ThinkFast: February 27, 2007
ThinkFast: February 27, 2007
U.S. officials yesterday displayed bombmaking parts said to have been transported by Iran into Iraq. The cache “included items that appeared to cloud the issue. … The boxes appeared to contain shipments of tubes directly from factories in the Middle East, none of them in Iran.”
A suicide bomber attacked the entrance to the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan Tuesday during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, killing at least 14 people. Despite the highly secretive nature of the trip, a Taliban operative said, “We knew that Dick Cheney would be staying inside the base…The attacker was trying to reach Cheney.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System provides safe havens for imperiled species. But since 2003, funding has remained flat, “while salaries and other operating costs have risen.” Officials expect that they will have to “trim 75 regional and headquarters office jobs and 248 more field jobs.”
Prosecutors from the International Criminal Court yesterday “named the first two suspects accused of committing war crimes in Sudan’s Darfur region.” One of the suspects — Ahmed Haroun — “is currently Sudan’s state humanitarian affairs minister.”
Former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle criticized key Bush aides for having failed the president. Condoleezza Rice “was in way over her head from the beginning,” Perle said, and Colin Powell was a “disaster.”
The Office of Women’s Health “just had more than one-quarter of this year’s $4 million operating budget quietly removed, insiders say.” The move will “effectively halt further operations for the rest of the year.” Women’s health advocates believe it is “a long-anticipated payback for the trouble the office stirred during the prolonged debate over nonprescription sales of Plan B.”
Governors “pressed” President Bush yesterday “to provide more money” for the Children’s Health Insurance Program,” as many states expect to run out of funding for the program by September. “In response, administration officials said states should make better use of the money they already had.”
Starting on Friday, several “House and Senate committees will begin oversight hearings into how Walter Reed Army Medical Center subjected wounded soldiers and Marines to bureaucratic indifference and allowed them to live in squalor.”
“Basing their estimates on hotel and restaurant figures, vendor permits and crowd size,” New Orleans officials “think the economic impact of the 2007 Mardi Gras celebration was strong, if not quite up to the levels reached before Hurricane Katrina.”
And finally: Arnold’s solution to America’s red-blue divide — a smoke-filled room. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) “decried the partisan rancor” in D.C. and described the positive effects his smoking tent has had in California: “People come in there, Democrats and Republicans, and they take off their jackets and rip off their ties, and they sit down and smoke a stogie, and they talk, and they schmooze. … You can’t catch a socially transmitted disease by sitting down with people who hold ideas that are different than yours.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well, I’ll be! Uncle Dick “Five Defferement” Cheney finally got to see some combat…er…sort of.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:01 amHow about this one TP:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/02/26/food.safety.ap/index.html
Food testing half of what it was 3 years ago. I was waiting for this report to come out, every week it’s some other food item thats making people sick and killing some too.
Gee I feel safer from terrorists already, lord knows they LOVE peanut butter!
February 27th, 2007 at 9:02 amKeep sending him back until they get it right.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:04 am#1 leo
this is only his second experience of combat … remember, he did shoot his first man a while back … granted, it was his friend, but still … he’s been getting lots of combat experience in his late years it seems.
And the fact that Taliban insurgents knew he was going to be there shows two things … one, they have a presence high up in the government. two, they know Cheney is one of the big guys to blame … we might end all our problems with ‘terrorists’ by handing over Cheney and Bush. We’ll throw Rice and Rumsfeld in as a bonus.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:09 amHere’s another….
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm
BBC reporter stating that WTC7 fell, while standing in front of it on camera.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:11 amSo much for Congress being in charge of the purse strings. Bush is treating budget items as merely advisory, at least where it comes to social programs.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:14 amRice says Bush will not abide by legislation to limit Iraq war
WASHINGTON: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.
But Sen. Carl Levin, Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers would step up efforts to force Bush to change course. “The president needs a check and a balance,” said Levin.
Rice said Sunday that proposals being drafted by Senate Democrats to limit the war amounted to “the worst of micromanagement of military affairs.” She said military leaders such as Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, believe Bush’s plan to send more troops is necessary.
“I can’t imagine a circumstance in which it’s a good thing that their flexibility is constrained by people sitting here in Washington, sitting in the Congress,” Rice said. She was asked in a broadcast interview whether Bush would feel bound by legislation seeking to withdraw combat troops within 120 days.
“The president is going to, as commander in chief, need to do what the country needs done,” she said.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:15 amKeep sending him back until they get it right.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:20 amI couldn’t agree more! Next time send Hannity and Rush and O’Reilly and the whole gang along.
Can we throw in Rove, Libby, Perle, Wolfowitz and Jeb, too?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:21 amPeople that no longer fit under the “Compassionate Conservtism” umbrella:
Women
Children
Wounded Soldiers and Veterans
People left standing under the “Compassionate Conservtism” umbrella:
February 27th, 2007 at 9:23 am
#3 and #7… do you realize 23 people, including one U.S. soldier, died in the attack, whether or not VP Cheney was the target?
Do you really think the assassination of a sitting U.S. VP is a good idea?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:23 am#8 Kay
Of course. And I just had another idea, we can add the entire Fox News cast also.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:24 amAnd Congress approved of Gen Petraeus 81-0… read that again, 81-0… yet now they want to tie his hands behind his back.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:25 amStock Futures Slip After Fall in China
By The Associated Press
Stock futures pointed sharply lower Tuesday amid rising tension in Iran and Afghanistan, with a sharp fall on the Chinese stock market and lowered earnings guidance from Xerox also weighing.
In Asian equity moves, Shanghai’s Composite Index shed nearly 9 percent amid profit-taking sparked by concerns that additional macro-tightening policies could be introduced following the annual session of the China’s National People’s Congress, which gets underway March 5.
S&P 500 futures fell 7.50 points at 1,445.10 and Nasdaq 100 futures lost 11.50 points at 1,826.25.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:28 amSo near and yet so far with Cheney. Maybe if he stops off in Iraqnam after Afghanistan the suicide bomber there will have better luck. We can cross our fingers and hope. Or, I guess the “christians” can pray.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:29 amDale, the truth of the matter is that many people feel the world would be better off without Bush and Cheney et al sitting in positions of power. There is increasing frustration over the lack of willingness on the part of Congress to use the rule of law to remove them by impeachment.
When redress cannot be obtained through the rule of law, some turn to violent means, including acts of terrorism and assassinations.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:31 amCheney will just order more killing of Afghani men, women, and children to punish the Taliban for attempting to kill him. Dicky believes he is a brave man, but he is a chicken-hawk who never served a day in his life in the military. He loves to force others to fight and die for his flawed manhood.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:36 amComment by Dale — February 27, 2007 @ 9:23 am
Would I trade one US soldier and 22 people for Cheney?
Yes. If Cheney had a pair, he would make that trade, too.
Do I favor assassination of a sitting VP?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:36 amI favor ending Pairless Cheney’s tenure as VP; murder is not my first choice.
Comment by Dale — February 27, 2007 @ 9:25 am
There’s nothing wrong nor inconsistent about approving a general for the sole purpose of extracting troops from an untenable situation. That’s not tying his hands behind his back, that’s giving him a mandate to pull U.S. troops out of harm’s way. Or don’t you care about the troops?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:37 amKeep sending him back until they get it right.
Comment by ken melvin
LOL!
February 27th, 2007 at 9:37 amI hope the White House doesn’t expect us to be upset that Cheney was a target of an attacker. I mean we shouldn’t start any NEW wars over it.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:38 amSomeone should send the Taliban a thankyou note and a message: keep trying. Dale at #11 should realize that Cheney is the personification of evil whose policies have caused the deaths of 700,000 Iraqis, half of them under the age of 16 and it is quite doubtful if the vice president has lost any sleep over the unnecessary deaths of those thousands of innocent people.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:38 amYeah, those some are called terrorists. Is that what you’re hoping for? Terrorism against the government of the United States? Do you claim to love the U.S.? If so, your claim is baseless.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:39 amThere is no check on w. He does as he pleases. After all, the pres. is a unitary executive as the Constitution has clearly stated. The Congress is there to pass the laws that he wants in order to give the appearance of democracy. The rethugs are more anti-American than OBL or the Taliban. The SCOTUS allowed to exist in order to ratify w’s nonsense and whatever big business wants.
richard perle is certainly is great position to comment on the work of rice and powell. After all, perle is heavily into defence companies. It was certainly against his own interests, therefore, as chairman of the defence advisory board to advocate going to war. rice and powell just followed along as good soldiers. Actually, I am not sure why he wants to attack them now, except to try to divert attention from w, cheney, and the rest of the neocons and their failed and failing policies.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:41 amThey didn’t approve the general for
Try to understand… Congress does NOT make tactical military decisions; that’s the job of the CinC, SecDef, JCS, and on down the chain of command. I understand and appreciate that you don’t agree with the policy, but short of impeachment (or defunding the war), there’s no *legal* way to change it.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:41 amU.S. officials yesterday displayed bombmaking parts said to have been transported by Iran into Iraq. The cache “included items that appeared to cloud the issue. … The boxes appeared to contain shipments of tubes directly from factories in the Middle East, none of them in Iran.â€
Chimpy needs to come up with a new story.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:44 amA suicide bomber attacked the entrance to the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan Tuesday during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, killing at least 14 people. Despite the highly secretive nature of the trip, a Taliban operative said, “We knew that Dick Cheney would be staying inside the base…The attacker was trying to reach Cheney.â€
“Dick” is going to have to start worrying how safe his “secure, undisclosed location” is.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:45 amProsecutors from the International Criminal Court yesterday “named the first two suspects accused of committing war crimes in Sudan’s Darfur region.†One of the suspects — Ahmed Haroun — “is currently Sudan’s state humanitarian affairs minister.â€
Awwwk-ward…!
February 27th, 2007 at 9:46 amComment by Briseadh na Faire — February 27, 2007 @ 9:31 am
Comment by Pairless Ed — February 27, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Advocating for the assasination of the US government officials. I am sure there is some kind of legal infraction in there somewhere.
A pox upon both of you houses.
Hate, the truely progressive value.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:46 am#10 Dale
#3 and #7… do you realize 23 people, including one U.S. soldier, died in the attack, whether or not VP Cheney was the target?
Do you really think the assassination of a sitting U.S. VP is a good idea?
You’re right, Dale. None of those people should have had to die. It was certainly nothing to be cheerful about. Keep in mind, though, that if it were a Democratic vice president, Ann Coulter would have been all over CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc., making jokes about it. And, for some reason, nobody in charge at those news operations would have had a problem with it. She’d be invited back on the Today Show without hesitation.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:46 amFormer Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle criticized key Bush aides for having failed the president. Condoleezza Rice “was in way over her head from the beginning,†Perle said, and Colin Powell was a “disaster.â€
Thanks for speaking up……now.
Shut up.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:46 ammorning all… i wasn’t around much yesterday and didn’t get to see the birthday greetings addressed to me on the FAST thread till late…
February 27th, 2007 at 9:47 amjust want to say thank you to all who sent those birthday wishes…
and a special “thanks” to zooey who can’t keep a secret! grrrrr! :-)
…
ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin’ alive! stayin’ alive!
…
#10, 24, Dale, get off your high horse. Cheney is responsible for the deaths of over 3000 soldiers and who knows how many Iraqis. Who do you think got us into this mess anyway?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:47 amYou can’t catch a socially transmitted disease by sitting down with people who hold ideas that are different than yours.â€
Well, thank goodness.
Arnie……shhhhhh. Thanks.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:49 amCongress does NOT make tactical military decisions; that’s the job of the CinC, SecDef, JCS…
Comment by Dale — February 27, 2007 @ 9:41 am
Try to understand, strategic and operational military decisions are the job of CinC, SecDef, JCS. Ground commanders make tactical decisions. If CinC, SecDef, JCS get involved in tactics, they are greater fools than I think they are.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:50 amDale: Unfortunately, our Commander in Chief has proven himself over and over to be utterly incompetent at putting together a strategy and leading our troops. I won’t even get started on his shortchanging the troops on basic equipment and cutting their benefits after they’ve served our country so honorably.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:50 amWell mr cheney, it appears someone may have leaked information on your afghanistan visit,maybe someone who you put your trust in.Sucks doesnt it jerk? My only hope is they have better luck next time……tick tock dick.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:51 amThese posts just go to show that the Right is, well, right.
You cheer the actions of the VP and express joy over the attempted assassination. You are not FOR the US, you are FOR the terrorists.
What a bunch of sad, sick little people.
Hate, the truly progressive value.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:52 amYes, Condi is in way over her head and Powell was a disaster, but what about yourself, Richard Perle? Aren’t you a disaster too?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:53 amOh and mr cheney, next time bring the wife and kids.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:54 amand a special “thanks†to zooey who can’t keep a secret! grrrrr! :-)
Comment by katy
I didn’t share your age — like I did on MY birthday. :-D
February 27th, 2007 at 9:54 amHate, the truly progressive value.
Comment by Hate
Project much?
Your name is appropriate — for you.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:55 amI don’t hope Cheney is blown to bits. Impeachment will due just fine.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:55 amPowell was a disaster because of the information he was given. And he did fall into the neocon trap.
Now lets pass the blame around here, to neocons only.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:56 am#37: wrong. Progressives support American values. Conservatives have destroyed America’s stature and respect in the world and have created more terrorist enemies of the United States. Conservatives have killed 3,000 American soldiers for a pointless war. Conservatives allow Osama bin Laden, the person responsible for the greatest terrorist attack ever against America, to remain free.
You are sad, misinformed troll.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:56 amDale,
You were an idiot yesterday. You are an idiot today. You will remain an idiot tomorrow.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:57 amProjection alert, comment #37
February 27th, 2007 at 9:58 amU.S. officials yesterday displayed bombmaking parts said to have been transported by Iran into Iraq. The cache “included items that appeared to cloud the issue.
More BS from the Masters of BS action figure series!
February 27th, 2007 at 9:59 amchimpeach, Mikey, and any others… you do realize, of course, that advocating the death of any government official is considered sedition.
And if Ann Coulter were to make jokes about it, then she’d be just as wrong. Or are you going to keep to the same standards as Ann Coulter?
And pairless, you’re correct, I mistyped… I should’ve said that strategic decision are the responsibility of CinC, JCS, etc… but they’re still not the responsibility of Congress.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:01 amIt is interesting, from the perspective of pathology, to watch how the trolls have to actually lower themselves another rung each day to keep up with Bush’s descent into ignominy. They must grow ever stupider to accommodate the widening gulf between them and reality. These are the true deadenders.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:02 amDick, you reap what you sow.
You should be proud of their new found desire to kill you.
It should help justify your actions, right DICK?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:03 amIt’s becoming obvious that Karl Rove has hired shifts of trolls to hang out on TP threads 24/7 now. Probably does this for other progressive blogs.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:03 amR. Perle seems not to be happy with anybody these days…he is running impatient because US still not in war with Syria and Iran. He is itching for another war to fulfill the Neocons plans as Netanyahu and the Likud sees them.
His impatience caused him to criticise everybody including big supporter of Neocons like Condi Rice. He is also attacking the Democrats,Colin Powell even Tenet. He calls C. Powell ‘a disaster’ !!
He said that he heard in briefings all the intelligence before the Iraq war started as chairman of Defense Policy Board,and there was no misleading on the WMDS.
This man is not an elected official,neither in the Administration or the Congress…why is he sitting listening to intelligence breifings when Congress members do not . By what capacity ?!!
Now he is running impatient…he wants all enemies of Israel attacked…as soon as possible..and if you don’t share his opinion and point of view, then you are ‘a disaster’ and ‘incapable’.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:03 amYeah, more fake evidence against Iran, but nooooo, Seixon, Bush isn’t planning to attack them. Actually some liberally biased reporters made this stuff up to make Bush look bad! Yeah, that’s it. Must be.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:04 amAdvocating for the assasination of the US government officials. I am sure there is some kind of legal infraction in there somewhere.
Comment by Hate — February 27, 2007 @ 9:46 am
Maybe you should re-read what I wrote:
Do I favor assassination of a sitting VP?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:04 amI favor ending Pairless Cheney’s tenure as VP; murder is not my first choice.
Comment by Pairless Ed — February 27, 2007 @ 9:36 am
So, Dale, tell me: why should we give Bush ANOTHER chance to f**k it up? He has been f**king it up in Iraq for 4 years now. Badly. Very, very badly. What excuse can you possibly summon to defend supporting this lifetime loser? Why do you worship this failure of a human being?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:08 amU.S. officials yesterday displayed bombmaking parts said to have been transported by Iran into Iraq. The cache “included items that appeared to cloud the issue.
They are trying so hard to make this look a reasonable motive for striking Iran. I know of some who will swallow it all. This has always amazed me: how US citizens are one of the most misinformed people in the world.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:08 amProjection alert, comment #37
Comment by VerbalKint — February 27, 2007 @ 9:58 am
Despising Cheney, and advocating his assassination are two different things. I think the man should be removed from office, and the country, unless they have a nice little cell for him at Gitmo. But to advocate the violent demise of another human is the disgusting.
Maybe the wimps we (yes we) elected into Congress should do their job.
Hate, the truly progressive value.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:08 am“You’re right, Dale. None of those people should have had to die. It was certainly nothing to be cheerful about.”
Good for you, Chimpeach. Some of the cheering going on here for a Taliban suicide-bomber is sickening. Regardless of party, to root for an ally of Al Qaeda to kill Americans is appalling.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:10 amchimpeach, Mikey, and any others… you do realize, of course, that advocating the death of any government official is considered sedition.
Comment by Dale
Did you express the same outrage when some member of the US government and Pat Robertson suggested the killing of Chavez and Castro?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:12 amHate, the truly progressive value.
Comment by Hate — February 27, 2007 @ 10:08 am
What, couldn’t think of a better strawman, so you had to repeat the same once twice? Trolls aren’t a very imaginative lot, are they?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:12 amRegardless of party, to root for an ally of Al Qaeda to kill Americans is appalling.
Comment by Exley
And viceversa. Dont forget.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:12 amHa Ha Perle is calling Powell & Rice mistakes? Perle is one of those who set the whole Iraq debacle into place…..possibly just the biggest mistake in human history and apt to be the catylsyt to the end of our world as we know it.
The attempt to topple a dictator & gain control of OIL…..failed…. due to the use of wishful thinking rather than any sort of political or mid east acumen. If Bush had a brain maybe he would not have let them (Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz & Libby)lead him skipping so blithely down this neocon path to perdition and death…
And for the few who still think this misbegotten invasion of Iraq was about terrorism….I have a bridge to sell you.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:14 amSo now the right wants to protect the sanctity of Cheney’s life, after steadfastly ignoring or denying the catastrophic human rights violations committed by their leaders. Half a million dead, but they are only brown people, guys, so don’t sweat it. Be sure to get sanctimonious, though, when a few decent, frustrated people joke about Cheney getting what he truly deserves.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:14 amHate > nobody advocates the killing of Cheney on here, no matter how criminal and disgusting he is in reality. We want him to be forced to resign, or to be impeached by the Congress, and he can go into exile.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:15 am“We knew that Dick Cheney would be staying inside the base…The attacker was trying to reach Cheney.â€
My question: What was Cheney doing in Afghanistan? That brings the question: What are the US troops doing in Afghanistan? That brings the question: Would somebody attack the Afghan VP if Afghanistan were occupating the US?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:15 amAnn Coulter had advocated, or at least certainly approved, that a Supreme Court Justice be poisoned but yet suffered no punishment for what she had said. It should be understood that the reason the Taliban had gone after Cheney was most likely because of intiqaam, which is Arabic for revenge, revenge for the many thousands of needless deaths that Afghanis and Iraqis have had to endure because of the U.S. military and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Needless American deaths will continue to occur because of the foolish presence of the U.S. military in the Middle East. Bring those troops home- safely- now.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:17 amHalf a million dead, but they are only brown people, guys, so don’t sweat it. Be sure to get sanctimonious, though, when a few decent, frustrated people joke about Cheney getting what he truly deserves.
Comment by VerbalKint
Well said. A racist only have pity for white men.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:18 amThe Office of Women’s Health “just had more than one-quarter of this year’s $4 million operating budget quietly removed, insiders say.†The move will “effectively halt further operations for the rest of the year.†Women’s health advocates believe it is “a long-anticipated payback for the trouble the office stirred during the prolonged debate over nonprescription sales of Plan B.â€
Anticipated. At least they knew it was coming. And in the big picture, it was worth it.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:18 amI didn’t share your age — like I did on MY birthday. :-D
Comment by Zooey — February 27, 2007 @ 9:54 am
yea… my age has never been a secret though… that’s not a problem…
February 27th, 2007 at 10:18 amNEXT year i get the senior discount! … something to look forward to!
i only brought it up this morning so as not to appear ungrateful!
to root for an ally of Al Qaeda to kill Americans is appalling.
Comment by Exley — February 27, 2007 @ 10:10 am
So Exley, will you be back here to post a condemnation every time a Bush supporter advocates killing civilians in Iraq and Iran? Better glue yourself to the chair, because you will have to man this site 24 hours a day just on account of Roger_Roger, Dale, michael, and all the other losers.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:18 amPat Robertson doesn’t seem to have a problem with assasination, nor does our CIA.
Lets ask them what they think.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:18 amVerbalKint, by ‘ANOTHER chance’ are you talking about Iran? If you don’t want to see us invade Iran, then by all means, call/write/email your Congresspersons, protest, do whatever your little heart desires. But when you advocate the assassination of a gov’t official, esp. a V.P. or Pres, then you’re committing attrition. And yes, I’d say the same thing if you were railing against Pelosi, or Murtha, or Kucinich, or Levin, or any other gov’t official.
As said in #58, I don’t give a d**n if you’re Con, Progressive, Dem, Lib, Green; give yourself whatever label you like… but if you’re advocating or cheering for the killing of V.P. Cheney, then you’re showing hate for America… notice I didn’t say hate for Bush, but hate for America, and all that it stands for.
Idiot.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:18 amDammit Juan, you are always holding the same standards to the US, that the US holds to others. The US makes its own damn standards.
/sarcasm
February 27th, 2007 at 10:19 am#64 Jay … You wrote: “nobody advocates the killing of Cheney on here”
I wish that were true.
Posting #3: “Keep sending him back until they get it right.”
Posting #7: “Keep sending him back until they get it right.
I couldn’t agree more!”
I applaud you for rejecting such hateful and, quite frankly, moronic sentiments.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:21 amUh, dumbs**t, tell me where I advocated the assassination of Cheney? Let’s stick to the facts, please.
You seem a little upset there, Dale. Does the truth prick through the armor of your stupidity once in a while, perhaps?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:23 am#62 — Actually, the ThinkProgess bulletin is a bit misleading. Perle isn’t expressing regret or a change of heart at all. The link goes to a Newsmax interview with Perle where he also blames Murtha and Pelosi — and slips in some criticism of Al Franken (!) — so clearly he’s contributing to the stabbed in the back narrative. This time it’s not just the hippies, it’s also Bush’s own administration. Now that’s chutzpah.
My fav quote from the interview:
In other words, the only polls that matter are those packed with leading and emotive questions that guide respondents to answers that make us look good.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:23 am#59, yes, I did, but for different reasons. An American citizen calling for the death of a head of state of a sovereign nation is, to use someone else’s word on here, is appalling. It does not, however, show hate for what America stands for.
#64, check out #1, #4, #7, #8, #11, #19, and more (but I got sick of reading them). All either cheering the bombing, or suggesting we send others IN ADDITION TO V.P. Cheney.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:23 amSo let’s get back on topic, Dale. What do you think of the Bush administration presenting phony evidence against Iran? Do you think this will form a legal and moral basis for attacking Iran? Do you think they would be presenting phony evidence if they had any real evidence to show? Does the rule of law mean anything to you Dale, or is it all about man-worship for you?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:25 amWTC7 being reported as collapsed live, yet the building still stands in the background..
You tube search “WTC BBC”
The nazis at TP delete these posts. View it for yourself.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:26 amVerbalKint, when you’re able to rationally discuss something without resorting to baseless attacks, I’ll be glad to discuss any subject you’d like… all day.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:27 amDo the Taliban really think that if they assassinate Cheny that things will improve over there? That we will leave sooner?
If you want to mobilize a nation behind a cause, kill one of their heads of state.
Remember the increase in violence after the Saddam execution?
BTW, I can not stand Cheney. I think he needs to go away. But anyone that would be happy about the attempt on his life needs to reevaluate their view of their own humanity.
OK, ready for the attack in 3…2…1
February 27th, 2007 at 10:27 amAnother thing to keep in mind, along with your glee at the possibility of Veep being assassinated, are you also happy about this?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:29 am#80, well stated hacker bob.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:30 amBob its all good. I want Cheney to go away too. I think people feel the only way for that to happen is for him to take a dirt nap. I would prefer Cheney not go away mad, just go away.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:32 am#80 – You’re right, Robert.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:33 amDale,
February 27th, 2007 at 10:35 am“Killing” is not a one way street.
Anyone who dishes it out better be capable of dealing with taking it.
And labelling someone as “un-American” for their opinions is as hypocritical as you can get, silly boy.
Now go get a clue, get a life, turn off the computer and move out of your mom’s house, IN THAT ORDER.
The irony is Richard Perle claiming anyone else was incompetent, wrong, or “failed” the president.
Complaints against Rice seem credible in that she is smart enough to know much of what to do, but ambitious enough to do whatever the president wanted. Traits equally true of Mr. Perle. Mr. Powell I would put in another basket altogether. Which is what suggests that Perle – unhappy since his conflict of interest between his “consulting/acess” business and his top role as an “unpaid” DoD advisor, when made public, forced his resignation from the latter – is attempting to provide the president and his other neocon advisers cover. Someone else led him to do it. The “it” being whatever is being criticized at the moment.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:39 am#85 “Dale,“Killing†is not a one way street.
Anyone who dishes it out better be capable of dealing with taking it.”
As Al Qaeda and the Taliban found out when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan after Al Qaeda slaughtered 3,000 innocent people on 9/11/2001.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:39 am#48 Dale
chimpeach, Mikey, and any others… you do realize, of course, that advocating the death of any government official is considered sedition.
And if Ann Coulter were to make jokes about it, then she’d be just as wrong. Or are you going to keep to the same standards as Ann Coulter?
I think I was pretty clear about it. How does sedition suddenly become funny when it comes out of the mouth of Ann Coulter? Why do the news media give her airplay for her gleeful talk about killing government officials and don’t utter one critical word about her? Why do they treat her like a respected political commentator in spite of her sedtious speech and keep inviting her back for more?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:42 amGovernors “pressed†President Bush yesterday “to provide more money†for the Children’s Health Insurance Program,†as many states expect to run out of funding for the program by September. “In response, administration officials said states should make better use of the money they already had.â€
Is this the “sacrifice” for the war effort? Underfunding these programs.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:43 amDo the Taliban really think that if they assassinate Cheny that things will improve over there? That we will leave sooner?
Comment by hacker bob — February 27, 2007 @ 10:27 am
Maybe they do. Actually, they probably don’t really care if the US leaves or stays.
I put my money on the Taliban and associates seeing the assassination of heads of state as retribution for the US policies in the Middle East: The 9/11 attacks were justified under the same premise.
Those feigning outrage at the idea that an American VP should be the target of an assassination plot should keep in mind the calls to “take out” Hussein, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, etc. by American political commenters and the actual attempts to do so by successive US governments. This, of course, in no way justifies AlQaeda -but it does highlight the double standard so many in the US apply when judging the actions of their own government.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:44 amPerle is pretty much blaming everyone but himself and the neo-con policies. The reality is that the bush neo-con policy was doomed from the beginning, but these clowns still are unable to admit that their fantasy of destroying all anti-Israel countries is a failure.
It is pretty clear that history will identify Perle and other “war promoters” as being wrong and resulted in the worst military decision in American history. Perle is simply attempting to distance himself from this failure. . . .but his fate is sealed on this deal!
February 27th, 2007 at 10:45 am“The attacker was trying to reach Cheney.â€
Perhaps the attackers will have a better aim and better intel next time.
Karma is only on their side.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:46 am#85, wank, any opinion that is happy about the assassination attempt on a gov’t official is called sedition, by definition, and IS un-American. You’ll never understand that though, because you’re so blinded by your hatred.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:48 amThose feigning outrage at the idea that an American VP should be the target of an assassination plot should keep in mind the calls to “take out†Hussein, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, etc. by American political commenters and the actual attempts to do so by successive US governments.
Comment by Gregor Samsa
—————————————————
Gregor,
I read someplace once that our government tried to take out Fidel Castro 687 times.
That’s 687 failed attempts.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:49 amComment by Gregor Samsa — February 27, 2007 @ 10:44 am
I agree. I for one never advocated that we “take out” Saddam unless it was done on the field of battle, i.e., he made himself a willing participant on the battlefield. The day he was hanged, the first comment I made about it was a hope for the God of his understanding to grant him mercy. I did advocate for his removal from power. But not by assassination.
When you call for assassination, when you attempt assassination, when you carry out assassination, you become the target of assassination.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:52 amArticle 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress the power:
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces
IMO this indicates that Congress has the power and, therefore, the duty to determine how and when the military is employed. This is consistent with the general power to declare war.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:53 amComment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — February 27, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Please show me the proper format for teh declaration of war.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:54 amIs this the “sacrifice†for the war effort? Underfunding these programs.
Comment by ForTruth —
ForTruth,
In BushWorld, education is just not “economically feasible” because they simply cannot see an immediate short term benefit and “return” from education, so therefore, education is…silly.
A waste of money to them.
Now bombs, bombs on the other hand? They can see the “immediate” effects of war and bombing.
To them this war is “successful” remember?
Screw the Books, Build More Bombs! (BushCo)
February 27th, 2007 at 10:55 amThis simply demonstrates that “securing peace” in the region will not be accomplished by military means. Political solutions must be utilized to resolved differences. However, we have a mis-administration which refuses to broker peace agreements or attempt to resolve differences, so the fate of the region is pretty much limited to continual military conflict.
If cheney/rove/bush want to maintain the “terrorist” threat to the USA so the “commander in chief” can continue using his “war powers” than peace will never be on the table, until the election of 2008 is over. If the repubs continue in leadership, then no changes will be made. If the Dems take over the WH, then massive changes in presidential authority will be put in place effective the day cheney/rove/bush leave office.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:57 am#96, they can DECLARE war, but they don’t have the constitutional authority to determine strategic or operational objectives. This is not a ‘right-wing-talking-point’; it’s basic constitutional law fact. This is the reason the members of Congress who are against the war have talked about “de-funding” or Murtha’s latest plan.
Nothing to do with your OR my opinion.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:57 amDale, Exley, you speak volumes about yourselves when you go to such great lengths to defend the rule of law and the biblical injunction against killing on behalf of Cheney, after steadfastly ignoring, rationalizing, and enabling the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Speak volumes, yes you do.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:57 amComment by hacker bob — February 27, 2007 @ 10:52 am
I am not a religious man, so I could hardly pray for anyone -but I can see your point: Although I was happy (maybe that is not the best word, “relieved” is more like it) to see Hussein gone, I deplored the circumstances that got him there.
Was his life worth the lives of thousands of American soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians? My answer is an absolute no.
Your point on assassination is very valid, and can be easily used to argue against preemptive strikes, and general “regime changes”.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:59 amRachel,
687 attempts? wow!
If that’s accurate, there is your answer to the question “why do they hate us?”
(You got me curious -I will see what I can find on the subject)
February 27th, 2007 at 11:01 am100
But if Congress has the power to declare war and regulate the military, it also has the power to determine policy objectives (see the Resolution for authorizing force in Iraq) and monitor progress toward the meeting of those objective and, thereby, order the cessation of the use of military force.
97
The form for declaring war is not the issue, the power to do so and the implications of Congress’ power to, thereby, set policy objectives is the issue.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:08 amPLC,
That particular provision of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to adopt statutes organizing the military (such as statute that created the Joint Chiefs of Staff or, for example, when Congress adopted President Truman’s 1945 recommendation that the Congress adopt legislation combining the War and Navy Departments into one single Department of Defense )
or statutes that govern the military, such as the Uniform Code of Military Military Justice and the Military Justice Acts of 1968 and 1983.
The cited provision of Article I, Section 8 does not mean that Congress has the power to command “how and when the military is employed.”
February 27th, 2007 at 11:18 am#72 Dale Evans ~ when you advocate the assassination of a gov’t official, esp. a V.P. or Pres, then you’re committing attrition
committing attrition?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:19 amWTF?
Get some decent command of the enlish language.
committing attrition?
Comment by RUCerious — February 27, 2007 @ 11:19 am
I saw that. Killing an elected official is/could be considered “attrition” in the government ranks, perhaps?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:24 am#106, should’ve been sedition… I’m glad you’ve got my back in the spelling/grammar area. I always knew you’d be able to make a good contribution to this forum.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:28 amhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/cuba/story/0,,1835930,00.html
———————————————————————–
638 ways to kill Castro | Special reports | Guardian UnlimitedCastro denies US claims that his health is failing … The most recent serious assassination attempt that we know of came in 2000 when Castro was due to …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cuba/story/0,,1835930,00.html
————————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro
Fidel Castro – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[17] This pattern is of course repeated in later political life with over 663 assassination attempts on Castro credited to the U.S. Government and their …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro – Feb 25, 2007
————————————————————————
http://www.newhumanist.com/cubaterror.html
Double Standard: Four decades of US-sponsored terrorismThe attacks, the bombings, the assassination attempts went on. Over 600 plans or attempts on Fidel Castro’s life alone are known to authorities — from …
http://www.newhumanist.com/cubaterror.html –
————————————————————————-
Gregor,
I was wrong it was 638, NOT 687.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:35 amWiki probably isn’t updated with it’s claim of 663.
Sorry for the mixup.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cuba/story/0,,1835930,00.html
———————————————————————–
638 ways to kill Castro | Special reports | Guardian UnlimitedCastro denies US claims that his health is failing … The most recent serious assassination attempt that we know of came in 2000 when Castro was due to …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cuba/story/0,,1835930,00.html
————————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro
Fidel Castro – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[17] This pattern is of course repeated in later political life with over 663 assassination attempts on Castro credited to the U.S. Government and their …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro – Feb 25, 2007
————————————————————————
http://www.newhumanist.com/cubaterror.html
Double Standard: Four decades of US-sponsored terrorismThe attacks, the bombings, the assassination attempts went on. Over 600 plans or attempts on Fidel Castro’s life alone are known to authorities — from …
http://www.newhumanist.com/cubaterror.html –
————————————————————————-
Gregor,
I was wrong it was 663, NOT 687.
Wiki probably isn’t updated with it’s claim of 663.
Sorry for the mixup.
But hey, one is enough right?
LOL
Castro once stated that if surviving assassination attempts were an Olympic event, he himself would win the gold medal hands down.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:36 amYou’ll never understand that though, because you’re so blinded by your hatred.
Comment by Dale
What hate? You’re so full of yourself, you’ll excuse me for ignoring you. There’s just not enough room in your bloated “sphere” of delusion for more than one.
And just because you have a blog(a very weak one at that) doesn’t elevate your “opinions” above anyone here, but rather paints you into your lonely corner of fear and bewilderment at a World that doesn’t agree with you.
You seriously need some friends, but you’re barking up the wrong tree here, my little stray mutt. But I see you are learning to spell! Good for you!!!
February 27th, 2007 at 11:52 amhttp://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=12216
February 27th, 2007 at 11:54 amreg·u·late
tr.v., -lat·ed, -lat·ing, -lates.
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one’s eating habits.
Exley, your version of “regulate” covers only #4. Mine covers #1-3 as well. Again, Congress has the sole power to declare war which determines when the military is to be employed. Bush and others have called it the “War in Iraq” and Bush declares himself a “war President” authorized by Congress to employ the military in Iraq. If we accept this as a declaration of war, doesn’t Congress have the power to declare the war over?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:56 amExley,
I guess I’m not alone in my interpretation: this from an Army JAG:
jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/03/army-and-constitution-time-for.php
February 27th, 2007 at 12:04 pmCondoleezza Rice “was in way over her head from the beginning,â€..
That’s because she has her head so far up Bush’s ass she hasn’t seen daylight in 6 years.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:09 pmDale, you are most welcome.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pmBTW, hate is for losers. It only makes one’s sensibilities become deadened.
We can disagree with the leaders of this country, that is our Constitutional right.
We can point out that they are responsible for tens or hundreds of thousands of needless deaths.
We can cast aspersions on their pitiful decision making and piss poor execution of their flawed and faulty planning.
All without expressing personal hatred.
Disdain, disappointment, resentment, but hate is a real downer.
The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if this whole “attack on Cheney” thing is a set up to make it look like the terrorists actually hate the Repubs… when in reality, they give them donations.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pmDale, sedition by definition is not trying to assassinate a public official. Sedition by definition from Merriam Webster…
Main Entry: se·di·tion
Pronunciation: si-’di-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sedicioun, from Anglo-French sediciun, from Latin sedition-, seditio, literally, separation, from sed-, se- apart + ition-, itio act of going, from ire to go — more at SECEDE, ISSUE
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority
Now, assassination attempts can be acts of sedition, but they most certainly are not the definition of sedition. Maybe that is the problem with Neocons, they see things totally different from the rest of us (examples…unitary executive, definition of torture, definition of immediate threat etc…). Of course MW is probably a liberal plot to subvert the English language since their definition did not agree with Dales.
Dale, you and others of your kind always speak of how much the left hates this or how much the left hates that etc… Try this on for size, from 1993 – 2000 the right hated Clinton and did everything in their power to get him out of office, from day one. Why was it out of concern for the country? Nope it was pure hatred, that is why ultimately they found nothing on him and only got him for lying about something that was none of their business to begin with. And they still hate hi , his wife and anyone associated with him every day since he has left office. What rational reason did they have to truly hate him?
Now lets look at the current president. This guy has subverted the constitution in so many ways it makes me dizzy thinking about it. He was in charge when the largest single terrorist attack in US history occurred. He has presided over a war that arose under dubious condition (I am being kind here) he has overseen the death of an entire American city, he has governed as he pleases, he has increased our national debt, he has destroyed the budgetary process, he has overseen the death of habeus corpus and the birth of torture as an American value, he has actively worked to break down the separation between church and state, he has purposefully divided the country (yes he has, it is how ROve has guided him) yadda yadda yadda, and you wonder why people do not approve of him?
#95m Bob, how did Sadaam make himself a willing participant on the field of battle? I believe we invaded his country against his will. If memory serves me well, he was not agitating for a fight, we were.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pm#116 PLC,
Thanks for the article. Just gave it a very quick read….The article really breaks no new ground or makes any type of novel constitutional argument about, say, a congressional power to “undeclare” war or make strategic, tactical, or operational military decisions during times of military conflict.
The article stated that Congress has a role to play in the creation and management of U.S. military forces. Clearly that is true. No one disputes that. The article says “Congress must conduct its own inquiry through congressional hearings and investigation, and determine independent of the administration what the state of the Army is and what the appropriate force levels are for the Army in the future.”
That is true. Congress can certainly say during the appropriation process that the size of the armed forces should be increased and decreased “in the future.” But the Congress does not — nor does the article claim — that Congress can dictate the size of battlefield deployments during times of war and military conflict. The president’s role as “commander-in-chief” is not honorary. It carries real and actual authority. And one aspect of that authority is to consult with military officials and make a detrmination about how best to deploy the troops during times of conflict.
So, in short, does Congress have a role to play in regulating the military and in deciding the size of the armed forces? Undoubtedly. Does Congress have a role to play in detemining the size of battlefield deployments in times of war? No where in the Constitution is such authority granted. If To argue that Congress did have such authority is to say that the constitutional authority of the president as “commander-in-chief” is meaningless. And there is no support in the wording of the Constitution in support of that proposition.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pmA bomb killed 18 boys and wounded 25 others Tuesday at a makeshift soccer field on the outskirts of Ramadi, west of Baghdad, Iraq’s Interior Ministry said.
The boys were ages 10 to 15, the ministry said.
Well, if these is the only bomb today in Iraq, then that’s okay with Laura Bush
(…and Jesus wept)
February 27th, 2007 at 12:37 pmI am just wondering if they (WH) will now find a way to tie this “attack on Cheney” to Iran, and then make this bombing the ‘trigger’ or incident they have been waiting for to start the bombing. (Yes, it is a stretch).
They will just conveniently find a piece of the explosive device that just happens to have identifiable writing or serial numbers on it. Then it will be the US responding to an attempt by Iran to kill the co-commander-in-chief..
Just musing out loud..
February 27th, 2007 at 12:38 pm#118, I agree totally with your comment, which was my original point; you can hate VP Cheney, or Pres. Bush, hate the things they’ve done, the things they stand for, but when people are *happy* about an assassination attempt on him, that’s going over the line. Read over the posts here, some people were happy about the attempt, and stated that they’d like the attempt to be made again. THAT is hate, pure and simple.
#120, okay mince words… the definition of sedition isn’t assassination, but assassination is one example of definition, as I said in #49 and #73. Thanks for lumping me in with every single other conservatives out there.
And Saddam made himself a willing participant by originally invading Kuwait; there was only a cease-fire; the terms of which he consistently broke for 12 years.
And wank-n-bake, what the h**l does my blog have to do with anything? It isn’t just my opinion about the assassination attempt, it’s the law: advocating the death of a government official is considered sedition (see Mark’s definition in #120)
February 27th, 2007 at 12:41 pmI am just wondering if they (WH) will now find a way to tie this “attack on Cheney†to Iran
Maybe they could tie the attacks to……the Taliban in Afghanistan! And redeploy the troops from Iraq, back to the borders of Pakistan…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pmand get that sumbitch Osama!
Which should have been done almost 4 years ago!
PLC, if your view of the consitutional authority of Congress is correct, then why hasn’t any members of Congress tried to do just what you suggest?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:43 pmif these is the only bomb today
February 27th, 2007 at 12:44 pmif this is the only bomb today…
D’OH!!!
DRxJ,
“A bomb killed 18 boys and wounded 25 others Tuesday at a makeshift soccer field on the outskirts of Ramadi, west of Baghdad, Iraq’s Interior Ministry said. The boys were ages 10 to 15, the ministry said.”
That is a horror. And it is actions like that by the “insurgents” that make me wonder about people who say the “insurgents” are merely engaging is “self-defense” or “fighting for their country.”
How is setting off a bomb at a soccer field, filled with Iraqi children, “self-defense?”
February 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pmSunday, February 25, 2007
http://www.theittlist.com/
Virginia Legislators Vote to Apologize for Slavery (1:46 am)
Larry O’Dell for AP reports:
RICHMOND, Va. — Meeting on the grounds of the former Confederate Capitol, the Virginia General Assembly voted unanimously Saturday to express “profound regret†for the state’s role in slavery.
Sponsors of the resolution say they know of no other state that has apologized for slavery, although Missouri lawmakers are considering such a measure. The resolution does not carry the weight of law but sends an important symbolic message, supporters said.
——————————————————
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×234561
How the U.S. military would remove Bush-Cheney
There’s a term for when the military replaces its Commander-In-Chief – coup d’etat — but there are lesser practical steps that have been taken by Pentagon brass several times in modern American history to deal with Presidents viewed as incompetent to carry out their duties as CIC. Here’s how it works in practice.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have developed a range of options to deal with domestic political crises. These contingencies include major military or terrorist attacks, natural catastrophies, insurrections, civil disturbances, and the partial or complete cessation of civilian goverment. By far, the most difficult for the national command staff is confronting and managing the threat posed by a manifestly imcompetent or incapacitated CIC who issues launch orders without proper procedures. Under no circumstances short of actual hostilities or a confirmed threat of attack, could the military carry out launch orders committing the military to war on the sole authority of the President. George W. Bush can not just pick up the phone in the middle of the night and begin a nuclear strike. That order has to be countersigned by others within the chain of command.
The Pentagon carries out strategic planning for all possible contingencies. The staff of Joint Chiefs and the combat commands attempt to prepare reponses to all possible threats or orders they may receive. Somewhere in a locked file in the D-Ring of the Pentagon, the JCS staff have developed contingency planning for how top military commanders would respond to manifestly illegal or irresponsible orders issed by a deranged President. These responses would always involve consultation with civilian agency and Congressional leaders and range up to and include plans for the use of troops to forcible remove the President from the White House, depending upon the circumstances.
Political Containment
One doesn’t contemplate the involuntary removal of elected civilian leadership lightly. Civilian control over the military is the cornerstone of the American constitutional system, and all actions must serve that end. Therefore, the military brass will not act independently and will seek out responsible elected and appointed officials for any action prior to removal of a President. Prior to any direct intervention in the political process, Pentagon commanders would have to be convinced that all normal procedural and political options, including Impeachment or succession under the 25th Amendment, had been exhausted or were futile.
An active plan of containment by civilian political institutions is the preferred means to deal with a dangerously unstable CIC. If normal political checks and balances break down, however, then top military commanders face a series of more difficult choices that must be made in order to uphold their oaths to protect and preserve the U.S. Constitution.
Removal in Place
Romoval in Place is an option to forcible removal of the incumbent from office, or may be employed as an intervening step pending the resignation or involuntary removal of the President.
Removal in place has been seen in “figurehead” presidents in the past, employed due to illness or temporary physical or mental impairment during the terms of Presidents Wilson, Nixon, and Reagan. Historically, this option has been carried out more or less informally by measures such as confinement to hospital of the President, the removal of the CIC’s access to the nuclear “football” containing launch codes, and the heavy medication and close supervision of the President by aides.
The removal in place option requires the cooperation of key figures within the White House inner-circle along with civilian agencies to effectively keep the President from exercising undesirable command decisions of consequence. The effective maintenance of this option ultimately depends upon at least the passive acquiesance of the CIC and his immediate staff and family.
This option has the advantage of maintaining the public appearance of normalcy, avoiding open conflict between civilian and military authorities, and the attendant political and economic crises that open, formal, involuntary removal would entail.
Involuntary Removal
When it becomes apparent that an incompetent or psychologically impaired President can not be countered by normal political means or contained in place, military and civilian leaders must cooperate to insure that the CIC is disconnected from the mechanisms by which he might be able to issue launch orders to the national command system.
This option is a matter of last resort exercised only when by the consensus of the Joint Chiefs, after consultation with civilian heads of agencies and Congressional leaders, that the incumbent President presents extreme danger to the national security that can not be contained by alternatives, including those outlined above. The proper procedure would then be for alternate civilian leadership within the Line of Succession to invoke the 25th Amendment declaring the incumbent President incapable of carrying out his duties. If the Vice President is also judged incapable of carrying out succession duties in a responsible manner, he too is also subject to immediate removal under the 25th Amendment.
Involuntary removal may only be considered as a last resort in the face of grave, imminent threat to national security, such as to prevent the exercise of unlawful orders committing U.S. forces to hostilities. An example of unlawful launch orders would be issuance of a preemptive nuclear strike orders against a foreign state or power that poses no realistic, imminent, and grave threat to American forces or interests. Of particular concern would a launch order issued without Congressional consultation or approval initiating a conflict that foreseeably holds a high potential for large-scale U.S. military casualties or retaliatory attacks on civilian targets within the United States that can not be effectively defended against.
Given the escalating tensions in the region, and the vital U.S. interests at stake in South Asia, the top military commanders have forcefuly articulated their positon on various options. They have opposed implementation of plans for a preemptive attack on Iran. If the President were to issue a launch order for a preemptive attack on Iran without first obtaining a Congressional resolution of war, that action — in effect, an illegal order — would require the national command authority and civilian leadership to implement plans to contravene such an order, sever the CIC’s command authority, pending the removal the President and Vice President under the 25th Amendment.
Do not be deceived by the rhetoric and sabre-rattling. The United States will not go to war with Iran just because George W. Bush or Dick Cheney order it.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pm——————————————————
Re: #48 #72
Dale
#35 is right.
To quote Sun Tzu “Every battle is won before it is ever fought. ”
I am not a big fan of “absolutes,” so with all due respect to the great Sun Tzu – “battles are often won before they are fought” in my opinion.
Let’s fast forward from 500 BC to February 2003 AD
“Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges, and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario”
Published by the U.S. Army War College.
Feb. 2003.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=182
Take note of the following conclusions:
Conclusion #3:
To conduct their share of the essential tasks that must be accomplished to reconstruct an Iraqi state, military forces will be severely taxed in military police, civil affairs, engineer, and transportation units, in addition to possible severe security difficulties.
Conclusion #4:
The administration of an Iraqi occupation will be complicated by deep religious, ethnic, tribal differences which dominate Iraqi society.
Conclusion #5
U.S. forces may have to manage and adjudicate conflicts among Iraqis that they can barely comprehend.
Conclusion #6
An exit strategy will require the establishment of political stability, which will be difficult to achieve given Iraq’s fragmented population, weak political institutions, and propensity for rule by violence.
————————–
This study actually began in Fall of 2002. So the man that you respect as Commander in Chief and his VP could have had access to it well before the invasion.
But neither was interested. They chose to ignore it.
Ignoring this info has had grave consequences for this nation and the world.
On Jan. 28, 2003 – the Bush Administration had another chance to heed good advice. Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf - the man who kicked Saddam’s ass in 1990 – was quoted in the article “Desert Caution” saying:
1: Rumsfeld is incompetent.
“(Rumsfeld’s) dismissive posture bothers Schwarzkopf because he thinks Rumsfeld and the people around him lack the background to make sound military judgments by themselves.
What did the man that you respect as Commander in Chief do with this information from Schwarzkopf?
Nothing. Until November of 2007.
2: Without a good post war Plan – this can be a disaster.
“What is postwar Iraq going to look like, with the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shiites? That’s a huge question, to my mind. It really should be part of the overall campaign plan.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52450-2003Jan27?language=printer
———————-
So you may be thinking – “Well hot damn, these men looked into the future and got it right ! How did they do it?”
They did it by understanding the region and actually talking with Iraqis (other than Chalabi).
If you are not familiar, the Shia Iraqi Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr Al Hakim was a political enemy of Saddam. He had been jailed and tortured by Saddam. Hakim had family members who were jailed, tortured and killed. He managed to flee to Iran and form a 10,000 man militia.
The interview takes place in Iran – prior to the invasion.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: As you know, some people in the United States, the military planners, believe this could go very quickly, this war. Do you believe that, or do you think this could be a very bloody, drawn-out war?
AYATOLLAH MUHAMMAD BAKR AL HAKIM, Iraqi Opposition Leader (Translated): That would depend on how the Americans enter. If it’s a war of invasion and occupation, the United States forces will face a strong resistance. But if the Americans come to help the Iraqis to determine their fate and to rule themselves, there will be no resistance.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Have you decided whether your forces will help the Americans if there is an invasion?
AYATOLLAH MUHAMMAD BAKR AL HAKIM (Translated): We haven’t been consulted about this matter, so we haven’t yet made any decisions.
Dale, HOW CAN A RESPONSIBLE (so-called) COMMANDER IN CHIEF NOT HAVE SOMEBODY REACH OUT AND TALK TO THIS GUY ???? A GUY WITH A 10,000 MAN MILITIA ???
This would be military intelligence 101.
At minimum – you want to know how he plans to use the 10,000 men in his militia. What actions will make him pro-coalition? What actions may make him anti-coalition?
More from Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr Al Hakim’s interview:
“The U.S. is thinking of dominating and occupying Iraq, which will create nationalist and religious sensitivities inside Iraq, and this will lead to violence and bad consequences for the Iraqis and the Americans. And these subjects need to be discussed to reach a mutual understanding about them. But unfortunately, the Americans, until now, do not allow such a thing to happen.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/resistance_2-25.html
Dale, you used the phrase “hate for America” in your #72 post. Hating this administration for ignoring good advice and guidance and instead putting other people in harms way in pursuit of a fantasy is not at all the same as hating the nation.
You got it backwards.
Calling out Bush and Cheney for the very serious and very avoidable mistakes that they have made is actually showing respect and love for democracy.
By copy to Exley – this should be remedial reading for you. I think we have been down this road before.
And to be clear – I do not advocate the blowing up of Cheney by the Taliban. However, locking down Afghanistan for real beyond 2002 – 2003 and not redeploying troops to Iraq (a decision that Cheney certainly endorsed) may have made his recent trip quite a bit safer.
This president and the vice president made no attempt to listen to those who knew the enemy – nor were they interested in the likely realities. They just went to war anyway.
That should make you very angry with both the president and the vice president, Dale. Very angry.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:52 pm18 children murdered in Baghdad.
Bush added, “[M]any parts of Iraq are stable now.
Many people here piss and moan about the supposed assassination attempt of V.P. Dick Cheney.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:54 pmMeanwhile, 18 children are murdered in Baghdad.
Attn: Trolls. This is the wording of the Constitution.
Specifically Section 8 – Powers of Congress
“…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
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;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Nothing in here says that once war is declared, that they lose the power to declare war. Or undeclare it.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:55 pmPeriod.
advocating the death of a government official is considered sedition (see Mark’s definition in #120)
Comment by Dale
I’m not sure which post above you claim to be sedition, but I was referring merely to one’s Right to express one’s opinion as being an American virtue to which YOU immediately side-track the discussion to your inconsequential view about a meaningless blurb on this site and bickering over definitions.
G
E
T
A
L
I
F
E
D
U
D
E
If you’re too sensitive about criticism and your blog, quit linking to it. I merely mentioned it earlier because you link to it constantly and so I checked it out and although it’s sad and amusing, it’s quite sophomoric. But hey, blogs are like a-holes, everybodys got one.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:07 pmKilling children with suicide bombers and cluster bombs IS GOING OVER THE LINE, troll boy.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pmMaybe I am missing something here.. Was there ever a formal Declaration of War made by Bush? Is a joint resolution giving the President the authority to be able to go to war the same thing as the President or Congress making a formal Declaration of War?
February 27th, 2007 at 1:12 pm#124, when you defend every position of the president tooth and nail, you get lumped in with thhem.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:14 pm#134, Juan…
Agreed. I am glad to see you have now repudiated your previous defense of the “insurgents.”
February 27th, 2007 at 1:15 pmExley: Self-defense is what the Iraqi insurgency is doing…
Comment by Juan C — July 24, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
#124 please do elaborate on how Sadaam violated the cease fire? Remember the non-fly zone was imposed in 1992 and was not part of the cease fire. Also who gives a f&#% about Kuwait? Certainly not the US, we told him it was Ok to invade Kuwait. Also how many Kuwait’s were involved in 911? How many Saudi’s? How many Iraqi’s? Who did we invade in retribution for 911?
February 27th, 2007 at 1:22 pmJennie, you ain’t missin nothin!
The force authorization required Bush to do a whole slew of things he never followed up with. The administration never declared war, congress never declared war. There is only the never ending GWOT for us to sacrifice our children to.
Shit, at least the Aztecs had a belief system that they followed when they offered human sacrifices!
February 27th, 2007 at 1:24 pmI am glad to see you have now repudiated your previous defense of the “insurgents.â€
Comment by Exley
Those arent insurgents, Ex. Its like calling all US troops rapist murderers. Get a clue. Look out for the meaning of insurgency.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:26 pmJuan, We agree…They are not “insurgents.” So, I wish the press and many posters here would stop using that term. They are terrorists.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:29 pmIt really must be painful for Dale and Exley the idea that US, the superpower in the world cant have a hold at a little, ruined, devastated country and going miles in order to defend to what everyone with an once of common sense cant but qualified US actions as hienous. But then again, Karma is a bitch.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:34 pmThey are terrorists.
Comment by Exley
In both sides.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:34 pmgreat link to a very telling story about our wounded veterans
February 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pmAnd here’s the link
February 27th, 2007 at 1:52 pmExley, are you reading what is being wrote to you?
Those arent insurgents, Ex. Its like calling all US troops rapist murderers.
Comment by Juan C — February 27, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Your reply?
Juan, We agree…They are not “insurgents.â€
Comment by Exley — February 27, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
To reiterate: They are insurgents. They are fighting to get the US out of their country. I might agree with you if you were talking just about the group who put the bomb in the football field.
Also, I believe that civilian deaths in the Pentagon’s lingo are called “collateral damage”. Could we call these deaths “collateral damage” or are they only so when the US does it?
February 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pmIn both sides.
The Baathists and Al Qaeda? Agreed. They are both terrorists.
As I said, Juan, I am glad you have finally repudiated your previous defense of the “insurgents.” It made you a true hypocrite.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:56 pmDamn, I think I will have to take back my post -I hate it when it happens.
Exley, in my haste to type I missed Juan’s point. Please ignore my post.
However, I would still to read yoru opinion on “collateral damage”.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:02 pmGregor,
Do you actually believe the car bombs in open air markets and soccer fields and suicide bombers in mosques are placed there accidentally and that those killed in such bombings are “collateral victims?”
You see, Gregor (and Juan), there is a moral and legal distinction between the intentional targeting of innocent civilians for death and destruction (as the “insurgents” do) and strikes against legitimate military targets that accidentally cause damage to civilian infastructure and harm civilians.
But then again, you do understand that difference and are being intentionally obtuse, aren’t you?
February 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pmI am realy slow this morning, sorry…Two much to do to stay long…Just skimmed most of the thread’s and noticing what great post’s you all are posting, will read them all later..
While much is going on with our killing administration I also noticed China’s stock market burped and our’s is doing a dump..Hummm.. Don’t we borrow all our money from them these day’s.? Something else, why are all the important services like health care for our vet’s and needy program’s being robbed by the emperor.? It must be time for him to eat cake again while more people around the world die by his and evil cheney hand’s or design….Big stuff going on behind the scenes, they are working way to hard at keeping us all busy with to many issues.. Blessings all, don’t forget to tell some one you love them, give out hug’s, smile broadly at every one, they will wonder what you are up to….Last but most important do something for our country and the world, call a representative and plant a flower or tree…..
February 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pmthere is a moral and legal distinction between the intentional targeting of innocent civilians for death and destruction (as the “insurgents†do)
Comment by Exley — February 27, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
I am not sure all insurgents are intentionally targetting civilians.
Some of these deaths are happening because civilians get caught in the crossfire -making them “collateral damage”, by the Pentagon’s definition. The difference is that the US military drops bombs from airplanes, while the insurgents have to resort to car-bombs.
So, let’s clarify: In your opinion, there is no legitimate Iraqi resistance against US occupation, only terrorists?
February 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pmIt made you a true hypocrite.
Comment by Exley
Heh. I hit a nerve. :D
Dont worry, Ex, you keep cheering the Mets.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:17 pmYes, Juan…I admit when you claimed that the terrorists who blow up children on a soccer field or set off car bombs in open air markets and at mosques were merely “insurgents” engaging in “self-defense,” it did indeed strike a nerve. It was a hideously immoral position you held.
But as I said, I am glad you have come around and now repudiate the “insurgents” (read: terrorists) and your earlier defense of them.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:23 pmIf we accept this as a declaration of war, doesn’t Congress have the power to declare the war over?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — February 27, 2007 @ 11:56 am
Yes they do, and they have not done so and do not look as if they will in the near future. Thank you for pointing out that this war is now owned by the 110th Congress as well.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:23 pmI suggest to TP that they go check out Sy Hersh’s latest story – Bush has been funding Shiite terrorists and al Qaeda.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:24 pm#95m Bob, how did Sadaam make himself a willing participant on the field of battle? I believe we invaded his country against his will. If memory serves me well, he was not agitating for a fight, we were.
Comment by Mark — February 27, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
Mark, a missunderstanding probably because of my poor phrasing.
I meant that I did not call for the death of Saddam unless it was on the field of battle. If he was on the field of battle, he would be an active participant in the battle. Then, his death would not be an assassination.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pmGregor,
Under international law, there is a recognition of legitimate “organized resistance movements.” In order to be recognized as an “organizaed resistance movement,” several requirements need to be met. One of those requirements is that the resistance must conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Unless the “insurgents” conduct themselves with the laws and customs of war, they are not a legitimate “organized resistance movement” under internationa law, specifically the Third Geneva Convention.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:32 pmJust off the wire, Rice announces invitation to Syria and Iran to discuss Iraq security..
February 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pmMy first impression?
What’s the catch!???
Thanks for your reply, Exley.
I don’t have the appetite for a discussion on the subject right now; I just wanted to get your perspective on it.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:56 pm#159, That’s fine, Gregor….These discussions can be taxing sometimes, can’t they?
February 27th, 2007 at 2:59 pmYep! RU…..My same thought’s…BTW.. The Market is still sliding……Recession the way any one.?….All the while I thought we were in a depression, sorry it was just me, thinking of all the people being killed every day does that to me…..Blessings..Peace
February 27th, 2007 at 3:01 pmUnless the “insurgents†conduct themselves with the laws and customs of war, they are not a legitimate “organized resistance movement†under internationa law, specifically the Third Geneva Convention. Comment by Exley — February 27, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Yet according to your own admission, you still supported the ‘terrorist’ and ‘illegal’ contras. Nice, terrorist supporter you are, Ex-Lie.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 3:14 pmThe same holds true for wars of aggression and regime change.
Which means they should be tried in civilian courts, not military commissions.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:15 pmPolitical correctness aside, FU*CK Cheney. Too bad they missed!!!!! I mean that with all my heart!!!!!!!
February 27th, 2007 at 3:17 pmComment by hacker bob — February 27, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
In the initial attack on Iraq, the missles were directed to a bunker where we thought Saddam was. There was no formal declaration of war. Was that an attempted assassination attempt, or a legitimate military target?
February 27th, 2007 at 3:22 pmunder internationa law, specifically the Third Geneva Convention.
Comment by Exley #157
…Didn’t you get the memo?
…your gods Bushiva and L’il Dick…
…unilaterally repealed International Law and the Geneva Conventions…
…so what do we do now Ex-lax?
February 27th, 2007 at 3:26 pmVVGFU,
The Nicaraguan freedom fighters were an “organized resistance movement,” as outlined by the Third Geneva Convention.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:27 pmPLC, if your view of the consitutional authority of Congress is correct, then why hasn’t any members of Congress tried to do just what you suggest?
Comment by Dale
Option 1: I’m smarter than they are. (LOL)
Option 2: Cowardise
Option 3: Just wait.
Actually, there is movement in this direction. Consider the notion of revisiting and limiting the resolution which originally authorized force in Iraq. That resolution laid out some specific (and some very vague) benchmarks, with most of the specific ones having been met. Thus, the authorization to use force in Iraq can and should be rescinded.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:28 pmThe same holds true for wars of aggression and regime change.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — February 27, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
Do you see me saying that the Iraqis should not be shooting at us? We placed ourselves in combat, didn’t we? Also, just to make sure I am not speaking out of my back pocket. You DO support us being in Afghanistan, right? After all, that day to-not-be-mentioned was the an act of agression by AQ and they reside in Afghanistan.
In the initial attack on Iraq, the missles were directed to a bunker where we thought Saddam was. There was no formal declaration of war. Was that an attempted assassination attempt, or a legitimate military target?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Bunkers are, by definition, military targets, are they not? A military target is located on a BATTLEFIELD. So it would have been a battle related death.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:30 pm#164,
Incorrect. There is no obligation under international or U.S. law to try unlawful combatants in civilian courts.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pmClarification: There is no obligation under international or U.S. law to try alien unlawful combatants in civilian courts.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:36 pmOur involvement in Iraq = wrong from day one.
proof: Iraq today.
Only reason it happened = petroleum concessions.
proof: Iraq passed law allowing it this week.
Cynically allowing all that death for those oil concessions = something anyone with a conscience should be ashamed of for a very long time.
proof: ask a German.
Arguing the finer points = pointless.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pmproof: Al Gore.
“We don’t need to try ‘em. We just need to fry ‘em.”
Pathetic arguments there, Exley. We should be giving anyone accused of a civil crime, “unlawful combat act”, a war crime, or any other action that might lead to detention, incarceration, execution, or other punishment the opportunity to dispute the charges. Otherwise, where is the over-riding “rule of law” to ensure against mob rule or a dictatorial policy?
February 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pmPLC,
Two points:
1) Prisoners of war have never, in the history of the republic, had access to civilian courts. That is because under international law, prisoners of war are not being detained as punishment, but to prevent them from returning to the battlefield while hostilities are ongoing.
2) The Military Commission Act provides alien unlawful enemy combatants to dispute charges against them and includes a number of due process rights, including right to counsel, right to questions witnesses, right to appeal to higher courts INCLUDING the civilian U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Supreme Court
February 27th, 2007 at 4:12 pmFirst, I do not believe the crimes committed on the day-not-to-be-mentioned were committed by AQ. I beleive it is far more likely the PNAC is responsible.
Secondly, those were crimes. If some fringe group of Americans, say, the “Bloods” or the “Crips” committed a similar crime against, say, China, would China be justified in invading the United States and deposing our government? After all, various gangs, certainly dating back to the Mafia, could be called terrorist orgainizations. Thus, it could be said Bush harbors terrorists. And the U.S. certainly has weapons of mass destruction?
Do you begin to see the ugliness of the precedent set once you claim the invasion of Afghanistan was justified? I doubt there is a country in the world that does not have some people residing within its borders who could be deemed terrorists. Do you then justify invading any given country and deposing its government based on the acts of a few criminals?
Again, war was not declared. But, following your logic, there are reputed to be bunkers beneath the White House. Is the White House therefore a legitimate target and part of the battlefield in the International War on Terror?
February 27th, 2007 at 4:44 pmBunkers are, by definition, military targets, are they not? A military target is located on a BATTLEFIELD. So it would have been a battle related death.
Comment by hacker bob
How was Saddam’s bunker on a battlefield if war had not been formally declared? If he was killed at that time, it seems like it would have been an assassination, not a battle related death, since we were not at war.
I’m no expert at this, it just seems like common sense.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:50 pmInteresting (albeit) article on the international legal issue of military strikes agains “command and control” centers, like Saddam’s bunker, and assassination:
It depends what the definition of ‘assassination’ is
Friday, March 21, 2003
By THOMAS HARGROVE, Scripps Howard News Service
For the record, the second Persian Gulf War began when President Bush ordered a large missile and bomber strike against a “senior Iraqi leadership compound” in Baghdad. No mention of Saddam Hussein himself.
Administration officials admit they hoped Saddam was at the receiving end of Wednesday night’s attack, although they deny the operation was an assassination attempt. It comes down to what the definition of “assassination” is.
“In military conflict, command and control (sites) are legitimate targets,” White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Thursday.
“Coalition forces hit a senior Iraqi leadership compound last evening,” said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “That was the first. It will likely not be the last. The days of the Saddam Hussein regime are numbered.” The 1907 Hague Convention banned international assassination as “treacherous killing.” President Gerald Ford in 1976 became the first U.S. chief executive to order that no federal government employee or anyone acting on behalf of America “shall engage in – or conspire to engage in – assassination.” The order was amended and renewed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
Despite these and other legal niceties, the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force have industriously bombed the homes, offices, bunkers and other known haunts of Saddam and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. The White House reviewed Reagan’s executive order, No. 12333, late last year and decided it does not apply during times of war and therefore needed no further amendment.
Military and legal authorities within the United States have been rethinking the decades-old prohibition on deliberate attacks on world leaders. The debate has become a dispute over the meaning of “leaders” vs. “command-and-control centers” during time of war.
“The administration was looking at Saddam Hussein as part of the military apparatus of Iraq and, therefore, as a legitimate target,” said attorney Robert Teplitz, special assistant to the Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General. “They were fairly targeting him not as a civilian leader of a country but as a military target.” Teplitz reviewed the law on assassination in a 1995 article for the Cornell International Law Journal.
“Yes, there is some rationalization involved, but it is a rationalization that makes all this legal,” Teplitz said. “International law gets tricky. But a case can always be made that the United States has the right to act in self-defense.” According to a Rand Corp. study, the United States has used military means to target specific individuals at least five times: – The 1986 bombing raid on Gadhafi ’s house and the Azziziyah Barracks compound.
n Multiple bombing and missile attacks in 1991 against command sites in Iraq where Saddam might have established his headquarters. The United States went so far as to construct a massive “bunker buster” bomb from the barrel of a World War II naval gun to be used on one particularly reinforced Iraqi site.
-U.S. helicopter gunship raids in 1993 against a suspected United Somali Congress headquarters in Mogadishu, Somalia.
The 1998 cruise missile strike against military sites in Afghanistan suspected of hosting Osama bin Laden.
The 1999 NATO air attacks against Slobodan Milosevic’s house and command bunkers in Serbia during Operation Allied Force.
U.S. naval officer Patricia Zengel, in a 1991 “Military Law Review” article about assassination and the international law of armed conflict, concluded that there is “no longer any convincing justification” for the idea that international law treats assassination apart from other kinds of military force during war.
But military scholars in the rest of the world are not so certain.
“Assassination is proscribed in international law mainly because war is seen as a nation-state matter,” said military analyst Atul Bharadwaj, an officer in the Indian navy. “The U.S. is adding a fresh dimension to concepts of war by pretending to deal with the state, which is Saddam, minus the nation, which is the Iraqi people.”
February 27th, 2007 at 5:27 pmTom Baker,
I am enjoying reading your posts as I do so many others here at Think progress.
Keep up the good work you do!
February 27th, 2007 at 6:26 pmOsama bin Forgotten does not have to worry until October 2008. Before that time, he will be converted to a small trace of DNA which will be philandered as a victory for democracy.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:57 pmComment by katy #32
Happy Belated!
…Best Wishes…
February 27th, 2007 at 10:19 pm“You SEE! We DID FIND weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION! THESE are the VERY SAME aluminum tubes intended for use as centrifuge cylinders for enriching uranium for nuclear bombs!”–”What’s that you said? These were PVC tubes for IEDs and THEY WEREN’T MADE in Iran? OY…Is my face RED!”
February 27th, 2007 at 10:22 pm“YOU FOOLS…I AM FRANKENCHENEY AND I CANNOT BE DESTROYED!” Shouted DICK-less B(ugger) Torticola Cheney from inside his TITANIUM-STEEL REINFORCED BOMB-PROOF SHELTER and from under the kiddie bed with pink ponies and blue unicorns where Cheney crouched, shivering and quaking in ABJECT FEAR!!!!!
Ah Yes…TRIMMING and PRUNING always helps wildlife refuges to GROW BETTER, nicht wahr?
Ahmed, Ahmed, YOU’VE BEEN A BAD BOY! Says Ahmed, “the humanitarian”–”Hey, NOBODY’s PERFECT!”
Condi and Colin: “HEY, Perle, YOU CRACKER-ASSED JEW-BOY, YOU, Feith, Wolfowitz, Torticola Cheney and your MISERABLE BUNCH of neocons GOT US INTO THIS MESS! WHO YOU TRYIN’ TO BLAME, HONKEY PIECE OF HYENA-SHIT, STINKING TURD WITH STICK LEGS!!!!!”
PAYBACK TIME–THIS TIME IT’S FOR REAL!!!!! Bushland Uber Allies LIKES TO PICK ON THOSE WHO THESE CREEPS THINK ARE DEFENSELESS–WELL, THEY MAY FIND OUT THAT THIS UNFAIR AND COWARDLY ACT WILL COME BACK AND SINK ITS FANGS IN THEIR RANCID BUTTS!!!!!
A good way for the governors to get $$$$$ from CHIMPya is to put him and Torticola Cheney both into a WINEPRESS and turn the handle with VIGOUR! Oops! Is that BLOOD I SEE and not $$$$$ coming out–OH WELL, WE DID A GOOD DEED IN ANY CASE AND RID THE COUNTRY OF BOTH CHIMPya and Cheney!!!!!
We need to INTERROGATE and PUNISH the scum RESPONSIBLE for this FOUL DISREGARD of wounded soldiers and Marines, STARTING with CHIMPya and Torticola Cheney and gradually working down the totempole to get the rest of the miscreants!!!!!
Getting back to normal in New Orleans–will still take a lot of work and getting CHIMPya to follow through on his EMPTY PROMISES of AID still not forthcoming!!!!!
Yes, Gropenfuhrer Arnold, you can’t catch a socially transmitted disease from stogie puffing, but, according to the National Institute of Health release of Friday April 10, 1998(almost TEN YEARS ago), “daily cigar smoking causes cancers of the lip, tongue, mouth, throat, larynx, esophagus, and lung, as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary(lung)disease ((COPD) and coronary heart disease.” So, Gropenfuhrer, PUFF AWAY with your stogie-loving “friends” Rush Limburger, Fidel Castro, Tom DeLay and Saddam Hussein–Oops! Saddam got a PERMANENT CURE for stogie-puffing courtesy of CHIMPya–the rest of YOU cigar-puffing SCUM can get the above cancers and diseases and DIE HORRIBLY in EXCRUCIATING PAIN–DEATH is the GREAT UNITER of the red-blue DIVIDE, and the sooner you repugnant-repub rightwingnut crank SCUM BITE THE DUST, SHUFFLE OFF THIS MORTAL COIL, KICK THE BUCKET, EXPIRE, DEPART THIS MORTAL PLANE, THE BETTER OFF THE WORLD AND AMERICA WILL BE!!!!! DON’T FORGET TO TAKE CHIMPya, Torticola Cheney, all of Bushland Uber Allies and their SUPPORTERS, athletic and otherwise, WITH YOU, Gropenfuhrer!!!!!
Happy Belated!
…Best Wishes…
February 28th, 2007 at 12:45 amKaty…
Happy Belated!
…Best Wishes…
February 28th, 2007 at 12:46 amDo you really think the assassination of a sitting U.S. VP is a good idea?-Comment by Dale
All I have to say is this comment makes the presumption that the United States currently has a legitimate government. It doesnt. There was a bloodless electronic electoral coup in 2000 aided and abetted by Diebold, Katherine Harris, and Jeb Bush, who conspired to commit voting fraud and install a cocaine-damaged puppet whose victory was made possible only by the violation of the electoral process spelled out in the constitution and laws of the united states. This fraud was perpetuated in 2004 by tools like Kenneth Blackwell and his army of goons who worked to disenfranchise tens if not hundreds of thousands of voters. For the first time in history, the umbrella company who runs exit polls felt the need to write a lengthy public paper about why the exit polls had been wrong and had “incorrectly” predicted a Bush defeat.
read the “Black Box Voting” ebook available for free download here:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
Our current “government” is not legitimate, not legal, and more people would be wise to stand up and speak the truth, which is that the people who control this country now are usurpers and theives. I personally would not choose to act in any questionable manner against this “government”, nor would I advocate it, but I don’t comdemn anyone who wishes the organizers of this orwellian coup ill. Their ill wishes are completely legitimate and deserved, and in no way reflect a disrespect for america as a country. What Cheney, Rove, etc are doing now is exactly the sort of thing our founding fathers sought to avoid, and I have little doubt that were they alive today they would be advocating open revolt against these type of people.
the jist of what our current “government” has been telling us:
“We are at war with an unseen enemy, we can’t tell you anything about the war, and until we tell you we are arent at war anymore, we can do anything we want”.
that is not democracy, that is a dictatorship.
and it needs to end as soon as possible.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:55 amafter Al Qaeda slaughtered 3,000 innocent people on 9/11/2001.
Comment by Exley
Exlaxley is a proud citizen of the united states of amnesia. 9-11 is the only day he can remember. 3000 people is a drop in the bucket compared to death americans wreak upon each other and the rest of the world. Exlaxley doesnt think america attacks civilian infrastructure when it goes to war. Exlaxley thinks that america is justified in causing as many civilians deaths as it needs to in Iraq because saddam was a bad man, except when he was kiling people with OUR help. Exlaxley thinks america doesnt support death squads who kill civilians whenever it suits thier ends. Exlaxley thinks america doesnt overthrow democracies. Whatever america does from now on is ok, because on one day, out of the millions of days througout history, some brown people gave america a taste of the medicine its been dishing out for centuries .
Im not arguing that America is the source of all evil.. I’m not. I dont even beleive the concept of evil. Leave it to egotistical straussian psychopaths to even think they could tell the difference between good and evil.
I’m just saying morons like the Exlaylaxmeister have no idea of terms like “blowback” or “what you reap you will sew”. For Exlay, history started on 9-11. Either that or hes a broken, poorly programmed AI bot who has long ago run our of anything original to say.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:52 amFacts, Vp…Provide some facts. You rave well, but provide no documentation to substantiate your rather dubious claims.
Look, you may believe that that 3,000 innocent people who were deliberately slaughtered on 9/11 deserved it. That is you right. It is a perverted and morally twisted position, but it is your right to hold that position. I and many others here just happen to disagree.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:24 amComment by Briseadh na Faire — February 27, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Comment by Zooey — February 27, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
bat·tle·field (bÄt’l-fÄ“ld’) Pronunciation Key
n. In both senses also called battleground.
1. An area where a battle is fought.
2. A sphere of contention.
No where in the definition of “Battlefield” doe it require a declaration of war.
And, BnF, the White House is a legitimate military target. ANY government facility with the exclusion of hospitals is a viable target.
Zooey,
February 28th, 2007 at 10:43 amThe difference between assassination and death by combat action is a very thin line.