Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[LosingNow]

Byrd, Robert (D) - no further constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed. Lost 14-86.

...and this is the speech Sen Byrd gave on the floor of the senate a day after congress gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq. One of the best speeches ever!!
--
Arrogance of Power
Today, I Weep for my Country...
 
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Speech delivered on the floor of the US Senate
March 19, 2003 3:45pm
 
 
I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.

After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.

The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.

But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?

A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.

[RicePlateReddy]

As for McCain I already said enough times he will be no better than Bush for Americans and Immigrants alike.  Obama is clearly better than him.

I agree that Obama will be far better. But I honestly do think McCain will be far better than Bush. A lot of his stances right now are just rhetoric to seal the conservative base. Unfortunately for him, some of them see right through the facade. He has been a maverick all along and is likely to be more centrist than most other Republicans in the increasingly unlikely event he gains office.

[ruchir]

All the Republican and rightwing apologists trying to put a spin on things and trying to make a case for McCain who himself appeared ruthless in numerous interviews in which I remember him saying that he feels bad for families of the U.S soldiers but on a similar scale tried justifying Iraqi's getting killed. 

Wow... that's news to me. I thought McCain was even against torture!!

I am not surprised that it is news to you.  Even Bush is against torture if you read his quote's in the very first post of the thread.  But he aided in torture and looked the other side when things were brought to his notice.  And for McCain if he really does not believe in Bush the president then he would never be asking for his endorsement. In a way as he(McCain) said on occasions when asked about Iraqi deaths that deaths are to be expected in war and he is fine with it excepting that he feels bad for the U.S. soldiers families that died or injured.  So McCain is fine for most part with what Bush did in Iraq.

So, McCain should not be asking for support from a sitting president, because he does not agree is one, two or three things with him. What if McCain agrees with the president on Tax cuts, keeping US safe etc.? Is the same logic applied to Obama too? Wright said a lot of nonsense on video. Obama says he disagrees with those words of Wright. So should Obama too not ask for support from Wright?

The worst of all is Bush attending his daughter's wedding in a grand scale and appearing happy as a family man and enjoying it.  Normally it is fine.  But for what he has done to his country and aiding in killing so many soldiers how can someone be so selfish.  Can he not take a stand and stay away from grand celebrations when there are widows and kids who lost their parent here in U.S. all because of Bush's impulse to go for a war at all costs even if it means killing people.  And think of all the people amputated and permanently confined to the wheel chair.  I am sure when they saw the pictures of Bush's daughter's wedding might be wondering what is it all for they sacrificed.  Is it worth for this president and party which McCain is also part of and similar from the way he appears and talks?  I say it is not.

So, how many days of national mourning was done in USA after Atom Bomb was dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Remember, Truman knew about the amount civilian causalities, the long term effects of the bomb. Was there mourning held in USA? Oh, I'm sorry. Going by your logic, such stuff should happen only when US soldiers die. Why should we mourn when a Democratic president like Truman butcher/slaughters million of Japanese civilians in cold blood just to save lives of his soldiers? Truman is probably the biggest hero because he saved lives of a lot of US soldiers. It doesn't matter he killed a few million civilians in the bargain. Who gives a * about that?

Atleast I am a witness to the present tyranny and going by what I am seeing.  Your responses have nothing to do with all the flaws I am bringing in Bush's regime and debating that.  Here I said Bush is an Ass for attending and making a big deal of his daughters wedding while his illegal lied war killed thousands and your response does not even mention Bush.  What can I say?   A Righwing trait to justify innocent killings.

Forget your history and you are libel to repeat it. Which father would not attend his daughter's wedding, and not make a big deal about it? You think Bush is a killer, so he should keep it down. Bush doesn't think he is a killer. So why should he keep it down? Explain that. Was there a widespread agitation against the marriage? Did any popular News channel or newspaper criticize it's grandure?

And yes I am the one wrong calling Bush and Cheney (who takes care of his heart problems so well but others lives are so cheap) as killers.

Maybe you should talk to Japanese.

I saw this response from you before.  Deflect anything to support the Killer Bush even if it means getting into an unprovoked, illegal war.

Unprovoked - sure. Illegal - Prove it first. Killer - what can I say, that's your opinion; just like it is my opinion that Truman is probably a bigger killer than Bush.

[ramshorns]

All the Republican and rightwing apologists trying to put a spin on things and trying to make a case for McCain who himself appeared ruthless in numerous interviews in which I remember him saying that he feels bad for families of the U.S soldiers but on a similar scale tried justifying Iraqi's getting killed. 

Wow... that's news to me. I thought McCain was even against torture!!

I am not surprised that it is news to you.  Even Bush is against torture if you read his quote's in the very first post of the thread.  But he aided in torture and looked the other side when things were brought to his notice.  And for McCain if he really does not believe in Bush the president then he would never be asking for his endorsement. In a way as he(McCain) said on occasions when asked about Iraqi deaths that deaths are to be expected in war and he is fine with it excepting that he feels bad for the U.S. soldiers families that died or injured.  So McCain is fine for most part with what Bush did in Iraq.

So, McCain should not be asking for support from a sitting president, because he does not agree is one, two or three things with him. What if McCain agrees with the president on Tax cuts, keeping US safe etc.? Is the same logic applied to Obama too? Wright said a lot of nonsense on video. Obama says he disagrees with those words of Wright. So should Obama too not ask for support from Wright?

Yes McCain should not be asking for a sitting presidents help because the sitting president in this case is a liar and has put his personal agenda ahead of the country and in broader terms the world citizens.  For that reason alone McCain should be defeated for begging and seeking the help of a listless president.

The worst of all is Bush attending his daughter's wedding in a grand scale and appearing happy as a family man and enjoying it.  Normally it is fine.  But for what he has done to his country and aiding in killing so many soldiers how can someone be so selfish.  Can he not take a stand and stay away from grand celebrations when there are widows and kids who lost their parent here in U.S. all because of Bush's impulse to go for a war at all costs even if it means killing people.  And think of all the people amputated and permanently confined to the wheel chair.  I am sure when they saw the pictures of Bush's daughter's wedding might be wondering what is it all for they sacrificed.  Is it worth for this president and party which McCain is also part of and similar from the way he appears and talks?  I say it is not.

So, how many days of national mourning was done in USA after Atom Bomb was dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Remember, Truman knew about the amount civilian causalities, the long term effects of the bomb. Was there mourning held in USA? Oh, I'm sorry. Going by your logic, such stuff should happen only when US soldiers die. Why should we mourn when a Democratic president like Truman butcher/slaughters million of Japanese civilians in cold blood just to save lives of his soldiers? Truman is probably the biggest hero because he saved lives of a lot of US soldiers. It doesn't matter he killed a few million civilians in the bargain. Who gives a * about that?

Atleast I am a witness to the present tyranny and going by what I am seeing.  Your responses have nothing to do with all the flaws I am bringing in Bush's regime and debating that.  Here I said Bush is an Ass for attending and making a big deal of his daughters wedding while his illegal lied war killed thousands and your response does not even mention Bush.  What can I say?   A Righwing trait to justify innocent killings.

Forget your history and you are libel to repeat it. Which father would not attend his daughter's wedding, and not make a big deal about it? You think Bush is a killer, so he should keep it down. Bush doesn't think he is a killer. So why should he keep it down? Explain that. Was there a widespread agitation against the marriage? Did any popular News channel or newspaper criticize it's grandure?

All father's should attend their kids marriage and perhaps make a big deal of it if they can afford it.  But this is not your typical father.  Called for an unprovoked war fully knowing his kids and his family are safe and aided in killing lots of the soldiers who's kids will not have their father or mother around when they get married all thanks to the methods of the war monging Bush family whose help McCain shamelessly seeks to grab power though he is not fit to be a president at this stage given his health and age and also his competency in comparision to the erstwhile Obama who has the support of the Great Clinton family during whose time the country has seen some magnificent times in entire history of mankind perhaps only to be taken back by a long way by Bush and the Republicans who McCain is a part of.

And yes I am the one wrong calling Bush and Cheney (who takes care of his heart problems so well but others lives are so cheap) as killers.

Maybe you should talk to Japanese.

I saw this response from you before.  Deflect anything to support the Killer Bush even if it means getting into an unprovoked, illegal war.

Unprovoked - sure. Illegal - Prove it first. Killer - what can I say, that's your opinion; just like it is my opinion that Truman is probably a bigger killer than Bush.

What is there to prove? It has been proved and said everywhere in the world excepting in the rightwing media which the likes of you were brainwashed and made to believe to say if someone called Bush a liar or a killer to manup and call someone else a killer too to deflect off the issue though Bush is the one who lied and by your own admittance waged an unprovoked war.  I think that is where McCain is wrong in asking a killer for support.  Utterly shameless.

[ruchir]

All the Republican and rightwing apologists trying to put a spin on things and trying to make a case for McCain who himself appeared ruthless in numerous interviews in which I remember him saying that he feels bad for families of the U.S soldiers but on a similar scale tried justifying Iraqi's getting killed. 

Wow... that's news to me. I thought McCain was even against torture!!

I am not surprised that it is news to you.  Even Bush is against torture if you read his quote's in the very first post of the thread.  But he aided in torture and looked the other side when things were brought to his notice.  And for McCain if he really does not believe in Bush the president then he would never be asking for his endorsement. In a way as he(McCain) said on occasions when asked about Iraqi deaths that deaths are to be expected in war and he is fine with it excepting that he feels bad for the U.S. soldiers families that died or injured.  So McCain is fine for most part with what Bush did in Iraq.

So, McCain should not be asking for support from a sitting president, because he does not agree is one, two or three things with him. What if McCain agrees with the president on Tax cuts, keeping US safe etc.? Is the same logic applied to Obama too? Wright said a lot of nonsense on video. Obama says he disagrees with those words of Wright. So should Obama too not ask for support from Wright?

Yes McCain should not be asking for a sitting presidents help because the sitting president in this case is a lair and has put his personal agenda ahead of the country and in broader terms the world citizens.  For that reason alone McCain should be defeated for begging and seeking the help of a listless president.

That's your opinion that he is a liar and put his personal agenda first. Maybe that's not McCain's opinion. Just like Obama's opinion of Wright was different from mine. For this reason alone (in your words) Obama must be defeated.

The worst of all is Bush attending his daughter's wedding in a grand scale and appearing happy as a family man and enjoying it.  Normally it is fine.  But for what he has done to his country and aiding in killing so many soldiers how can someone be so selfish.  Can he not take a stand and stay away from grand celebrations when there are widows and kids who lost their parent here in U.S. all because of Bush's impulse to go for a war at all costs even if it means killing people.  And think of all the people amputated and permanently confined to the wheel chair.  I am sure when they saw the pictures of Bush's daughter's wedding might be wondering what is it all for they sacrificed.  Is it worth for this president and party which McCain is also part of and similar from the way he appears and talks?  I say it is not.

So, how many days of national mourning was done in USA after Atom Bomb was dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Remember, Truman knew about the amount civilian causalities, the long term effects of the bomb. Was there mourning held in USA? Oh, I'm sorry. Going by your logic, such stuff should happen only when US soldiers die. Why should we mourn when a Democratic president like Truman butcher/slaughters million of Japanese civilians in cold blood just to save lives of his soldiers? Truman is probably the biggest hero because he saved lives of a lot of US soldiers. It doesn't matter he killed a few million civilians in the bargain. Who gives a * about that?

Atleast I am a witness to the present tyranny and going by what I am seeing.  Your responses have nothing to do with all the flaws I am bringing in Bush's regime and debating that.  Here I said Bush is an Ass for attending and making a big deal of his daughters wedding while his illegal lied war killed thousands and your response does not even mention Bush.  What can I say?   A Righwing trait to justify innocent killings.

Forget your history and you are libel to repeat it. Which father would not attend his daughter's wedding, and not make a big deal about it? You think Bush is a killer, so he should keep it down. Bush doesn't think he is a killer. So why should he keep it down? Explain that. Was there a widespread agitation against the marriage? Did any popular News channel or newspaper criticize it's grandure?

All father's should attend their kids marriage and perhaps make a big deal of it if they can afford it.  But this is not your typical father.  Called for an unprovoked war fully knowing his kids and his family are safe and aided in killing lots of the soldiers who's kids will not have their father or mother around when they get married all thanks to the methods of the war monging Bush family whose help McCain shamelessly seeks to grab power though he is not fit to be a president at this stage given his health and age and also his competency in comparision to the erstwhile Obama who has the support of the Great Clinton family during whose time the country has seen some magnificent times in entire history of mankind perhaps only to be taken back by a long way by Bush and the Republicans who McCain is a part of.

FYI - McCain's son is currently serving in Iraq. That should shut up good and tight about McCain wanting to carry on with the war because his kids won't be affected.

When any country enters into a conflict (read Kosovo), the leader (read Clinton) does not take that decision based on where his/her kids will be directly involved in that conflict or not. That is true for any leader of any country in the world. US went to Kosovo to so-called save lives there. Did Clinton know that no US soldier would be killed/maimed/injured there? After all, Chelsea was not going there to fight, right? Same goes for Bush too. Many US soldiers have died in the so-called peace keeping missions under UN. None of those President's kids were directly involved in those missions too. So do you want to use the Bush logic for those presidents too?

And yes I am the one wrong calling Bush and Cheney (who takes care of his heart problems so well but others lives are so cheap) as killers.

Maybe you should talk to Japanese.

I saw this response from you before.  Deflect anything to support the Killer Bush even if it means getting into an unprovoked, illegal war.

Unprovoked - sure. Illegal - Prove it first. Killer - what can I say, that's your opinion; just like it is my opinion that Truman is probably a bigger killer than Bush.

What is there to prove? It has been proved and said everywhere in the world excepting in the righwing media which the likes of you were brainwashed and made to believe to say if someone called Bush a lair or a killer to manup and call someone else a killer too to deflect off the issue though Bush is the one who lied and by your own admittance waged an unprovoked war.  I think that is where McCain is wrong in asking a killer for support.  Utterly shameless.

How did your rant answer my comment?

I said sure the war was unprovoked.
I asked you to prove that the war was illegal.
I said if you can have the opinion that Bush is a killer, then based on your logic I can have the opinion that Truman is a bigger killer than Bush.

[ramshorns]

All the Republican and rightwing apologists trying to put a spin on things and trying to make a case for McCain who himself appeared ruthless in numerous interviews in which I remember him saying that he feels bad for families of the U.S soldiers but on a similar scale tried justifying Iraqi's getting killed. 

Wow... that's news to me. I thought McCain was even against torture!!

I am not surprised that it is news to you.  Even Bush is against torture if you read his quote's in the very first post of the thread.  But he aided in torture and looked the other side when things were brought to his notice.  And for McCain if he really does not believe in Bush the president then he would never be asking for his endorsement. In a way as he(McCain) said on occasions when asked about Iraqi deaths that deaths are to be expected in war and he is fine with it excepting that he feels bad for the U.S. soldiers families that died or injured.  So McCain is fine for most part with what Bush did in Iraq.

So, McCain should not be asking for support from a sitting president, because he does not agree is one, two or three things with him. What if McCain agrees with the president on Tax cuts, keeping US safe etc.? Is the same logic applied to Obama too? Wright said a lot of nonsense on video. Obama says he disagrees with those words of Wright. So should Obama too not ask for support from Wright?

Yes McCain should not be asking for a sitting presidents help because the sitting president in this case is a lair and has put his personal agenda ahead of the country and in broader terms the world citizens.  For that reason alone McCain should be defeated for begging and seeking the help of a listless president.

That's your opinion that he is a liar and put his personal agenda first. Maybe that's not McCain's opinion. Just like Obama's opinion of Wright was different from mine. For this reason alone (in your words) Obama must be defeated.

Bush aided in killing thousands at home and abroad with uttered lies who's endorsement McCain is seeking and how many people did Wright kill???

The worst of all is Bush attending his daughter's wedding in a grand scale and appearing happy as a family man and enjoying it.  Normally it is fine.  But for what he has done to his country and aiding in killing so many soldiers how can someone be so selfish.  Can he not take a stand and stay away from grand celebrations when there are widows and kids who lost their parent here in U.S. all because of Bush's impulse to go for a war at all costs even if it means killing people.  And think of all the people amputated and permanently confined to the wheel chair.  I am sure when they saw the pictures of Bush's daughter's wedding might be wondering what is it all for they sacrificed.  Is it worth for this president and party which McCain is also part of and similar from the way he appears and talks?  I say it is not.

So, how many days of national mourning was done in USA after Atom Bomb was dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Remember, Truman knew about the amount civilian causalities, the long term effects of the bomb. Was there mourning held in USA? Oh, I'm sorry. Going by your logic, such stuff should happen only when US soldiers die. Why should we mourn when a Democratic president like Truman butcher/slaughters million of Japanese civilians in cold blood just to save lives of his soldiers? Truman is probably the biggest hero because he saved lives of a lot of US soldiers. It doesn't matter he killed a few million civilians in the bargain. Who gives a * about that?

Atleast I am a witness to the present tyranny and going by what I am seeing.  Your responses have nothing to do with all the flaws I am bringing in Bush's regime and debating that.  Here I said Bush is an Ass for attending and making a big deal of his daughters wedding while his illegal lied war killed thousands and your response does not even mention Bush.  What can I say?   A Righwing trait to justify innocent killings.

Forget your history and you are libel to repeat it. Which father would not attend his daughter's wedding, and not make a big deal about it? You think Bush is a killer, so he should keep it down. Bush doesn't think he is a killer. So why should he keep it down? Explain that. Was there a widespread agitation against the marriage? Did any popular News channel or newspaper criticize it's grandure?

All father's should attend their kids marriage and perhaps make a big deal of it if they can afford it.  But this is not your typical father.  Called for an unprovoked war fully knowing his kids and his family are safe and aided in killing lots of the soldiers who's kids will not have their father or mother around when they get married all thanks to the methods of the war monging Bush family whose help McCain shamelessly seeks to grab power though he is not fit to be a president at this stage given his health and age and also his competency in comparision to the erstwhile Obama who has the support of the Great Clinton family during whose time the country has seen some magnificent times in entire history of mankind perhaps only to be taken back by a long way by Bush and the Republicans who McCain is a part of.

FYI - McCain's son is currently serving in Iraq. That should shut up good and tight about McCain wanting to carry on with the war because his kids won't be affected.

When any country enters into a conflict (read Kosovo), the leader (read Clinton) does not take that decision based on where his/her kids will be directly involved in that conflict or not. That is true for any leader of any country in the world. US went to Kosovo to so-called save lives there. Did Clinton know that no US soldier would be killed/maimed/injured there? After all, Chelsea was not going there to fight, right? Same goes for Bush too. Many US soldiers have died in the so-called peace keeping missions under UN. None of those President's kids were directly involved in those missions too. So do you want to use the Bush logic for those presidents too?

The caveat is only Bush was the one who's reasons came out false and hence has blood all over his hand for cheating while the other soldiers who died with kids will not have their parent with them when celebrating anything big in their life like Bush's daughters could.  That is the jist of my argument.

And yes I am the one wrong calling Bush and Cheney (who takes care of his heart problems so well but others lives are so cheap) as killers.

Maybe you should talk to Japanese.

I saw this response from you before.  Deflect anything to support the Killer Bush even if it means getting into an unprovoked, illegal war.

Unprovoked - sure. Illegal - Prove it first. Killer - what can I say, that's your opinion; just like it is my opinion that Truman is probably a bigger killer than Bush.

What is there to prove? It has been proved and said everywhere in the world excepting in the righwing media which the likes of you were brainwashed and made to believe to say if someone called Bush a lair or a killer to manup and call someone else a killer too to deflect off the issue though Bush is the one who lied and by your own admittance waged an unprovoked war.  I think that is where McCain is wrong in asking a killer for support.  Utterly shameless.

How did your rant answer my comment?

I said sure the war was unprovoked.
I asked you to prove that the war was illegal.
I said if you can have the opinion that Bush is a killer, then based on your logic I can have the opinion that Truman is a bigger killer than Bush.

An unprovoked war in essense is an illegal war especially when Iraq never posed any threat whatsoever to U.S as was the case.   You just proved it to yourself.  If everyone goes to war on the pretext of the way Bush went to war with Iraq all countries will be at war under the bogus reason of potential threat.

You can call whoever you want as a killer though in the history of U.S. or for that matter any civilised society Bush was the first President or leader to wage an unprovoked war that killed so many thosuand civilians.  The damage he caused in the name of lies is unparalleled.

[ruchir]

Bush aided in killing thousands at home and abroad with uttered lies who's endorsement McCain is seeking and how many people did Wright kill???

The issue is about seeking endorsement from someone who is not what he seems to be. As for your opinion of Bush, well it's your opinion.

The caveat is only Bush was the one who's reasons came out false and hence has blood all over his hand for cheating while the other soldiers who died with kids will not have their parent with them when celebrating anything big in their life like Bush's daughters could.  That is the jist of my argument.

Nice argument. But it doesn't answer my question of what would other presidents be called, when they send soldiers in conflicts when their own kids get to stay at home.

An unprovoked war in essense is an illegal war especially when Iraq never posed any threat whatsoever to U.S as was the case.   You just proved it to yourself.  If everyone goes to war on the pretext of the way Bush went to war with Iraq all countries will be at war under the bogus reason of potential threat.

You have to wonder why the Dems supported Iraq invasion. You have to wonder why Clinton was making a case for deposing Saddam before leaving office. Hindsight is always 20-20.

You can call whoever you want as a killer though in the history of U.S. or for that matter any civilised society Bush was the first President or leader to wage an unprovoked war that killed so many thosuand civilians.  The damage he caused in the name of lies is unparalleled.

You are forgetting a certain gentleman named Harry Truman, who killed millions of Japanese civilians. Deliberate murder of civilians in a military battle is far worse than anything Bush will ever do.

[prfsr]

Why is Truman's acts (heinous, no doubt about that) relevant to Bush? Should we pardon killers because they killed less people than Hitler?

Why bring in the gutless dems? Very typically republican!! Anything to deflect attention....

[prfsr]

Democrats have sucked in the Congress. There is no two ways about that. However that is *at best* irrelevant when it comes to discussing Bush's performance. What next -- will we argue that Bush is better than Idi Amin or Pol Pot, so there?

Agree, approval rating of a president and of congress are two different things. Still, it is legit to ask why current Dem controlled congress is having an approval rating of 18%. This is independent of Bush approval rating.

It is also true that this govt has systemically seized powers from the Congree/Senate and negated numerous checks and balances - that surely should be relevant when evaluating the Congress.

What powers have been taken away from Congress? They still have the power to defeat any bill presented by the president. President can't do anything about it. That's the biggest balance Congress has with President. Similarly, President can veto any bill that is passed by the Congress. That is a balance that President has with Congress. This check and balance is still there.

What has been taken away is the right of congress to know facts. Not officially but de facto. The govt has constantly refused to provide information to congress/senate and disregarded orders to testify. It has made more documents classified than any other. It has destoyed all sorts of records, used GOP emails so that emails could not be archived and done many similar things. Yes officially the "checks and balances" duty is still there, but it is like saying we will blindfold and put ear plugs on policemen and then expect them to enforce law and order.

Umm... Clinton administration classified a lot of documents too. Recently a former Clinton adviser Sandy Berger was found stuffing uncatalogued, classified Clinton Admin documents in his underwear and socks.

Look, classification and declassification, destruction of documents is done by every administration. That's the nature of politics and governance. You think this didn't happen before? Or is not going to happen in future Admins in USA? This stuff happens in every country, in every govt., and we have a right to be very angry about it. But you can't single out one president and say he crushed my right of information when many before have done the same thing too.

What in your opinion is the logic behind making a document "Classified"? A classified document is hidden from public and most politicians. Why do you think US gives this facility to the Presidents? Bush is not the first one to use it and will not be the last one too. There is a reason behind giving the President the facility of Classifying a document. Sure, it is wrong to destruct documents, blacken out documents before declassifying them, and Bush Admin is wrong to do that. But all this arises from the fact the US president has the facility to hide his activities, his reasons for doing something by making related documents Classified. Every president does that.

Ok, I am about to give up here. Is this bombard-with-irrelevant-facts strategy the best you have? Just because the president can classify documents so he can hide anything from anyone he wants and it is all justified? In case you did not know, at least SOME people in the Congress ARE qualified to see classified documents. Because people have committed murder before, every murderer is justified?

Are you just arguing for the sake of it, or do you really not know how this govt has seized power at every opportunity? (It is a fact, not my opinon). If it is the latter I can point you to sources. I suspect it matches your world view though - you said in a previous post that a president does not have to listen to public opinion and can do whatever he likes because he was elected. Musharraf agrees with you

[prfsr]

rams, I am not defending him. I am an avowed Democrat and anti-war. But I cannot hold only him and the neo-cons responsible, sorry.

Here is a little bit more food for thought:

We all know about the Authorization for use of Military Force. 3 Amendments were attempted:

Byrd, Robert (D) - no further constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed. Lost 14-86.

Levin, Carl (D) - Iraq must grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorization of use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution. Lost 24-75.

Durbin, Dick (D) - Authorization to use force to cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat. Lost 30-70.

I think in most democracies people get the govt they deserve and (by and large) support. So your food for thought is true but not surprising. To say that the American people are against Bush's war is just nonsense, in spite of the polls. By and large we do not give a damn about other people dying and will hide behind some weak excuse like "must finish the war even if it was not justified" -- it is only an excuse because "finish" is completely undefined.

[inoc]

ruchir

to butt into this enthralling discussion about american politics; your justification about Bush not being a killer is based on your labelling of others as killers. for arguments sake let us assume that truman et all were killers - now what? is bush still a killer or not? (please note as in other responses i find the word to be too strong)

we can argue the basis of historical judgements, but we are at this moment, the present moment, discussing the present leader, who by all accounts including yours, waged an illegal war.

forget about the democrats truman et all, what do you have to say about GWB. If Truman was a killer doesnt mean that GWB has the right to be one.

[prfsr]

http://www.truthout.org/article/paul-krugman-mccain-is-not-a-moderate 


The Right's Man
    By Paul Krugman
    The New York Times

    Monday 13 March 2006

     It's time for some straight talk about John McCain. He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be.

    Mr. McCain's reputation as a moderate may be based on his former opposition to the Bush tax cuts. In 2001 he declared, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us."

    But now - at a time of huge budget deficits and an expensive war, when the case against tax cuts for the rich is even stronger - Mr. McCain is happy to shower benefits on the most fortunate. He recently voted to extend tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, an action that will worsen the budget deficit while mainly benefiting people with very high incomes.

    When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. McCain was never moderate. During the 2000 campaign he called for a policy of "rogue state rollback," anticipating the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war unveiled two years later. Mr. McCain called for a systematic effort to overthrow nasty regimes even if they posed no imminent threat to the United States; he singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea. Mr. McCain's aggressive views on foreign policy, and his expressed willingness, almost eagerness, to commit U.S. ground forces overseas, explain why he, not George W. Bush, was the favored candidate of neoconservative pundits such as William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

    Would Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, have found some pretext for invading Iraq? We'll never know. But Mr. McCain still thinks the war was a good idea, and he rejects any attempt to extricate ourselves from the quagmire. "If success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006," he wrote last year, "then we must increase our numbers there." He didn't explain where the overstretched U.S. military is supposed to find these troops.

    When it comes to social issues, Mr. McCain, who once called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance," met with Mr. Falwell late last year. Perhaps as a result, he is now taking positions friendly to the religious right. Most notably, Mr. McCain's spokesperson says that he would have signed South Dakota's extremist new anti-abortion law.

    The spokesperson went on to say that the senator would have taken "the appropriate steps under state law" to ensure that cases of rape and incest were excluded. But that attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest.

    The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate's third most conservative member.

    What about Mr. McCain's reputation as a maverick? This comes from the fact that every now and then he seems to declare his independence from the Bush administration, as he did in pushing through his anti-torture bill.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to Guantánamo. President Bush, when signing the bill, appended a statement that in effect said that he was free to disregard the law whenever he chose. Mr. McCain protested, but there are apparently no hard feelings: at the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference he effusively praised Mr. Bush.

    And I'm sorry to say that this is typical of Mr. McCain. Every once in a while he makes headlines by apparently defying Mr. Bush, but he always returns to the fold, even if the abuses he railed against continue unabated.

    So here's what you need to know about John McCain.

    He isn't a straight talker. His flip-flopping on tax cuts, his call to send troops we don't have to Iraq and his endorsement of the South Dakota anti-abortion legislation even while claiming that he would find a way around that legislation's central provision show that he's a politician as slippery and evasive as, well, George W. Bush.

    He isn't a moderate. Mr. McCain's policy positions and Senate votes don't just place him at the right end of America's political spectrum; they place him in the right wing of the Republican Party.

    And he isn't a maverick, at least not when it counts. When the cameras are rolling, Mr. McCain can sometimes be seen striking a brave pose of opposition to the White House. But when it matters, when the Bush administration's ability to do whatever it wants is at stake, Mr. McCain always toes the party line.

    It's worth recalling that during the 2000 election campaign George W. Bush was widely portrayed by the news media both as a moderate and as a straight-shooter. As Mr. Bush has said, "Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

[prfsr]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28krugman.html

Bush Made Permanent
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink

 
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 28, 2008
As the designated political heir of a deeply unpopular president — according to Gallup, President Bush has the highest disapproval rating recorded in 70 years of polling — John McCain should have little hope of winning in November. In fact, however, current polls show him roughly tied with either Democrat.

In part this may reflect the Democrats’ problems. For the most part, however, it probably reflects the perception, eagerly propagated by Mr. McCain’s many admirers in the news media, that he’s very different from Mr. Bush — a responsible guy, a straight talker.

But is this perception at all true? During the 2000 campaign people said much the same thing about Mr. Bush; those of us who looked hard at his policy proposals, especially on taxes, saw the shape of things to come.

And a look at what Mr. McCain says about taxes shows the same combination of irresponsibility and double-talk that, back in 2000, foreshadowed the character of the Bush administration.

The McCain tax plan contains three main elements.

First, Mr. McCain proposes making almost all of the Bush tax cuts, which are currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, permanent. (He proposes reinstating the inheritance tax, albeit at a very low rate.)

Second, he wants to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, which was originally created to prevent the wealthy from exploiting tax loopholes, but has begun to hit the upper middle class.

Third, he wants to sharply reduce tax rates on corporate profits.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the overall effect of the McCain tax plan would be to reduce federal revenue by more than $5 trillion over 10 years. That’s a lot of revenue loss — enough to pose big problems for the government’s solvency.

But before I get to that, let’s look at what I found truly revealing: the McCain campaign’s response to the Tax Policy Center’s assessment. The response, written by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former head of the Congressional Budget Office, criticizes the center for adopting “unrealistic Congressional budgeting conventions.” What’s that about?

Well, Congress “scores” tax legislation by comparing estimates of the revenue that would be collected if the legislation passed with estimates of the revenue that would be collected under current law. In this case that means comparing the McCain plan with what would happen if the Bush tax cuts expired on schedule.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin wants the McCain plan compared, instead, with “current policy” — which he says means maintaining tax rates at today’s levels.

But here’s the thing: the reason the Bush tax cuts are set to expire is that the Bush administration engaged in a game of deception. It put an expiration date on the tax cuts, which it never intended to honor, as a way to hide those tax cuts’ true cost.

The McCain campaign wants us to accept the success of that deception as a fact of life. Mr. Holtz-Eakin is saying, in effect, “We’re not engaged in any new irresponsibility — we’re just perpetuating the Bush administration’s irresponsibility. That doesn’t count.”

It’s the sort of fiscal double-talk that has been a Bush administration hallmark. In any case, it offers no answer to the principal point raised by the Tax Policy Center analysis, which has nothing to do with scoring: the McCain tax plan would leave the federal government with far too little revenue to cover its expenses, leading to huge budget deficits unless there were deep cuts in spending.

And Mr. McCain has said nothing realistic about how he would close the giant budget gap his tax cuts would produce — a gap so large that eliminating it would require cutting Social Security benefits by three-quarters, eliminating Medicare, or something equivalently drastic. Talking, as Mr. Holtz-Eakin does, about fighting waste and reforming procurement doesn’t cut it.

Now, Mr. McCain isn’t unique in making promises he has no way to pay for — the same can be said, to some extent, of the Democratic candidates. But Mr. McCain’s plan is far more irresponsible than anything the Democrats are proposing, and the difference in degree is so large as to be a difference in kind. Mr. McCain’s budget talk simply doesn’t make sense.

So what are Mr. McCain’s real intentions?

If truth be told, the McCain tax plan doesn’t seem to embody any coherent policy agenda. Instead, it looks like a giant exercise in pandering — an attempt to mollify the G.O.P.’s right wing, and never mind if it makes any sense.

The impression that Mr. McCain’s tax talk is all about pandering is reinforced by his proposal for a summer gas tax holiday — a measure that would, in fact, do little to help consumers, although it would boost oil industry profits.

More and more, Mr. McCain sounds like a man who will say anything to become president.

[ruchir]

Why is Truman's acts (heinous, no doubt about that) relevant to Bush? Should we pardon killers because they killed less people than Hitler?

Why bring in the gutless dems? Very typically republican!! Anything to deflect attention....

Truman's acts are relevant because if you are ready to accept that Truman was a killer, I am ready to accept Bush is a killer. I want to apply same logic to all.

[prfsr]

Why is Truman's acts (heinous, no doubt about that) relevant to Bush? Should we pardon killers because they killed less people than Hitler?

Why bring in the gutless dems? Very typically republican!! Anything to deflect attention....

Truman's acts are relevant because if you are ready to accept that Truman was a killer, I am ready to accept Bush is a killer. I want to apply same logic to all.

I definitely agree with your views on Truman.

[ruchir]

Ok, I am about to give up here. Is this bombard-with-irrelevant-facts strategy the best you have? Just because the president can classify documents so he can hide anything from anyone he wants and it is all justified? In case you did not know, at least SOME people in the Congress ARE qualified to see classified documents. Because people have committed murder before, every murderer is justified?

Are you just arguing for the sake of it, or do you really not know how this govt has seized power at every opportunity? (It is a fact, not my opinon). If it is the latter I can point you to sources. I suspect it matches your world view though - you said in a previous post that a president does not have to listen to public opinion and can do whatever he likes because he was elected. Musharraf agrees with you

People in Congress are qualified to see many things, and they do see most of those things. It is the same congress, which has given the power to the president to "classify" stuff. If they want to see all the stuff then they can change the law/constitution to take that power away from the president. Why don't they? First you give president power to "classify" stuff. Then you go about crying "why is he hiding stuff?".

Bringing in murder and murderer here is irrelevant. I am not justifying "classification" (like you seem to think I am). I am saying it is provided to the president by law. If you don't like it, change the law.

Please, I would like you to point me to the source where I can see how this govt seized power without congress approving of it.

Why is Truman's acts (heinous, no doubt about that) relevant to Bush? Should we pardon killers because they killed less people than Hitler?

Why bring in the gutless dems? Very typically republican!! Anything to deflect attention....

Truman's acts are relevant because if you are ready to accept that Truman was a killer, I am ready to accept Bush is a killer. I want to apply same logic to all.

I definitely agree with your views on Truman.

Oh good. In that case I agree with you on Bush and case is rested.

[ramshorns]

Report: Exams prove abuse, torture in Iraq, Gitmo By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Medical examinations of former terrorism suspects held by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, found evidence of torture and other abuse that resulted in serious injuries and mental disorders, according to a human rights group.

For the most extensive medical study of former U.S. detainees published so far, Physicians for Human Rights had doctors and mental health professionals examine 11 former prisoners. The group alleges finding evidence of U.S. torture and war crimes and accuses U.S. military health professionals of allowing the abuse of detainees, denying them medical care and providing confidential medical information to interrogators that they then exploited.

"Some of these men really are, several years later, very severely scarred," said Barry Rosenfeld, a psychology professor at Fordham University who conducted psychological tests on six of the 11 detainees covered by the study. "It's a testimony to how bad those conditions were and how personal the abuse was."

One Iraqi prisoner, identified only as Yasser, reported being subjected to electric shocks three times and being sodomized with a stick. His thumbs bore round scars consistent with shocking, according to the report obtained by The Associated Press. He would not allow a full rectal exam.

Another Iraqi, identified only as Rahman, reported he was humiliated by being forced to wear women's underwear, stripped naked and paraded in front of female guards, and was shown pictures of other naked detainees. The psychological exam found that Rahman suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and had sexual problems related to his humiliation, the report said.

The report came as the Senate Armed Services Committee revealed documents showing military lawyers warned the Pentagon that methods it was using post-9/11 violated military, U.S. and international law. Those objections were overruled by the top Pentagon lawyer.

President Bush said in 2004, when the prison abuse was revealed, that it was the work of "a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values." Bush and other U.S. officials have consistently denied that the U.S. tortures its detainees.

Physicians for Human Rights, an advocacy group based in Cambridge, Mass., that investigates abuse around the world and advocates for global health and human rights, did not identify the 11 former prisoners to protect their privacy. Seven were held in Abu Ghraib between late 2003 and summer of 2004, a period that coincides with the known abuse of prisoners at the hands of some of their American jailers. Four of the prisoners were held at Guantanamo beginning in 2002 for one to almost five years. All 11 were released without criminal charges.

Those examined alleged that they were tortured or abused, including sexually, and described being shocked with electrodes, beaten, shackled, stripped of their clothes, deprived of food and sleep, and spit and urinated on.

The abuse of some prisoners by their American captors is well documented by the government's own reports. Once-secret documents show that the Pentagon and Justice Department allowed, at least for a time, forced nakedness, isolation, sleep deprivation and humiliation at both Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and at Abu Ghraib.

Because the medical examiners did not have access to the 11 patients' medical histories prior to their imprisonment, it was not possible to know whether any of the prisoners' ailments, disabilities and scars pre-dated their confinement. The U.S. military says an al-Qaida training manual instructs members, if captured, to assert they were tortured during interrogation.

However, doctors and mental health professionals stated they could link the prisoners' claims of abuse while in U.S. detention to injuries documented by X-rays, medical exams and psychological tests.

"The level of the time, thoroughness and rigor of the exams left me personally without question about the credibility of the individuals," said Dr. Allen Keller, one of the doctors who conducted the exams, in an interview with the AP. "The findings on the physical and psychological exams were consistent with what they reported."

All 11 former detainees reported being subjected to:

_Stress positions, including being suspended for hours by the arms or tightly shackled for days.

_Prolonged isolation and hooding or blindfolding, a form of sensory deprivation.

_Extreme heat or cold. _Threats against themselves, their families or friends from interrogators or guards.

Ten said they were forced to be naked, some for days or weeks. Nine said they were subjected to prolonged sleep deprivation. At least six said they were threatened with military working dogs, often while naked. Four reported being sodomized, subjected to anal probing, or threatened with rape.

The patients underwent intensive, two-day long exams following standards and methods used worldwide to document torture.

"We found clear physical and psychological evidence of torture and abuse, often causing lasting suffering," he said.

Keller, who directs the Bellevue/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, said the treatment the detainees reported were "eerily familiar" to stories from other torture survivors around the world. He said the sexual humiliation of the prisoners was often the most traumatic experience.

Most former detainees are out of reach of Western doctors because they are either in Iraq or have been returned to their home countries from Guantanamo.

[ramshorns]

Since we all know Bush has waged an illegal war which everyone on this DG agrees that aided in killing hunderds of thousands of people and many displaced from their families I feel in this day and age where we have come along so far should we let this go and not call Bush a killer. 

I am not sure how he can sit at that dinner table each night and have a hearty meal fully knowing he lied on the reasons that were given to the World citizens and in the process killed all these people.  We can sit here and debate and say well there is congress and other branches like FBI and CIA too who have a role here.  To me it all boils down to this. 

If the president was a good human being and a strong willed leader no matter how many people misled him or pressured him he would have said no to attacking Iraq.  It is as simple as that.  Plus the guy who is running for the office now McCain is a big believer in Bush and endorsed the war in Iraq and is ok with all the people killed in Iraq.  Now why is this important you ask when there others too that supported the war.  Again simple.  They are not running for the office.  So it is about time IMO that McCain be thought a lesson by people and not vote for him.  This way he can happliy retire and spend his retired life in the Desert land of Arizona.