Webb: No permanent presence without Congress’s consent.
Webb: No permanent presence without Congress’s consent.
Bush recently announced a new, “enduring” occupation of Iraq, to be implemented without Congress’ approval. Today, Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA), Bob Casey (D-PA), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) warned Bush against committing the U.S. to a long-term presence without congressional consent:
[W]e want to convey our strong concern regarding any commitments made by the United States with respect to American security assurances to Iraq to help deter and defend against foreign aggression or other violations of Iraq’s territorial integrity. Security assurances, once made, cannot be easily rolled back without incurring a great cost to America’s strategic credibility and imperiling the stability of our nation’s other alliances around the world. [...]
It is unacceptable for your Administration to unilaterally fashion a long-term relationship with Iraq without the full and comprehensive participation of Congress from the very start of such negotiations. [...]
We trust you agree that the proposed extension of long-term U.S. security commitments to a nation in a critical region of the world requires the full participation and consent of the Congress as a co-equal branch of our government.
Read the full letter to President Bush below:
Dear Mr. President:
We write you today regarding the “Declaration of Principles” agreed upon last week between the United States and Iraq outlining the broad scope of discussions to be held over the next six months to institutionalize long term U.S.-Iraqi cooperation in the political, economic, and security realms. It is our understanding that these discussions seek to produce a strategic framework agreement, no later than July 31, 2008, to help define “a long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship as two fully sovereign and independent states with common interests”.
The future of American policy towards Iraq, especially in regard to the issues of U.S. troop levels, permanent U.S. military bases, and future security commitments, has generated strong debate among the American people and their elected representatives. Agreements between our two countries relating to these issues must involve the full participation and consent of the Congress as a co-equal branch of the U.S. government. Furthermore, the future U.S. presence in Iraq is a central issue in the current Presidential campaign. We believe a security commitment that obligates the United States to go to war on behalf of the Government of Iraq at this time is not in America’s long-term national security interest and does not reflect the will of the American people. Commitments made during the final year of your Presidency should not unduly or artificially constrain your successor when it comes to Iraq.
In particular, we want to convey our strong concern regarding any commitments made by the United States with respect to American security assurances to Iraq to help deter and defend against foreign aggression or other violations of Iraq’s territorial integrity. Security assurances, once made, cannot be easily rolled back without incurring a great cost to America’s strategic credibility and imperiling the stability of our nation’s other alliances around the world. Accordingly, security assurances must be extended with great care and only in the context of broad bipartisan agreement that such assurances serve our abiding national interest. Such assurances, if legally binding, are generally made in the context of a formal treaty subject to the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate but in any case cannot be made without Congressional authorization.
Our unease is heightened by remarks made on November 26th by General Douglas Lute, the Assistant to the President for Iraq and Afghanistan, that Congressional input is not foreseen. General Lute was quoted as asserting at a White House press briefing, “We don’t anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress.” It is unacceptable for your Administration to unilaterally fashion a long-term relationship with Iraq without the full and comprehensive participation of Congress from the very start of such negotiations.
We look forward to learning more details as the Administration commences negotiations with the Iraqi government on the contours of long-term political, economic, and security ties between our two nations. We trust you agree that the proposed extension of long-term U.S. security commitments to a nation in a critical region of the world requires the full participation and consent of the Congress as a co-equal branch of our government.
Sincerely,
Robert P. Casey, Jr., U.S. Senator
Robert Byrd, U.S. Senator
Ted Kennedy, U.S. Senator
Carl Levin, U.S. Senator
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator
and Jim Webb, U.S. Senator
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
118 Responses to “Webb: No permanent presence without Congress’s consent.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wassup with Hillary buckin' the AIPAC agenda here?
December 6th, 2007 at 8:16 pmOh sh|t...not another letter.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:17 pmWassup with Hillary buckin’ the AIPAC agenda here?
Comment by ForTruth
She's getting a thumping in the polls and is finally starting to see the handwriting on the wall.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:18 pmCan anyone tell us that Bush DIDN'T LIE in telling us that he was there to get rid of WMD?
And then we would LEAVE?
Anyone NOT remember saying that when Saddam was gone, we would LEAVE??
If so, he has LIED to the American public, and is a TREASONOUS little COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA who needs to be in Gitmo and
waterboarded until he DROPS DEAD and goes to be with his MASTER Satan.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 6th, 2007 at 8:18 pmCan anyone furnish me with the Congressional approval for the permanent presence in Germany, South Korea, and Japan?
Comment by DreamCrusher
I assume you would be just fine if we declared Bush the Dictator guy and did away with congress altogether.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:18 pmSomeone get this guy some furniture. He's illustrated the glory of American imperialism.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:19 pmSo that's up with Hillary. She's a fair weather beyotchingtion.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:20 pmComment by GrapeCrusher
"No permanent presence" means we cannot keep the current numbers and resources placed in Iraq forever. Of course we'll be there in some capacity permanently. Do you think we are going to just hand over that green zone?
December 6th, 2007 at 8:24 pmDo you have an answer? If not, ponder the question instead of attacking me. OK?
Comment by DreamCrusher
I don't need to ponder the question or go off and do lots of research to prove you wrong. Bush is not our Dictator and he is not our King. He does not have the right to make decisions that affect each and every person in this country without conferring with Congress. You know, Congress, the people we elect to represent us? He is committing billions of dollars a year for many many years without permission from anyone but himself. Do you want to spend the next 10 years borrowing billions of dollars a month from China to continue to occupy Iraq? Right now the debt we owe China amounts to over $28,000 per person in this country. That is obscene.
I'm quite sure that if I took several hours to do the research, I would find that the Presidents who committed permanent troops into Germany, Japan and North Korea consulted with Congress before doing so.
Besides, the citizens of those three countries are fine with our being there. We are there at their invitation, we are not there because we invaded and are currently occupying their countries. There is a big difference, but I expect it's to complex for your pea brain to understand.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:30 pmJim Webb kicks a§§.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:31 pmSo Jimmy-George WebbAllen sends a letter. Big woop. He also voted 4 times to give bush his war funding as well as voted with his pal Joe Lieberman to denounce the Move-On ad, not to mention voting to allow bush's FISA abuses. Thanks, Jimmy-George, hard charging methane-based legislation voting!
My, imagine if bush did something REALLY bad. Jimmy-George would hafta send him a bouquet!
December 6th, 2007 at 8:31 pmIraq needs some serious downsizing on behalf of the US.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:32 pmAnd guess what? The permanent presence in those countries was formulated under Democrat Presidents, without Congressional approval.
Comment by cold_hard_left
And guess what, hard-on, we are in those countries at the invitation of the countries where we have permanent bases. We are not there because we invaded those countries and are currently an occupying force. The people of Iraq do not want us in their country. The only people who do are the puppets we put into power who are getting very rich off the corruption they are allowed to get away with because we need them to continue to occupy Iraq.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:33 pmI like Jim Webb, he's one of the good people. BUT, who are we kidding here? As long as BushCo is in office, they will do whatever dam well please.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:36 pm#1 - Furnish youself, ass. It's called "the Google", check it out.
You're a real demanding participant, for someone everyone loathes.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:40 pmI can answer your question, at least in part, without doing a lot of extensive research, DreamCrusher.
Secretary of State George Marshall laid out the details of what would become known as The Marshall Plan in a commencement address to the Harvard graduating class (iirc) in 1947. Congress approved the Marshall plan in 1948. That formed the basis for the ongoing presence of American forces in Europe.
That relationship evolved into the NATO alliance to stand as a bullwark against the Soviet union as the Cold War ramped up. (Remember the "T" stands for "treaty" and treaties are only valid when congress ratifies them.)
So yes, there is a precedent for congressional approval.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:40 pmHillary Clinton.....Surprise...Surprise.
Isn't she the one who said to Bob Schieffer of CBS that if she were elected she would keep troops to fight terrorists and stand up to Iran, keeping troops to train Iraqis,plus keeping troops to protect the embassy and US facilities. She later defended her postion in presidential debates that followed.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:42 pmMay be she is realizing that war mongering was not a good sell ,with polls now are not kind to her.
Cold_hard_left, you might want to review the American 1950s. South Korea's occupation was established by President Eisenhower and he wasn't a democrat (he was still a great president though).
Also, DreamCrusher, Bush won the electoral college vote, he did not win the popular vote in 2000; Gore was elected by the people, just not the electoral college. Also, lay off on the sheep insults, you do a disservice to any legitimate arguments you bring up with inane additions like that.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:45 pmI guess that this would be meaningful if congress actually had a pair.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:45 pmtarazan: You may have a point. "War mongering" pushed the neocons back into the shadows and out of the glaring lights of their Iraqi failure.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:46 pmHillary Clinton…..Surprise…Surprise.
Isn’t she the one who said to Bob Schieffer of CBS that if she were elected she would keep troops to fight terrorists and stand up to Iran, keeping troops to train Iraqis,plus keeping troops to protect the embassy and US facilities. She later defended her postion in presidential debates that followed.
May be she is realizing that war mongering was not a good sell ,with polls now are not kind to her.
Comment by tarazan — December 6, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Voting for HRM would be just as big of a mistake as voting for Bush. She is one of the most 'bend in the wind' politicians you're likely to find. Her vote and comments about Iraq & Iran are very disturbing. I think she's just trying to come off as one of the boys, when that's the last thing we need.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:46 pmOoohhhh, a sternly worded letter from Congressional democrats. This should change everything.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:46 pmI assume you would be just fine if we declared Bush the Dictator guy and did away with congress altogether.
Comment by bilbobaggins
What difference would there be?
December 6th, 2007 at 8:48 pmUpdate,
In the race to grow a spine and stand up for democracy the DemoRats are ahead of the RePugniScums by just 3 vertebra!!
Wow, now I feel better.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:48 pm28 you're right bro - let's call the whole thing off and "go native"
December 6th, 2007 at 8:50 pmAnd you know what? It’s working like a charm on their target audience: naive liberal sheep. Good work guys, you fell for their charade again.
Comment by DreamCrusher
Talk about projection! The people of this country want us out of Iraq. If Bush was recognizing the will of the people in this country he would not be making these kind of deals. And, no, the people of this country DID NOT elect George Bush as our president either time.
How about addressing my issue that we are in the countries mentioned at the invitation of those governments and the people of those countries. We are not in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi people. They want us out. The Iraqi government (our hand picked puppets) want to cut deals with us because those deals are making them very rich. They don't care any more about what their people want than Bush cares what we want.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:50 pmDreamcrusher, that still doesn't make him "elected by the people."
December 6th, 2007 at 8:55 pm"Of course the people want us out of Iraq. I do, Bush does, everyone does. Yet, we also want to succeed in Iraq, and make sure that our mission there has not been in vain. In due time, in due time."
Bush does not want us out of Iraq. Saying otherwise is simple lying, just like saying Bush only learned of the new NIE a few days ago.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:57 pm“agree with my spin or else. agree with my spin or it means you can’t think for yourself. agree with my spin or i’m going to pollute every thread at your site with "Moderate Independent" jibber-jabber all day longâ€
December 6th, 2007 at 9:01 pmI thrust my gauntlet, thus!, to the ground. Accept my petulant challenge, or be branded "ungulate" for all time, for I am......
.....TEEEEENNNNN FLLLUFFFERRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 6th, 2007 at 9:03 pmThat might be true. Politicians are politicians, after all.
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
and failure is failure. the neo-cons have failed.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:06 pmYes, and in the United States, that’s how the president is elected.
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
Actually, it isn't. Even the Supreme Court, in making the ruling exclusive to that '00 election, admitted it was illegal. That's the first thing. The second is, Bush has no legal standing as president to occupy iraq without Congress. Your comparisons to Germany, japan and South Korea are baseless, beside the point, and obviously taken directly from your ass, where, it seems, all of your "ideas' originate. You are, unsurprisingly, wrong in every assertion so far today.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:07 pmThat might be true. Politicians are politicians, after all.
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
Good for you, you have destroyed all of your previous arguments, most of which were outright lies anyway. You're truly a disgusting example of a latter day Good German, full of fear and ignorance. what an idiot you are.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:09 pmComment by Lefty Patriot — December 6, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
yes but he does have cold_hard_left helping him today which i think is very thoughtful and considerate of her.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:10 pmOT ALERT. Did anyone else just see Keith Olbermann give the Special Comment?
December 6th, 2007 at 9:11 pmHow can there be an alliance when the Iraq government cant even govern Dreamcrusher?
December 6th, 2007 at 9:11 pmwait....
Iraq has a government???
December 6th, 2007 at 9:12 pmCan anyone furnish me with the Congressional approval for the permanent presence in Germany, South Korea, and Japan?
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
I'll post it just as soon as we become an occupying force in these countries.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:18 pmWhat the hell are you even talking about? I knew there was a reason I decided to stop responding to you. You’re insane and make things up on the fly.
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
Do your research, you stupid shit. And admitting that Iraq doesn't have a functioning government isn't insulting the Iraqi people, it's insulting the incompetent Bush lackeys like Betrayus and the other fool asskissers like Bremer who have raped and pillaged that poor country. You're still an idiot, there appears to be no hope for you.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:19 pmThe US Korea Alliance was due to a civil war in korea and is basically a cease fire agreement. The North and South, technically, are still at war.
Comparing Iraq to Korea is ludicrous.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:23 pmMmmm, delicious failure!
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
if you think that tastes good just wait till the 2008 elections!
(do you think there will even be a republican party after that? if not what will you name your new radical splinter group?how the dreamcrusher republican party, catchy huh?)
"Iran has put their nuclear weapons program on the shelf." well that's what the nie says but johnny bolton would disagree with you on that one wouldn't he dc? but hey what does johnny bolton know? he's just a stupid, in-bred neo-con, right?
December 6th, 2007 at 9:25 pmComment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
more like insulting all of the bush administration's p.r. b.s. about iraq - check.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:25 pm"It is unacceptable for your Administration to unilaterally fashion a long-term relationship with Iraq without the full and comprehensive participation of Congress from the very start of such negotiations."
To which Bush replies: "Or what? Whattaya gonna do about it?"
I sometimes think the Democrats in Congress are glad they hold only a slim majority. Otherwise, they'd have no excuse for continuing the war and allowing Bush and Cheney to remain in power.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:26 pmAlso, lay off on the sheep insults, you do a disservice to any legitimate arguments you bring up with inane additions like that.
Comment by HelloRepTards — December 6, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
You're kidding, right? I don't recognize your screen name, so maybe you have joined recently and have never read a single one of Republicans Hate Facts' posts? There is about a one in a thousand chance that any of his posts will NOT have an inane insult. Civility is not rare here, but it is also far from common.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:26 pmInsulting the nascent Iraqi democracy, and by extension, the Iraqi people - check.
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
fly to iraq, hug the people. let them hug you back. please.
eh?
December 6th, 2007 at 9:27 pmCivility is not rare here, but it is also far from common.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — December 6, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
stop with the phony indignation, you're always here so it can't be that bad, right?
December 6th, 2007 at 9:28 pmOT ALERT. Did anyone else just see Keith Olbermann give the Special Comment?
Comment by whiteyfresh — December 6, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Yes. He was excellent in his debasing the idiot in the whitehouse. Olbermann is repeated again at midnight EST. The last 10 minutes are the best.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:29 pmOT ALERT. Did anyone else just see Keith Olbermann give the Special Comment?
Comment by whiteyfresh — December 6, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
dc's probably seen it, dc what did you think?
keltoi, your thoughts?
December 6th, 2007 at 9:32 pmOT
KGO talk show host Bernie Ward indicted on child porn charges
December 6th, 2007 at 9:33 pmI listen to Bernie frequently and he has mentioned a book. In no way do I believe these charges, he is innocent and I believe they are out to get him to shut him up. This will break him emotionally, financially and I fear physically.
Who is going to be next?
Ah yes. Democracy in Afghanistan. Democracy in Iraq. Democracy in Palestine.
Their lives are worse off since Bush's escapade started. The only thing these people did was to vote.
Syrian influence eroding in Lebanon.
Who knows?
Iran has put their nuclear weapons program on the shelf.
Was Iran ever really pursuing weapons?
North Korea has agreed to step down their nuclear weapons program.
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
Well it's the least they could do after wrecking the agreement Clinton had in place with the North Koreans.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:33 pmMSNBC has the video up already:
Dec. 6: Special comment: In light of the NIE, “Countdown’s†Keith Olbermann gives a Special Comment about what President Bush knew about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and when he found out about it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
December 6th, 2007 at 9:33 pmif you think that tastes good just wait till the 2008 elections!
(do you think there will even be a republican party after that? if not what will you name your new radical splinter group?how the dreamcrusher republican party, catchy huh?)
“Iran has put their nuclear weapons program on the shelf.†well that’s what the nie says but johnny bolton would disagree with you on that one wouldn’t he dc? but hey what does johnny bolton know? he’s just a stupid, in-bred neo-con, right?
Comment by joe cantwell — December 6, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
The Repubs may have a bad cycle, Joe, but the Dems are pretty much the same and will give the Rs ample opportunity to take back the reigns of the incompetency express.
As far as Iran and the NIE go, either you have to give SOME credit to Bush for pressuring Iran to give up on their nuke weapon program or you have to say the NIE is wrong and "every option should still be on the table" to stop them from getting nuclear weapons.
Iran is still enriching uranium.
I am glad we are not going to attack Iran. While I do understand the rationale for doing it, the balance sheet was overall negative.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:34 pmis there a sign outside that says "Ye Olde Highly Civilized and Sensitive Salon of Haute Couture"??
Americans of the past would be embarrassed to present us as their descendents, so dainty and fragile we've become.
Hey, Righties - there's the common ground I'll confess to sharing with you - I'm Dennis-Leary-style-SICK of everybody being a huge wuss about every little god damned thing.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:35 pmthe link again:
December 6th, 2007 at 9:35 pmhref="http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7653067?nclick_check=1">http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7653067?nclick_check=1
Civility is not rare here, but it is also far from common.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — December 6, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
stop with the phony indignation, you’re always here so it can’t be that bad, right?
Comment by joe cantwell — December 6, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
This place is addictive. Also, I teach Alternative High School, it is almost impossible to get me to take an insult personally. Just thought I'd give the new guy a heads up.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:35 pmI am glad we are not going to attack Iran.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — December 6, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
sorry keltoi. with an opinion like that there'll be no room for you in the new republican party.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:38 pmSaint Auggie:that is frikkin sweet!!!
Insulting the nascent Iraqi democracy, and by extension, the Iraqi people - check.
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
I'm sorry,what? Wait, don't answer.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:41 pmAs far as Iran and the NIE go, either you have to give SOME credit to Bush for pressuring Iran to give up on their nuke weapon program
I can give him some credit BUT the biggest influence came from european diplomacy.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40338
December 6th, 2007 at 9:41 pmA major feature of the diplomatic situation in the fall of 2003 was the willingness of Britain, France and Germany to negotiate an agreement with Iran on a wider range of security issues, based on voluntary Iranian suspension of uranium enrichment.
Just thought I’d give the new guy a heads up.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — December 6, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
dc? he's here so much i'm sure he's a liberal in disguise. same withcold_hard_left. (ya kinda get the feeling she doesn't get asked out very often.)
December 6th, 2007 at 9:43 pmInsulting the nascent Iraqi democracy, and by extension, the Iraqi people - check.
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
Huh?
December 6th, 2007 at 9:43 pmI can give him some credit BUT the biggest influence came from european diplomacy.
that should read:I can give him NO credit BECAUSE the biggest influence came from european diplomacy.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:44 pm..."We trust you agree that the proposed extension of long-term U.S. security commitments to a nation in a critical region of the world requires the full participation and consent of the Congress as a co-equal branch of our government."...
This is where the letter went wrong.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:46 pmActually, Bush slowed down the process of Iran modifying its nuclear stance, if indeed it was even necessary. His petulant foot-stamping and dickwaving is the worst possible way to get results from a nutcase so much like himself. Bush resembles the crazed fanatics of history far more than any American presidents in history. He is eveil and insane, and deserves to hang for his mass-murdering ways. i hope he does; I'll be there to witness.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:49 pmComment by whiteyfresh — December 6, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
=)
December 6th, 2007 at 9:51 pmWho cares anyways? They’re just going to kill those “evil†Jews anyways. Right?
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Actually, moron, they saw Bush back down from north korea and realized what a twisted little pussy coward he is. iran having a nuke means one thing: Bush will be afraid of them. they're not so stupid as to use it on israel; that's your insanity coming to the fore. You are the type to bring about your own destruction in that manner. Nobody is as stupid or crazy as you, you can count on it.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:51 pmWell, Bolton could be right. The NIE says that they are only moderately certain that Iran hasn’t restarted their program. With all previous intelligence failures fresh in mind, I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran nukes Israel tomorrow.
No one truly knows what's going on in Iran and I don't think anyone has evidence that Iran's nuclear program was ever intended for weaponization.
And what the hell are you smoking?
No, of course not. They’re the only country in the region that has had a secret nuclear program for a number of years that doesn’t want a nuclear weapon from it. Pakistan, India, Israel… Obviously Iran is much more honest and reliable than any of them. Yep. Keep telling yourself that.
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
What evidence do you have for your weaponization theory?
December 6th, 2007 at 9:58 pmWho cares anyways? They’re just going to kill those “evil†Jews anyways. Right?
Comment by DreamCrusher
Israel can protect itself. And this evil talk comes from both sides and I think it should stop.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:01 pmWho cares anyways? They’re just going to kill those “evil†Jews anyways. Right?
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
You have a very vivid imagination.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:02 pmDUCK AND COVER......tweeeeeeeeet....ALL CLEAR.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:06 pmYeah, who could ever imagaine an evil dictator wanting to kill Jews. Couldn’t ever happen. Wait………
Hitler was a muslim?
December 6th, 2007 at 10:13 pmWho cares anyways? They’re just going to kill those “evil†Jews anyways. Right?
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Tsk. Ascribing racism is far more insulting than simple name calling.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:15 pmYeah, who could ever imagaine an evil dictator wanting to kill Jews. Couldn’t ever happen. Wait…………..
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 6, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
He was actually elected. And Israel can take of itself in any event.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:16 pmNuclear weapons are worse than useless. ANY country who used one, or supplied one to "terrorists", would probably be a sheet of glass within hours, if not minutes. I find it hard to believe that anyone, sane or not, would ensure the annihilation of their country, their family, or perhaps their race.
If anyone really believed they could use a nuke, and survive, it would have happened.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:17 pmIf anyone really believed they could use a nuke, and survive, it would have happened.
Comment by pete — December 6, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
zackly.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:18 pmA major feature of the diplomatic situation in the fall of 2003 was the willingness of Britain, France and Germany to negotiate an agreement with Iran on a wider range of security issues, based on voluntary Iranian suspension of uranium enrichment.
Comment by Xisithrus — December 6, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
True. Blair, Chirac and Schroeder each had their own reasons to want Iran to stop and to stop Bush from bombing them. It worked. Bush was President for the whole shebang. No bombs fell, Iran stopped building the bomb. The E3 are influenced by the US no matter who is running any of the 4 governments.
I don't even care if you or any TPers give Bush credit other than my interest in your intellectual honesty. Airstrikes on Iran were a foregone conclusion on TP a week ago. Now they are highly unlikely. This is good.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:20 pmIf anyone really believed they could use a nuke, and survive, it would have happened.
Comment by pete — December 6, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
During WW2 we had the luxury of being the only country with nuclear weapons. Today I think the use of a nuclear weapon by any country would trigger a nuclear holocaust.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:25 pmIf anyone really believed they could use a nuke, and survive, it would have happened.
Comment by pete — December 6, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
You discount the no return address quality of "terrorists". IF it happened tomorrow, what would we do? A crude atomic bomb goes off in Houston. Cataclysmic damage.
What would we do? What would you want us to do? What if the damage was so profound there was no way to gather evidence sufficient to say where the bomb came from?
It was questions like these that made me think for several years how I felt about Iran's nukes. I can't see us doing anything about existing members of the nuke club, but it is at least reasonable to consider stopping the government that hates us more than any other from getting a bomb.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:26 pmI don’t even care if you or any TPers give Bush credit other than my interest in your intellectual honesty -Keltoi
I said I gave Bush SOME credit in my post Keltoi
December 6th, 2007 at 10:28 pmWell, Bolton could be right. The NIE says that they are only moderately certain that Iran hasn’t restarted their program. With all previous intelligence failures fresh in mind, I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran nukes Israel tomorrow.
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
In case you weren't paying attention back then, the "intelligence failures" of which you speak came from people like Bolton and his ilk. They were the ones who were wrong about Iraq (though they claim otherwise to this day), and they're wrong today about Iran. Are you guys actually trying to make the argument that Bolten may be right today because the intelligence refuting him might be as bad as the bad intelligence Bolten was pushing about Iraq years ago? And you speak of intellectual honesty?
December 6th, 2007 at 10:39 pmI don’t even care if you or any TPers give Bush credit other than my interest in your intellectual honesty -Keltoi
I said I gave Bush SOME credit in my post Keltoi
Comment by Xisithrus — December 6, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
Duly noted and fair enough.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:40 pmYea, but the stoopid thing about democrats clamoring for Congressional consent is that they’ll give it to the boy king, so what did they accomplish – they can pretend to themselves that they’re relevant?
Earth to democrats: by continuing in the republican tradition of rubberstamping bush’s disasters you 1) become party to his disasters and 2) you demonstrate that you really are irrelevant. Don't be clamoring for bush to come to Congress for approvals unless you're ready to use every means at your disposal given to you by the good people of America to shove bush's disasters up his arse and send him packing.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:41 pm.
You discount the no return address quality of “terroristsâ€. IF it happened tomorrow, what would we do?
No. I don't discount the "no return address quality". However, I'm not sure how true it is.
OBL was "fingered" within hours of the 9/11 attacks. And U.S. intelligence had him placed within a small area, in Afghanistan, shortly thereafter. The list of suspects in a nuclear attack would be much smaller.
If 9/11 had been a nuclear attack; do you really think Bush, or any hypothetical President, would not have responded in kind? Do you think any Nation, or terrorist group, would take the risk that we wouldn't? I think not.
The fact of the matter is that terrorist groups, like nations, have a purpose. That purpose includes survival. I can't think of a single example where destruction was the only motivation. And, I can't imagine any group, with the resources to pull off a nuclear attack, that would take the risk.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:46 pmCute.
So how many times will you roll over this time? 2? 3?
Will you kiss Georgie's ass while you're at it, or would you rather just take the check in increments?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:05 pm>>No. I don’t discount the “no return address qualityâ€. However, I’m not sure how true it is.
I agree. It is a phantom of sorts, but so terrible it cannot be ignored.
>>OBL was “fingered†within hours of the 9/11 attacks. And U.S. intelligence had him placed within a small area, in Afghanistan, shortly thereafter. The list of suspects in a nuclear attack would be much smaller.
True again.
>>If 9/11 had been a nuclear attack; do you really think Bush, or any hypothetical President, would not have responded in kind? Do you think any Nation, or terrorist group, would take the risk that we wouldn’t? I think not.
Well, to where? Tora Bora? Waziristan? Yes, I think any president would respond, but to where? And the whole thing is so horrible to imagine that it pays to imagine smaller horrors to stop it happening.
>>The fact of the matter is that terrorist groups, like nations, have a purpose. That purpose includes survival. I can’t think of a single example where destruction was the only motivation. And, I can’t imagine any group, with the resources to pull off a nuclear attack, that would take the risk.
Comment by pete — December 6, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
Pete, you're a good guy, but it is true that martyrdom is an essential part of the AQ world view and it is risky to treat them as rational people. Most world leaders including our Prez act pretty irrationally and stupidly, but very few of them glorify suicide.
I think we basically agree, and I feel better now than I did Sunday night, but I hope to holy Hell that NIE is accurate.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:18 pmThe beginning of the letter is mis-addressed.
Should begin:
Dear Traiterous Scumbag who thinks he's the Emperor, but is actually just the failed, worst President ever,
December 6th, 2007 at 11:30 pmSection. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To ...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;
What part of this do CreamPuffer and tepid_flaccid_leftout not get?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:36 pmPete, you’re a good guy, but it is true that martyrdom is an essential part of the AQ world view and it is risky to treat them as rational people. Most world leaders including our Prez act pretty irrationally and stupidly, but very few of them glorify suicide.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — December 6, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
The leaders of these groups don't want to die. They send their lackeys out to do the dirty work.
And I disagree with you on Bush. He's one of those rapture righties.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:37 pmI want the Senate to stop writing letters to the Boy Who Would Be King and do something about it. Stop the funding. It is that simple.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:42 pmGrow a pair and refuse to fund any further fighting in Iraq.
Can someone please inform the troll that it is the Congress' job to approve the federal budget, which includes funds for the military and overseas bases?
Just try to use one-syllable words only. Include pictures if you can.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:50 pmPete, you’re a good guy, but it is true that martyrdom is an essential part of the AQ world view and it is risky to treat them as rational people. Most world leaders including our Prez act pretty irrationally and stupidly, but very few of them glorify suicide.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — December 6, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
Well, I have no doubt your first four words are accurate, LOL. And I agree that martyrdom is a terrifying reality. However, it takes tremendous resources to produce, or acquire, nukes. It strikes me as nearly impossible to get that many highly trained, and powerful, people "on the martyr train".
The way I look at it (keeping in mind I could be horribly mistaken); by the time someone is in a position to build, buy, or steal, a nuke they are not likely to be suicidal. Mel Brooks spoke truth when he said, "It's good to be the King".
As for those who might manage to steal one; it would then come down to delivery. Again, this would be a huge effort and, once acquired, they would be more valuable as instruments of blackmail. Even martyrs are not eager to risk everything they love for a big "body count".
I'm not saying the use of "rogue nukes" is impossible, but, it's so difficult that reasonable precautions should (hopefully) suffice.
I guess I see more value in improving our foreign relations than taking rash actions to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. Not to mention dealing with unstable nations which have them, like Pakistan. I am far more concerned with operational nuclear weapons than hypothetical ones.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:59 pmThere is no point in writing letters to a monkey.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:11 amI guess I see more value in improving our foreign relations than taking rash actions to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. Not to mention dealing with unstable nations which have them, like Pakistan. I am far more concerned with operational nuclear weapons than hypothetical ones.
Comment by pete — December 6, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
Agreed on all points. Please, let the Dems nominate Obama. If you sense at all a feeling of cautious hope out there in America about this guy, imagine what the rest of the world thinks.
Ciao pete.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:16 amIf Democrats object to a permanent military presence of say, 50,000 troops in Iraq, perhaps they should stop funding the war altogether.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:30 amOk, why are so many of us smarter than our representatives?
Cripes it is so obivious.
Bush/Cheney/Rove/DC/CHL
Hague Trials '09
Buck Fush
December 7th, 2007 at 12:30 amKeltoi is making a mistake. He thinks that AQ are loonies, crazy, demented guys trying to blow up things for political motivation. Well, they are, but they are hardly crazy. Saudis wouldn't give their money to crazy Wahabbites just because they are an extremist side of Islam.
Terrorists groups are like governments, they seek power. They don't go bombing everything just to draw attention. No terrorist group will use a nuke. Nobody uses a nuke, that's the whole point of nukes! Unless you are the US and want to make a strong point to the Soviet Union about who is the current superpower.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:37 amMemo to Dreamcrusher:
1) Iran is a democracy.
2) Al-Jazeera (Arabic) mistranslated Mahmoud's words (Farsi) about Israel. The sheeple went along.
3) Israel has made clear that it will attack Iran with "special weaponry" and doesn't even belong to NPT. Frightening.
4) Iraq is under military occupation. German, Korea and Japan are not.
5) Iran is surrounded by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are US military vehicles stationed near Iran and have made military exercises. The rethoric against Iran has escalated since Iraq went wrong. I think they have an excuse to be looking for a nuke.
Keep up.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:45 amNobody uses a nuke, that’s the whole point of nukes! Unless you are the US and want to make a strong point to the Soviet Union about who is the current superpower.
Comment by Juan C. — December 7, 2007 @ 12:37 am
I don't disagree...but suppose you had a vision of being the only other power BESIDES the US to use nukes and had an apocalyptic vision of your place in a millenial struggle between your God and that of the infidels'...
I am sticking with the Happy scenario where Iran doesn't get nukes, we don't bomb them, Obama is the next Prez and the World goes er...hhuh..what..?
For a dime I'd gladly find the guy who said the end of the Cold War was the End of History and give him a stern talking to.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:50 amFor a dime I’d gladly find the guy who said the end of the Cold War was the End of History and give him a stern talking to.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — December 7, 2007 @ 12:50 am
Sh*t, I'd gladly call you a sneering, condescending j*rk off in short pants for free. You can keep yer dime.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:55 amBush doesn't read. Too stupid. That is why the trolls have such a hard time defending him here. Oh, and all the lying makes it hard too. And the assault on the Constitution, and the war crimes....
December 7th, 2007 at 3:34 amWHY LAY OFF IRAN CAUSE THERE A NEW WAR ON MONDAY
Serbs: 'We are defending Europe against Muslim aggression'
Kosovo's leaders have vowed to proclaim sovereignty sometime after Monday, the deadline for international envoys to report to the United Nations on a final round of talks that failed to find even a glimmer of compromise between Kosovo and Belgrade.
Washington and Brussels agree with Kosovo that further negotiations are pointless, and support independence for the 90-per cent Albanian region under the supervision of a European Union mission and the watchful eye of some 16,000 Nato peacekeepers.
But Russia supports Serbia's refusal to offer anything more than broad autonomy to the province of two million, and both nations warn that recognising a unilateral declaration of independence from Kosovo would unsettle the Balkans and embolden separatist movements everywhere. The task for the US and Europe will be to manage the independence declaration so that it is met with international recognition – and not gunfire.
http://www.independent.co.uk/
IM SICK OF THIS war shit , WEVE HAD 600% MORE WAR THEN PEACE THIS CENTURY
December 7th, 2007 at 5:24 am* Today: Nato meeting will discuss continuing Kosovo international force.
* Monday: Deadline for international mediators to submit report to UN secretary general who hands it to the security council. Declaration of Kosovo independence could come at any time after Monday, although Hashim Thaci, set to become Kosovo's Prime Minister, has promised to do so in consultation with US and Europe.
* 14 December: EU summit. Kosovo expects a signal from the EU on prospects for internationally-supervised independence.
* 19 December: UN security council discusses Kosovo, with Russia remaining opposed to independence.
* January: Most likely time of independence declaration.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:34 amAustria:asylum
December 7th, 2007 at 5:45 amC'mon Webb...we want the tough guy back. Weren't you going to be showing Bush 'the way'? No more letters--there is no evidence that the President reads them anyway.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:54 amFunny how Mr. Pert loved Jim Webb all those years he was a repticon. It's funny how changing an R to a D managed to change a"gripping first-hand account of life in a war zone" into "icky pornography". Jesus still loves you, Pee, even though your a shallow liar.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:39 amHate to throw a monkey wrench into an otherwise troll littered concept by where's the money coming from for an long-term presence in Iraq? In fact, where's the money coming from for any of what we're doing? How about fiscal accountability? Or is that a term Repukes can't wrap their feeble minds around?
Oh yeah, I forgot. China owns l/3 of us already so why not auction ourselves off to the highest bidder at this point?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:45 amTom Feeney in Florida is on his way down the bunghole for his complicity and his predelection for bad boys like Abramoff. He was also a principal in the stolen election of 2000 in Florida. Shall I out some more for you or have you had enough?
There was this programmer in Winter Park, Florida who had a meeting with Jebbie while he was Governor before the 2000 election and the topic of their meeting was "how to successfully hack a DRE"....hmmmm.....more to come on this or maybe we'll wait until little bro' Jebster actually is smoked out believing that he has a chance in hell of entering the political arena again.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:53 amMy last few posts were with the intention of educating our little piss-soaked troll named DreamCrusher. The only dream being crushed is his dream of fascism in his lifetime. There's nothing worse than a moron who believes he's intelligent when it comes to intellectual repartee.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:54 amThis took a whole 2 minutes of Wikipedia searching, but....
Does that answer the Japan question?
December 7th, 2007 at 9:10 amwith Congress' consent? how about "under any circumstances"(?)
December 7th, 2007 at 9:11 amDreamCrusher -
Here is some South Korea information from Wikipedia -
December 7th, 2007 at 9:14 am
True, Congress can declare war, and then Congress can end a war either by declaring victory or surrender.
.... so, by all means, in front of the whole nation, please, please, please try to declare surrender ahead of an election cycle.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:48 amTrue, Congress can declare war, and then Congress can end a war either by declaring victory or surrender.
…. so, by all means, in front of the whole nation, please, please, please try to declare surrender ahead of an election cycle.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 7, 2007 @ 9:48 am
Victory and surrender are meaningless terms in an occupation and counterinsurgency and you know it. The end strategy is inevitably withdrawal. The question is - do we want to withdraw with 4,000 soldiers killed or 10,000 soldiers killed?
You seem to prefer the latter. Why do you hate the troops, Jason?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:00 am"Many soldiers already have, so, I’m coo."
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 6, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
"coo"? typo, dc.
you do that when you get desperate, have you noticed?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:46 amComment by Jason M. Hendler — December 7, 2007 @ 9:48 am
jason, why do you hate the troops?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:47 amDC, JMH and all other war mongers,
Would any other country be justified in attacking and attempting to occupy the United States for the same arguments that you make to attack Iran, occupy Iraq, and threaten the other Arab nations?
If not, why are we justified? We have attacked a sovereign nation against the will of the UN. We continue to occupy that nation against the will of the world as well as the will of the Iraqi people. We have Nuk - U - Lar weapons. We torture people. We break our treaties. Why should the rest of the world trust us?
December 7th, 2007 at 11:04 amShut up, Webb. You're like all the other wimpocrats - tough talk and threatening letters, but in the end, you capitulate like little woosies in fairy land. Bush just has to same something like "support the troops", and you Mr. Webb, will bend over again and give Bush/Cheney everything they want.
Get lost - we need real leaders in congress.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:05 pmdc?
are you ok?
December 7th, 2007 at 1:07 pm130 - you have to understand that those Righties only talk like they care about the USA and the Law and the Constitution....
all that they do is what assuages their greeds or their fears
-very simple animals, they
simpler even than cavemen, I guess. lol. (no offense to you, Dan)
December 7th, 2007 at 1:31 pm