Congress Has Spoken: No Permanent Military Bases In Iraq
Congress Has Spoken: No Permanent Military Bases In Iraq
Our guest blogger is Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), a member of the House International Relations Committee.
Last Tuesday, the House took an important first step regarding the war in Iraq. It voted in favor of an important amendment to the Iraq supplemental spending bill that I introduced, along with my colleagues, Reps. Tom Allen (D-ME), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). (Watch it here.)
The amendment we offered was very simple: it stated that no funds from this spending bill will be used to enter into military base agreements between the United States and Iraq. Stating this will clearly indicate that the U.S. has no intention of maintaining a permanent military presence in Iraq. I’m pleased to say that the House unanimously approved this amendment.
While differences exist over how and when we should leave Iraq, we should all agree that U.S. forces should not be in Iraq forever. The House is now on record as supporting that position. Unfortunately, the administration’s position is unclear.
On April 13, 2004, President Bush said, “As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation, and neither does America.” But last week, General John Abizaid, the Army general in charge of the U.S. troops in Iraq, told the House defense appropriations subcommittee that the U.S. could end up having permanent bases in Iraq. And today, the Los Angeles Times reports that Bush “continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases” in Iraq.
We offered the amendment because we need to be clear about our intentions. The aim of our amendment was to simply codify the sentiment that the President, many of us in Congress, and many of our constituents strongly believe. For the same reasons, I have also introduced broader, free-standing legislation — H.Con.Res 197, which has 77 cosponsors to date — to make it U.S. policy that we will not have permanent military bases in Iraq.
In adopting this amendment and pushing for a broader policy declaration as embodied in my bill, we can take the target off our troops’ backs by sending a strong and immediate signal to the Iraqi people, the insurgents, and the international community that the United States has no designs on Iraq.
Last week, the House took an important first step. We must use this amendment as a tool to put supporters of the President’s war in Iraq on the spot. If they don’t support being in Iraq permanently, they should have no qualms with co-sponsoring my bill, H.Con.Res. 197. We have a lot of work to do, but last week’s success is the first bit of good news in a long time for our troops, for our nation, and for the world.
– Barbara Lee
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Barbara Lee,
You are my hero. Please keep up the excellent work. If only other democrats had the backbone you have.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:51 pmI’m sure Bush will take Congress’ ’suggestion’ into consideration… and then proceed to steal the funds from education and food stamps to pay for the bases he’s already had designed.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:53 pmThank you so much Rep. Lee! This is a very important issue, and I’m proud to support you in this effort.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:54 pmit stated that no funds from this spending bill will be used to enter into military base agreements between the United States and Iraq.
Now between the U.S. and Halliburton, and then Halliburton and Iraq – well, that would be just fine?
March 24th, 2006 at 5:55 pmAnd what’s going to happen with the one billion Congress has alrerady earmarked for US military construction (not to be confused with the billions that were cut for Iraq’s reconstruction)?
March 24th, 2006 at 5:55 pmBush will use his first veto…
March 24th, 2006 at 5:58 pmDont celebrate yet there is nothing that will prevent KING GEORGE from IGNORING the Congressional decree …just like he did with the Torture amendment and just like he did with the recently signed Patriot Act…..
March 24th, 2006 at 5:58 pmDon’t care to get into it much here, but the notion of leaving the region completely is counter-productive to any future response the U.S. might have to make against a Gulf Region country, should any future attack be seen as related in any way to any Gulf Region country.
The idea of the U.S. Military saddling up and moving out in such a situation, but to have no pre-established operating base to work from, is so time consuming and so labor-intensive, as to make Justice (a timely thing) hard to get in a timely manner.
Be careful with this one all; there may be a big misstep here somewhere.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:06 pmI agree whole heartedly with the amendment and agree with Jack that its an important issue to follow. Unfortunately, the article goes on to completely misrepresent what Gen. Abizaid said. He never said anything about “permanent bases in Iraq”. What he said, for those who read the link, is that “The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq”. Presence doesn’t automatically require U.S. bases and long-term doesn’t automatically mean permanent although both are possible meanings. We have a long-term presence (more than 5 yrs) in quite a few countries where we don’t have bases.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:09 pmDem02020,
We have plenty of allies in the middle that will let us use there bases to launch attacks on middle eastern countries who support terrorists.
The problem is that those allies, just like the people here at TP know that the attack on Iraq was complete BS and shouldn’t have happened.
No permanent bases in Iraq!
March 24th, 2006 at 6:18 pmBarbara Lee speaks for me!
March 24th, 2006 at 6:21 pmThis is why we vote her in, again and again. She’s the best.
Barbara Lee, you do great work. Thank you.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:23 pmthank you for updating us with this. by the way i think the correct link is this.
, but, perhaps the congresswoman could show us the actual text of the amendment, or is this it?
also, if she is listening, how can we make sure that this isn’t eliminated in the senate??
best,
jim
oh, and fuck bush
March 24th, 2006 at 6:34 pmDarn, don’t forget to rush out and aks Henry Kissinger why he said:
“There IS NO MORE IRAQ. There will be three territories.” when briefing his Saudi clients in 2004.
You know Hank Kissinger. He’s the guy who Bush tried to put in charge of the Nine-eleven Commission. You know, the guy who RAN AN ILLEGAL BOMBING CAMPAIGN INTO CAMBODIA AND LAOS THAT KILLED THOUSANDS, and was never punished.
• Illegal invasions to install airbases cannot be stopped by supposedly defunding them after the bases are already installed.
But, another good effort, Representative Lee. Forcing these bastards to admit they are building airbases is CENTRAL to the understanding that this was not about WMD, but about destroying the sovereignty of a UN nation, for profit. Which is a major international warcrime.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:44 pmAnd I’m sure readers of this blog will want to RENEW THEIR THANKS to Senator John Kerry for OUTING THE PERMANENT AIRBASES SCHEME — AND REPUDIATING IT — IN THE FIRST DEBATE OF 2004.
60 million people saw that broadcast — except Democracy Now!, which refused to cover his repudiation of Bush policy, since it would weaken their D=R propaganda.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:47 pmyou have GOT to be kidding me… congress “speaking” and expecting it to carry any weight whatsoever with an executive branch that has done and will no doubt continue to do whatever it wants in complete disregard for checks and balances and the separation of powers is dangerous naivete… i am of the belief that things are so far gone that, even if a censure motion were to pass, bush would just shine it on and keep right on truckin’… i’m glad that some in congress are still willing to take a stand… i just don’t think it matters anymore…
Visit my blog: And, yes, I DO take it personally
March 24th, 2006 at 6:59 pmThis is all well and good, however the president believes that he can order anything and he can do anything in pursuing the war, whatever that may be defined as, so the bases will be built, period.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:21 pmSo long as funding is annual,or in the case of a war,for 2 years, this amendment will expire along with the underlying supplemental funding. I expect,then,that the amendment would have to be re-introduced as part of each funding request.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:45 pmNonetheless,better to say it than not;it’s not like the Iraqis have any reason to doubt what we say.
Congratulations,and keep the wording for next time.
Bush don’t care one bit what congress thinks.How many times does he have to demonstrate that?
March 24th, 2006 at 7:51 pmI like this Amendment, As opposed to an off the wall shot that would not have wide approval by the people, I think this one was well thought out.
I think it was a good strategic decision. If it gets voted down it brings notice to the people who want a permanent base (which I am willing to bet is not a majority of citizens). If it passes it accomplishes the objective of getting the troops out when the mission is done.
Smart Play, I like it.
March 24th, 2006 at 8:04 pm“I like this Amendment, As opposed to an off the wall shot that would not have wide approval by the people, I think this one was well thought out. Tundra,”
I knew you weren’t the average troll – and why I’ve tried to treat you with the appropriate and fair respect in my interactions with you so far. Be careful though, the reichwing trolls will now treat you as the enemy since you’ve shown the ability to truly think for yourself :)
I however welcome a restrained and thoughtful ‘conservative’ as opposed to the radical and extremist CONservatives who tend to ‘troll’ here. Too bad there aren’t more rational republicans like yourself in positions of power.
Welcome to the site!
March 24th, 2006 at 8:10 pmand why I’ve tried to treat you with the appropriate and fair respect in my interactions with you so far.
And you always have, Thank you!
Things like this make a whole lot of sense; it has the OK, Forget about what could have been prevented. Forget about whose fault it is. Let’s make a positive move forward. It will pull some heat off of the troops; help to show the Iraqi people there are no intentions of permanent bases there. Since it was attached to a Iraq spending bill, it also says that we will ensure the troops are still taken care of with what they need and is really not a partisan move at all.
Too bad there aren’t more rational republicans like yourself in positions of power.
Heh Rational and politics don’t often mix :-)
Welcome to the site!
March 24th, 2006 at 8:29 pmThanks Again
Dear Congressperson Lee – Please DEMAND 3 or 4 debates (nationally televised in prime time) to let the American people know the position of many in the Democratic party with regards to NSA surveillance programs. Demand the debate now!!! Perhaps your colleagues Maxine Waters, Cynthia Mc Kinney, John Conyers, Bernie Sanders etc. wi;; join you!!!!! YOU GO!!!!
March 24th, 2006 at 8:36 pmOnce again mighty aphrodite. The Democrats are NOT against the NSA surveilling suspected terrorists. Democrats feel that the president should FOLLOW THE LAW when doing it.
We are not against wiretapping. We are against breaking the law.
BRING ON THE DEBATES MIGHTY APHRODITE WANTS.
March 24th, 2006 at 9:10 pmUmmm. From what I can tell… One of the purposes for going into Iraq was to establish permenant bases in the middle east. Seeings how every reason bush, et al, gave for going in was false (i.e. a war crime). We have to work at the justifications backwards. Saudi couldn’t have us there forever. Exxon (Condi I think) needed a foothold. Sooo … establish bases in Iraq. Reasons that clearly are not true include: security for U.S. citizens, a compassion for our Iraqi fellow human beings. I would like to see the Haig shrink the size of their cells. You know, in anticicpation. You never Know what sort of small minded evil war criminals that might show up.
March 24th, 2006 at 9:34 pmExcuse me, Spudge would know. Is condi exxon or,who in the cabinet? I know they own somebody.
March 24th, 2006 at 9:40 pmIt is curious to see what some people will say to a person of interity & clout.
Thank you Congresswoman Lee for putting up the good fight for all of us here in the US. We really do appreciate your efforts.
March 24th, 2006 at 9:47 pmLooks like Spudge might not have seen yhour question — Condi Rice is Chevron Oil –
March 24th, 2006 at 9:48 pmand BTW Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is Unocal.
I’m in favor of a continued U.S. Military presence in the Gulf Region (Mr. Murtha’s characterization was “over the horizon”) because I’m mindful of the fact that a foreign government in that region could sponsor a terrorist attack against the American People (as did Saudi Arabia on September 11, 2001), and without a pre-established presence in that region, the mobilization of the U.S. Armed Forces becomes so difficult, so expensive, and so time consuming, as to make Justice (a timely thing) hard to get in a timely manner.
But that aside, I’m as against the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq (and for an investigation into the falsified ‘pre-war intelligence’ that impelled that invasion) as any of the American People.
And if that seems a contradiction, I can assure you it is not, and perhaps make that clear by flatly stating that, had the U.S. Armed Forces, as a response to 9-11, bombed flat the Saudi Royal Palace, and absolutely destroyed that murderous family, I’d have said JUSTICE.
And not at all in the spirit of that statement, but in the spirit of opposing this invasion of Iraq that has been based on entirely falsified intelligence, consider these words written by someone on October 4, 2002, five months before that invasion, and in consideration of the Resolution [H.J.Res. 114] that authorized it:
…we do not believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the security of the United States or its allies, that evidence has yet been provided that indicates a link between Iraq and al Qaida, that all diplomatic means have been exhausted towards the inspection and disarmament of Iraq’s weapons, or that efforts to prevent terrorism would be engaged with the necessary vigilance should the authorization of force in this resolution be unilaterally pursued.
Similarly, we have concerns that the cost of an attack on Iraq would further undermine the economic condition of the United States, that attempts to cause regime change in Iraq would result in high casualties for both U.S. military personnel and Iraqi civilians, and that a unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States would inflame tensions in other nations and could increase the threat of terrorism against the United States. We are also opposed to a policy of preemption, as it could encourage other nations to pursue similar military engagements,…
Therefore, we cannot support the scope and intention of this resolution, and respectfully offer these dissenting views.
This resolution authorizes the unilateral preemptive use of force by the United States without proof of imminent peril.
…and while there is much more to that dissenting view that I could excerpt here (and all of it true, well-written, and heartfelt too, for the concerns and in the names of, the American People), I will just say that what I have excerpted here comes from House Report 107-721, which is the Report of the House Committee on International Relations, in consideration of the afore-mentioned H.J.Res. 114, a Resolution authorizing the President to invade Iraq.
And while the Resolution to invade Iraq was reported favorably out of that Committee, and the House and Senate did ultimately authorize that invasion, the words I have excerpted here for you, are from the ‘DISSENTING VIEWS’ section of House Report 107-721…
A dissenting view held and words written, by three of the more Strong, more Courageous, and more Wise members of our House; of the People’s House…
…one of whom is the Honorable Barbara Lee, U.S. Congresswoman representing California’s ninth Congressional District.
March 24th, 2006 at 9:48 pm#26 This small type makes for more uncorrected typos. Sorry.
March 24th, 2006 at 9:49 pmThanks Marie. But, someone must be exxon, could it be george? No wait he’s arbusta.
March 24th, 2006 at 10:08 pmBowdler,
Marie is correct on Karzai and Rice.
Let’s do a little poking around and find that Exxon connection, shall we?
Be back shortly.
March 24th, 2006 at 10:27 pmAt least Rep. Barbara Lee is trying to cut off funds to this vile occupation of Iraq, but Bush and his rubber-stamp Senate most likely will ignore her attempt to prevent permanent bases in Iraq! We need to keep an eye out on what happens with her amendment!
March 24th, 2006 at 11:18 pmLoophole
Though I approve of the ammendment it seems clear that there are enough loopholes so that the bases can be funded regardless.
1) As pointed out, if IRAQ breaks appart, then the US is free to enter into aggreements with Kird-IRAQ, Suni-IRAQ, and Shea-IRAQ.
or
2) The US can construct and man the bases without the bother of entering into an agreement with IRAQ
or
3) Since the congress passed the Force Powers Act, the bases were authorized and perhaps they can not be de-authorzed without Cutting and Running by repealing the Force Powers Act and stopping funding support of our troops.
or
4) Even if congress did all that, the president has inherent powers to protect the US and so can take actions as needed even if congress wants to un-constutionally try to limit these powers.
Good Luck…
March 24th, 2006 at 11:39 pmMike Liveright,
1) I guess this is part of the “Is Civil War In Iraq A Good Thing” arguement.
2) Yeah, why the hell would we care about what the country have a say in what we do in their country.
3) The Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force (Senate Joint Resolution 23) signed by George Bush on September 18, 2001. Does not even mention the word base, nor does it even mention Iraq.
“cutting and running” – Nice strawman
4) And we finish up with the “president can do whatever he wants” arguement. Sorry, way too many patriots in the country to let that happen.
Next….
March 25th, 2006 at 12:30 amGreat job Barbara.
You definitely reinforced why I submitted a request to work for you following college graduation. You represent Oakland and the greater Bay Area with such class and esteem. I only wish you were my representative, and not Richard Pombo…
March 25th, 2006 at 1:06 amSince the war is off budget, will we even be able to tell if funds are spent on permanent bases? Will Congress be able to tell?
Did anyone read the article in Salon in February entitled “Permanent Bases in Iraq?” and subtitled “The Bush administration claims the U.S. intends to leave Iraq. But its massive military “super-bases” tell a different story.”
Here are a couple of paragraphs:
“In the case of Iraq, nothing could be more concrete — though less generally discussed in our media — than the set of enormous bases the Pentagon has long been building in that country. Quite literally multibillions of dollars have gone into them. In a prestigious engineering magazine in late 2003, Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army engineer “tasked with facilities development” in Iraq, was already speaking proudly of several billion dollars being sunk into base construction (”the numbers are staggering”). Since then, the base building has been massive and ongoing.
“In a country in such startling disarray, these bases, with some of the most expensive and advanced communications systems on the planet, are like vast spaceships that have landed from another solar system. Representing a staggering investment of resources, effort and geostrategic dreaming, they are the unlikeliest places for the Bush administration to hand over willingly to even the friendliest of Iraqi governments.
“For the first time, we have actual descriptions of a couple of the “super-bases” built in Iraq in the last two and a half years and, despite being written by reporters under Pentagon information restrictions, they are sobering. Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post paid a visit to Balad Air Base, the largest American base in the country, 68 kilometers north of Baghdad and “smack in the middle of the most hostile part of Iraq.” In a piece titled ‘Biggest Base in Iraq Has Small-Town Feel,’ Ricks paints a striking portrait:
The base is sizeable enough to have its own “neighborhoods” including “KBR-land” (in honor of the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most of the base-construction work in Iraq); “CJSOTF” (”home to a special operations unit,” the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force, surrounded by “especially high walls,” and so secretive that even the base Army public affairs chief has never been inside); and a junkyard for bombed out Army Humvees. There is as well a Subway, a Pizza Hut, a Popeye’s, “an ersatz Starbucks,” a 24-hour Burger King, two post exchanges where TVs, iPods, and the like can be purchased, four mess halls, a hospital, a strictly enforced on-base speed limit of 10 MPH, a huge airstrip, 250 aircraft (helicopters and predator drones included), air-traffic pile-ups of a sort you would see over Chicago’s O’Hare airport, and “a miniature golf course, which mimics a battlefield with its baby sandbags, little Jersey barriers, strands of concertina wire and, down at the end of the course, what appears to be a tiny detainee cage.”
“Recently, Oliver Poole, a British reporter, visited another of the American “super-bases,” the still-under-construction al-Asad Airbase (”Football and pizza point to US staying for long haul”). He observes, of “the biggest Marine camp in western Anbar province,” that “this stretch of desert increasingly resembles a slice of U.S. suburbia.” In addition to the requisite Subway and pizza outlets, there is a football field, a Hertz rent-a-car office, a swimming pool, and a movie theater showing the latest flicks. Al-Asad is so large — such bases may cover 15 to 20 square miles — that it has two bus routes and, if not traffic lights, at least red stop signs at all intersections.”
To read the Salon article, go to http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/15/tomengelhardt/index.html
March 25th, 2006 at 1:52 am“1) As pointed out, if IRAQ breaks appart, then the US is free to enter into aggreements with Kird-IRAQ, Suni-IRAQ, and Shea-IRAQ.”
FALSE. The invasion of a sovereign UN country and its subsequent dismantlement is GENOCIDE.
“Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Such an act is also a violation of the UN Charter:
“Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.(…)
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
==
The amount of money sunk into this albatross is not the issue, nor is the amount of blood spilled. Indeed, the amount of blood spilled on the Iraqi side is EXACTLY why the US cannot be allowed to keep those bases.
If Bush falls from power, those bases are toast. That’s the conundrum of Bush’s move, and hiding from it –as most of the blogosphere is doing, committedly (as with the vote-fraud)– is counterproductive in confronting its MANIFEST CRIMINALITY.
What Constitution can stand when the ARTICLE 1 Sec 3 impeachment powers are unavailable, and Article VI rule of law is out the window?
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
Even if some vague theory of war powers is trumped up, the Constiution does not give a president the right to torture, to break the UN charter, to dismantle countries under the UN charter, to commit genocide (even if it is to install golf-courses next to BIG airfields), to destroy cultural property in contravention of the Hague Conventions, to commit inumerable Geneva Convention abrogations, etc.
So, no — the US cannot keep those airbases, except through THIS OLIGARCHY, which is unconstituted. So the “US” as a constitutional entity does not support the argument.
March 25th, 2006 at 4:47 amWould that it were that simple, Congresswoman
But George Bush ignores laws he doesn’t like.
Carolyn Kay
March 25th, 2006 at 5:31 amMakeThemAccountable.com
#34 “4) Even if congress did all that, the president has inherent powers to protect the US and so can take actions as needed even if congress wants to un-constutionally try to limit these powers.”
The president has war-making powers up to a point. He’s not a king. We fought the Revolutionary War specifically to get away from having a single person making up rules as he went along. It is Congress’s job, under the Constitution, to have the FINAL SAY on the execution of war.
We are a nation of laws, not of people. The immediate post 9/11 emergency is over. Any rationale Bush may have had for overstepping his legal mandates have been overtaken by events. The continuing hysteria about terrorism is garbage to enrich an elite segment of society.
March 25th, 2006 at 8:21 amPS: I forgot to add that Congress has been a huge failure on this whole thing. Single-party Republican rule has given us record spending, debt and deficits and allowed the president to break the law at will.
Now the last line of defence against totalitarianism — the judiciary — is under assault.
We’re seeing history being made before our eyes. Just not the good kind.
March 25th, 2006 at 8:25 amWhether the country breaks apart or not, Bush will spend the money on whatever he wants. Ask the Katrina victims. That’s why the only solution is to IMPEACH HIM and to keep impeaching until you’ve gotten to someone who has at least a passing knowledge of the Constitution.
March 25th, 2006 at 9:07 amyeah, but Bush has made it clear with his actions (war, NSA, etc.) that he doesn’t care what Congress thinks… he’s out of control and won’t be reined in unless he’s impeached…
March 25th, 2006 at 9:26 amBush will build bases over there, and his rationale for going around the Congress will be that they are not “permanent” (just indefinite – like the war)
March 25th, 2006 at 9:27 amNo bases? Too late losers they are already there and they will stay as long as Iraq needs us. How long will that be? We’ll let you know.
March 25th, 2006 at 10:08 amWhile differences exist over how and when we should leave Iraq, we should all agree that U.S. forces should not be in Iraq forever. The House is now on record as supporting that position. Unfortunately, the administration’s position is unclear.
The woman is an idiot. “Ohh, ohhh…I have an amendment! Let’s say that the USA will not stay in Iraq forever, Huh? Can I get an Amen?
Hey Barbara, Bush’s position is clear and has not changed since day one. We’ll leave when Iraq is firmly standing on their own feet and that is the position of the congress as well. The fact is and you should know this as well as anyone, we’ll leave when the Islamist threat to our country and Israel is crushed in the Middle East. Can I get an Amen?
March 25th, 2006 at 10:16 amBarbara Lee, communist and traitor to her country? Dave Horowitz says yes. I agree.
Horowitz’s Notepad: An Enemy Within
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 19, 2001
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA LEE, Democrat of Berkeley, was the only member of Congress who refused to defend her country under attack. The Los Angeles Times calls Barbara Lee a “liberal” and compares her to “anti-war” dissenters of the past, most notably Jeanette Rankin who cast the lone vote in the U.S. Congress against America’s entry into the Second World War and said after Pearl Harbor, “As a woman I can’t go to war, and I refuse to send anyone else.” We are at war again, and it’s time to call things by their right names.
Barbara Lee is not an anti-war activist, she is an anti-American communist who supports America’s enemies and has actively collaborated with them in their war against America.
I met Barbara Lee when she was working in city politics in Oakland. I met her in the penthouse headquarters of Huey Newton, the infamous “Minister of Defense” for the Black Panther Party. Newton was a gangster at war with America and Barbara Lee was his undercover agent in local government.
Barbara Lee later became a staffer in the office of Democrat congressman Ron Dellums. In this capacity she committed an act of betrayal that I am unable to describe as treason only because she was never prosecuted for it. At the time, Ron Dellums was the head of the House Sub-committee on Military Installations. In this capacity, he had top security clearance and carried on a one-man campaign to thwart the foreign policy of the United States in regard to the Communist dictatorship of Grenada.
U.S. security officials had identified the Communist dictatorship as a threat because of the presence of large numbers of Soviet bloc advisers and their ongoing construction of an airport that could be used for Soviet military planes. As the ranking Democrat member of the House Armed Services Committee, Dellums went to Grenada to conduct his own fact-finding tour. On his return he testified before the House Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs that “based on my personal observations, discussion and analysis of the new international airport under construction in Grenada, it is my conclusion that this project is specifically now and has always been for the purpose of economic development and is not for military use…. It is my thought that it is absurd, patronizing and totally unwarranted for the United States Government to charge that this airport poses a military threat to the United States’ national security.”
What legislators did not know at the time was that Dellums had previously submitted his report on the airport to the Communist dictator of Grenada for his prior approval, and subject to any changes he or his military advisers chose to make. In other words, Dellums acted as an agent of the Communist enemy in abetting his hostile designs against the United States. His emissary in this act of betrayal was Barbara Lee.
We know this from government documents retrieved by US marines after Grenada was liberated by U.S. forces. One document was a love-letter from Dellums’ chief of staff, Carlottia Scott (recent political issues director of the Demcoratic National Committee) to the Grenadian dictator himself, Maurice Bishop. In the letter Carlottia Scott wrote: “Ron [Dellums] has become truly committed to Grenada, and has some positive political thinking to share with you…. He’s really hooked on you and Grenada and doesn’t want anything to happen to building the Revolution and making it strong. He really admires you as a person and even more so as a leader with courage and foresight, principles and integrity…. The only other person that I know of that he expresses such admiration for is Fidel.”
Another document liberated by the marines contained the minutes of a Politburo meeting attended by the Communist dictator and his military command. “Barbara Lee is here presently and has brought with her a report on the international airport that was done by Ron Dellums. They have requested that we look at the document and suggest any changes we deem necessary. They will be willing to make the changes.”
If this is not treason, what is?
——————————————————————————–
David Horowitz is the author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son, which has been described as “the first great autobiography of his generation,†and which chronicles his odyssey from radical activism to the current positions he holds
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4520
March 25th, 2006 at 10:23 amwe’ll leave when the Islamist threat to our country and Israel is crushed in the Middle East. Can I get an Amen?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — March 25, 2006 @ 10:16 am
Isn’t shurch tommorrow?
So then, we’ll leave Iraq never? I mean, there is no such thing as security… There will always be risks in life, no matter how many bombs you build or armies you train. Life isn’t guranteed anything for anyone. Maybe that’s why you’re frustrated. You’re looking for something that doesn’t, and won’t, happen.
March 25th, 2006 at 10:27 amWe are still in Europe aren’t we? Korea? This country has no choice but to be the police of the world. There is no one else to do it and if we stop the first place the bad guys will strike is here. That’s the way it is.
March 25th, 2006 at 10:55 amNotlong before Europe boots you out – dont worry about us
March 25th, 2006 at 11:06 amat least we dont have 22,000 russian nuclear bombs pointed at Europe and 5500 ready to launch straight away at America, never mind 500 Cinese NB pointesd at America
you only have 21,000 in totla and 6000 ready to launch
Done forget the 300 Rucksack nuclear Bombs unacounted for in America already ,
March 25th, 2006 at 11:08 amThat’s the way it is.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — March 25, 2006 @ 10:55 am
How do you know?
March 25th, 2006 at 11:16 amNotlong before Europe boots you out – dont worry about us
Comment by Monkey Knut Wrench — March 25, 2006 @ 11:06 am
With alcoholics it’s called Tough Love. Stop being co-dependent in assisting them with their self-destruction. It’s probably a long over due intervention. Sad.
I travel the world announcing that I am an American. I want people out there to know that not all of us are egocentric capitalists. My friends think I’m crazy. I think they are wimps. Those of us who oppose the direction ofour country should be vocal and pro-active. Especially now while we are still fighting with ballots and not bullets.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:20 amHow do you know?
Comment by unbelievable
Exhibit A
What a world without U.S. power looks like.
Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
At places like Davos and Harvard, the world’s sages rarely stop fretting about the dangers of a too powerful America. Well, if you want to know what the world looks like without U.S. leadership, Exhibit A is Darfur in Sudan.
Today’s leading authority on Darfur is the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who prophesied a world “nasty, brutish and short.” At least 200,000 civilians have been killed in the past three years and two million more have become refugees. The source of the problem is the Arab rulers in Khartoum, who have pursued an ethnic cleansing campaign against black Muslims in western Sudan. They’ve equipped the Janjaweed Arab tribesmen to do the dirty work, and that militia is now attacking civilians across the border in Chad, creating 20,000 more refugees.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008130
March 25th, 2006 at 11:21 amThe bases being built in Iraq are there for only one reason – to enrich Halliburton and, by the way, Dick Cheney. If the US leaves Iraq in late January 2009, Cheney will not give a damn. The money will have already been spent.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:24 amOh boy, our (not so) favorite SPecial Olympics athlete came to play “I know politics” again.
So, little retarded boy, you personally are going to let all of America know when they can leave Iraq? Apparently, you aren’t aware of how democracy and patriotism works.
You better get your Red Rider out of your rear window, because the patriots are going to come for you and make you a citizen of the great country or they will make you shut the helll up indefinitely.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:36 amThe bases being built in Iraq are there for only one reason – to enrich Halliburton and, by the way, Dick Cheney. If the US leaves Iraq in late January 2009, Cheney will not give a damn. The money will have already been spent.
Comment by WaltTheMan
Don’t you losers ever get tired of “No Blood for Oil!”?
March 25th, 2006 at 11:43 amOur little retarded friend is not aware of how the United States government works. SO, to rehash what somebody posting at a political blog should know: Congress is made up of two parts. One being the Senate and the other being the House of Representatives.
“Last Tuesday, the House took an important first step regarding the war in Iraq. It voted in favor of an important amendment to the Iraq supplemental spending bill that I introduced…
I’m pleased to say that the House unanimously approved this amendment.”
Unanimous is a word that means “All of.” Meaning all of the 432 House Representatives voted for the amdendment stating that the US would not build permanent bases in Iraq. They are being built, but aren’t done.
SO, my little retarded friend, you are completely wrong on this one. The patriots of the United States of America are taking our country back. There isn’t anyone here that buys your moronic babble and I am sure that if Barbara Lee reads anything you say, it will be viewed as nothing more than another right wing whacko posting on a left wing site. Moron.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:46 amYou better get your Red Rider out of your rear window, because the patriots are going to come for you and make you a citizen of the great country or they will make you shut the helll up indefinitely.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Hi Spudge, how’s it hanging? What patriots are you talking about? The ones with lattes sandals and dope? The ones that look and act like women? Yeah…phffffft.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:47 amDo you ever get tired of being wrong 100% of the time?
March 25th, 2006 at 11:47 amMcCarthyism all over again.
You should watch Goodnight and Good Luck I-RIGHT-I and you will take a trip back to the future.
The similarities are uncanny.
Problem is people are smarter now or we would all have bomb shelters like yours.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:49 amBarbara Lee reads anything you say, it will be viewed as nothing more than another right wing whacko posting on a left wing site. Moron.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Barbara knows she’s a marxist traitor and she doesn’t even bother to deny it or hide it. She’s safe for now but when the SHTF she’ll head straight for Cuba.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:50 amMcCarthyism all over again.
You should watch Goodnight and Good Luck I-RIGHT-I and you will take a trip back to the future.
The similarities are uncanny.
Problem is people are smarter now or we would all have bomb shelters like yours.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
McCarthy was right. Too bad he wasn’t smarter. Milliions have died because McCarthy failed.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:51 amYou still think that democrats and liberaals are hippies and tree huggers. You keep on thinking that. You under estimate your enemy, just like Bush did in Iraq. It won’t be a cake walk for you. Some of us are very well trained. BECAUSE UNLIKE YOUR CHICKEN SHIT ASS, WE SERVE IN THE MILITARY.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:51 amWell, at least you are man enough to admit you like that sorry sack of shit.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:52 amOh yeah, I forgot to mention we are fighting the terrorists, not the communists. Get youo historical era right. You are living in the ’50s dude. See, that is where progressive comes from. You dumbasses have progressed out of the middle last century.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:54 amOf course that should be “haven’t progressed”
March 25th, 2006 at 12:01 pmOh yeah, I forgot to mention we are fighting the terrorists, not the communists. Get youo historical era right.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Wanna bet?
Iraq Document CMPC-2003-001950 which recounts the information provided by the Russian Ambassador to Saddam Hussein. Point numbers 3 to 5 in the document say:
3- During the meeting the ambassador gave us the following information about the US military presence in the Gulf as per the 2nd of March:
Number of troops: 206,500 out of which 98,000 naval forces and 36,500 infantry. 90% of theses forces are in Kuwait and on the Navy ships. [emphasis mine]
US troops have reached the island of Bubiyan (Bubiyan is largest Kuwaiti island in the Kuwaiti coastal islands chain)
Number of tanks: 480 Number of armored cars: 1132 Number of artillery: 296 Number of Apache helicopters : 735 Number of fighter planes: 871 Number of Navy ships: 106. 68 in the Gulf and the rest in Oman (State of Oman), Aden (Yemen), the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Number of air carriers: 5. One nuclear powered. Three in the Gulf one in the Mediterranean and one on its way. Number of Cruise missiles: 583 based on the US Navy and distributed on 22 ships. Number of Cruise missiles on planes: 64 Number of heavy bombers B-52 H: 10 in the Indian Ocean. Number of B1-B: 8 present in the US base of Thumarid in Oman.
4- The ambassador pointed that what worried us (most probably “us†refers to the Russians) was the increase in the number of planes in Jordan where the number of planes in Al Sallt base was as follows: 24 planes F-16 10 planes Tornado 11 planes Harrier He also mentioned that there were 10 A-10 tank destroyers in the Jordanian base of King Faysal.
5- The ambassador also pointed that a certain number of the 82nd Division (82nd Airborne) which was deployed in Afghanistan started coming to Kuwait. The number of troops has reached 750 soldiers.
Some or most of the information on the US order of battle must have come from Russian intelligence sources. The tally of US Naval units for example, or the count of B52-Hs in the Indian Ocean would most likely have been obtained by technical means like satellite surveillance or naval sensors. But the curious thing about the order of battle given to Saddam on March 2 is that the 4ID does appear in it at all. It was potentially the most dangerously placed American unit of all and the most powerful. Yet the Russian ambassador treats the 4ID as if didn’t exist.
A contemporaneous account from the New York Times describes what happened the day before the Russian Ambassador provided his order of battle to Saddam.
Turkish Parliament Refuses to Accept G.I.’s in Blow to Bush, By Dexter Filkins, New York Times — ANKARA, Turkey, March 1 – The Turkish Parliament today dealt a major setback to the Bush administration’s plans for a northern front against Iraq, narrowly rejecting a measure that would have allowed thousands of American combat troops to use the country as a base for an attack. … The final tally was 264 to 251, with 19 abstentions …
Even before the vote, American officials signaled that they were confident that American forces would probably be allowed to stage through Turkey. When asked on Friday whether the Pentagon was past the point where it needed a definitive answer from the Turks, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “No.” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld added, “We’ll be all right.” Pentagon officials have said that Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has backup plans for moving American forces into northern Iraq. “General Franks, as we speak, is looking at lots of options,” General Myers said on Friday.
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/
March 25th, 2006 at 12:31 pmOf course that should be “haven’t progressedâ€
Comment by Spudge_Boy
By the way; “Progressive” is just another name for “Commie Fucktard Without a Gun”.
March 25th, 2006 at 12:32 pmSo, the Russians are back to being communists? I thought your exaulted Ronald Reagan fixed that. Do you mean they are communists because Vladmir Putan keeps grabbing more and more power. You know like George W. Bush. Is Bush a communist? He fits your mold.
Get outta the ’50s. It is 2006.
Are you walking upright yet.
You are really good at copying and pasting. Got an original thought in the head or is your crainium not large enough yet?
March 25th, 2006 at 1:02 pmOnce again, under estimating your enemy. Same thing Bush did, same reason we are not winning in Iraq, smae reason you won’t win here in America.
Keep telling yourself that all Democrats and Liberals are tree hugging, pot smoking, hippies. I relish the fact that you will be ill prepared when your time comes.
March 25th, 2006 at 1:03 pmI-R-I you are full of crap as usual! Rep. Barbara Lee is a friend of mine and she is NOT a Communist! She is one of the better Representatives for California
March 25th, 2006 at 1:16 pmKeep telling yourself that all Democrats and Liberals are tree hugging, pot smoking, hippies. I relish the fact that you will be ill prepared when your time comes.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
So in other words you’re not a “Progressive”?
I was a Boy Scout, I’m never ill prepared. In fact I’m going shopping for a new carry gun right now. Fun place to shop, check out the link.
http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/
March 25th, 2006 at 1:26 pmI-R-I you are full of crap as usual! Rep. Barbara Lee is a friend of mine and she is NOT a Communist! She is one of the better Representatives for California
Comment by Jay Randal
Sucker
March 25th, 2006 at 1:26 pmThey sure are “permissive”, the Administrators of this site; me, I’d have no problem whatsoever removing posts that are nothing but chatroom-style bickering that cluttering up the comments thread (multiple, multiple, and more posts some more…)
Got something to say, a comment on the item? Post it, and be happy.
Need to bicker and insult and rant (multiple, multiple, and more rants some more…) and chat? Exchange phone numbers, and do it on your own dime; meet up somewhere, and sputter at one another, on your own time.
Me, I wish I were the Administrator of these comment threads; I’d pare em back like a fruit tree, I’d gut em like a fish.
(I’d remove the insults and slander too, against the President or anyone else, doesn’t matter, it’s the same difference.)
March 25th, 2006 at 1:44 pmI have never said on these boards that I am one thing or another.
That is why your pigeon holing never works. Here’s another shocker for you. I support the death penalty. I am highly trained and I own a gun. But, I am not a republican or a democrat. Clinton did a lot of fucked up shit, but nowhere near your boy Bush. Not even close.
I do not support lies, deception, cheating or stealing. Your buddy Bush is the worst kind of human being. I was a boy scout too. Do you remember.
A Boy Scout is:
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Curtious
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean and
Reverant
I sure do. Bush is breaking a lot of those. He was never a boy scout.
He was also never regular army, just like you. Pussy.
March 25th, 2006 at 1:52 pmThen Think Progress would be just like RedState.org. A blog with few comments and no traffic.
Bad idea.
March 25th, 2006 at 1:54 pmSo it’s more strategic for us to have bases in Germany, Korea, Japan, and many other places, but not Iraq? Why? Because Osama bin Laden says so?
Are we occupying all the countries I just mentioned? If not, how would we be occupying Iraq by having bases there in the future?
If the Iraqi government wants us to have bases there to protect them, just as we did in Germany, Korea, and Japan… why should we deny them that? Why shouldn’t we have a base in the most strategic location in our war against radical Islam?
I’m looking for some answers, and I’m afraid Barbara Lee doesn’t have any.
March 25th, 2006 at 2:28 pmFirst of all attacking Iraq was ilegal. It was not backed by the UN.
Second, we have/had bases in Germany, Japan and Korea because the international community wanted that.
March 25th, 2006 at 2:43 pmThe reason that American troops were originally stationed in Europe, Japan and Korea was to act as targets should China, the Soviet Union or North Korea attack one of those areas. That would insure that any attack would be tantamount to an attack on the United States. The forces in Europe are really not needed, but the US has enough invested in bases there to maintain a presence. The same strategy in an Islamic country does not really make sense as the fastest route to Heaven and scores of virgins (The gals must get macho cherries.) is martyrdom.
March 25th, 2006 at 2:52 pmSpudge,
The attack on Kosovo was not back by the UN, either. Was that illegal? Did Clinton conduct an illegal act of war? The attack on Iraq in 1998 was not backed by the UN. Was that illegal? Did Clinton conduct an illegal act of war? JFK sent Americans to Vietnam, which was not backed by the UN. Was that illegal? Did JFK start an illegal war?
The UN has never approved the removal of any regime in their history. What makes you think they would with Iraq, much less Milosevic, or anywhere else? The countries that disapproved of the war in the Security Council were all bribed by Saddam Hussein. France and Russia were knee-deep in bribes and corruption with Iraq, Germany is tied at the hip with France due to the EU, Turkey kneeled for France and Germany since they want to be in the EU, and no Muslim nations were going to approve the removal of the regime of a Muslim nation.
With all that in mind, is approval of the UN Security Council in this instance meaningful? Would the Security Council reflect the right thing to do, or would it reflect the national interests of those on the Council?
Let me know how you feel when Russia and China stop the UN from taking action against a nuclear Iran. Or North Korea.
Oh, and the international community was not consulted in regards to the bases in all those countries. They were set up because the United States wanted to. If the Iraqi government wants US bases in their country, the international community has no right to tell them that they cannot do this.
This is a double standard, mostly because countries like Germany live off of providing services to the American troops stationed there, and actually objected to us pulling out due to exactly that.
You can’t claim we are occupying Iraq by having bases there, while at the same time ignoring that we have bases in many other countries, which are not described as “occupation”. That’s just propaganda talking, not the truth.
March 25th, 2006 at 3:11 pmYes it was.
March 25th, 2006 at 3:14 pmDude, you need to get more informed. Not only will Russia and China block us in the UN. They are preparing to fight us.
BBC
August 18, 2005
China-Russia war games under way
Wanna know what I think. I think Bush is way over his head and isn’t listening to reason, which may catapult us ALL into World War III.
It would help if Bush had a military background. And no, I don’t consider the Texas Air National Gaurd as a military background.
I was in the military during Desert storm. I have more military training in my little finger than Bush ever will have in his entire body.
March 25th, 2006 at 3:20 pmAlso, I forgot:
Nice job with the Clinton thing. Since you are new here, I will let you in on something that isn’t a secret. I am not a fan of Clinton either, so that type of arguement just makes you a troll.
March 25th, 2006 at 3:21 pmGreat job Barbara.
You definitely reinforced why I submitted a request to work for you following college graduation. You represent Oakland and the greater Bay Area with such class and esteem. I only wish you were my representative, and not Richard Pombo…
Comment by Matt O. —
Matt,
March 25th, 2006 at 6:02 pmI hope you are doing your best to see that Mr. Sell-Out-the-Environment Pombo loses this November.
At least 200,000 civilians have been killed in the past three years and two million more have become refugees. The source of the problem is the Arab rulers in Khartoum, who have pursued an ethnic cleansing campaign against black Muslims in western Sudan. They’ve equipped the Janjaweed Arab tribesmen to do the dirty work, and that militia is now attacking civilians across the border in Chad, creating 20,000 more refugees.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/ feature.html?id=110008130
Comment by I-RIGHT-I —
I-WRONG-I,
March 25th, 2006 at 6:11 pmFor once you are at least partially right about something. Yes, Muslim militias have been killing non-Arab (ie. Black) civilians in Sudan for a couple of years and more recently in neighboring Chad, too. But while this massacre has been well documented, the Bush administration has done next-to-nothing about this. Could it be because Sudan and Chad have no oil or important energy reserves for Halliburton to plunder?
Oh, and if this administration’s latest excuse for going into Iraq (since no WMDs were found) is that Saddam was an evil dictator who murdered his people, why hasn’t the US struck North Korea, also led by an evil dictator who murders his people and who even boasts of the country’s nuclear capacities? Could it be because North Korea has no important resources to plunder?
Are there gonna be bases in Iraq or not? Inquiring minds wanna know…
March 25th, 2006 at 6:16 pmhttp://www.canofun.com/cof/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=17992&mid=104565#M104565
“The attack on Kosovo was not back by the UN, either. Was that illegal?”
The Kosovo mission was NOTHING like the invasion of Iraq. There was an active genocide underway in that country. The bombing mission is credited with saving 150,000 lives. No such claim can be made for the Iraq invasion. It is also not demonstrable that Bill Clinton MADE A PENNY on the Kosovo mission, compared to Bush-Cheney making MILLIONS, AND MILLIONS FOR THEIR CAMPAIGN BACKERS.
Also, Bill Clinton was ACTUALLY ELECTED. Bush has stolen every federal election he’s had.
He has also violated more than FIFTEEN MAJOR FEDERAL LAWS, including such things as LYING THE COUNTRY INTO WAR (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States), which is not what Clinton did EVER.
“Did Clinton conduct an illegal act of war? The attack on Iraq in 1998 was not backed by the UN. Was that illegal?”
Desert Fox was in part the RESULT of the CIA ILLEGALLY INFILTRATING THE UN INSPECTORS WITH US SPIES. That was a violation of the UN Charter,.
“Did Clinton conduct an illegal act of war? JFK sent Americans to Vietnam, which was not backed by the UN. Was that illegal? Did JFK start an illegal war?”
Did either Clinton or JFK make a single cent on those actions? Did either LIE to the US about those actions? Did either LIE to the Congress about those actions? NO. No comparison to the Bush illegal invasion, which has at its root a totally illegal plan to install permanent airbases in a dismantled Iraq.
“The UN has never approved the removal of any regime in their history.”
That’s correct, because regime change by force is ILLEGAL under its charter. Bush himself, and his puppet Colin Powell, LIED REPEATEDLY THAT REGIME CHANGE WAS NOT THE POLICY.
“The countries that disapproved of the war in the Security Council were all bribed by Saddam Hussein.”
MOOT, even if it were true. The illegal invasion of Iraq has committed GENOCIDE, which is illegal, has violated the Geneva and Hague accords, which is illegal, has violated the War Crimes Act, which is illegal, has violated the War Powers Act, which is illegal, and has violated the Torture Ban, both at the UN and our own federal law.
There is ZERO comparison of those multiple warcrimes and federal crimes in either Clinton or JFK’s term.
Bush Must Resign.
March 25th, 2006 at 7:25 pm#88 – Paul in LA,
March 25th, 2006 at 7:39 pmPaul, you’re close. The Bush family will reap millions from the war. Cheney’s heirs will reap billions. And by the bye, can you imagine an uglier, more greed driven soulless sub-human being?
#86 – I looked and looked but couldn’t find Lora’s name ANYWHERE on the petitions and letters urging former President Clinton to do something to stop the senseless slaughter in Rwanda. I guess President Clinton, “dubbed our first black President” couldn’t find any oil in THAT region. Hypocrite…
March 25th, 2006 at 7:54 pmFirst of all attacking Iraq was ilegal. It was not backed by the UN.
Comment by Spudge the French Guy
Guess what Spudge?…fuck the UN. You heard it here first..
By the way…there’s no such thing as International Law…if there were you’d be a practicing commiefucktard instead of just a stupid little kid brained numbnuts who thinks the only bad guys are the ones waving the American flag. Illegal? You idiot, grow a pair.
March 25th, 2006 at 7:56 pmThey sure are “permissiveâ€, the Administrators of this site; me, I’d have no problem whatsoever removing posts that are nothing but chatroom-style bickering that cluttering up the comments thread (multiple, multiple, and more posts some more…)
Me, I wish I were the Administrator of these comment threads; I’d pare em back like a fruit tree, I’d gut em like a fish.
(I’d remove the insults and slander too, against the President or anyone else, doesn’t matter, it’s the same difference.)
Comment by Dem02020
Fine, that’s how you’d do it. If you don’t like the way things work around here don’t let the door hit you in the ass. Dipshit.
March 25th, 2006 at 7:58 pmI-WRONG-I,
For once you are at least partially right about something. Yes, Muslim militias have been killing non-Arab (ie. Black) civilians in Sudan for a couple of years and more recently in neighboring Chad, too.
News flash baby…they’ve been murdering people by the train load since Mohammed got his first sword. That’s about 1500 years now.
But while this massacre has been well documented, the Bush administration has done next-to-nothing about this. Could it be because Sudan and Chad have no oil or important energy reserves for Halliburton to plunder?
Comment by Lora
Well Sweetheart let me just say this about that. Like I said the Muslim headchopper have been killing millions of people for over a thousand years. The ones you’re talking about started dying sometime during Abe Lincoln’s term in office or even before. WTF? Is everything George’s fault?
Like I tode you on the other thread…you need a history lesson or two. You probably need to get laid as well. Good luck with that.
March 25th, 2006 at 8:06 pm“By the way…there’s no such thing as International Law”
That’s hilarious. What do you call TREATIES?
Article VI of the United States Constitution “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.”
Apparently you are a KNOW-NOTHING, like most of your other anti-immigrant sods.
Your bigotry is only matched by your ignorance. And since you despise our Constitution, how is it again that you are a patriot?
March 25th, 2006 at 8:11 pmPermissive???? I thought progs LOVED “permissive” – or was it promiscuous??
If you really want a peek at the “progressive” legal geniuses behind so much of the impeachment talk and anti-American diatribe go to http://www.ccr-ny.org:
“The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Gotta love that radical Bill Kunsler and friends!!!! Universal Declaration of Human Rights?? ONE-Worlders, unite!!!
March 25th, 2006 at 8:15 pmSpudgeMAN – I don’t Pledge Allegance to the International Community…do you??
March 25th, 2006 at 8:17 pmiri,
March 25th, 2006 at 8:22 pmWhat’s a tode? Are you still on the Green Chartreuse? should we call up the recycling team to pick up the bottles?
Paul – A treaty as defined in the Constitution is an agreement agreed to DOMESTICALLY. They don’t vote on US treaty acceptance or rejection in France – THANK GOD!
March 25th, 2006 at 8:24 pmWalt are you still stretching your check with “Ripple” and “Thunderbird”? I apologize – Mr. Aphrodite said Walt seemed like a French-loving Chartreuse “man”.
March 25th, 2006 at 8:27 pm#86 – I looked and looked but couldn’t find Lora’s name ANYWHERE on the petitions and letters urging former President Clinton to do something to stop the senseless slaughter in Rwanda. I guess President Clinton, “dubbed our first black President†couldn’t find any oil in THAT region. Hypocrite…
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Mighty Hypocrite,
March 25th, 2006 at 8:34 pmPerhaps that was because I was out of the US at the time and such petitions didn’t reach me easily before the Internet became prevalent. And is your real name–whatever it may be–on any of them?
“Keep telling yourself that all Democrats and Liberals are tree hugging, pot smoking, hippies. I relish the fact that you will be ill prepared when your time comes.”
Comment by SpudgeMAN
****SpudgeMAN, you left out “UN worshipping, old Birkenstock wearing, terrorist defending radicals” – Have you noticed: EVERYTHING negative about our imperfect country is relished by the progs? EVERY allegation by some left-wing ideologue is taken for Gospel?- sorry atheists….
March 25th, 2006 at 8:35 pmOh HypoLora – excuses…excuses…I’m sure they had CNN in Tibet or Italy or wherever you were. (Except, of course if you were inoculating orphans in Chad…) But the real POINT is: our former President did NOTHING to help those poor people being slaughtered – no OIL???????
March 25th, 2006 at 8:41 pmLike I said the Muslim headchopper have been killing millions of people for over a thousand years. The ones you’re talking about started dying sometime during Abe Lincoln’s term in office or even before. WTF? Is everything George’s fault?
Like I tode you on the other thread…you need a history lesson or two. You probably need to get laid as well. Good luck with that.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I —
I-WRONG-I,
March 25th, 2006 at 8:43 pmI haven’t blamed everything going wrong in Sudan and Chad on Dumbya. I asked why his administration has done nothing about it. You didn’t offer an answer.
If I need a history lesson, you most definitely need a spelling (”tode”?!) and grammar lesson before we even get into history.
And incidentally, I have a husband. Thank you for your concern.
Like I tode you on the other thread…you need a history lesson or two. You probably need to get laid as well. Good luck with that.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — March 25, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
Actually, you’re speaking about yourself again… :)
March 25th, 2006 at 8:47 pmI’m sure they had CNN in Tibet or Italy or wherever you were.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Mighty Hypocrite,
March 25th, 2006 at 8:48 pmI didn’t say that I couldn’t watch CNN; I said that such petitions didn’t reach me. There’s a difference even if your little brain can’t think that far. And did you sign any such petitions?
PS. Mighty Hypocrite,
March 25th, 2006 at 8:52 pmBill Clinton didn’t go about invading an oil-rich country on false pretexts, either.
I guess starting your own petition would be asking toooo much. But we know your “concern” was “heartfelt” if not REAL.
March 25th, 2006 at 8:52 pmMighty Hypocrite,
March 25th, 2006 at 8:55 pmAnd did you sign such a petition–let alone start one?
Mighty Hypocrite,
And did you sign such a petition–let alone start one?
Comment by Lora — March 25, 2006 @ 8:55 pm
In all her spare time.?
My friends with two chidlren barely have time to send out holiday email updates, much less hold full-yime careers as attorneys, with twice as many children, while spending hours in a liberal website.
Who else in here has four kids and a job that requires 60+ hours per week? Anyone? Didn’t think so.
March 25th, 2006 at 9:10 pmBut we know your “concern†was “heartfelt†if not REAL.
Comment by mighty aphrodite —
Mighty Hypocrite,
March 25th, 2006 at 9:35 pmIncidentally, I did send a check to an organization working with refugees in Rwanda; I think that showed “real” concern. And how about you?
By the way, this started on why Bush has done nothing about the well-documented massacre in Sudan and Chad. Dumbya has been president for over 5 years already. You cons (and I do mean “cons”) can’t go on forever blaming everything wrong in the US today on Clinton. I almost think you people are going to have to let a Democrat win again soon just so that you will have someone new to blame thereafter.
It’s like something out of a 1950s/mormon propaganda film. (s)he’s really just kinda creepy.
Comment by Ryan Neat — March 25, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
That’s funny Ryan… :)
I guess she thinks that we don’t know any lawyers. Or mothers. Silly little troll.
March 25th, 2006 at 9:40 pmI almost think you people are going to have to let a Democrat win again soon just so that you will have someone new to blame thereafter.
Comment by Lora — March 25, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
That’s funny too. You guys are on a roll tonight…
March 25th, 2006 at 9:43 pmI guess she thinks that we don’t know any lawyers. Or mothers. Silly little troll.
Comment by unbelievable
To unbelievable,
March 25th, 2006 at 9:53 pmIt’s a matter of debate whether we should be calling Mighty Hypocrite a “she.”
It’s a matter of debate whether we should be calling Mighty Hypocrite a “she.â€
Comment by Lora — March 25, 2006 @ 9:53 pm
Yeah, but considering everything ‘he’ says is a lie, I figured calling him a her was at least humane :)
March 25th, 2006 at 10:05 pmIt beats the hell out of me why all you good folks keep responding to the scum trolls.
By the way, Uncle Buck, one of the Bush clan just sold his firm which has been living off the government since Iraq started. Made a mint.
Being a bushturd is nice work if you can steal enough elections.
And Mama Babs made a donation, not to the Katrina victims, but to her OWN SON.She is a thoughtful, warm, wonderful person, dont you think?
March 25th, 2006 at 10:06 pmWith all of the money that his firms are raking in Cheney will be laughing all the way to the grave. Why?
March 25th, 2006 at 10:57 pm“Paul – A treaty as defined in the Constitution is an agreement agreed to DOMESTICALLY.”
Really. Quote the article in the Constitution that says that.
They don’t vote on US treaty acceptance or rejection in France – THANK GOD!” –mighty aphrodite
Wow, what an eye opener. No, afro, Right-I claimed there was no such thing as international law. Are you as stupid as him?
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…ALL EXECUTIVE and judicial OFFICERS, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”
Treaties, once ratified by the Senate, are THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, which ALL EXECUTIVES are BOUND BY OATH to uphold as “the supreme law of the land.”
There’s NOTHING in the Constitution that says that the Executive, because of war powers, is entitled to pick and choose the laws he follows.
Curse you people to hell for harming the Constitution — first, for impeaching Clinton over trivial causes, refusing to impeach Bush for major crimes with 100,000 people dead as a result, and then going along with his claim on an absolute power above the Constitution. Damn you to hell.
March 26th, 2006 at 1:33 amOPEN QUESTION; Since when did THIS administration pay ANY attention to the will of Congress?
March 26th, 2006 at 6:16 amBTW- IRI told Spudge to grow a pair; That’s REALLY rich coming from one who has NO BALLS himself. IF IRI had ANY balls he’d join the army himself. IRI suffers from penis envy.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:37 amSpudge Boy,
The attack on Kosovo was sanctioned by the UN? Really? Can you point out to me the UN resolution allowing the use of force in Kosovo? Bzzzt. Wrong. I simply talked about Clinton for comparison, and it seems you already fell into the trap I set for you. Kosovo was no more legal than the Iraq war was, yet you think it was.
Paul in LA,
1. You dodged actually admitting that the Kosovo campaign was every bit as illegal as the Iraq war. I’m not sure how you can compare the mass-murderings of Milosevic to the decades long genocide that Saddam Hussein was guilty of, but whatever you have to do to reinforce your view that one of them was correct, while the other was not.
2. Standard off-topic tangent about Bush stealing elections. I was there in 2000 hoping Gore was going to come out on top. He didn’t. Deal with it. I did.
3. Bush has violated fifteen federal laws? Well gosh, the Democrats better get busy on the Hill proposing impeachment then shouldn’t they? Take Bush to court. I don’t care. You’ll probably nail him on something, but it will be just as inconsequential as what the Republicans did to Clinton. In the end, it’s all a partisan political charade.
4. So the CIA violated the UN Charter by infiltrating UNSCOM on Clinton’s watch? Gosh, which part of the UN Charter would that be? Does that mean we should blame Clinton for that, just like you blame every single action by every single CIA agent and military soldier on Bush? Don’t let that double standard hit you on the way out. Oh, and nice dodge, by the way. The attack on Iraq in 1998 was also “illegal”. Can’t bring yourself to admit it can you? In fact, Russia blasted the Clinton administration for being “unilateral” back then in the UN. Ah, how things change…
5. “Did either Clinton or JFK make a single cent on those actions? Did either LIE to the US about those actions? Did either LIE to the Congress about those actions? NO. No comparison to the Bush illegal invasion, which has at its root a totally illegal plan to install permanent airbases in a dismantled Iraq.”
Uh, yes. Clinton and JFK did lie. Let’s pretend that you can prove that Bush is making any money off this war. Now, does that in itself make the war wrong? Is installing permanent bases in Iraq really all that foolish considering the current world situation? Think about it, instead of just leaning back on your partisan ideology.
6. That’s correct, because regime change by force is ILLEGAL under its charter.
Oh, so the Kosovo invasion to remove Milosevic from power was illegal? Gosh how things change during the flow of your argument.
7. MOOT, even if it were true. The illegal invasion of Iraq has committed GENOCIDE, which is illegal, has violated the Geneva and Hague accords, which is illegal, has violated the War Crimes Act, which is illegal, has violated the War Powers Act, which is illegal, and has violated the Torture Ban, both at the UN and our own federal law.
I’m glad you didn’t deny this outright, shows you at least have some capacity for reflected thought. However, how is it moot? The entire reason the war is illegal is because the Security Council did not approve of it. Directly associated with this is the fact that many of the members on that council were bribed and bought off by Saddam Hussein. In other words, Saddam Hussein bribed them to make the war illegal. Yet you say that is moot??
As for your ridiculous use of the word genocide, open a dictionary, please.
Yes, US soldiers have violated the Geneva Conventions. So has the international news media. It’s a war, shit happens. Just like there are criminals in every peaceful society on the face of the Earth, there are criminals among our military forces in Iraq. Pointing that out is like smearing the entire USA for the actions of a few criminals within the USA. Same goes for the other things you mentioned.
8. There is ZERO comparison of those multiple warcrimes and federal crimes in either Clinton or JFK’s term.
Yeah, JFK’s illegal invasion of Cuba, his illegal involvement in Vietnam, wiretapping of Martin Luther King, and on, and on, and on. Clinton’s many illegal attacks on Iraq and actions in Kosovo. You know why there is ZERO comparison? Because none of the things JFK and Clinton did actually solved much of any problem. Kosovo is still a hell-hole under occupation by the UN – 7 years later. Vietnam, well, I think you know how that turned out. Cuba, well, I think you know how that turned out. With Iraq, we have already accomplished more than Clinton and JFK managed to do in their illegal actions, combined. The Bush administration has liberated 50 million people from oppression and given them at least a beginning of democracy and hope. What did JFK and Clinton do?
Oh, right. JFK and Clinton helped Americans, but not much of anyone else. I guess that’s why you like him. I’m more internationally and historically conscious.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:01 pmCurse you people to hell for harming the Constitution — first, for impeaching Clinton over trivial causes, refusing to impeach Bush for major crimes with 100,000 people dead as a result, and then going along with his claim on an absolute power above the Constitution. Damn you to hell.
Comment by Paul in LA —
Ha-ha!
March 26th, 2006 at 7:37 pmI-WRONG-I,
I haven’t blamed everything going wrong in Sudan and Chad on Dumbya. I asked why his administration has done nothing about it. You didn’t offer an answer.
Comment by Lora
It’s the European’s responsibility to clean up the mess. They’re the ones that made it. I think that’s been the position of every President since FDR. But the dirty fact of the matter is this; we’ve got our own Negro problem and sure don’t want to take on another one.
If I need a history lesson, you most definitely need a spelling (â€todeâ€?!) and grammar lesson before we even get into history.
Are you volunteering? That would be the blind leading the blind wouldn’t it?
And incidentally, I have a husband. Thank you for your concern.
That doesn’t mean you’re getting laid though does it?
March 27th, 2006 at 9:27 amtest
March 28th, 2006 at 3:31 am[...] As many lawmakers resist the administration’s plans to establish permanent bases in Iraq, the Pentagon is already spending millions of dollars to establish at least six “enduring bases” in Iraq. [...]
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:19 amhttp://geys-lessons.com – gay
April 14th, 2006 at 6:38 am[...] Earlier this year, the House passed an amendment offered by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) that similarly stated no funds should be used for permanent base construction. [...]
May 4th, 2006 at 12:15 pm[...] As ThinkProgress noted last month, the Senate acted to unanimously pass an amendment to the supplemental spending bill that clearly stated that none of the appropriated funds should be used for permanent base construction. In March, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) wrote on ThinkProgress that the House had unanimously accepted her amendment prohibiting permanent base construction. [...]
June 9th, 2006 at 6:25 pmЗдравÑтвуйте. Хочу поблагодарить за интереÑный Ñайт :)
November 17th, 2006 at 3:10 amполучил большое удовольÑтвие от поÑÐµÑ‰ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ :)
Ðамана, Ð´Ð»Ñ Ð½Ð°Ñ‡Ð°Ð»Ð° подойдет:)
November 26th, 2006 at 11:47 amÐамана, Ð´Ð»Ñ Ð½Ð°Ñ‡Ð°Ð»Ð° подойдет:)
December 14th, 2006 at 2:00 pmПрикольна!
December 14th, 2006 at 2:38 pmÐšÐ¾Ð¼Ð¿Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ “Ðртпром” – одна из лидеров в Ñфере ÑÐ¾Ð·Ð´Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ Ñайтов.
December 17th, 2006 at 9:27 amОтель Lordos Beach – ÑÐ»ÐµÐ³Ð°Ð½Ñ‚Ð½Ð°Ñ Ñ‡ÐµÑ‚Ñ‹Ñ€ÐµÑ…Ð·Ð²ÐµÐ·Ð´Ð¾Ñ‡Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð³Ð¾Ñтиница Ð¸Ð¼ÐµÐµÑŽÑ‰Ð°Ñ Ð¾Ñ‡ÐµÐ½ÑŒ хорошую репутацию Ñреди туриÑтов из многих Ñтран.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:56 amУх Ñ‚Ñ‹, правда очень интереÑно.
January 27th, 2007 at 5:32 am