq when our colonies were leaving England. What's that? There was no such thing? That's right. We fought for our independence and we won it. There was no third party trying to impose their idea of what independence looked like on us. Predictably most Iraqis don't seem to appreciate our trying to do that to them.
There's that world policeman idea again. Sorry, I will forever disagree with the role you want for our country.
Yes. Saddam better be
July 7, 2008 - 09:27 ET by BDYes. Saddam better be marching down 5th avenue. It's called national defense, as in defense of this nation.
When did we become the world's policeman?
Do I have similar complaints about other military bases in countries that long ago became our allies? Yes, yes I do.
And, excuse me, honorable gentlemen and ladies have nothing to fear from living under the rule of law. The soldiers of fortune of Blackwater were accountable to no one.
Maybe I haven't, but I've read US history. Show me the country that played our role in Iraq when our colonies were leaving England.
Predictably most Iraqis don't seem to appreciate our trying to do that to them.
we in the US are a force for good in the world. There's that world policeman idea again. Sorry, I will forever disagree with the role you want for our country.
Is one world gov't ok if it's the US gov't ruling the world?
July 7, 2008 - 09:51 ET by blogonatorIt is called defense of US interests.
That's such a loose term so as to be defined into anything. I don't agree with just any use of our military to "protect US interests." Better to focus on protecting what's between our borders and not sending our military into unnecessary wars. Or do you disagree with that?
My point stands: Iraq was no threat to us. We had more to fear from swarms of locusts and the Mississippi river.
That's such a loose term so
July 7, 2008 - 10:45 ET by BDThat's such a loose term so as to be defined into anything. I don't agree with just any use of our military to "protect US interests." Better to focus on protecting what's between our borders and not sending our military into unnecessary wars. Or do you disagree with that?
Don't be absurd
July 7, 2008 - 14:50 ET by blogonatorWhile imagining war games scenarios with you can be fun for a time, it's still a distraction. Which US embassy did Iraq attack again? Oh, that's right, they did no such thing.
Iraq, not a threat in 2003. Iraq War, not justified now or then.
blogonator still never answered what others violated cease fire
July 7, 2008 - 15:39 ET by Dee Bunkagreements. Iraq did -that's for sure now who else?
"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB