Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win

[Pale Rider]

Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win



By: Roger Simon
April 24, 2007 08:29 PM EST
Updated: April 25, 2007 01:28 PM EST


Republican presidential hopeful, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani responds to a question at a town hall meeting during a campaign stop at New England College in Henniker, N.H.

MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.

The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

Politico.com is co-host of the Republican presidential debate on May 3rd, and candidates will be answering our readers’ favorite questions.
Click here to submit yours.


After his speech to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner, I asked him about his statements and Giuliani said flatly: “America will be safer with a Republican president.”

Giuliani, whose past positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights have made him anathema to some in his party, believes his tough stance on national defense and his post-Sept. 11 reputation as a fighter of terrorism will be his trump card with doubting Republicans.

“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”

Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”

Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!”


Giuliani 9/11 remark draws angry Dem reply
The crowd thundered its approval.

Giuliani also said that America had been naive about terrorism in the past and had missed obvious signals.

“They were at war with us before we realized it, going back to ’90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 [with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center, in which six people died], and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001, happened, and we got it.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3684.html

[glockmail]

If I thought he could clean up the ME like he did NY, I'd vote for the damn abortionist.

[Pale Rider]

If I thought he could clean up the ME like he did NY, I'd vote for the damn abortionist.

I hope you don't have to. But in any case, he's a damn site better than hitlery, or obama.

[glockmail]

I hope you don't have to. But in any case, he's a damn site better than hitlery, or obama. I'm thinkin' Fred Thompson right now.

[stephanie]

As much as I hate to think this...I think something is going to happen, no matter who is elected..

The defeatist in this country, who does nothing but blame us for all the worlds problems, is giving them the reason I'm afraid...

Hope I'm wrong......But.

[Pale Rider]

As much as I hate to think this...I think something is going to happen, no matter who is elected..

The defeatist in this country, who does nothing but blame us for all the worlds problems, is giving them the reason I'm afraid...

Hope I'm wrong......But.

I almost wish this country did go to hell. Elect obama, or hitlery, or edwards, gut the Patriot Act, tax us into the poor house, make queer marriage legal, pull out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, cut the military budget down to nothing, and then have the biggest damn multiple terrorist attacks ever. Rip this country a new one. Because the way it seems, people just won't learn that the liberals are shitbags and no good for America until they've taken us to the brink of disaster.

[avatar4321]

I almost wish this country did go to hell. Elect obama, or hitlery, or edwards, gut the Patriot Act, tax us into the poor house, make queer marriage legal, pull out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, cut the military budget down to nothing, and then have the biggest damn multiple terrorist attacks ever. Rip this country a new one. Because the way it seems, people just won't learn that the liberals are shitbags and no good for America until they've taken us to the brink of disaster.

Honestly, Ive been thinking along the same lines. Ive done what I can to get people to see otherwise, but it may take putting us at the brink of destruction for people to see it. But Im not one to give up.

[avatar4321]

Honestly, I think we will need to be careful regardless who wins. The terrorists have tended to strike early in a new administration why there is still a transition in government.

[Pale Rider]

Honestly, Ive been thinking along the same lines. Ive done what I can to get people to see otherwise, but it may take putting us at the brink of destruction for people to see it. But Im not one to give up.

People these days have too short of memmory spans. They're too self absorbed, and don't give a crap about anyone else just as long as they have their's. You'd have thought 9/11 would have been enough to teach us, but for the most part, people have forgotten about it. We need another one, and another one, and another one, and then maybe, just MAYBE, the ignorant lefty's and their legions of lemmings will figure out there's people in this world that want to KILL us, KILL US ALL, and that they'll KEEP trying to kill us, forever.

There is no forgetting.

[LiberalNation]

Nothin but a scare tactic. Vote for me/my party or the terrorists will get ya.

I personally don't think this batch of repubs have done all that great of job anyway. There can never be safety from foreign terrorists if the boards are not secure and they can waltz right on in.

and don't forget the largest terrorist attack in American history happened under a REPUBLICAN president so that not so comforting either.

[glockmail]

I almost wish this country did go to hell. Elect obama, or hitlery, or edwards, gut the Patriot Act, tax us into the poor house, make queer marriage legal, pull out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, cut the military budget down to nothing, and then have the biggest damn multiple terrorist attacks ever. Rip this country a new one. Because the way it seems, people just won't learn that the liberals are shitbags and no good for America until they've taken us to the brink of disaster. That would be heaven for them: less people, gas at 10 bucks, stifling economy, soup lines: all ripe for socialism.

[glockmail]

....

and don't forget the largest terrorist attack in American history happened under a REPUBLICAN president so that not so comforting either. Bullshit. Bush had barely replaced the missing Ws on the keyboards. Gore's little temper tantrum cost us at least three weeks. The Dems dragging their feet on appointments practically stopped many departments. :slap:

[LiberalNation]

True it ain't all his fault or even mostly but he was president when it happened and he is a republican.

[glockmail]

If republican, then guilty. Is that your logic in a nutshell?

[LiberalNation]

No, my logic is they claim will be safer under a republican but under a republican the worst attack ever happened.

[avatar4321]

No, my logic is they claim will be safer under a republican but under a republican the worst attack ever happened.

As a result of the lack of action by the previous administration.

[glockmail]

No, my logic is they claim will be safer under a republican but under a republican the worst attack ever happened. Yes, that is your logic. However it is not logical. :laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

Neither is the terrorists will get us if a dem is elective. Now that ain't logical.

[glockmail]

Neither is the terrorists will get us if a dem is elective. Now that ain't logical. Actually it is logical, as most of their social policies incite radical muzzies to hate us and their foreign policies give them the opportunity to kill us.
:D

[loosecannon]

Neither is the terrorists will get us if a dem is elective. Now that ain't logical.


It wasn't intended to be logical. It is intended to play upon people's fears and rally them to vote for somebody who will protect em.

Guilianni is running for president of 9/11.

[LiberalNation]

Actually it is logical, as most of their social policies incite radical muzzies to hate us and their foreign policies give them the opportunity to kill us.

Past admins, repub and dem have incited them to hate us. Forign policy, humm, well this Iraq was in muslim lands for faulty reasons has incited plenty of hatred and got more americans killed then anything the dems would do.

[gabosaurus]

I would expect this sort of comment from Rudy. And many more to follow. His ONLY claim to fame is being the mayor of NYC when Sept. 11 happened. Perhaps Rudy forgets about how despised he was as mayor, as how glad many were to get rid of him.
Rudy should also remember how many skeletons are in his closet. He can't expect to keep them all hidden if he runs for president.

[avatar4321]

Neither is the terrorists will get us if a dem is elective. Now that ain't logical.

Let's think about this logically:

1)one party wants to fight back and win
2)Other party wants to capitulate and let them win.

which party do you think the Terrorists would have more success under?

Its not like we need to a crystal ball for that. Democrats refuse to fight back. its completely mindboggling considering what happened on 9/11. But they refuse to fight back and will do anything they can to undermine our efforts to. With such an attitude, the terrorist getting us is inevitable.

[avatar4321]

It wasn't intended to be logical. It is intended to play upon people's fears and rally them to vote for somebody who will protect em.

Guilianni is running for president of 9/11.

If its an appeal to emotion, why is it logical? You guys dont want to fight back. Thus winning would be impossible with you in charge of the military. Nothing fearful about that. Those are simple facts.

But then, shouldnt we be afraid of politicians running on a platform that includes empowering our enemies to destroy us?

[LiberalNation]

No, they both want to fight back and win. They happen to have different ways of thinkin when it goes about doing it. Time will tell what works but Vietnam 2 aka Iraq ain't gona do it.

[avatar4321]

I would expect this sort of comment from Rudy. And many more to follow. His ONLY claim to fame is being the mayor of NYC when Sept. 11 happened. Perhaps Rudy forgets about how despised he was as mayor, as how glad many were to get rid of him.
Rudy should also remember how many skeletons are in his closet. He can't expect to keep them all hidden if he runs for president.

The man was despised as mayor? Wow if thats not revisionist talk i dont know what is. The man was elected twice. People were arguing that they should amend the law and elect him again but he told them no. He severely reduced crime, made New York safer, stimulated the NY economy and treasury with his tax cuts. This was long before 9/11 was even a conceivable day in the American mind.

To claim he was despised as a mayor is like saying Reagan was despised despite his two landslide victories and his victory in the Cold war. Its revisionist talk that has no basis in reality.

[glockmail]

Past admins, repub and dem have incited them to hate us. Forign policy, humm, well this Iraq was in muslim lands for faulty reasons has incited plenty of hatred and got more americans killed then anything the dems would do. Are you sure about that? How many amerians have died from terrorists attacks from the Carter days through Clinton? How many Americans would die if the muzzies finally get their hands on a nuke? How many of american allies have dies due to muzzy terrorists? HOW MANY CHRISTIAN AFRICANS MUST BE MURDERD BY ARAB MUSLIMS BEFORE YOU LIBERALS SEE THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM?

[glockmail]

The man was despised as mayor? Wow if thats not revisionist talk i dont know what is. The man was elected twice. ......

He was despised by the Democrats who ran against him. :laugh2:

[gabosaurus]

The initial Sept. 11 would not have happened if Bush would have been paying attention to his advisers. As opposed to concentrating on how he would get rid of Saddam for disrespecting his daddy.

[lily]

People these days have too short of memmory spans. They're too self absorbed, and don't give a crap about anyone else just as long as they have their's. You'd have thought 9/11 would have been enough to teach us, but for the most part, people have forgotten about it. We need another one, and another one, and another one, and then maybe, just MAYBE, the ignorant lefty's and their legions of lemmings will figure out there's people in this world that want to KILL us, KILL US ALL, and that they'll KEEP trying to kill us, forever.

There is no forgetting.


Sounds to me like you're wishing for an attack, just so you can say "I told you so". Wishing fellow Americans dead, is that a Christian philosophy or a Republican?

[lily]

Nothin but a scare tactic. Vote for me/my party or the terrorists will get ya.

I personally don't think this batch of repubs have done all that great of job anyway. There can never be safety from foreign terrorists if the boards are not secure and they can waltz right on in.

and don't forget the largest terrorist attack in American history happened under a REPUBLICAN president so that not so comforting either.

Well....it did work for Bush in '04, but really backfired in '08. I don't know about you, with the Patriot Act and illegal wirtappings one should feel real secure........but when all you have to run on is fear......I guess you run with that........hey, doesn't that mean the terrorists have won?

Good point on the borders. I read an article a while back that al-quada was actually making training films on how to get across the border without getting caught.

[lily]

Bullshit. Bush had barely replaced the missing Ws on the keyboards. Gore's little temper tantrum cost us at least three weeks. The Dems dragging their feet on appointments practically stopped many departments. :slap:

So, um........he was too distracted to do his job? You don't think the Clintons just took the W's and left without inforimng Bush and his staff of what was going on do you? Don't even get me started on the brief that Bush was too busy to read, so he wouldn't miss his vacation.

[gabosaurus]

That was pretty much the entire Bush platform in 2004 -- vote for me or the terrorists will attack again.

That and the "swift boat" attack on Kerry. Do you suppose the swift boaters will re-emerge to attack McCain in 2008?

[lily]

Let's think about this logically:

1)one party wants to fight back and win
2)Other party wants to capitulate and let them win.

which party do you think the Terrorists would have more success under?

Its not like we need to a crystal ball for that. Democrats refuse to fight back. its completely mindboggling considering what happened on 9/11. But they refuse to fight back and will do anything they can to undermine our efforts to. With such an attitude, the terrorist getting us is inevitable.

Well....you've had your chance and look where we are now. I think it's time to try different tactics.

[lily]

As much as I hate to think this...I think something is going to happen, no matter who is elected..

The defeatist in this country, who does nothing but blame us for all the worlds problems, is giving them the reason I'm afraid...

Hope I'm wrong......But.

You think that people having the right to disagree with the president is giving radical Islam a reason to hate us????????????

[glockmail]

So, um........he was too distracted to do his job? You don't think the Clintons just took the W's and left without inforimng Bush and his staff of what was going on do you? Don't even get me started on the brief that Bush was too busy to read, so he wouldn't miss his vacation.
The set-up for 9/11 took years, nearly all of it taking place under Clinton's watch. No reasonable person would blame it on Bush taking a vacation.

[loosecannon]

1)one party wants to fight back and win
2)Other party wants to capitulate and let them win.

One party was in power when we were attacked AND has escalated the terrorist threat.




which party do you think the Terrorists would have more success under?

The party that puts Bush in the WH, see above

Exactly who do you think our terrorist enemy is?

Cuz the guys who attacked us died, the ones who organized and paid for it are either Bush's allies or are still at large.

Bush: 0, Terrorists: won.

Now let's look at history.

1)Who was the last repub to win a war?

2)Who was the last dem to win a war?

answers:
1)?
2)FDR

We haven't prevailed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, VN. And Panama, and Grenada weren't wars.

I may have misplaced the Phillipines in my equation.

Who was the last republican president to win a US war?

I am not sure that there are any at all.

[Samantha]

Honestly, Ive been thinking along the same lines. Ive done what I can to get people to see otherwise, but it may take putting us at the brink of destruction for people to see it. But Im not one to give up.We already are at the brink of destruction. We have a White House full of scandal, trillions of dollars of debt to China and Saudi Arabia, thousands more terrorists joining the jihad for revenge for the hundreds of thousands of Muslims we have killed in Iraq, a moron of a President....and the American people ARE seeing otherwise. 65% want the Iraq war to end, 65% agree with the congress's war funding bill.


Bullshit. Bush had barely replaced the missing Ws on the keyboards. Gore's little temper tantrum cost us at least three weeks. The Dems dragging their feet on appointments practically stopped many departments. :slap:That was a Karl Rove lie and you STILL believe it? :lol:


The set-up for 9/11 took years, nearly all of it taking place under Clinton's watch. No reasonable person would blame it on Bush taking a vacation.No reasonable person would let him off the hook for ignoring the memos alerting him that Osama Bin Laden was planning to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Bush was asleep at the wheel and looked like a scared little boy reading My Pet Goat while we were attacked.

Guiliani has no chance at winning with this fear campaigning. Americans want hope (Obama) not fear (Guiliani).

[loosecannon]

No reasonable person would blame it on Bush taking a vacation.

Well that depends on your use of "blame".

Obviously the attack was the direct result of a plot carried out by folks who died engaging it. They get blame share first.

But the FBI and the BA either were sleeping or helping that plot take shape.

The incompetence, or the holes in the system and the lack of focus by the pres are too extreme to ignore.

Maybe Bush gets 10% of the blame, maybe 50% if he was actually involved in the plot.

We will never know.

Clinton gets zero blame. He did his job as well as could be expected. And if you blame Clinton, you must ream Bush.

Who had the Kennedy's killed, btw? Does anybody really know?

[manu1959]

once we withdraw and appologize and blame the bush administration for everything.....all will be right in the world....hillary or obama.... nancy and harry .... will fix it all....

[lily]

The set-up for 9/11 took years, nearly all of it taking place under Clinton's watch. No reasonable person would blame it on Bush taking a vacation.

Which is exactly my point. When any new administration takes power the old administration fully breifs them on what is going on. The fact is we'll never know what would have happened if Bush read that brief.

[lily]

Originally Posted by glockmail
Bullshit. Bush had barely replaced the missing Ws on the keyboards. Gore's little temper tantrum cost us at least three weeks. The Dems dragging their feet on appointments practically stopped many departments.

That was a Karl Rove lie and you STILL believe it? :lol:

Come on, when that's all you got, you have to hold on to something. At least we're not still hearing they stole the silverware story.

[lily]

once we withdraw and appologize and blame the bush administration for everything.....all will be right in the world....hillary or obama.... nancy and harry .... will fix it all....

Hey the way this fiasco is going, they could only do better!

[gabosaurus]

Are we forgetting the many memos regarding the threat of a terrorist strike on U.S. soil that were ignored by Bush? Including the August memo which warned that terrorists were considering using hijacked aircraft to attack?
Bush did not believe the U.S. was vulnerable to a domestic terrorist attack prior to Sept. 11. Or else he just didn't care.

[Lefty Wilbury]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268541,00.html

Democrats Jump on Rudy Giuliani for Something He Didn't Say

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

By Brit Hume

New 9/11?

Washington woke up to morning headlines that Rudy Giuliani predicted a "new 9-11" if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008. Barack Obama responded that Giuliani has "taken the politics of fear to a new low." John Edwards said Giuliani's comments were "divisive and plain wrong." And Hillary Clinton called it "political rhetoric" that would not lessen the threat of terrorism.

The problem is Giuliani never said what the headlines claimed. It all started with a story in The Politico newspaper, which contained not a single quote to support its lead and headline. But it got picked up elsewhere nonetheless.

What Giuliani actually did say is what he has been saying for weeks, that Democrats would play defense instead of offense in the War on Terror, the same approach tried back before 9/11.

[Lefty Wilbury]

One party was in power when we were attacked AND has escalated the terrorist threat.



maybe you can enlighten us on who was president when these terrorist attacks took place:

1993
February 26
World Trade Center in New York, USA, attacked by a massive bomb planted by Islamic terrorists.

April 14

Iraqi intelligence service attempt to assassinate former US President, George Bush, during a visit to Kuwait.

1995
March 8

Two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan.

July 4

In India, six foreigners, including two U.S. citizens, were taken hostage by Al-Faran, a Kashmiri separatist group. One non-U.S. hostage was later found beheaded.

August 21

Hamas claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb in Jerusalem that killed six and injured over 100 persons, including several U.S. citizens.

September 13

A rocket-propelled grenade was fired through the window of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, as an apparent retaliation for U.S. strikes on Serb positions in Bosnia.

November 13

Seven foreigners, including a number of US servicemen, are killed in bomb attack on National Guard training centre at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

1996

January 19

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen and demanded a $1 million ransom. The hostage was released on May 22.

February 15

Unidentified assailants fired a rocket at the U.S. embassy compound in Athens, causing minor damage to three diplomatic vehicles and some surrounding buildings. It is believed to have been carried out by the 17 November group.

June 25

Islamic radical terrorists opposed to the western military presence in the Gulf region, explode a truck bomb next to a USAF housing area at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and 385 injuring more.

1997

February 23

A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."

1998

August 7

US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salem, Tanzania, heavily damaged by massive bomb attacks. US intelligence blames Islamic groups linked to Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden.

December 28

Yemini militants kidnap a group of western tourists, including 12 Britons, 2 Americans, and 2 Australians on the main road to Aden. Four victims were killed during a rescue attempt the next day.

2000
October 12

In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Ladin were suspected.
December 30


---------------


now let's not forget they tried to bomb us airports during the year 2000 celebrations but by luck were stopped. let's also not forget that clinton running away from Somalia only embolden obl:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled,


---------

he also goes on to talk about CLINTON's action's and uses them as justification for attacking the usa.



The party that puts Bush in the WH, see above

Exactly who do you think our terrorist enemy is?

Cuz the guys who attacked us died, the ones who organized and paid for it are either Bush's allies or are still at large.

Bush: 0, Terrorists: won.

Now let's look at history.

1)Who was the last repub to win a war?

2)Who was the last dem to win a war?

answers:
1)?
2)FDR

We haven't prevailed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, VN. And Panama, and Grenada weren't wars.

I may have misplaced the Phillipines in my equation.

Who was the last republican president to win a US war?

I am not sure that there are any at all.


get your facts right. the dems haven't won a war in over 60 years but they did start ones republicans had to finish

korea was started by a democrat in truman and ended Eisenhower a republican

Vietnam was started under kennedy and ended under ford

bush sr won the first gulf war

[Lefty Wilbury]

No reasonable person would let him off the hook for ignoring the memos alerting him that Osama Bin Laden was planning to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Bush was asleep at the wheel and looked like a scared little boy reading My Pet Goat while we were attacked.

get your facts right. if your referring to the august memo go read it. it's a recap of previous plots and threats. here read it: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/pdb.pdf nothing new. no plots saying plane will be highjacked. or bomb buildings in the us. nothing specific or actionable. shit terrorists have been highjacking planes since the 50's and 60's. the memo was a recap of what happened throughout the late 90's. if your talking about a threat to take planes and crash them into that was under clinton and was in 95:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv.hijacking.philippines/index.html




Guiliani has no chance at winning with this fear campaigning. Americans want hope (Obama) not fear (Guiliani).

guiliani has a record. he could just point to a picture of times square from 89 when he took office and one in 2000. he cleaned up the city. he's got a record as a prosecutor. he's had success unlike obama. the only thing he's done is have dealing with a crook http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/184540,122306obama.article hell obama can't even get his own bio right:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261803,00.html

Just the Facts?

Reporters digging into Barack Obama's background have found some instances where the facts do not appear to square with his memories.

The Chicago Tribune has reported problems with a story in the senator's first book about seeing a life magazine picture of a black man who damaged his skin using chemicals to try to lighten it. The magazine says it ran no such picture or article. Obama recently said it may have been Ebony magazine — but Ebony says no as well.

And The Politico reports on Obama's contention that he was conceived by his parents after their inspiration from the "Bloody Sunday" civil rights march in Selma, Alabama in 1965.

It turns out Obama was born in 1961 — four years earlier.

[Lefty Wilbury]

Are we forgetting the many memos regarding the threat of a terrorist strike on U.S. soil that were ignored by Bush? Including the August memo which warned that terrorists were considering using hijacked aircraft to attack?
Bush did not believe the U.S. was vulnerable to a domestic terrorist attack prior to Sept. 11. Or else he just didn't care.

where does it say that? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/pdb.pdf

oh that's right. it doesn't.

[diuretic]

Plainly Giuliani thinks Americans are (a) easily scared and (b) easily fooled.

[avatar4321]

Plainly Giuliani thinks Americans are (a) easily scared and (b) easily fooled.

By being honest?

Do you honestly think 9/11 isn't a wake up call? That terorrists for some reason no longer want to kill us?

[glockmail]

Which is exactly my point. When any new administration takes power the old administration fully breifs them on what is going on. The fact is we'll never know what would have happened if Bush read that brief. :link:

[glockmail]

.....

That was a Karl Rove lie and you STILL believe it? :lol:

No reasonable person would let him off the hook for ignoring the memos alerting him that Osama Bin Laden was planning to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Bush was asleep at the wheel and looked like a scared little boy reading My Pet Goat while we were attacked.

.... .

:link: :link:

[Sitarro]

I find it hard to believe just how incredibly naive the leftist parrots are, this has to be a joke.

Even if we were told to the day that hijackers were going to fly airliners into buildings there is no possible way the attack could have been stopped, not back then. The spoiled shit American public would have never allowed their presious little travel plans be disrupted by heavier security. You seem to be pretty forgetful just how lax airport security was. There was not a problem bringing a small knife on a plane. Pilots were trained that they needed to follow a hijacker's instructions because they didn't want to die any more that they did, the book said they needed to get the plane on the ground as soon as possible. Besides that there are over 5000 flights at any moment over the U.S. a day. Just Houstons airport handles an average of 73,000 passengers a day(1996 numbers!).

It is still very hard to get people to listen to instruction on board a plane. The TSA's job is alost impossible with the number of people. But somehow, President Bush, described as an idiot by the fools of the left, should have magically found those 19 pieces of shit that even today wouldn't ne allowed to be profiled. You people that blame everything including solar flares on Bush are the idiots, naive followers of maniacle power hungry cheats. You don't possess the least amount of common sense or logic.

Even if they would have known the exact planes and the actual times that they were to crash, what would have been done? Was he suppose to shoot down 4 domestic airliners traveling at over 500 miles an hour? How could interceptors have even gotten off a shot at aircraft flying very low and at such high speeds? What if their missles would have missed and hit a school on the ground?

Absolutely no logic whatsoever!

[diuretic]

By being honest?

Do you honestly think 9/11 isn't a wake up call? That terorrists for some reason no longer want to kill us?

I wasn't referring to 9/11 or to the idea that terrorists want to kill you. I was referring to Giuliani's statement. He must really believe Americans are easily scared nowadays. And to some extent that accords with the meme getting around about how today's generations, unlike the so-called Greatest Generation, have no guts any longer. Perhaps Giuliani is playing that tune. And easily fooled because he's saying that anyone but him in the big chair would put your country at risk of attack. Well there's a solid vote of confidence for all the professionals in all the agencies concerned with security.

[glockmail]

I wasn't referring to 9/11 or to the idea that terrorists want to kill you. I was referring to Giuliani's statement. He must really believe Americans are easily scared nowadays. And to some extent that accords with the meme getting around about how today's generations, unlike the so-called Greatest Generation, have no guts any longer. Perhaps Giuliani is playing that tune. And easily fooled because he's saying that anyone but him in the big chair would put your country at risk of attack. Well there's a solid vote of confidence for all the professionals in all the agencies concerned with security.


Giuliani understands human nature probably better than any politician alive. Personally I don't like his stance on social issues, but he may be the best choice to continue the War on Terror.

[theHawk]

I think its stupid to suggest we wouldn't get attacked under a Repub President.

The question is what President is going to respond in the correct way if we get attacked.

[loosecannon]

get your facts right. the dems haven't won a war in over 60 years but they did start ones republicans had to finish

korea was started by a democrat in truman and ended Eisenhower a republican

and it never ended, no treaty, 40,000 US troops still there. NK plays with nukes

get your facts straight


Vietnam was started under kennedy and ended under ford

bush sr won the first gulf war

And Ford didn't win VN, get your facts straight

And either bush could have declared victory in Iraq, but didn't.

The first war never ended it just merged with the second, which is also not won.

Get your facts straight.

Can you name even one war that a republican has ever won?

[theHawk]

Can you name even one war that a republican has ever won?

The Civil War.

[loosecannon]

get your facts right. if your referring to the august memo go read it.

Aug, 10. 2001

Bin Laden determined to Attack IN US

yes obviously nothing here.

[theHawk]

Aug, 10. 2001

Bin Laden determined to Attack IN US

yes obviously nothing here.

Yea, which had been true for years. But somehow magically reading the those words a lighbulb was supposed to light up above Bush's head and he was supposed to say,"Gee, that means 19 hijackers are going to crash planes into buildings on 9/11."


:lame2:

[Lefty Wilbury]

and it never ended, no treaty, 40,000 US troops still there. NK plays with nukes

get your facts straight


no you should get you fact straight. the war is over and there are still us troops in japan and germany though wwII ended in the 40's. and why do the north korens have nukes? because clinton gave them a nuke reactor.



And Ford didn't win VN, get your facts straight

i didn't say he won did i?



And either bush could have declared victory in Iraq, but didn't.

The first war never ended it just merged with the second, which is also not won.

Get your facts straight.

Can you name even one war that a republican has ever won?

bush sr declared the us victory over iraq when the war ended it didn't merge.

that was the last war won and ended by a republican and the one before iraq 91 was the cold war won by a republican, Ronald Reagan.

[Lefty Wilbury]

Aug, 10. 2001

Bin Laden determined to Attack IN US

yes obviously nothing here.

and when did obl make his declaration to attack inside the us? 98. but this was after they already attacked the WTC in 93

[loosecannon]

no you should get you fact straight. the war is over and there were 5o,ooo us troops killed. and why do the north korens have nukes? because clinton gave them a nuke reactor.

On November 29, 1952, U.S. President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower fulfilled a campaign promise by going to Korea to find out what could be done to end the conflict. With the U.N.’s acceptance of India’s proposal for a Korean armistice, a cease-fire was established on July 27, 1953, by which time the front line was back around the proximity of the 38th parallel, and so a demilitarized zone (DMZ) was established around it, still defended to this day by North Korean troops on one side and South Korean and American troops on the other. The DMZ runs north of the parallel towards the east, and to the south as it travels west. The site of the peace talks, Kaesong, the old capital of Korea, was part of the South before hostilities broke out but is currently a special city of the North. No peace treaty has been signed to date.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war#Stalemate_.28July_1951-July_1953.29

Get your facts straight



bush sr declared the us victory over iraq when the war ended it didn't merge.

Not so fast buckaroo. The justification profered by the BA for the invasion was that the war never ended and that UN Resolution 678 was still in effect since before the begining of Desert Storm.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 is a UN security council resolution authorizing member states to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security"[1] to the Persian Gulf region, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. It effectively authorized the use of force by member states against Iraq to repel its invasion. It was the final UN security council resolution regarding the matter prior to the coalition military action.

The resolution was adopted on 29 November 1990, at the 2963rd meeting by 12 votes to two (Cuba and Yemen) and one abstention (China).

The resolution was used by the UK in 2003 to claim legal justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678


the cold war won by a republican, Ronald Reagan.

The cold war wasn't a war.

Get your facts straight.

[Lefty Wilbury]

On November 29, 1952, U.S. President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower fulfilled a campaign promise by going to Korea to find out what could be done to end the conflict. With the U.N.’s acceptance of India’s proposal for a Korean armistice, a cease-fire was established on July 27, 1953, by which time the front line was back around the proximity of the 38th parallel, and so a demilitarized zone (DMZ) was established around it, still defended to this day by North Korean troops on one side and South Korean and American troops on the other. The DMZ runs north of the parallel towards the east, and to the south as it travels west. The site of the peace talks, Kaesong, the old capital of Korea, was part of the South before hostilities broke out but is currently a special city of the North. No peace treaty has been signed to date.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war#Stalemate_.28July_1951-July_1953.29

Get your facts straight

there is no war in korea. the cease fire was signed which is alomost the same as a peace deal which is almost the same thing.



[

Not so fast buckaroo. The justification profered by the BA for the invasion was that the war never ended and that UN Resolution 678 was still in effect since before the begining of Desert Storm.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 is a UN security council resolution authorizing member states to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security"[1] to the Persian Gulf region, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. It effectively authorized the use of force by member states against Iraq to repel its invasion. It was the final UN security council resolution regarding the matter prior to the coalition military action.

The resolution was adopted on 29 November 1990, at the 2963rd meeting by 12 votes to two (Cuba and Yemen) and one abstention (China).

The resolution was used by the UK in 2003 to claim legal justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678




we're not the brits are we? the resolutions that prompted the second gulf war, were the resolutions passed after ithe first one ended and dealt with the weapons inspections that iraq violated throughout the 90's. the very same ones that lead clinton in 98 to launch operation desert fox.




The cold war wasn't a war.

right it just lasted 50 years,cost us billions of dollars and in the end millions of people were liberated



Get your facts straight.


my facts are in line. i'm still waiting for you to enlighten us on who was in office when all those teorrist attacks i listed occured.

[diuretic]

Giuliani understands human nature probably better than any politician alive. Personally I don't like his stance on social issues, but he may be the best choice to continue the War on Terror.

You're entitled to make your claim about Giuliani of course. What an overblown claim like that is intended to prove I have no idea.

As for his ability to continue the War on Terror, how do you come to that conclusion?

[loosecannon]

there is no war in korea. the cease fire was signed which is alomost the same as a peace deal which is almost the same thing.

IOW the Korean war never ended. We still have 40,000 troops defending a DMZ, no peace was declared it is a standoff that never concluded.


we're not the brits are we? the resolutions that prompted the second gulf war, were the resolutions passed after ithe first one ended and dealt with the weapons inspections that iraq violated throughout the 90's. the very same ones that lead clinton in 98 to launch operation desert fox.

"We" include the brits. And since the UN refused to authorize the invasion in 03 "we" are still relying on 678, illegally.



right it just lasted 50 years,cost us billions of dollars and in the end millions of people were liberated

It still wasn't a war Television could be said to have the same characteristics you listed and it also isn't a war.

i'm still waiting for you to list one war that republicans won.

[diuretic]

The Civil War.

:lol: :lmao: - and that's all she wrote, great comeback!

(But for a different take on it read - if you haven't already - James Thurber's short story, "If Grant Had Been Drinking at Appomatox" it's a hoot!)

http://www.visi.com/~tomcat/poetry/Grant.shtml

[loosecannon]

and in the end millions of people were liberated


Just fur shits and grins i wonder what your definition of "liberated" is.

[loosecannon]

:lol: :lmao: - and that's all she wrote, great comeback!




It was a great comeback but it is very speculative that it is actually true.

[diuretic]

It was a great comeback but it is very speculative that it is actually true.

Ah facts schmacts, it was funny! :lol:

[Lefty Wilbury]

IOW the Korean war never ended. We still have 40,000 troops defending a DMZ, no peace was declared it is a standoff that never concluded.


actually we only have a few thousand along the dmz. the rest have been redeployed south and out of the country. a cease fire and a peace agreement is almost the same thing and in korea they'll never be a"peace" agreement in order to save face for the north since using the term "peace" is basically surrendering. the ceasefire ended the war.



"We" include the brits. And since the UN refused to authorize the invasion in 03 "we" are still relying on 678, illegally.

we aren't relying on it. and according to you since the first gulf war never ended how can we be using it "illegally"? wouldn't it still be in effect? you can't have it both ways.




It still wasn't a war Television could be said to have the same characteristics you listed and it also isn't a war.

It was a war. two countries facing off military in which people died either covertly or through the use of proxy wars. in the end one country and it's proxy countries governments fell and were replaced.



i'm still waiting for you to list one war that republicans won.

the last one was guilf war one. like i said earlier you can have it both ways.

[Lefty Wilbury]

Just fur shits and grins i wonder what your definition of "liberated" is.

i'll answer it when you answer the question i'm now asking for the third time. who was president when all those terrorist attacks i listed took place?

[Hagbard Celine]

The cold war was a war. Giuliani has a crappy understanding of human nature--his two or three failed marriages are testament to that. He's just using the old Republican standard--fear--to gain voters. Saying "another 911 will occur if dems are in power" is a joke. The first one occurred while a republican was in office for god's sake! Giuliani won't win the nomination anyway, so I don't even see the point in paying attention to anything he says. Before 911 happened and he was forced by events to be a good leader, he was a half-assed mayor whose claim to fame was upping police force and lowering the crime rate in the Brooklyn burrough. He's just a loudmouth Italian goy who was in the right place at the right time. Hardly presidential.

[theHawk]

The cold war was a war. Giuliani has a crappy understanding of human nature--his two or three failed marriages are testament to that. He's just using the old Republican standard--fear--to gain voters. Saying "another 911 will occur if dems are in power" is a joke. The first one occurred while a republican was in office for god's sake! Giuliani won't win the nomination anyway, so I don't even see the point in paying attention to anything he says. Before 911 happened and he was forced by events to be a good leader, he was a half-assed mayor whose claim to fame was upping police force and lowering the crime rate in the Brooklyn burrough. He's just a loudmouth Italian goy who was in the right place at the right time. Hardly presidential.


Giuliani didn't even say that to begin with, good ol' liberal media making shit up for headlines:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=2815

[diuretic]

Giuliani didn't even say that to begin with, good ol' liberal media making shit up for headlines:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=2815

So where does that leave the legions who were explaining how right he was?

[theHawk]

If people want to argue that the idea is true, then let them. But he did not say what the headlines suggested.

[loosecannon]

actually we only have a few thousand along the dmz. the rest have been redeployed south and out of the country. a cease fire and a peace agreement is almost the same thing and in korea they'll never be a"peace" agreement in order to save face for the north since using the term "peace" is basically surrendering. the ceasefire ended the war.

Approx 24,000 troops remain in South Korea, 1000's more in Japan. Babbling about Peace/cease fires and basically, maybe, sorta kinda means nothing.

The war didn't end, it stalemated, nobody won. We still have active forces defending the standoff. You lose.




we aren't relying on it. and according to you since the first gulf war never ended how can we be using it "illegally"? wouldn't it still be in effect? you can't have it both ways.

I can have it both ways. The US claims 678 as justification for the war in the authorization by Congress. That doesn't make it legal. The US claims quite a few things that are not real or legal.

For example WMD were used in the exact same way.




It was a war. two countries facing off military in which people died either covertly or through the use of proxy wars. in the end one country and it's proxy countries governments fell and were replaced.

It wasn't a war it was actually EXACTLY like KOREA. Both were the direct result of NEVER coming to a condition of actual PEACE after WWII.

Both the cold war and the Korean war were peace negotiations that were never concluded because of a persisting stand off at the end of WWII.

YOU can't have it both ways chump.

Talk about disingenuous tripe.




the last one was guilf war one. like i said earlier you can have it both ways.

BS. Either Bush 41 or Bush 43 or for that matter Clinton could have declared victory and gone home.

None did. The war began in 91. But the authorization for that war ended when Kuwait was liberated and the invading forces were succesfully repelled. New authorization was issued to inspect and disarm.

No new authorization was issued for the newest invasion.

Can you think of any wars won by repubs? Ever? I would think it would serve your cause to be able to post one. If you can.

[glockmail]

You're entitled to make your claim about Giuliani of course. What an overblown claim like that is intended to prove I have no idea.

As for his ability to continue the War on Terror, how do you come to that conclusion? He cleaned up NY, gangs and all with his "in your face" attitude. That same attitude would work for terrorists, IMO.

[TheStripey1]

Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win



By: Roger Simon
April 24, 2007 08:29 PM EST
Updated: April 25, 2007 01:28 PM EST


MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

...snip

“They were at war with us before we realized it, going back to ’90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 [with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center, in which six people died], and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001, happened, and we got it.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3684.html

I wonder why rudy didn't DO anything proactive about terrorism between the first attack on the WTC in '93 and the one on 9/11?

Any idea?


Keith Olbermann's Special Comment
Republicans equal life; Democrats equal death?
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18316770/page/2/)

...snip

And that he, with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, is somehow the messiah-of-the-moment.

Even to grant that that formula — whether posed by Republican or Democrat — is somehow not the most base, the most indefensible, the most un-American electioneering in our history — even if it is somehow acceptable to assign “casualties” to one party and “safety” to the other — even if we have become so profane in our thinking that it is part of our political vocabulary to view counter-terror as one party’s property and the other’s liability ... on what imaginary track record does Mr. Giuliani base his boast?

Which party held the presidency on Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party held the mayoralty of New York on that date, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party assured New Yorkers that the air was safe and the remains of the dead recovered and not being used to fill potholes, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party wanted what the terrorists wanted — the postponement of elections — and to whose personal advantage would that have redounded, Mr. Giuliani?

Which mayor of New York was elected eight months after the first attack on the World Trade Center, yet did not emphasize counter-terror in the same city for the next eight years, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party had proposed to turn over the Department of Homeland Security to Bernard Kerik, Mr. Giuliani?

Who wanted to ignore and hide Kerik’s organized crime allegations, Mr. Giuliani?

Who personally argued to the White House that Kerik need not be vetted, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party rode roughshod over Americans’ rights while braying that it was actually protecting them, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party took this country into the most utterly backwards, utterly counterproductive, utterly ruinous war in our history, Mr. Giuliani?

Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani?

...snip


There might be a good republican candidate in the republican field of presidential hopefuls but this one isn't worth piss in a pot...

[Lefty Wilbury]

Approx 24,000 troops remain in South Korea, 1000's more in Japan. Babbling about Peace/cease fires and basically, maybe, sorta kinda means nothing.

The war didn't end, it stalemated, nobody won. We still have active forces defending the standoff. You lose.

so what if we have active forces there. we have active forces all over the world. south korea is now a strategic base from which we're are redeploying forces. they'll be down another 12,000 out of that country in the next year or so. if there was a war on we wouldn't be taking them out of the country.



I can have it both ways. The US claims 678 as justification for the war in the authorization by Congress. That doesn't make it legal. The US claims quite a few things that are not real or legal.

For example WMD were used in the exact same way.

no you can't have it both ways. if the gulf war never ended those previous resolutions would still be in effect therefore bush has the authority ,which you say he doesn't have, to go to war with iraq to comply with those resolutions. if the gulf war ended like i say it did that resolution wouldn't apply which it doesn't which is why the us had a new resolution 1441 was passed which iraq didn't live up to. the us used 1441 which stated iraq must comply with previous resolutions passed up to that point. 678 was to make iraq comply with 660 which they didn't. then 678 when out the window AFTER the gulf war ended and 687 was passed and iraq didn't live up to that http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

also the iraq war was legal under us law because of laws passed under clinton like pl 235 and the iraq liberation act not to mention the senate resolution in 02 state the president could use any meas necessary to enforce un resolutions






It wasn't a war it was actually EXACTLY like KOREA. Both were the direct result of NEVER coming to a condition of actual PEACE after WWII.

and korea was a war right?



Both the cold war and the Korean war were peace negotiations that were never concluded because of a persisting stand off at the end of WWII.

YOU can't have it both ways chump.

Talk about disingenuous tripe.


the cold war was a war. like i said it was fought either covertly or through proxy states

us vs korea with their backers china russia
us vs vietnam and russia
russisa vs the afghans and the usa
us vs grenada and the backers cuba





BS. Either Bush 41 or Bush 43 or for that matter Clinton could have declared victory and gone home.

Bush sr did declare the mission was accomplished and the troops came home since the war was over.



None did. The war began in 91. But the authorization for that war ended when Kuwait was liberated and the invading forces were succesfully repelled. New authorization was issued to inspect and disarm.

like i said the troops came home after the mission was accomplished.



No new authorization was issued for the newest invasion.

yes there was:


This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.




Can you think of any wars won by repubs? Ever? I would think it would serve your cause to be able to post one. If you can.


again gulf war one. won by bush sr. and why are you still dodging my question? whowas in office when those terrorist attacks occured?

[TheStripey1]

again gulf war one. won by bush sr.

and why are you still dodging my question? whowas in office when those terrorist attacks occured?

Yep... daddy bush knew better than to capture Baghdad... and since I'm picking this thread up at the end rather than reading from the beginning as I usually do, I will assume you are talking about the terrorist attack on the WTC in '93...

Clinton was in office in '93... Had you forgotten?

[loosecannon]

so what if we have active forces there. we have active forces all over the world. south korea is now a strategic base from which we're are redeploying forces. they'll be down another 12,000 out of that country in the next year or so. if there was a war on we wouldn't be taking them out of the country.

Sorry chump but the 24,000 figure includes 12,000 being deployed elsewhere. We had 37,000 there two years ago.

And 24,000 or 37,000 active duty services means something is "going on there".

The Korean war never ended. Case closed.




no you can't have it both ways. if the gulf war never ended those previous resolutions would still be in effect therefore bush has the authority ,which you say he doesn't have, to go to war with iraq to comply with those resolutions.

BS. The resolution isn't the war. The resolution expired when it's mission was accomplished.

Nice fake but false reply Lefty.




and korea was a war right?

Yes in the sense that actual fighting took place with thousands of casualties and more than a million soldiers on the brink of combat at it's peak.




d war was a war. like i said it was fought either covertly or through proxy states

Horseshit. Nobody pretends that the cold war was a war. Cept you.


did declare the mission was accomplished and the troops came home since the war was over.

Mission accomplished isn't victory and the troops never came home. Most did but lots stayed and defending Iraqi's airspace from Iraqis.








Gulf
war one. won by bush sr. and why are you still dodging my question? whowas in office when those terrorist attacks occured?

We both wish it was true, but it isn't.

So other than the civil war you can't even list a war that republicans won.

[Lefty Wilbury]

Sorry chump but the 24,000 figure includes 12,000 being deployed elsewhere. We had 37,000 there two years ago.

And 24,000 or 37,000 active duty services means something is "going on there".

The Korean war never ended. Case closed.


actually no buddy if there was something "going on there" they wouldn't be leaving would they? and i guess by your standards ww2 never end because we've got 71,000 troops in germany. or were they part of that imaginary cold war?




BS. The resolution isn't the war. The resolution expired when it's mission was accomplished.

Nice fake but false reply Lefty.

nice dodge. and if the mission is accomplished the war is over. one minute your saying the war wasn't over and they next your saying it is. which is it?




Yes in the sense that actual fighting took place with thousands of casualties and more than a million soldiers on the brink of combat at it's peak.

so to you a war is only when million of soliders are on the brink of combat and thousands of casualties happen. i guess gulf war 2 by that definition can't be considered a war since there aren't millions of troops on the brink of war. so that little skirmish in kosovo was what? or bosnia?




Horseshit. Nobody pretends that the cold war was a war. Cept you.

right and we only funded groups fighting th soviets out of the kindness of our hearts. i guess the soviets did the same when they supported countries fighting us




Mission accomplished isn't victory and the troops never came home. Most did but lots stayed and defending Iraqi's airspace from Iraqis.

all the ground force's pulled out of iraq. war over. they stayed in kuwait like they stayed in japan,germany, the Philippines. as far as the no fly zones protecting iraqis from iraqis those are sort of like the air combat patrols over germany during the cold war. you know the ones keeping the east germans from the west germans.



We both wish it was true, but it isn't.

So other than the civil war you can't even list a war that republicans won.

again gulf war one. the war to remove saddam from kuwait. he got kicked out of kuwait. the war ended and the troops came home.

[diuretic]

If people want to argue that the idea is true, then let them. But he did not say what the headlines suggested.

Fair comment, he never said it. But what about those who commented favourably under the impression that he did say it? It struck me as strange that a candidate would accuse Americans of being easily scared and foolish enough to believe that line. Turns out he didn't say it.

[diuretic]

He cleaned up NY, gangs and all with his "in your face" attitude. That same attitude would work for terrorists, IMO.

He didn't. His Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, who came over from NY Transit PD and took with him the legendary Jack Maple, did it. They shook up the NYPD and made it much more focussed. Giuliani rode their coat tails. Giuliani buddied up with Bernie Kerik, that tells me all I need to know about his judgement.

However, I have argued all along that terrorists are best dealt with in a law enforcement mode (with backup from appropriate military units of course).

[loosecannon]

actually no buddy if there was something "going on there" they wouldn't be leaving would they? and i guess by your standards ww2 never end because we've got 71,000 troops in germany. or were they part of that imaginary cold war?

They are leaving because we don't have enough troops in Iraq. If there was nothing going on in Korea then all 37,000 would have been redeployed to the ME.

Stop playing silly games.

And WWII did end but peace wasn't ever fully negotiated with our allies.



nice dodge. and if the mission is accomplished the war is over.

False the mission was accomplished so the authorization expired. But the war was maintained for another decade plus.

[loosecannon]

right and we only funded groups fighting th soviets out of the kindness of our hearts. i guess the soviets did the same when they supported countries fighting us

Well if you argued something semi sensible like " the cold war was an arms race that included some minor proxy wars" I wouldn't be arguing with you would I?

[loosecannon]

all the ground force's pulled out of iraq. war over. they stayed in kuwait like they stayed in japan,germany, the Philippines. as far as the no fly zones protecting iraqis from iraqis those are sort of like the air combat patrols over germany during the cold war. you know the ones keeping the east germans from the west germans.

Ya know there were very few ground forces in Iraq during Desert storm. The "war" was fought mainly from the air and we had very legitimate fears of WMD at that point.

And no the air containment of Iraq was intended to isolate them. It was not at all similar to the Cold war stand off in Germany.


What the containment of Iraq WAS like was the containment of North Korea. I trust you have heard the term and recognize it's implications.






again gulf war one. the war to remove saddam from kuwait. he got kicked out of kuwait. the war ended and the troops came home.


And again if Bush 43 had declared victory and left I would agree, but his son picked up where the wiser Bush left off and botched the whole thing.

There were three chances for things to turn out that way and they never did.

So apparently the only war the GOPers ever won might be the civil war.

At least the dems have won a few wars.

[Lefty Wilbury]

They are leaving because we don't have enough troops in Iraq. If there was nothing going on in Korea then all 37,000 would have been redeployed to the ME.

Stop playing silly games.

none of the troops are going from korea to the middle east. it's part of a larger redeployment plan that's taking troops out of bases in countries like germany and japan and moving them home to the states or larger more modern bases in eastern europe. again there's nothing going on in germany yet there are over 70,000 troops there.



And WWII did end but peace wasn't ever fully negotiated with our allies.

and what's the opposite of peace? war. and what country didnn't we have peace with after ww2?





False the mission was accomplished so the authorization expired. But the war was maintained for another decade plus.


face it the war ended. then over the years when saddam broke his commitments to end the war and air strikes to place. strikes that were authorized by un resolutions over the years.

[Lefty Wilbury]

Well if you argued something semi sensible like " the cold war was an arms race that included some minor proxy wars" I wouldn't be arguing with you would I?

a war is a war. even in those proxy wars US and Russian personnel were killed whether they covert or overt forces. there was a war between the us and russisa that the us in the end won.

[Lefty Wilbury]

Ya know there were very few ground forces in Iraq during Desert storm. The "war" was fought mainly from the air and we had very legitimate fears of WMD at that point.

those 500,000 forces who took part in the ground war would disagree. the 100 hour ground war. a massive victory.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Operation_Desert_Storm.jpg/800px-Operation_Desert_Storm.jpg


and those wmd that everyone fear in 91 and through the 90's have yet be accounted for. hell they can't even account for the stuff saddam admitted he had let alone the stuff no one knew about. kinda of makes you wonder doesn't it?



And no the air containment of Iraq was intended to isolate them. It was not at all similar to the Cold war stand off in Germany.

the no fly zone were designed to keep saddam from commiting genocide after the gulf war by using what was left of his air force. it was also in place to keep his ground forces far from any boarder in which he could launch and invasion. the air patrols in germany or all over europe for that matter and up in alasaka were designed to prevent a sneak attack by russian forces



What the containment of Iraq WAS like was the containment of North Korea. I trust you have heard the term and recognize it's implications.

which would be the same thing that happened with cuba and the soviet block





And again if Bush 43 had declared victory and left I would agree, but his son picked up where the wiser Bush left off and botched the whole thing.

There were three chances for things to turn out that way and they never did.

bush sr ended the gulf war. clinton started his own mess with air strikes over wmd with operation desert fox. clinton also passed pl 235 and the iraq liberation act. if anything bush2 was picking up where clinton left off



So apparently the only war the GOPers ever won might be the civil war.

At least the dems have won a few wars.


gop won the gulf war one. the dems if anything started wars they never finished.

[Nuc]

Y'know Rudy,

If all the mayors in America worry more about shutting down art museums for "blasphemy" more than protecting the air and ports, then of course there will be more 9/11's. But that happened on your Republican watch. Has nothing to do with political affiliation. Stupidity and irresponsibility cross party lines.

:fu: :fu: :salute: :fu:

[loosecannon]

those 500,000 forces who took part in the ground war would disagree. the 100 hour ground war. a massive victory.

The 100 hour ground war was fought mostly from the air. The 100 hours speaks for itself. And I have yet seen no evidence that anywhere close to 500,000 coalition forces did anything more than skirt Iraq's perimiter. The strategy was to spread the Iraqi Army thin, protecting all of it's border except the border with Iran. That exposed the Iraq army to air strike vulnerabilities, extended their supply lines and obsorbed their resources.

This speaks to the extent of the ground war:

Gulf War casualty numbers are controversial. Coalition military deaths have been reported to be around 378, but the DoD reports that US forces suffered 147 battle-related and 235 non-battle-related deaths, plus one F/A-18 Hornet Navy Pilot, Scott Speicher listed as MIA. The UK suffered 47 deaths, Saudi(18),Egypt(10),UAE(6),Syria(3),Kuwait(1),and France(2). The largest single loss of Coalition forces happened on February 25, 1991, when an Iraqi Al-Hussein missile hit an American military barrack in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing 28



and those wmd that everyone fear in 91 and through the 90's have yet be accounted for. hell they can't even account for the stuff saddam admitted he had let alone the stuff no one knew about. kinda of makes you wonder doesn't it?

Many have been destroyed by US weapons inspectors. Many more are outdated. And many were consumed in the Iraq/Iran war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_wmd#UNSCOM_inspections_1991-1998

In 2002, Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed.






the no fly zone were designed to keep saddam from commiting genocide after the gulf war by using what was left of his air force. it was also in place to keep his ground forces far from any boarder in which he could launch and invasion. the air patrols in germany or all over europe for that matter and up in alasaka were designed to prevent a sneak attack by russian forces

Hogwash. They were a punitive measure designed to pressure his regime into collapse, as were the sanctions. Little remained of Iraq's military after desert storm.



bush sr ended the gulf war.

Ended the conflict, not the containment, inspections, sanctions or air control. This is interesting tho:

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
~Dick Cheney 1991


The GOP began and is now losing the war in Iraq precisely because Cheney can't listen to his own counsel. Or because he is listening to Bush the loser who deprived his Dad the legacy of a limited victory.

[diuretic]

....snipped a heap.......


gop won the gulf war one. the dems if anything started wars they never finished.

That's revealing, did you mean the GOP won the first Gulf War rather than the western coalition or are you just having a blue with loosecannon and chucked in the GOP reference as a wind-up?

[Lefty Wilbury]

The 100 hour ground war was fought mostly from the air. The 100 hours speaks for itself. And I have yet seen no evidence that anywhere close to 500,000 coalition forces did anything more than skirt Iraq's perimiter. The strategy was to spread the Iraqi Army thin, protecting all of it's border except the border with Iran. That exposed the Iraq army to air strike vulnerabilities, extended their supply lines and obsorbed their resources.


right. skirted iraq's perimiter. look at the map. the southern third of all of iraq was controlled by the us military. i guess those tank battles and those marines in kuwait city really weren't there :rolleyes:

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/images3/gulfwar-map1.jpg


This speaks to the extent of the ground war:


no that speaks to the advancements of technology where a abrams tank can take out a soviet made tank at almost twice the distance and do it at night in the dark




Many have been destroyed by US weapons inspectors. Many more are outdated. And many were consumed in the Iraq/Iran war.

actually no. saddams wmd stockpiles that he said he had after the gulf war have yet to be fully accounted for even to this day



[i]In 2002, Ritter

only problem with him is while he was with the un he says one thing after he leaves he says another. he's lying in one situation now isn't he?




Hogwash. They were a punitive measure designed to pressure his regime into collapse, as were the sanctions. Little remained of Iraq's military after desert storm.

no the no fly zones were put into place to protect the kurds in the notrh and shia in the south:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/forces_and_firepower/244364.stm
The Northern Zone
The Northern Zone was established in April 1991 after Baghdad mobilised helicopter gunships to quell a Kurdish uprising.

The Southern Zone
The Southern Zone was imposed south of the 32nd parallel in August 1992 to protect Shi'ite Muslims who also rebelled against Baghdad.




Ended the conflict, not the containment, inspections, sanctions or air control. This is interesting tho:

so under those definitions ww2 didn't end under truman since after all the us contained,imposed sanctions, and had air control over japan and germany for in some cases the next six decades. the conflict with iraq ended in 91.



The GOP began and is now losing the war in Iraq precisely because Cheney can't listen to his own counsel. Or because he is listening to Bush the loser who deprived his Dad the legacy of a limited victory.


the gulf war was won. it ended in 91.

[Lefty Wilbury]

That's revealing, did you mean the GOP won the first Gulf War rather than the western coalition or are you just having a blue with loosecannon and chucked in the GOP reference as a wind-up?

we are talking about the presidents party at the time

[diuretic]

we are talking about the presidents party at the time

Okay then. Interesting that you both would frame the discussion in those terms.

[loosecannon]

right. skirted iraq's perimiter. look at the map. the southern third of all of iraq was controlled by the us military. i guess those tank battles and those marines in kuwait city really weren't there :rolleyes:


You wouldn't know would you?

Cuz you weren't there.

no that speaks to the advancements of technology where a abrams tank can take out a soviet made tank at almost twice the distance and do it at night in the dark.

Three times the distance and the casualties speak for an extremely minimal ground war under any advantage scenario. But you weren't there.





actually no. saddams wmd stockpiles that he said he had after the gulf war have yet to be fully accounted for even to this day

Don't play stupid games. Since when do you believe anything Saddam said? So stop pretending that you do. Bush said iraq had WMD too, and they were both full of bull. As are you.




only problem with him is while he was with the un he says one thing after he leaves he says another. he's lying in one situation now isn't he?

Scuze me Mr Irrational. He says one thing while under orders in an official military capacity and another after he leaves the military.

What is the prob, do you not understand the context Cowboy?



so under those definitions ww2 didn't end under truman since after all the us contained,imposed sanctions, and had air control over japan and germany for in some cases the next six decades. the conflict with iraq ended in 91.

Thank you Proffessor Orwell. No we had treaties and surrenders in WWII. You can reclaim your ass at the supply depot in north west Siberia.





the gulf war was won. it ended in 91.

It could have been but neither Clinton nor Bush 41 bothered to leave while victory was in hand.

And Bush 43 fucked it all up beyong repair.

Sorry, you got the civil war and nothing else.

Please don't masqerade around as if GOPers can protect us as well as dems. You can't.

[loosecannon]

we are talking about the presidents party at the time


Yes and no, we are talking about who was CIC when the US won a war.

Iraq is therefore twice disqualified. NEXT!

Thanks D!

[diuretic]

Yes and no, we are talking about who was CIC when the US won a war.

Iraq is therefore twice disqualified. NEXT!

Thanks D!

Can't type - laughing too hard :lol:

[Lefty Wilbury]

You wouldn't know would you?

Cuz you weren't there.


lame response. you got proven wrong once again.




Don't play stupid games. Since when do you believe anything Saddam said?

right saddam said he had them and he most likely low balled what he had. hell saddam used them.



So stop pretending that you do. Bush said iraq had WMD too, and they were both full of bull. As are you.

i guess clinton was full of it too:


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.



The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again





Scuze me Mr Irrational. He says one thing while under orders in an official military capacity and another after he leaves the military.

only problem with that is he wasn't under us mitary command with the un. no the reason he said something different is because he was pimping a movie that was funded by people with questinable ties to saddam



What is the prob, do you not understand the context Cowboy?


Thank you Proffessor Orwell. No we had treaties and surrenders in WWII. You can reclaim your ass at the supply depot in north west Siberia.

once again your proven wrong with your by your ever changing standards. saddam gave up at the end of the gulf war but you won't recongnize it



It could have been but neither Clinton nor Bush 41 bothered to leave while victory was in hand.

And Bush 43 fucked it all up beyong repair.

Sorry, you got the civil war and nothing else.


the war was over and you know it. there was also the cold war which you deny. then there is grenada which was part of the cold war. or panama which under your ever changing deinition you would have to include






Please don't masqerade around as if GOPers can protect us as well as dems. You can't.

again for the fourth time who was in office when these terrorist attacks occured?


1993
February 26
World Trade Center in New York, USA, attacked by a massive bomb planted by Islamic terrorists.

April 14

Iraqi intelligence service attempt to assassinate former US President, George Bush, during a visit to Kuwait.

1995
March 8

Two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan.

July 4

In India, six foreigners, including two U.S. citizens, were taken hostage by Al-Faran, a Kashmiri separatist group. One non-U.S. hostage was later found beheaded.

August 21

Hamas claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb in Jerusalem that killed six and injured over 100 persons, including several U.S. citizens.

September 13

A rocket-propelled grenade was fired through the window of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, as an apparent retaliation for U.S. strikes on Serb positions in Bosnia.

November 13

Seven foreigners, including a number of US servicemen, are killed in bomb attack on National Guard training centre at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

1996

January 19

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen and demanded a $1 million ransom. The hostage was released on May 22.

February 15

Unidentified assailants fired a rocket at the U.S. embassy compound in Athens, causing minor damage to three diplomatic vehicles and some surrounding buildings. It is believed to have been carried out by the 17 November group.

June 25

Islamic radical terrorists opposed to the western military presence in the Gulf region, explode a truck bomb next to a USAF housing area at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and 385 injuring more.

1997

February 23

A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."

1998

August 7

US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salem, Tanzania, heavily damaged by massive bomb attacks. US intelligence blames Islamic groups linked to Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden.

December 28

Yemini militants kidnap a group of western tourists, including 12 Britons, 2 Americans, and 2 Australians on the main road to Aden. Four victims were killed during a rescue attempt the next day.

2000
October 12

In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Ladin were suspected.

[loosecannon]

lame response. you got proven wrong once again.

Sorry chump but I didn't





right saddam said he had them and he most likely low balled what he had. hell saddam used them.

Actually the WH thinks he high balled what he had and so do the actual weapons inspectors. 95% of what he had was proven to be destroyed.




i guess clinton was full of it too:

Duh. Everybody knows Clinton was a liar.



quote]the war was over and you know it.[/quote]

This is nothing but a semantic argument on both sides. IOW you can't win it.


there was also the cold war which you deny.

A bald faced lie. It existed, but it obviously wasn't a war.


then there is grenada which was part of the cold war.

This is real stupidity. Of course grenada wasn't part of the cold war.


or panama which under your ever changing deinition you would have to include

Panama was merely a state sponsored kidnapping. That was in no way a war. Hell we voluntarily ceded our rights to panama just a few years previous.

You are grasping. I was expecting somethiung like the spanish am war or the phillipines would prove me wrong and that the repubs would get credit for something but apparently the GOP just can't win any wars.

Other than perhaps the civil war.

[Pale Rider]

Y'know Rudy,

If all the mayors in America worry more about shutting down art museums for "blasphemy" more than protecting the air and ports, then of course there will be more 9/11's. But that happened on your Republican watch. Has nothing to do with political affiliation. Stupidity and irresponsibility cross party lines.

:fu: :fu: :salute: :fu:

"Rudy", is NOT a Republican, and, he won't be ELECTED as a Republican. He's FAR more liberal, than he is conservative.

"I" would NEVER vote for him, and I'm a conservative Republican.

[Lefty Wilbury]

Sorry chump but I didn't

yes you were. admit it. you said there "were very few ground forces in Iraq during Desert storm" and there were over 500,000 troops who took part. all those armored division, paratroops etc disagree with you







Actually the WH thinks he high balled what he had and so do the actual weapons inspectors. 95% of what he had was proven to be destroyed.

if he "high balled" things how could it be "proven" 95% of what he had was destroyed? you can't have it both ways. if he lied about what he had how can you prove a percentage of what was destroyed is certain percent of what he had?






Duh. Everybody knows Clinton was a liar.

so were the russians,chinese,french also lying about saddam's wmd? the only reason they weren't in gulf war two is because they want the inspections to continue. the world though he had them





This is nothing but a semantic argument on both sides. IOW you can't win it.

the war was over. us troops left iraq left their forward bases and return to the states. end of story.




A bald faced lie. It existed, but it obviously wasn't a war.

it was a war and it was fought through proxy conflicts and espionage all over the world




This is real stupidity. Of course grenada wasn't part of the cold war.

actually it was. it was another proxy war. the cubans and russians backed the coup of Coard. hell during the invasion the us fought cubans!





Panama was merely a state sponsored kidnapping. That was in no way a war. Hell we voluntarily ceded our rights to panama just a few years previous.

it was a "war", we removed the sitting government and allowed new elections to take place





You are grasping. I was expecting somethiung like the spanish am war or the phillipines would prove me wrong and that the repubs would get credit for something but apparently the GOP just can't win any wars.

Other than perhaps the civil war.

again. gulf war one. you can deny it all you want but it ended. here's a pic of the iraqi's surrendering:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/images/iraq_safwan-surrender91.jpg

[glockmail]

.....

However, I have argued all along that terrorists are best dealt with in a law enforcement mode (with backup from appropriate military units of course).

That is asinine.

[diuretic]

That is asinine.

Why?

[glockmail]

Why? A police action entails gathering evidence for a civilian trial, not going after a trained army.

[loosecannon]

yes you were. admit it. you said there "were very few ground forces in Iraq during Desert storm" and there were over 500,000 troops who took part. all those armored division, paratroops etc disagree with you

I apologize I mispoke when I said that there were not ground forces mobilized. I should have said the fround war was a tiny part of the war. And you still have provided no evidence that they actually did anything other than mobilize.

The bulk of the war including attacks against Iraqi ground forces occured from the air. Hence the incredibly low casualties.







if he "high balled" things how could it be "proven" 95% of what he had was destroyed? you can't have it both ways. if he lied about what he had how can you prove a percentage of what was destroyed is certain percent of what he had?

I don't have to prove it, the inspectors did.

[loosecannon]

so were the russians,chinese,french also lying about saddam's wmd? the only reason they weren't in gulf war two is because they want the inspections to continue. the world though he had them

A lie, the world knew for certain that he had no WMD, they asked for weapons inspections to further prove that.





the war was over. us troops left iraq left their forward bases and return to the states. end of story.

Sure it would have been over if lots of troops hadn't stayed, maintained air patrols, bombed every single week, and inspected for weapons.

You are full of shit admit it.





it was a war and it was fought through proxy conflicts and espionage all over the world

NOBODY pretends that the Cold war was actually a war.

LINKS????? You are getting boring





actually it was. it was another proxy war. the cubans and russians backed the coup of Coard. hell during the invasion the us fought cubans!

Sure we didn't invade Miami?

Proxy war is just more BS from the assturds who said Nicaragua was a proxy war with commieism.

Fools argue some really bizzarre conspiracy theories about commies and dominoes ya know? You rerally shouldn't associate yourself with that kind.






it was a "war", we removed the sitting government and allowed new elections to take place

No we kidnapped a democratically elected leader, because he had the goods on the US use of cocaine trafficing profits to support illegal terrorist death squads. And you know it.





again. gulf war one. you can deny it all you want but it ended. here's a pic of the iraqi's surrendering:

It hasn't ended yet, but could you please ask your Bush to withdraw our troops per the Congress' budgetary instructions?

Thanks

So the GOP won a faux surrender, a civil war maybe, a kidnapping and arrested two cubans in Grenada.

No actual wars. Very unimpressive.

[loosecannon]

However, I have argued all along that terrorists are best dealt with in a law enforcement mode (with backup from appropriate military units of course).

I have always agreed.

[loosecannon]

A police action entails gathering evidence for a civilian trial, not going after a trained army.


This is a surprisingly good argument.

Totally fallacious but it does introduce some good points.

Terrorists are by definition not trained armies according to the use of the word by Bush and the Pentagon and the Geneva conventions. They are unofficially named things like enemy combatants and beligerents etc. Tho the convention does not contain those words.

They are extranational militias.

And police must have evidence to succeed in gaining convictions, but stopping crime is actually thier mission. Protect and serve, public safety etc.

So the roles of law enforcement and terrorism intradiction are not perfectly suited.

So how would law enforcement have to change to make the adjustments?

And what legal standards would best apply to dealing with extranationals?

Those are good, tough questions.

[diuretic]

A police action entails gathering evidence for a civilian trial, not going after a trained army.

But your post number 78 actually agrees with my point.

[Lefty Wilbury]

I apologize I mispoke when I said that there were not ground forces mobilized. I should have said the fround war was a tiny part of the war. And you still have provided no evidence that they actually did anything other than mobilize.

The bulk of the war including attacks against Iraqi ground forces occured from the air. Hence the incredibly low casualties.


the map tells another story read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Medina_Ridge) ,here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting)
,here
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Initial_moves_into_Iraq)

the low casualty rate was do to the technology involved plain and simple. when one side has tanks that are twice as powerful and nvg it isn't a fair fight. you can deny the facts all you want but you can't change history

again from the links above :

During the battle, the American forces suffered only one fatality and no fatalities were due enemy fire while destroying 186 Iraqi tanks (mostly Soviet built T-72s and T-55s) and 127 armored vehicles. Only four Abrams tanks were hit by direct fire and disabled. Not a single coalition tank was destroyed in the action.




I don't have to prove it, the inspectors did.


you're the one's making the claims

[Lefty Wilbury]

A lie, the world knew for certain that he had no WMD, they asked for weapons inspections to further prove that.


you're the one lying and once again denying history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war


# France - On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs.


UN weapons inspector Blix expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said. "There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence, or you can't find it, I simply say, 'Sorry, I don't find any evidence,' and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence."





Sure it would have been over if lots of troops hadn't stayed, maintained air patrols, bombed every single week, and inspected for weapons.

again you can deny all you want but the us troops left iraq and returned home. why you're denying this i have no idea.

and do you know why there were weapons inspections? because that's what iraq agreed to to end the war!



You are full of shit admit it.

right i'm not the one denying the facts and dodging questions. again for the FIFTH time who was in office when all those terrorist attacks took place?







NOBODY pretends that the Cold war was actually a war.

LINKS????? You are getting boring

i take it you flunked history or you've got a bad memory:

here's the list of sites via google that talk about

chinese involvement in the korean war (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=china+korean+war&btnG=Search)

soviet involvement in the korean war (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=soviet+korean+war&btnG=Search)

the soviets in vietnam (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=russia+involvement+vietnam&spell=1)

so pick you sites and learn your history



Sure we didn't invade Miami?

Proxy war is just more BS from the assturds who said Nicaragua was a proxy war with commieism.

Fools argue some really bizzarre conspiracy theories about commies and dominoes ya know? You rerally shouldn't associate yourself with that kind.


again learn your history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada)








No we kidnapped a democratically elected leader, because he had the goods on the US use of cocaine trafficing profits to support illegal terrorist death squads. And you know it.


again learn your history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega) pay attention to the parts where he was never elected, was a military dictator and when there were elections he voided the elections that would have taken him out of power






It hasn't ended yet, but could you please ask your Bush to withdraw our troops per the Congress' budgetary instructions?

Thanks



and why do you go read the constituion where it states:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/);


congress doesn't have the power under the constitution to make military decisions. that's why the president is the commander in chief




So the GOP won a faux surrender, a civil war maybe, a kidnapping and arrested two cubans in Grenada.

No actual wars. Very unimpressive.


judging by your posts you you don't know your history so go learn it. and again now for the sixth time who was in office when those terrorist attacks occurred

[Psychoblues]

Giuliani is full of political shit or have you not noticed?

[loosecannon]

the map tells another story

No, but this from your link does:

Medina Ridge was one of the few battles during Desert Storm in which American forces encountered significant Iraqi resistance and found it extremely difficult to advance.

IOW there just wasn't much of a ground "war". 100 hours, few examples of significant resistance, not many casualties. Slam dunk.



you're the one's making the claims

And the weapons inspectors proved them, NEXT!

[loosecannon]

you're the one lying and once again denying history

Oh really? So why does your quote prove my point? Again?



# France - On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that] he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs.

You lost that one.

UN weapons inspector Blix expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said. "There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence, or you can't find it, I simply say, 'Sorry, I don't find any evidence,' and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence."

"expressed skepticism, found it a bit odd, I don't see, if, I cannot guarantee or recommend"

That certainly supported your argument in NO WAY AT ALL.

Strike two.


again you can deny all you want but the us troops left iraq and returned home. why you're denying this i have no idea.

Sure you do, they didn't all leave and the war rages on till this day. You just can't admit because it undermines your deep love of dear leader.


right i'm not the one denying the facts and dodging questions.

Sure you are, don't be so modest.

[Lefty Wilbury]

No, but this from your link does:

Medina Ridge was one of the few battles during Desert Storm in which American forces encountered significant Iraqi resistance and found it extremely difficult to advance.

IOW there just wasn't much of a ground "war". 100 hours, few examples of significant resistance, not many casualties. Slam dunk.



did you even read what you posted?

"significant Iraqi resistance and found it extremely difficult to advance"

your wrong you know it and you're grasping at straws and it's pathitic. i guess taking out 186 tanks and 127 amoured vechiles is nothing to you. again read what was posted.



And the weapons inspectors proved them, NEXT!

UN weapons inspector Blix expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said. "There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence, or you can't find it, I simply say, 'Sorry, I don't find any evidence,' and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence."

[loosecannon]

pay attention to the parts where he was never elected, was a military dictator and when there were elections he voided the elections that would have taken him out of power

I would rather focus on this part:

He was initially a strong ally of the United States and worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s to 1986 [1]. By the late 1980s, relations had turned extremely tense between Noriega and the United States government, and in 1989 the general was overthrown and captured in the United States invasion of Panama. He was taken to the United States, and convicted under federal charges of cocaine trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering. He remains imprisoned in a federal prison in Miami, Florida, where his daughters and his grandchildren frequently visit.







and why do you go read the constituion where it states:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/);

Yes I know the constitution.

Would you like me to embarrass you back into your shell by listing the littany of Congressional authorities over the military and the budget?

Cuz your case will disintegrate and you know it.



congress doesn't have the power under the constitution to make military decisions. that's why the president is the commander in chief

Tho the consti offers no definitions at all what these "powers" include. Congress' powers over the military are quite specific and dwarf the presidents stated powers.






judging by your posts you you don't know your history so go learn it.

Judging by your posts you won't accept history unrevised.

You are killing us with your flair for awkward revisionism.

And the GOP still hasn't won a war.

[Lefty Wilbury]

Oh really? So why does your quote prove my point? Again?



# France - On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that] he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs.


You lost that one.



the french though he had which is what the quote says again you got proven wrong



UN weapons inspector Blix expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said. "There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence, or you can't find it, I simply say, 'Sorry, I don't find any evidence,' and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence."

"expressed skepticism, found it a bit odd, I don't see, if, I cannot guarantee or recommend"

That certainly supported your argument in NO WAY AT ALL.

Strike two.

actually it supports mine and shoots down yours. you know the point you keep saying the inspectors destroyed as you claimed 95% of what saddam had and here's ole hans boy saying saddam HASN'T accounted for squat. again you're wrong. so try again




Sure you do, they didn't all leave and the war rages on till this day. You just can't admit because it undermines your deep love of dear leader.

really and how many troops stayed in iraq from 91 through now. how many were there in say 95 in the iraq desert? post the numbers




Sure you are, don't be so modest.

you making your self look like a fool by denying fact dodging a question and a simple one at that that has been posted six times

[loosecannon]

shits and grins:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



Gee Wilbur, it sounds like CONGRESS pretty much has constitutional authority to do everything from declare war, fund the military, call up the militias and to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, plus they have to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.

Gee you lose really, really big this time. As in "could you have been a more arrogant and wrong headed putz?"

[Psychoblues]

lc, never admit that you would "rather focus" on a particular area of converse while the entire area is in play.



I would rather focus on this part:

He was initially a strong ally of the United States and worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s to 1986 [1]. By the late 1980s, relations had turned extremely tense between Noriega and the United States government, and in 1989 the general was overthrown and captured in the United States invasion of Panama. He was taken to the United States, and convicted under federal charges of cocaine trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering. He remains imprisoned in a federal prison in Miami, Florida, where his daughters and his grandchildren frequently visit.








Yes I know the constitution.

Would you like me to embarrass you back into your shell by listing the littany of Congressional authorities over the military and the budget?

Cuz your case will disintegrate and you know it.




Tho the consti offers no definitions at all what these "powers" include. Congress' powers over the military are quite specific and dwarf the presidents stated powers.







Judging by your posts you won't accept history unrevised.

You are killing us with your flair for awkward revisionism.

And the GOP still hasn't won a war.

You are correct. Expound your positives and ignore the bullshit.

[Lefty Wilbury]

I would rather focus on this part:

He was initially a strong ally of the United States and worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s to 1986 [1]. By the late 1980s, relations had turned extremely tense between Noriega and the United States government, and in 1989 the general was overthrown and captured in the United States invasion of Panama. He was taken to the United States, and convicted under federal charges of cocaine trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering. He remains imprisoned in a federal prison in Miami, Florida, where his daughters and his grandchildren frequently visit.



you got proven wrong AGAIN and now you're trying to change the subject.







Yes I know the constitution.

Would you like me to embarrass you back into your shell by listing the littany of Congressional authorities over the military and the budget?

Cuz your case will disintegrate and you know it.

go ahead. i want you to post in where where its says in the constitution where it says the congress has the authority to supersede the commander in chief and make military decisions in respect to military operations. since after all the president is the highest ranking military officer. show me were it says congress and supercede him and make military desisons. congress only controls the budget and the power to declare war not call the shots onceit's on.





Tho the consti offers no definitions at all what these "powers" include. Congress' powers over the military are quite specific and dwarf the presidents stated powers.

no they don't.article two was put in place so there would be ONE commander of us military forces and congress couldn't call the shots on operations



Judging by your posts you won't accept history unrevised.

You are killing us with your flair for awkward revisionism.

And the GOP still hasn't won a war.

you won't accept history of the facts at all. still dodging my question i see. pathtiec

[Lefty Wilbury]

shits and grins:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



Gee Wilbur, it sounds like CONGRESS pretty much has constitutional authority to do everything from declare war, fund the military, call up the militias and to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, plus they have to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.

Gee you lose really, really big this time. As in "could you have been a more arrogant and wrong headed putz?"

and where does it say in that statement congress has the power to set military deadlines? they don't they can only fund or defund a war. they can't set military deadlines, approve target etc

[Lefty Wilbury]

maybe seven times will be the charm: who was in power when those terrorist attacks occured?

[loosecannon]

you got proven wrong AGAIN and now you're trying to change the subject.

Wrong spinmeister. I got proven right and YOU are trying to evade.


no they don't.article two was put in place so there would be ONE commander of us military forces and congress couldn't call the shots on operations

Could you be more full of shit? Congress has almost ALL authority over the military.




you won't accept history of the facts at all.

No YOU won't accept being proven wrong again.

[loosecannon]

and where does it say in that statement congress has the power to set military deadlines? they don't they can only fund or defund a war. they can't set military deadlines, approve target etc


What it says is:

The president is the CIC with ZERO definitions of what that means.

Whereas the Congress controls almost every aspect of the military including declaring (and ending) war and providing all legislation to assist in that effort.

The initial war authorization wasn't even constitutional. Bush never had legal authority to invade. Much less stay the course into oblivion.

If you don't concede this point I will know you are incapable of honest discourse.

Oh, and the GOP has still never won a war aside from perhaps the civil war.

[loosecannon]

maybe seven times will be the charm: who was in power when those terrorist attacks occured?

When 9/11 occured Bush was in charge.

And according to Tenet's book Condi got 3 warnings in the summer of 01 telegraphing the attacks.

Yet she and he did nothing to address the threat or the warnings from the CIA.

According to Tenet's book, they were too busy planning to invade Iraq. (before 9/11)

[Lefty Wilbury]

Wrong spinmeister. I got proven right and YOU are trying to evade.


no you got proven wrong when you said noreiga was a democraticlly elected leader and he wasn't and you posted crap about him once being an ally. you were wrongand change the subject



Could you be more full of shit? Congress has almost ALL authority over the military.

no they don't that's why article two was written. you'll notice the President NOT congress is the commander in chief. now why is that?

http://yalelawjournal.org/2006/03/ku.html

The most sensible textual inference is to read the Commander-in-Chief clause as a constitutional constraint on the other two federal branches, especially Congress, from interfering with the President’s command of U.S. military forces.

Courts have generally endorsed this understanding. In Ex Parte Milligan, a Civil War-era decision that limited the President’s power to use military commissions in peacetime, Chief Justice Chase nonetheless reiterated that Congress “cannot intrude . . . upon the proper authority of the President” in the exercise of his military authority. Congress could not, for instance, “interfere[] with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns.”

The Clinton administration actually endorsed a more radical defense of the exclusive Commander-in-Chief power. Walter Dellinger, who served as President Clinton’s chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, opined Congress could not prohibit the deployment of U.S. soldiers under the command of foreign commanders because of the Commander-in-Chief clause. According to Dellinger, Congress could not even attach such restrictions to its defense spending appropriations. Dellinger further advised in a separate opinion that it was perfectly acceptable for a President to refuse to implement or execute a law that impermissibly restricts the President’s inherent constitutional powers.

Academic commentators have also agreed that there is an exclusive Commander-in-Chief power. Even though Congress also holds broad powers to declare war and make rules governing the regulation of military forces, commentators have universally agreed that some part of the President’s Commander-in-Chief power must remain free from congressional regulation. As Professor Louis Henkin, the nation’s leading foreign relations scholar, has written of the Commander-in-Chief power, “It would be unthinkable for Congress to attempt detailed, tactical decision, or supervision, and as to these the President's authority is effectively supreme.”






No YOU won't accept being proven wrong again.

everyhthing you've posted in this tread you've been proven wrong on , changed the subject and dodge even the simplest of questions. everything form the military "skirted the iraqi boarder" to noreiga was democratically elected and everything in between.

[Lefty Wilbury]

When 9/11 occured Bush was in charge.

And according to Tenet's book Condi got 3 warnings in the summer of 01 telegraphing the attacks.

Yet she and he did nothing to address the threat or the warnings from the CIA.

According to Tenet's book, they were too busy planning to invade Iraq. (before 9/11)

changing the subject again i see.i itguess that wasn't president clinton in charge when the wtc was attacked the first time. or the emabassy bombingor the cole etc etc etc

[Lefty Wilbury]

What it says is:

The president is the CIC with ZERO definitions of what that means.

Whereas the Congress controls almost every aspect of the military including declaring (and ending) war and providing all legislation to assist in that effort.

The initial war authorization wasn't even constitutional. Bush never had legal authority to invade. Much less stay the course into oblivion.

If you don't concede this point I will know you are incapable of honest discourse.

Oh, and the GOP has still never won a war aside from perhaps the civil war.

see my response in post 129 and then try to deny the FACTS

[loosecannon]

no you got proven wrong when you said noreiga was a democraticlly elected leader and he wasn't and you posted crap about him once being an ally. you were wrongand change the subject

No I got proven right in that Panama wasn't a war it was a kidnapping designed to cover up Noriega's goods on the CIA drug trafficing that funded the Am backed guerillas in Nicaragua.




no they don't that's why article two was written. you'll notice the President NOT congress is the commander in chief. now why is that?

Who could know since the CIC has not one single authority granted by the constitution.

Is the CIC a figurehead?


everyhthing you've posted in this tread you'vebeen proven wrongon , changed the subject and dodge even the simplest of questions. everything form the military "skirted the iraqi boarder" to noreiga and everything in between.

Oh please blow hard YOU have been proven wrong 8 times and about the single argument that mattered. Stop changing the subject to avoid the fact that the GOP has never won a war.

Besides your own links proved Noriega was kidnapped and the ground war was a very small part of the Gulf war.

Truth hurts you doesn't it ?

[loosecannon]

see my response in post 129 and then try to deny the FACTS

You didn't post any facts in 129.

You posted revisionist history.

[Lefty Wilbury]

No I got proven right in that Panama wasn't a war it was a kidnapping designed to cover up Noriega's goods on the CIA drug trafficing that funded the Am backed guerillas in Nicaragua.


no you were wrong then as you are now. panama was a war and noregia was never democratically elected as you claimed.





Who could know since the CIC has not one single authority granted by the constitution.

Is the CIC a figurehead?


it's not a figure head. it was put in placeso there would be ONE military leader in the land not the head of the army to do things as he pleased, or a head of a marine corps to do another. read the link i posted the yale artilce.



Oh please blow hard YOU have been proven wrong 8 times and about the single argument that mattered. Stop changing the subject to avoid the fact that the GOP has never won a war.

Besides your own links proved Noriega was kidnapped and the ground war was a very small part of the Gulf war.

Truth hurts you doesn't it ?


you can cry all you want but it won't change the fact that everything you've said is wrong. the ground war was a large battle as evidence by the fact over 180 tanks were destroyed in one battle and it ended the gulf war, you've skipped over the articles talking about soviet involvement in korea and veitnam during the cold war which reagen won. dodged cuba involvment in grenada. you dodged the question for the troop numbers in iraq during the 90's because as you claim the war was still on so there would have to be troops there and on and on

[Lefty Wilbury]

You didn't post any facts in 129.

You posted revisionist history.

right :rolleyes: that's what your calling the yale article debunking your claims over article 2. right keep trying there. here i'll post the whole thing for you:

http://yalelawjournal.org/2006/03/ku.html


Is There an Exclusive Commander-in-Chief Power?
Julian G. Ku, March 01, 2006 [View as PDF]

Which President was advised by his lawyers that he had the constitutional authority to refuse to comply with federal statutes enacted by Congress? Which President also openly violated a federal statute in the exercise of his Commander-in-Chief power? The answer is not George W. Bush, but Bill Clinton. Like every modern President, Clinton defended his inherent and exclusive constitutional powers as Commander in Chief from congressional interference. Yet no legal argument has provoked more outrage today than the Bush Administration’s identical claims pursuant to the same power.

Not only has Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin accused the administration of acting like rulers “who put themselves above the law,” but Slate magazine asked recently whether Bush was “turning America into an elective dictatorship”. A group of prominent attorneys also charged Justice Department attorneys with failing “to meet their professional obligations” by advising that “the President’s authority as Commander-in Chief allows him to ignore laws, treaties, and the Constitution relevant to human rights.”

These critics are wrong. As President Clinton recognized, the President does possess an exclusive Commander-in-Chief power that authorizes him to refuse to execute laws and treaties that impermissibly encroach upon his inherent constitutional power. The existence of this exclusive power is supported by the text of the Constitution as well as judicial precedent and the practice of past presidents. Rather than deny its existence, the critics of the Administration should reframe their arguments to define reasonable limitations on the scope of this exclusive but important presidential power.

Article II of the Constitution designates the President as “Commander in Chief.” But even without the Commander-in-Chief clause, the President would still be the chief of the armed forces because the President is vested with a general “executive power.” So what is the purpose of designating him as “Commander in Chief”? The most sensible textual inference is to read the Commander-in-Chief clause as a constitutional constraint on the other two federal branches, especially Congress, from interfering with the President’s command of U.S. military forces.

Courts have generally endorsed this understanding. In Ex Parte Milligan, a Civil War-era decision that limited the President’s power to use military commissions in peacetime, Chief Justice Chase nonetheless reiterated that Congress “cannot intrude . . . upon the proper authority of the President” in the exercise of his military authority. Congress could not, for instance, “interfere[] with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns.”

This view is also completely consistent with Justice Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the famous Supreme Court decision rejecting President Truman’s wartime seizure of steel mills. In his opinion, which has been widely invoked by critics of the Commander-in-Chief argument, Jackson clearly believed that the President holds some exclusive Commander-in-Chief powers that Congress cannot limit. After describing three categories of presidential power in foreign affairs, Jackson specifically left room in his analysis for the President to act against the will of Congress. Although the president’s powers are at their “lowest ebb” when Congress objects to the his actions, he may still act in those cases pursuant to his inherent constitutional powers.

Presidential practice has uniformly recognized the existence of this exclusive power. Beginning in 1974, for instance, every U.S. president has rejected the constitutionality of the War Powers Act’s 90-day limitation on the deployment of troops without congressional authorization. Indeed, President Clinton openly flouted the law in 1999 when he kept U.S. troops deployed to Kosovo past the Act’s 90-day deadline.

The Clinton administration actually endorsed a more radical defense of the exclusive Commander-in-Chief power. Walter Dellinger, who served as President Clinton’s chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, opined Congress could not prohibit the deployment of U.S. soldiers under the command of foreign commanders because of the Commander-in-Chief clause. According to Dellinger, Congress could not even attach such restrictions to its defense spending appropriations. Dellinger further advised in a separate opinion that it was perfectly acceptable for a President to refuse to implement or execute a law that impermissibly restricts the President’s inherent constitutional powers.

Academic commentators have also agreed that there is an exclusive Commander-in-Chief power. Even though Congress also holds broad powers to declare war and make rules governing the regulation of military forces, commentators have universally agreed that some part of the President’s Commander-in-Chief power must remain free from congressional regulation. As Professor Louis Henkin, the nation’s leading foreign relations scholar, has written of the Commander-in-Chief power, “It would be unthinkable for Congress to attempt detailed, tactical decision, or supervision, and as to these the President's authority is effectively supreme.”

Accepting the existence of an exclusive Commander-in-Chief power does not require critics to accept the legality of every one of the Bush Administration’s policies. But it does require critics to consider seriously the dangers of excessive Congressional regulation of the President’s wartime powers as much as they highlight the dangers of presidential unilateralism. For instance, defenders of congressional restrictions on warrantless wiretapping should concede the necessity of an exclusively foreign surveillance power, and focus their arguments instead on justifying Congress’s authority to regulate domestic surveillance operations.

Whenever the Commander-in-Chief argument is invoked, critics accuse the administration of lawlessness and even monarchical aspirations. This may be satisfying as a matter of political rhetoric, but it is poor and unpersuasive as a mode of legal argument. Widely accepted understandings of the constitutional text reflected in judicial precedent and executive practice confirm the existence of an exclusive Commander in Chief power. The question, therefore, is not whether the exclusive power exists, but how far this critically important and necessary power should extend.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

see my response in post 129 and then try to deny the FACTS

I'm jumping in late to this little parade here but this post intrigued me. You quoted the Yale Law Review which is all fine and dandy but the Constitution DOES supercede the YLR and in it Congress does have the right to declare war and they also have the right to circumvent the policies of the president by withholding OR cutting off funding if the president takes his command of our forces in a direction that they disagree with. Your Boy George called it "micromanaging" the war. I call it using your constitutionally granted powers in exactly the way that the Founding Fathers intended: to make sure that one branch is not more powerful than any other branch.

As for Rudy's fear-mongering: I hope he keeps up the rhetoric because it didn't work in 2006 and this same lame line of crap won't work in 2008. If you liked what happened last year, just wait until next year. :salute:

[TheStripey1]

That's revealing, did you mean the GOP won the first Gulf War rather than the western coalition or are you just having a blue with loosecannon and chucked in the GOP reference as a wind-up?

laffs... funny how quickly they forget what it was like when we had allies,now that we go it alone... yep, that was another thing I liked about the way bush's daddy prosecuted the war... he got our allies to help out... and they contributed a hell of a lot more personnel and gear... and as I recall, we had help in PAYING for it too...

[TheStripey1]

we are talking about the presidents party at the time

what about the rest of the countries in the coalition?

[TheStripey1]

"Rudy", is NOT a Republican, and, he won't be ELECTED as a Republican. He's FAR more liberal, than he is conservative.

"I" would NEVER vote for him, and I'm a conservative Republican.

good...

[TheStripey1]

A police action entails gathering evidence for a civilian trial, not going after a trained army.

Terrorists aren't IN an army...

[TheStripey1]

But your post number 78 actually agrees with my point.

Laffs... :cheers2:

[TheStripey1]

Giuliani is full of political shit or have you not noticed?

I noticed... I'm wondering if lefty has, though... hey lefty... what do you think of rudy? cuz ya know...

the topic IS rudy...


so, lefty? whatta ya think of rudy? and whatta ya think of Keith Olbermann's taking him to task? Would YOU vote for rudy after reading all the things he failed to do while he was mayor? Or would you fall for the one day defines his whole career?

Got any thoughts ON topic?

[glockmail]

But your post number 78 actually agrees with my point.
No it don't.

[loosecannon]

Glock, post #78

He cleaned up NY, gangs and all with his "in your face" attitude. That same attitude would work for terrorists, IMO.




However, I have argued all along that terrorists are best dealt with in a law enforcement mode (with backup from appropriate military units of course).

Glock

that is asinine

diuretic

but your post #78 actually agrees with me

Glock

no it don't

?

[glockmail]

Glock, post #78






Glock


diuretic


Glock


?

You can be such a douchebag. Patton had an in-yer-face attitude, did he not?

Stoopid libs.

[loosecannon]

You can be such a douchebag. Patton had an in-yer-face attitude, did he not?

Stoopid libs.

Is this the hideous non sequitur competition?