FACT CHECK: Congress Has Repeatedly Placed Limits On Military Deployments And Funding
FACT CHECK: Congress Has Repeatedly Placed Limits On Military Deployments And Funding
Tomorrow night at 9 p.m. EST, President Bush will address the nation and announce an escalation of the war in Iraq by sending about 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq. Can Congress do anything about it?
Some members have claimed that anything other than symbolic action is unconstitutional. Legal scholars on both the left and the right say that’s false. History supports their case.
A new report from the Center for American Progress details how, over the last 35 years, Congress has passed bills, enacted into law, that capped the size of military deployments, prohibited funding for existing or prospective deployment, and placed limits and conditions on the timing and nature of deployments. Some examples:
December 1970. P.L. 91-652 — Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law. The Church-Cooper amendment prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S. troops to Cambodia or provide military advisors to Cambodian forces.
December 1974. P.L. 93-559 — Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. The Congress established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year.
June 1983. P.L. 98-43 — The Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983. The Congress required the president to return to seek statutory authorization if he sought to expand the size of the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force in Lebanon.
June 1984. P.L. 98-525 — The Defense Authorization Act. The Congress capped the end strength level of United States forces assigned to permanent duty in European NATO countries at 324,400.
November 1993. P.L. 103-139. The Congress limited the use of funding in Somalia for operations of U.S. military personnel only until March 31, 1994, permitting expenditure of funds for the mission thereafter only if the president sought and Congress provided specific authorization.
Read the full report for more examples.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
I would like to compliment Progs on their consistency. There has not been a war the US has been engaged in the last 40 years that Progs wanted to win. In that time period, there has not been an enemy they did not want to “understand”, apologize to or appease.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:51 pmU.S.A. Can Bomb Whomever it Wants To
STAY AT HOME you dont own the world or will you ever own the world
January 9th, 2007 at 12:53 pmBush/Cheney/Rove don’t regard history, for them this is a post 911 world and all history is off the table. It is the Bush way or the highway and Congress and everyone else be dammed.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:55 pmThis is why Biden and his big mouth worry me. Somebody put a sock in it.
Couldn’t he have delegated someone on his staff to research this quesion? he’s either too lazy or too arrogant–unless it’s his brain surgery. i swear, he’s always struck me as different since then, much quicker to shoot his mouth off when he doesn’t know what he’s saying.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:56 pmThis is absolutely true. The Congress has been able to cut funds (and has done so) many times.
To Mighty Aphrodite you little aphid, isn’t it time for your afternoon nap? What is it like to be a 12 percenter in your support for Chimpy and his hideous misadventure called Iraq?
Off topic, but is anybody else having trouble accessing Americablog today? What’s up?
January 9th, 2007 at 12:58 pmThere has not been a war the US has been engaged in the last 40 years that Progs wanted to win.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 9, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Support for Gulf War I and the war in Afghanistan was high among Democrats.
So shut up, liar.
I nominate MA as the most persistent liar at TP, and a solid contender for ugliest personality to boot.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:00 pmThanks for pointing these out. Now we can watch as Bush sidesteps another set of laws. And to think that the Repugnicans impeached Bill Clinton because of a blowjob. Wow, those religious whackos sure had their priorities turned around.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:01 pmThere has not been a war the US has been engaged in the last 40 years that Progs wanted to win.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 9, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Support for Gulf War I and the war in Afghanistan was high among Democrats.
So shut up, liar.
I nominate MA as the most persistent liar at TP, and a solid contender for ugliest personality to boot.
Comment by VerbalKint
Verbalkint - do you think MA really believes this stuff?
January 9th, 2007 at 1:04 pmIt is illegal for a President to try to declare war. Only Congress can do this. Congress has not done so. If after even 911 they STILL chose NOT to delcare war then they still maintain control of what is going on. The president is helpless to do any other thing without it being illegal. He MUST ask Congress to either declare war so he can do whatever he wants or he must follow the laws they pass…or else he must be impeached.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:04 pmI would like to compliment Progs on their consistency. There has not been a war the US has been engaged in the last 40 years that Progs wanted to win. In that time period, there has not been an enemy they did not want to “understandâ€, apologize to or appease.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Well when you are not fighting in self defense Americans generally consider it to be murder.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:05 pmOur good ole USofA has been engaging in extra-territorial imperialism and colonialism since 1898, when we defeated imperial Spain and took over then Spanish colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The people of the Philipines wanted to be free of all colonial powers, be they Spanish or American, but we slaughtered hundreds of thousands of them over several years, until they finally screamed “Uncle.”
Now we are engaged in an absurd debate as to whether a lying treasonous election-stealing thug can continue his war of fascist aggression against the Iraqi people or whether the U. S. Congress can put a halt to this misery…. As I recall, there is a line in our Constitution that states that “only Congress shall declare war” or words to that effect. Our Constitution says nothing about lying election-stealing traitorous Bush criminals declaring war.
Pull the rug out from under the Bush war on Iraq: repeal the October 2002 Congressional Resolution for Authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. All it would take would be a majority vote in the House and the Senate…
January 9th, 2007 at 1:05 pm…REMIND THEM…
*
Here are three toll-free numbers you can use to call your own members of Congress right now, 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803, and tell them NO ESCALATION.
Or you can get their direct dial numbers and fax numbers right down to the district level by clicking on “Lookup Phones†in the instant lookup form to the right. All new members of Congress have been fully updated.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:06 pmhttp://www.peaceteam.net/no_escalation.php
*
In that time period, there has not been an enemy they did not want to “understandâ€, apologize to or appease.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
And Reagan’s selling weapons to terrorists while they were holding Americans hostage is a bright, shining example of republicans steadfastness in the face of adversity. “We don’t negotiate with terrorists!” - while they were negotiating with terrorists!
January 9th, 2007 at 1:06 pmShoot, Iraq ain’t nothing like Vietnam. I mean look at the way they are spelled…they’re different. Boy are y’all stupid.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:06 pmTom, the playground monitor wants her whistle back.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:07 pmThree words you should know and recognize for the next two years .
Presidential Veto Pen .
Comment by Las Vegas Louie
Here’s three for you: Lame Duck Override.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:07 pmThree words you should know and recognize for the next two years .
Presidential Veto Pen .
Comment by Las Vegas Louie
No sir. That would mean Mr Bush would have to explain things to the American people and Congress. Mr Bush does not explain things (except to tie Iraq with al-quaida). Also, I don’t believe Mr Bush has ever vetoed a bill (maybe I’m wrong) so why start now? He will simply snub the intent of Congress, and issue another legally dubious ’signing statement’.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:08 pmFALLUJAH, Iraq, Jan 8 (IPS) - Ten-year-old Yassir aimed a plastic gun at a passing U.S. armoured patrol in Fallujah, and shouted “Bang! Bang!”
Yassir did not know what was coming. “I yelled for everyone to run, because the Americans were turning back,” 12-year-old Ahmed who was with Yassir told IPS.
The soldiers followed Yassir to his house and smashed almost everything in it. “They did this after beating Yassir and his uncle hard, and they spoke the nastiest words,” Ahmed said.
It is not just the children, or the people of Fallujah who are frightened.
“Those soldiers are terrified here,” Dr. Salim al-Dyni, a psychotherapist visiting Fallujah told IPS. Dr Dyni said he had seen professional reports of psychologically disturbed soldiers “while serving in hot areas, and Fallujah is the hottest and most terrifying for them.”
January 9th, 2007 at 1:10 pmI’m so tired of the U S A
I’m so tired of the U S A
January 9th, 2007 at 1:12 pmVerbalkint - do you think MA really believes this stuff?
Comment by Tom — January 9, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Of course it doesn’t believe it. That is why I call it a liar. Really, slander is a more specific term for the things it says.
Also, Bush has vetoed one bill: stem cell research.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:14 pmThis is why Biden and his big mouth worry me. Somebody put a sock in it.
Comment by Zip #4
Zip,
Might I suggest that you copy this thread’s information and email it to Senator Biden and your own congressional and Senate Representatives…
…I did…
January 9th, 2007 at 1:16 pmIraq Surge And War On Iran Too?
9th of January 2007
by Jay Randal
A clear majority of the United States citizenry wants the Iraq war/occupation ended ASAP, and the troops returned home, but the Bush Regime refuses to listen and the Congress negligent for not cutting off funding.
Escalating the conflict in Iraq, by sending more troops into the quagmire, is a grotesque violation of morality and usurpation of the US Constitution, so high crimes that require the Congress to impeach President Bush.
If the Congress refuses to cut the funding for the Iraq misadventure, and allows a escalation in troops, then the American people have a right to demand for entire resignation of every member in the House and Senate.
The Constitution clearly states that if the government NO longer represents the will of the American people, then they have a right to abolish the government and to seek the formation of new government to replace it.
A premeditated attack on Iran would be considered an act of criminal aggression, so the Congressional membership is forewarned of serious ramifications!
( Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Georgia, USA.)
January 9th, 2007 at 1:16 pm#1 MA
Progressives realize that fighting unnecessary wars only weaken us economically, politically and militarily. Understanding the other side is the best way to avoid a war, and if that is not possible, understanding the other side is the first step in victory over them. We’ve learned that just running in, defeating a dictator and expecting the people of that country to support you is foolish. Unfortunately it seems Bush and his supporters did not learn the lessons of Vietnam.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:20 pmAshenShard
Very well stated…and probably about to be distorted.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:23 pmCongress authorized the Army of the Potomac, the American Expeditionary Force, and so forth and the continental Congress authorized the Continental Army.
Congress often authorized specific Armies for specific purposes, without “micromanaging” or interfering with the President’s war powers. They are able to do so now. If they want to limit the size of the Army in Iraq, they are more than capable.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:24 pmTom, the playground monitor wants her whistle back.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Woody Allen called. He wonders why a wingnut would want to use a liberal’s story title to tag herself.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:27 pmI would like to thank Mighty Aphrodite for her consistency in misunderstanding anyone with whom she does not agree.
I’m quite sure that as a Navy Commander, she felt that anyone who disagreed with her was not just wrong but actively trying to destroy her, the US, and democracy in general.
As a typical neo-conservative, MA has shows nothing but disregard and active hate for anyone who does not immediately accept her opinion as fact and her visage as that of the perfect person in the world, even better than Jesus Christ.
Mighty Aphrodite, and those of her ilk, wish nothing less than the destruction of the US Constitution as we know it to make any dissent from their opinions as sedition and heresy.
Regressives have always felt that to force people at the end of a gun to accept their not-so-benevolent rule as the only way to exist, to overthrow their own governments (no matter what form they take) and to claim the neo-con regressives as the coming of the messiah.
Brava, Mighty Aphrodite, you’re mendacity, calumny and outright refusal to consider any other opinion than your own has extended into yet another new year! I’m sure that you’re as proud of your regressive ways as we are appalled!
January 9th, 2007 at 1:31 pmBarfly
I don’t think it was tagging itself. I think it was just tattling.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:32 pmDemocrat Soldier, you nailed it on the head. Good work.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:34 pmWoody Allen called. He wonders why a wingnut would want to use a liberal’s story title to tag herself.
Comment by Barfly #27
Barfly,
…it’s a feeble attempt at making “lemonade out of lemons”…
…Mighty Aphrodite is in reality:
…Flighty Aphrodite…
…an original space cadet…
January 9th, 2007 at 1:35 pmI got a hold of the Presidents speech that he will be delivering tomorrow night. I’ll briefly summarize it for everyone.
Bush is going to step up to the microphone lift up his arm then extend his middle finger to the audience, America, and the rest of the world. Bush will then leave.
Now you don’t have to watch it…
January 9th, 2007 at 1:42 pmOne phrase for the Congress to keep in mind as this rolls forward.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:44 pmCan Do!!
I would like to compliment the Liberal-minded on their consistency. There has not been a war the US has been engaged in over the last 40 years that the Liberal-minded did not seek available means to avoid. In that time period, there has not been any bloodshed or needless suffering they did not want to “minimize,†forestall or prevent.
(some edits for clarity)
January 9th, 2007 at 1:46 pmThe progs, who are not 40 years old, as far as I know, did not have a problem with invading afghanistan. But I guess you think George Bush Sr. Is a ‘prog’ or a liberal because he did not want to enter Baghdad, because it would become a quagmire.
But let me speculate. The Dems will issue rhetoric, then let the cons have their war and money, even though most Americans (not progs Americans) are against it, thus hamstringing the cons, and ruining their chances for a GOP win in 2008 and destroying their chances at regaining power in the house.
It is Americans, (lProgs and Republicans) that tire of war. Really MA, war is not popular nor has it ever been the preferred method of installing Democracy.
Now, I support this last surge, because as Powell called it, the Pottery Barn rule. The cons bought a country of 25 million. That now becomes a huge welfare state. And we know how much you hate welfare, right?
Say, when are we gonna go out, and you know, have some grub?
January 9th, 2007 at 1:48 pmWow. Did I read this right?
“President Bush will nominate Zalmay Khalilzad to be the U.S. envoy to the United Nations”
http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ 20070109/ ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ us_un_envoy
How exactly does that help the US in any way at all?
January 9th, 2007 at 1:50 pmI meant GrOPe =)
January 9th, 2007 at 1:51 pmFACT CHECK: Congress Has Repeatedly Placed Limits On Military Deployments And Funding
Tomorrow night at 9 p.m. EST, President Bush will address the nation and announce an escalation of the war in Iraq by sending about 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq. Can Congress do anything about it?
Some members have claimed that anything other than symbolic action is unconstitutional. Legal scholars on both the left and the right say that’s false. History supports their case.
A country with the military controlled by the wishes of a man only has another name: a Military Dictatorship. But I guess that Bush thinks that Commander in Chief is a synonim.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:55 pmWell you see in GrOPe logic, having a Muslim, such as Elliot, is a bad thing, since he’s Democratic, but having Khalilzad, a Muslim, to be envoy to the UN is a good thing, somehow.
I speculate some more. the GrOPes will raise a hissy fit over the appointment, and then Bush may likely slide Bolton back in.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:56 pmTom, the playground monitor wants her whistle back.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
LOL…Oh wait, no it isn’t. I didn’t know you even had a whistle. I’m sorry someone took it from you - but it wasn’t me. Hope you get it back.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:57 pmAs I recall this was supposed to be a freedom operation to free the Iraqis from an oppressive dictator, you know, appease with Democracy?
January 9th, 2007 at 2:00 pm#39 Zep Tepi
I don’t think they will have a fit about it. It wouldn’t be hypocritical of them if they actually did complain about it, and you know how they must retain consistent hypocrisy.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:00 pmIf nothing else, the Mini Aphid is an expert on consistency. He has supported the Lying Piece of Shit President in every single action. Lie about WMD? MA is ok with that. Kill a bunch of kids so Daddy likes you as much as Jeb? Go ahead.
Throw another 20,000 kids into a death trap for no reason? Bush rocks!
It’s the Christian thing to do.
By the way MA, the kids had a ball with the neighbor’s nativity scene again this year. It was so cute! The smile on that donkey’s face on top of Mary was precious. I’ll send pictures.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:02 pmAnd Reagan’s selling weapons to terrorists while they were holding Americans hostage is a bright, shining example of republicans steadfastness in the face of adversity. “We don’t negotiate with terrorists!†- while they were negotiating with terrorists!
Comment by Barfly
Refesh my memory on this one.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:04 pmAnd Reagan’s selling weapons to terrorists while they were holding Americans hostage is a bright, shining example of republicans steadfastness in the face of adversity. “We don’t negotiate with terrorists!†- while they were negotiating with terrorists!
Comment by Barfly
Refesh my memory on this one.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:04 pmNow what were you saying MA?
January 9th, 2007 at 2:05 pmWell, maybe I am confusing the hissy fit with hypocrisy =)
January 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pmGet the Kennedy Bill up and see how they vote……
State Name Party Seniority Election
AK Ted Stevens R Sr 2008
January 9th, 2007 at 2:12 pmAL Jefferson Sessions R Jr 2008
CO Wayne Allard R Sr 2008
GA C. Saxby Chambliss R Sr 2008
ID Larry Craig R Sr 2008
KS Pat Roberts R Jr 2008
KY Mitch McConnell R Sr 2008
ME Susan Collins R Jr 2008
MN Norm Coleman R Jr 2008
MS Thad Cochran R Sr 2008
NC Elizabeth Dole R Sr 2008
NE Charles Hagel R Sr 2008
NH John Sununu R Jr 2008
NM Pete Domenici R Sr 2008
OK James Inhofe R Sr 2008
OR Gordon Harold Smith R Jr 2008
SC Lindsey Graham R Sr 2008
TN Lamar Alexander R Jr 2008
TX John Cornyn R Jr 2008
VA John Warner R Sr 2008
WY Michael Enzi R Jr 2008
AR Mark Pryor D Jr 2008
DE Joseph Biden Jr. D Sr 2008
IA Tom Harkin D Jr 2008
IL Richard J. Durbin D Sr 2008
LA Mary Landrieu D Sr 2008
MA John Kerry D Jr 2008
MI Carl Levin D Sr 2008
MT Max Baucus D Sr 2008
NJ Frank Lautenberg D Jr 2008
RI John F. Reed D Sr 2008
SD Tim Johnson D Sr 2008
WV John Rockefeller, IV D Jr 2008
Get the Kennedy Bill up and see how they vote……
State Name Party Seniority Election
AK Ted Stevens R Sr 2008
January 9th, 2007 at 2:12 pmAL Jefferson Sessions R Jr 2008
CO Wayne Allard R Sr 2008
GA C. Saxby Chambliss R Sr 2008
ID Larry Craig R Sr 2008
KS Pat Roberts R Jr 2008
KY Mitch McConnell R Sr 2008
ME Susan Collins R Jr 2008
MN Norm Coleman R Jr 2008
MS Thad Cochran R Sr 2008
NC Elizabeth Dole R Sr 2008
NE Charles Hagel R Sr 2008
NH John Sununu R Jr 2008
NM Pete Domenici R Sr 2008
OK James Inhofe R Sr 2008
OR Gordon Harold Smith R Jr 2008
SC Lindsey Graham R Sr 2008
TN Lamar Alexander R Jr 2008
TX John Cornyn R Jr 2008
VA John Warner R Sr 2008
WY Michael Enzi R Jr 2008
AR Mark Pryor D Jr 2008
DE Joseph Biden Jr. D Sr 2008
IA Tom Harkin D Jr 2008
IL Richard J. Durbin D Sr 2008
LA Mary Landrieu D Sr 2008
MA John Kerry D Jr 2008
MI Carl Levin D Sr 2008
MT Max Baucus D Sr 2008
NJ Frank Lautenberg D Jr 2008
RI John F. Reed D Sr 2008
SD Tim Johnson D Sr 2008
WV John Rockefeller, IV D Jr 2008
Here’s a few more words you should know and recognize:
Government shutdown
The Dems should add the Iraq funding restrictions to an omnibus budget bill and let George veto it and take the heat for shutting down the government. Remember 1995?
Alternatively, they could have it in a separate funding bill that funded all Iraq War operations. Bush wouldn’t dare veto funds for troops in the field.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:19 pm“John Yoo, a Berkeley law professor and one of the chief architects of the Bush administration’s aggressive stance on the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison, said that the power of Congress over the budget was absolute, to such an extent that lawmakers could end the war altogether if they chose.”
Tough shit to the 12% of the idiots in this country who want an escalation. This is what Americans elected the Dems to do, shut down this war and shut it down now. The only way to end Little Nero’s ego war is to shut off the funding.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:33 pmAnd let’s not forget what Scalie wrote in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld:
“The proposition that the Executive lacks indefinite wartime detention authority over citizens is consistent with the Founders’ general mistrust of military power permanently at the Executive’s disposal. In the Founders’ view, the “blessings of liberty” were threatened by “those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain.” The Federalist No. 45, p. 238 (J. Madison). No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime.
Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “[t]o raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” U. S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II.”
January 9th, 2007 at 2:39 pmMA I have to assume that since you seem to slog the word Prog, or progressives around like they are shit filled hand grenades that you must be a reg or regressive. Now you claim that progressives did not want to win any war in the last 50 years. That is simple rhetoric, you need to prove this out with facts. I could easily also say that there has not been a situation where regressives have not wanted to solve things with warfare rather than negotiation and diplomatic means. But I would be just as wrong as you are. Now please support your assertion with facts not rhetoric. I think what you will find is that we have the ability to recognize when the war is a mistake and should never have been fought in the first place with Iraq and Vietnam being prime examples. Both were launched under false pretenses, both were fought under incorrect assumptions and both were colossal mistakes. History has borne that out with Vietnam, yet the regressives still can not recognize that. All they are concerned about si did we win or not, not whether we should have been in the war at all. With Iraq thus far the facts are against them so they have to throw rhetorical grenades as their only defense.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:45 pmMrJJ We get it.
What to really help Ted?
http://www.tedkennedy.com/page/s/ourdecision
A full list of Senators by class is here:
http://snipurl.com/170bs-LR4QSD
But back to the topic of the post: two words
Boland Amendment.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:55 pmIraq is a lost cause and who get blamed. Bushit wants to send 20000 new troops and Congress will refuse. Now come 08 election and the war is lost so who get blamed, you guessed it Democrates. Why didn’t Bushit do this when he had a Congress that would have allowed it because then the republican would have no one but them selve to blame. Sounds like Rove plan to me.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:05 pmNavy Vet….
I have to think you are correct. Bush will propose even more ridiculous plans until he finds one that is shot down. Then he and his defenders can piss and moan that we would have won in Iraq if only we had done what Bush wanted.
But so what? Let them crawl back under their rocks mumbling in their holy water. At least we will have put an end to Bush’s War, and saved some lives and limbs.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:19 pmThere has not been a war the US has been engaged in the last 40 years that Progs wanted to win.
MA, it speaks to the moral degeneracy of you regressives that you consider war to be a sporting event, that must be “won” by your “team” at all costs for the sake of pride.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:24 pm“And Reagan’s selling weapons to terrorists while they were holding Americans hostage is a bright, shining example of republicans steadfastness in the face of adversity. “We don’t negotiate with terrorists!†- while they were negotiating with terrorists!” - barfly
******Barfly - I see you’re finally enrolled at Mesa Community College!! Congrats!! However, the gray world of foreign intelligence and espionage seems to be one or two levels above your pay grade. During the Iran/Iraq war it was thought to be best to keep two of our biggest threats fighting each other. I know what a difficult concept for you that must be, but hopefully one of the Profs can explain it. (Undoubtedly, they will put it in language even you can yunderstand.)
January 9th, 2007 at 3:35 pmAnd Peter, it speaks of the lunacy of the Left that they are willing to use the Constitution to commit suicide. Does it take long to die “by a death of thousand paper cuts”? The Left sees the need to unite in One World harmony - forgetting that many in the world want us dead…..Such a sweet legacy you wish to leave…..
January 9th, 2007 at 3:38 pmMA,
The passenger seat in Ted Kennedy’s car has your name all over it.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:52 pm“The passenger seat in Ted Kennedy’s car has your name all over it.”
Comment by ForTruth
*****Different thread - same answer******Picture that beached whale in swim trunks - although I suppose a Speedo would be worse. I’m a better driver and swimmer than Teddy and a better shot than Cheney - so I’ll have to pass on the invite.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:03 pmLVLouie - Poor Progs!! They THINK they’re funny….but WE know the difference….Seriously, picture Ted” the Swimmer” in full swim regalia - - ickkkk….a dieter’s delight! Louie - Glad you’re here!
January 9th, 2007 at 4:12 pmLVL,
It appears I have provided some entertainment and subject matter for your friend MA. Lighten up, you live in Vegas.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:17 pmLouie,
You aint seen shit.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:18 pmWow - FT, you’ve got them eating out of your hand!
January 9th, 2007 at 4:21 pmBoo hoo, way over the top!
I know, that was nothing. LVL elevated my status based on nothing. I guess they are good at that.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:23 pmLVL,
The front bumper of Laura Bush’s car has your name all over it.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:25 pmLVL
When you’re in the gutter, everything looks “way over the top”. I’m sorry you have that perspective.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:29 pmLVLouie - Poor Progs!! They THINK they’re funny….but WE know the difference….Seriously, picture Ted†the Swimmer†in full swim regalia - - ickkkk….a dieter’s delight! Louie - Glad you’re here!
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Picture Hastert and Foley having a pile on with Ted Haggard.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:32 pm#58 - “During the Iran/Iraq war it was thought to be best to keep two of our biggest threats fighting each other.”
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 9, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
So, when Pres. Reagan sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 80’s, it was for a good cause.
It suddenly became a completely different story in 1991 when Pres. “Pappy” Bush decided to attack Iraq. I’ll bet he was hoping and praying that the publics attention span was as short as the average regressive and that nobody would dare ask why we thought it was a good idea to sell chemical weapons to Iraq. Well, you regressives got your wish then.
I’m sure you’re patting yourself on the back on how easy it was for Pres. “Dubya” Bush to lie the US into another war and take our collective eye off Afghanistan. (Just ignore the things we regressives say like “dead or alive” or “I really don’t think about him (Usama bin Laden) anymore”)
Seriously, sweetie, you need to re-assess how responsible the so-called “party of responsibility” is when it comes to getting America stuck in endless wars for oil and greed.
As for keeping our enemies fighting each other, what say you suggest to Pres. Bush that he get North Korea to attack Syira or Sudan. That’ll give you another excuse to kill more American service members for greed.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:35 pmRep. Bob Barr Cheated on all three of his wives - and coerced one into having an abortion - then lied about it!
Are you also a better wive(s) than Mr Barr had?
January 9th, 2007 at 4:36 pmDear Zipppy - Is Rep Bob Barr still in Congress???? Once again, Zippy - you provide complete evidence of your stupidity in one fell swoop. Congrats!!
January 9th, 2007 at 4:45 pmthe Republican right is much more ideologically driven in their anti-labor and pro capitalist globalization fervor..or One World Harmony.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:46 pmDear Zipppy - Is Rep Bob Barr still in Congress????
Doesn’t matter you would still make a good wife for him.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:49 pmMA likes to remind people she looks down her nose at them.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:49 pmMighty just might be in the 1/3rd of all women who have never had an orgasm.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:51 pmRobert, you seriously have not forgotten Iran- Contra have you? You know the deal where the White House wanted to skirt the law and support the contras so they sold weaponry to Iran and used the cash to buy weapons for the contras in Nicaragua? They sold the weapons and spare parts (Hawk missiles and repairs parts were the main items if memory serves me correctly) to the Iranians to fight their war against Iraq. Remember the war we encouraged Iraq to wage and supported them in their endeavors? Of course we also wanted something out of the Iranians so we had them wield their influence with Hezbollah to get various Americans freed from their hostage takers in Lebanon. I’m surprised you don’t remember it was in all the papers and now is in the History books.
#58 MA Wrong again, or is that the regressive story line for that period in history? Iran was no threat to the US and neither was Iraq, actually in the history of each country neither has ever been a direct physical threat to the US, only to our supply of a natural resource. Iran was thought to be a threat to the greater Middle East, Iraq was only considered to be a threat to Israel at the time, Iraq had no WMD as we had not passed along the chemical starters yet and their fledgling Nuke plant was soon to be dust. We wanted Iraq to fight Iran and stem the Islamic revolution that we feared could seep into Saudi Arabia and other friendly countries in the Mid East. We wanted Iraq to fight to stem the Shiite tide, without even having a clue as to the relationship between Shia Iran and the rest of the Sunni Mideast. Either way neither was or ever has been a physical threat to the US at all ((and please no regressive battle cry of 911/IIraq/alqueda it does not work on anyone except regressives anymore). Gee, where on earth do you buy these revisionist history books? I think I might want to read a little fantasy once in a while.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:52 pmThe left sympathized with the goals of Ho Chi Minh
I see MA is still stuck on appease and sympathize. Did you see where the Repubs are planning to spend 1 billion, to appease the insurgents?
January 9th, 2007 at 4:55 pmMA your not only a poor troll, your a terrible rhetoricist.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:57 pmMA has an Ore-gasm when she rubs two quarters together.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:58 pm#77 - Spoken like a woman who never had to put herself in danger in the service, what with being oh-so safe on your ship far away from the fighting, sweetie. I guess it’s easy you to hide behind your skirts and send our soldiers off to die when you know for a fact that you’ll be safe here in the good ‘ole US of A. When do your children sign up for the war? I guess it’s not a good enough war to send your own children off to die, right?
I guess the truth of the so-called Patriotic Republicans hurts when you have to face your cowardice. I’m sure you’ll get over it when the Dem’s fix all the mistakes your regressive war-mongers have made over the past four years.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:00 pmIf I was the boss of the IRI trolls, I would have to fire MA. Seixon was much better, but still always wrong, at the rhetoric game.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:01 pmAphid, I see that your descent into degenerate lunacy has continued unabated. We all knew this would happen if you persisted with your pathetic attempts at historical revisionism, and it’s not like you haven’t been warned. It’s unfortunate that Faux News and the Zionist Lobby have not been able to create more opportunities for those like yourself, but even these institutions have to set limits for ignorance, delusion and self-degradation.
But do not despair — I have a suggestion:
January 9th, 2007 at 5:01 pmIm not even sure MA is an Organism.
She wont go out for GrOPe with me! =)
January 9th, 2007 at 5:07 pmMA in post #59 you have pretty much said toss the constitution out the window. In fact other regressives such as yourself love to say that the constitution is not a suicide pact. This is one position the regressives are correct with their words, but dead wrong with their intentions. I agree the constitution is not a suicide pact, it is what we are as a people, when we sell it down the river as cheaply as the regressives of this country desire to do so then we as a people are as dead as we would be if our country were taken over by any foreign invader. When the constitution dies, America dies with it. You claim to be a veteran, an officer no less. If you truly were a vet you would know that you are sworn to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. You yourself and all regressives who think like you are the domestic enemies that oath warned us about you seem all to willing to sacrifice what makes our nation our nation. I know nothing I say can sway a traitor like yourself, but way back in the old days George Bush said that we should continue on with our lives as normal because when we let the terrorists dictate how we act then the terrorists have won. You seem to advocate changing the very soul of our nation so I ask who actually is advocating defeat in this particular battle. According to George Bush regressives such as yourself and the whole Bush administration are the enemy.
Oh and please do not try to twist what I say for any reason, because it won’t work. The Vietnam war as we know it began after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, that is where the escalation began. Tossing it back to Ike and Kennedy is disingenuous because the mistake began the day we decided to escalate. The advisors were there for a while, but the war began in earnest after Tonkin. If you have no clue about this then find another debate. Maybe there is a nice little regressive debate at LGF that you can distort truth unchallenged, I’m sure you can find one.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:09 pmMA: “During the Iran/Iraq war it was thought to be best to keep two of our biggest threats fighting each other.”
Gee. Thanks for the history lesson. You inadvertently display your utter disregard for our constitutional system. The fact that the Reagan administration was commiting constitutional crimes and lying to the public is completely irrelevant to you. Like a good Stalinist, the end justifies the means, right? How ironic that what passes for conservative these days also stands for lawlessness.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:26 pmThe fact that the Reagan administration was committing constitutional crimes and lying to the public is completely irrelevant to you. Like a good Stalinist, the end justifies the means, right? How ironic that what passes for conservative these days also stands for lawlessness.
Well-said!!! Bravo.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:32 pmLooks like poor wittle Ass-phro-bite-me got it’s MAnn Coulter style bony ass handed to it and it crawled back to it’s troll-dumb to read more fantastic tales of how manly regressives saved the world by shitting on or killing everything everywhere they went
January 9th, 2007 at 5:40 pmThat is only a partial list. Think Iran-Contra and Ollie North.
Congress cut off funding for the Contra rebels. Officials in the Reagan administration devised a plan where a deal was made for Israel to provide funds for America to buy weapons from Iran and then distribute them to the Contras. Of course Israel was reimbursed for the money they furnished to buy the weapons. George H. W. Bush then pardoned all of the Iran-Congress crooks, possibly even including himself.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:41 pmfantastic tales of how manly regressives saved the world by shitting on or killing everything everywhere they went -Comment by RealityChecker
Best put phrase o’ the day to RC!
January 9th, 2007 at 5:46 pmThanks, Stonehinge!
On a related note, Grover Norquist had a portrait of Stalin up over his desk for years. He admired the party loyalty Stalin demanded.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:56 pm““John Yoo…said that the power of Congress over the budget was absolute, to such an extent that lawmakers could end the war altogether if they chose.â€
NONSENSE from a war criminal.
Congress has NEVER had the war powers that Yoo here disingenuously claims. If he really believed that, I’m sure his views on the Boland Amendment and the War Powers Act would be 180 from what he here claims.
January 9th, 2007 at 6:18 pmHaloscan or the site monitor removed my substantive, documented, comment on this thread, without a trace. Could you please clarify which?
January 9th, 2007 at 6:21 pmOfficial: First wave of troops to Iraq by Jan. 31
Responsibility for security shifts to Iraqis by November, another says
WASHINGTON - The latest draft of the new strategy for Iraq that President will Bush will lay out Wednesday calls for an increase of more than 20,000 troops, with most going to Baghdad and 4,000 to Anbar province, one senior official said Tuesday.
The first wave of additional U.S. troops will go into Iraq before the end of the month under Bush’s revised plan, said the official, who requested anonymity because the plans have not yet been announced.
The plan also calls for responsibility for security for all the country’s provinces to be turned over to Iraqi forces by November, said another official, also speaking on condition of anonymity. Bush is due to unveil his plan in a speech Wednesday evening.
January 9th, 2007 at 6:23 pmcapped the size of military deployments,
American Progress is blowing milk bubbles. Try researching Congress stopping a war via defunding, versus trying to affect ‘military deployments’ — which is quite a different thing entirely.
In NO cases were these efforts by the Congress successful in significantly affecting Executive war powers.
Some examples: [aka ‘the’ examples]
“December 1970. P.L. 91-652 — Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law. The Church-Cooper amendment prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S. troops to Cambodia or provide military advisors to Cambodian forces.â€
WHAT IT DID NOT DO IS CUT OFF THE MAKING OF WAR ON CAMBODIA OR LAOS, or indeed, on Vietnam.
“A revised Cooper-Church amendment, Public Law 91-652, passed both houses of Congress on December 22, 1970, and was enacted on January 5, 1971, though this version had limited restrictions on air operations “…“U.S. bombing runs in Cambodia continued until 1973.†— wikipedia
US troops were already out of Cambodia by the time the amendment took effect.
• In 1971 Cambodian bombing missions made up nearly 15 percent of the total number of combat sorties flown in Southeast Asia, up from eight percent in 1970.
• In 1971, US air power supported an invasion of Laos by ARVN.
• Operation Linebacker: “18 December to 29 December 1972 (hence its unofficial nickname - the “Christmas Bombingsâ€) saw the largest heavy bomber strikes launched by the U.S. Air Force since the end of the Second World War.
“15,237 tons of ordnance were dropped on 18 industrial and 14 military targets (including eight SAM sites) while fighter-bombers added another 5,000 tons of bombs to the tally….Damage to the DRV’s infrastructure was severe. The Air Force estimated 500 rail interdictions had taken place, 372 pieces of rollng stock and three million gallons of petroleum products were destroyed, and 80 percent of the DRV’s electrical power production capability had been eliminated.†— wikipedia
December 1974. P.L. 93-559 — Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. The Congress established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year.
BY WHICH TIME NIXON HAD ALREADY RESIGNED AND BEEN PARDONED BY FORD for all crimes against the US.
January 9th, 2007 at 6:26 pmOK, well that makes it clear; Haloscan is the culprit. Sorry for the duplicate-posting.
January 9th, 2007 at 6:28 pm@mighty aphrodite - I do like the way you avoided every point in Democratic Soldier’s well written and well informed comments made directly to you.
Your lack of mature responses, once again, merely show your true lack of understanding.
January 9th, 2007 at 6:35 pm@Paul in LA - many posts have been appearing briefly and then disappearing or not appearing for x number of minutes.
Poor comments system as opposed to moderation.
January 9th, 2007 at 6:37 pmI have seen that before, Thiassi, but it didn’t appear, then appeared, and then didn’t appear, and I wasn’t sure it wasn’t snagged by an (unstated) comment-length restrictor.
Anyhow, American Progress probably means well, but the list of supposed Congressional limits is THIN.
Bush is a warcriminal, like Nixon, but, like Nixon, he probably can’t be stopped by weak Congressional action. Congress rushing in to stop what is already mostly over is an all-too-obvious fact of political life. No point in kidding ourselves.
January 9th, 2007 at 6:47 pm“Bush is a warcriminal, like Nixon, but, like Nixon, he probably can’t be stopped by weak Congressional action. Congress rushing in to stop what is already mostly over is an all-too-obvious fact of political life. No point in kidding ourselves.”
Comment by Paul in LA
Couldn’t agree more.
January 9th, 2007 at 6:50 pm[…] Surely, the right-wingers will whine that Congress does not have the power over the “Commander-in-Chief” regarding war funding and troop levels. Essentially, there are two responses to them. First, Congress is empowered under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution with the ability to declare war and raise and support armies. Second, via Think Progress, this has been a traditional Congressional realm of action: […]
January 9th, 2007 at 6:51 pmJust when you think the word *cvnt* is too harsh of a description for any woman - you encounter mighty aphrodite - and realize it isn’t harsh enough. How about that ignorant foolish cvnt - that seems better.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:06 pmMighty Moron did the Navy? I would not let even my dog mount her.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:55 pmHow the gender of ‘ma’ is pertinent is impossible to see.
Certainly, the cooter is not at fault.
MA can explain to us all why Bushco wrote no orders to guard the IED-making high-explosives that are blowing the shit out of our soldiers, or why Rumsfeld lied about why our troops don’t have enough armor, or why Bush claimed that no one knew that the levees would fail.
There’s quite a list after that. But for reference, the five uncles I lost in France during the Battle of the Bulge all were liberals. My uncle who fought in the Aleuts is a political conservative from Neanderthal times, but he is still a liberal, in the sense of supporting the rule of law over the rule of dictators.
January 9th, 2007 at 8:34 pmCongress knows what it can and can’t do. So does it also know why it is currently in Democratic hands. They have been put in charge to do what the Republicans have refused to do; to rein in this loose cannon of a president. The Republicans would like to define what role they will allow the Dems to play, but that horse has left the barn. So just sit back and watch the show, trolls. Capiche? You lost, we won. Suck it up. The Congress will represent the people for a while now. It’s our turn.
January 9th, 2007 at 8:55 pmThiass - Because you agree with DemSoldier, his/her responses are “well-informed”. Because I correctly note the apology/appeasement mentality of Progs and Progettes…you try to make a salient point….and fail miserably…
January 9th, 2007 at 9:03 pmUncle Ho “cleverly” notes, “Mighty Moron did the Navy? I would not let even my dog mount her.” You have a dog? What happened? Did it slip off your dinner plate?
January 9th, 2007 at 9:28 pmHagette, tell us another funny story about your dead child. It’s been a while.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:52 pm[…] Think Progress cites examples of Congress limiting the President in terms of military action and budgeting and points to a report on the subject. […]
January 9th, 2007 at 11:05 pm“Why don’t you do that pansy husband of yours a favor, and put away your *angry inch* sister. He might appreciate being the *man* for a change.” Comment by mighty_aphrodite_is_a_stupid_cvnt
Spoken like a true eunich…….
January 10th, 2007 at 12:17 am“you miserable stupid cvnt? That’s a *hoot* you miserable ignorant $lut.”
******Did anyone tell you? You sound EXACTLY like your mother….how precious!
January 10th, 2007 at 12:27 amI thought you East Coast BlueStaters loved gays and celebrated their diverse biological discoveries……don’t worry, your mom loves you anyway!
January 10th, 2007 at 12:39 amPut the troops out there the pull the rug right out from under them great guys.
1. Quote:
January 10th, 2007 at 1:20 amOctober 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.â€
Quote:
Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.â€
Quote:
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â€
Quote:
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > October 9, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.â€
Quote:
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.â€
Quote:
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
“There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.â€
Quote:
Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ‘98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.â€
Quote:
Jane Harman > August 27, 2002
“I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.â€
Quote:
Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.â€
Quote:
Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
“[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.â€
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
“Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.â€
Quote:
Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002
“I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.â€
Quote:
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.â€
Quote:
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
“I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn’t vote for me.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.â€
Quote:
Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
“I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.â€
Quote:
Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
“The question is whether we’re going to allow this man who’s been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where — if we’re going to stop him if he invades a country around him — it’ll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.â€
Quote:
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.â€
Quote:
Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.â€
Quote:
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.â€
Quote:
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.â€
Quote:
Al Gore > December 16, 1998
“[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…â€
Put the troops out there the pull the rug right out from under them great guys.
Joe’s regurgitated crap.
Yeah, after almost four years of steadily-increasing troop deaths, squandered tax money, and cultish cowards crowing every time we capture another “al-qaeda’s number-two man,” Dems pulled the rug right out from under the troops.
Posting those quotes shows the feebleness of your argument; Saddam was boxed in, and the UN weapons inspectors were effectively doing their jobs. There was no reason to invade, as Saddam wasn’t aiding terrorists.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:57 amThiass - Because you agree with DemSoldier, his/her responses are “well-informedâ€. Because I correctly note the apology/appeasement mentality of Progs and Progettes…you try to make a salient point….and fail miserably…
Comment by mighty_aphrodite
You still haven’t responded to any of his points, though, have you?
Persistently ignoring such well informed posts only highlights your own inability to hold an argument and defend your own views in a mature manner.
There are plenty of conservatives who can argue properly and who do not need to resort to immature name calling - as you continuously do here.
Can you do no more than simply go around name calling or do you still feel that this child’s “playground” mentality of yours can win arguments that you are so pitiful at holding?
January 10th, 2007 at 11:31 amThiass - I have responded to DemSold almost more than a person should have to….and with arguments so erudite that Sominex would be put out of business. Apparently not much penetrates his skull….Could it be a steel plate?
This place is a playground of ideas…in case you hadn’t noticed. Want serious? Go to PBS, C-SPAN, etc.
And once again…you fail miserably
January 10th, 2007 at 12:18 pm[…] WATB’s like Sean Hannity and local talk radio dung heap Jason Lewis have been railing against Congress, stating that they are making an unconstitutional move if they attempt to stop the troop transfer. Think Progress details numerous examples since 1970 of Congress exercising that very kind of control over the Commander in Chief’s ability to increase the troops strength. […]
January 10th, 2007 at 12:24 pmMA is the sorest loser I have ever heard. It needs to slide down off it’s pedestal and lick it’s wounds. Take a look around, horror show. You’re busted. Your gang is busted. The failures and lies are of historical proportions! The GOP is a party of death and the dying. Your personal little glory hole is plugged with the dung you left behind on this blog. Nobody believes a word of it anymore, at least nobody who is not a troll like you. Please accept my utmost contempt and a promise that any comment signed by you will be skipped by me for perpetuity. Goodbye and good riddance.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:37 pmOf course, the problem with ALL of the Dem comments quoted above is that that they were MISLED by the administration to believe that there was PROOF that Saddam had nuclear weapons. Based on White House lies, decisions were made to patriotically support the administration, not knowing at the time that the “proof” was bullshit. Now joeslogic pastes in the statements made by Dems while they were still in a state of belief? You rub the lies into our wounds? You think that this makes a point other than our President lied and duped even the Dems into believing him? This is an argument you present? This is simply more proof that the President has no problem lying to the people and to the Congress! It’s a cautionary tale indeed that nobody can trust this Administration for anything! Certainly not justification for war. Not even assurances that the people of the US are protected! Lies are not protection! And lying now about the escalation of the war, calling it a “surge”, in spite of the people’s mandate to get out, will not save our troops or the prezidiot or the GOP. IT’s a dead party led by the president of dunces, and it’s time they were ALL buried in the dungheap of history.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:05 pmI can recall only one real response to a question I have put on this forum. That was some guy who agreed that Kennedy was a piece of crap. But then went on to say that as a whole the Democrats were right.
But I have had people try some sort of condescending approach implying that I would not be a man and answer a question. When I called him out on it…. nothing.
Mighty Aphrodite I’m sure has noticed that when you guys are not lying about events outside of this forum then you are lying about events that have occurred inside this forum. And hitting her with a million questions does not cut it. The rule should be. I’m still waiting for “X”-person to answer my question before I take any.
The pathetic attempt to gain up on MA is weak.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:09 pmI see that joeslogic has posted that lying piece of FOX crap again. I’ve debunked it so many times it’s ridiculous.
90% of the quotes are from Desert Fox in 1998 — the rest are taken entirely out of context with graphs that make it clear these statements were positive preambles TO DISAGREEING with the contention, as politicians are wont to do.
Garbage. Bushco LIED the country into war, and committed TREASON when they armed the insurgency with 300 tons of high-explosives. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, you fool.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:02 pmSpecifically Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution states in part:
The Congress shall have power to provide for the common defense;
To declare war;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
Those are the relevant portions of that much revered and as of late much disrespected document known as the U.S. Constitution.
Congress must stand in the gap to protect and preserve what’s left of the most glorious document ever penned. This marvelous experiment called Democracy must not fail.
U.S. senators and congressmen, consider your legacy: don’t let history testify that democracy died on your watch. Don’t let the record reflect that you were asleep at the switch when so much was at stake.Don’t be cowardly.Be men and be women. Take courage and serve your citizenry and your God and your Country.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:50 pmI would like to compliment Progs on their consistency. There has not been a war the US has been engaged in the last 40 years that Progs wanted to win. In that time period, there has not been an enemy they did not want to “understandâ€, apologize to or appease.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 9, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
My reply:
“There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of
our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason
is simply a racket.”
Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, 1933
Two-time recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor
Since 1945, the United States has intervened abroad 67 times, causing twelve million deaths, about half by overt action (Pentagon) and covert action (CIA).
Remember to the rest of the world WE are the terrorists!
January 10th, 2007 at 5:58 pmWell if Bush lied then I guess these people were lieing also:
Quote:
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.â€
Quote:
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.â€
Quote:
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weap