These are two very different things. What they wanted was for Bush to declare an end to the invasion so a new phase of the occupation could start - one which would hopefully lead to such things as civil rights, Iraqi self-government, and equitabile share of power and wealth. They were not saying that the fighting was over (in fact, they were saying the opposite). What Bush wanted was a moment to create the impression that the invasion was exciting, simple, easy and mostly bloodless, and that the hard part was over.
Senate Democrats flirt with treason I am shocked to come to the Politics forum today and not see the big news of the day, the Democrats' treasonous attempts to politicize the war in Iraq. I thought for sure that superdave, DoctorJones, or verybdog would've posted this story already. Democrat Memo on Politicizing Intelligence Democrat Senator Zell Miller: "Heads Should Roll" FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, November 5, 2003 From the desk of Zell Miller, United States Senator from Georgia WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today released the following statement concerning a memo written by Democratic staff on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggests ways to politicize intelligence data: “I have often said that the process in Washington is so politicized and polarized that it can’t even be put aside when we’re at war. Never has that been proved more true than the highly partisan and perhaps treasonous memo prepared for the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee. “Of all the committees, this is the one single committee that should unquestionably be above partisan politics. The information it deals with should never, never be distorted, compromised or politicized in any shape, form or fashion. For it involves the lives of our soldiers and our citizens. Its actions should always be above reproach; its words never politicized. “If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin. The ones responsible - be they staff or elected or both should be dealt with quickly and severely sending a lesson to all that this kind of action will not be tolerated, ignored or excused. “Heads should roll!”
I wonder how Zell feels about administration officials' blowing the cover of undercover CIA operatives.
Ian, the Iraq occupation is the single largest issue for Americans today and for the near future. Any politician not politicizing it is not worthy of running the office of Podunk Dog Catcher let alone a seat in Congress. It is a politician's job to represent their constituency (the "polis" in politician) and there is a large amount of questioning going on in the polis right now. And by the way, there is already a thread. Look for "Interesting new memo".
As Americans, we love our troops and the fact that they risk their lives to defend our freedoms. As a moral society, we hate those that lie, as truth is the foundation of moral authority to lead. What do we do to people that tell lies to our troops while they are risking their lives? We give them $92M for re-election and $87.5B to mismanage. If it is treason to politicize the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and if it is treason to lie to the military, then start with Bush. These are very weird times
I wonder how Zell feels about the treason flag flying over the Georgia statehouse. (For that matter, how does Howard Dean feel about it...eh, never mind, I've gotta go to the Sister Souljah show)
"Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods." This is treason??? Not surprisingly Ian believes its treason to disagree with God's own appointed (although perhaps not elected) president. Definition of treason according to Marriam-Webster: 1: the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY 2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family. Some would say that Bush betrayed the people and constitution of the United States (def. 1) when he went to war without a declaration from Congress (actually that was Congress' own fault for abrogating their responsibility - just like in 1964), and lied to the American people about the threat posed by phantom Iraqi WMDs. Actually, I personally don't subscribe to the above idea; however, it just makes me wonder whether there are any intelligent conservatives on this board. Having read his many posts, I've come to the conclusion that McCracken is about one IQ point short of riding the 'special' bus.
re: Sen Dems flirt with treason Conservative College Sophomore Flirts With Ugly Girl https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=80705&perpage=15&pagenumber=2
Foosinho, are you seriously trying to trivialized what happened in 9/11, and all the other attacks against the US and other nations interests throughout the world, and the Al Qaida network set up worldwide with the purpose of killing civilians, by reducing them to some sort of Orwellian type conspiracy by our leaders? Wake up, man! Bin Laden and his followers are not part of a master plan by Big Brother to keep us subjugated. They are real people who are plotting against us. There is a real war and people are plotting against us as we speak. Meanwhile, our elected representatives in congress pass around their little memos trying to play political football with intelligence. Nice.
You have got to be joking. What in the world is bigger than this? Its a lead story in the news every day, it's always the biggest issue in weekly news mags, and is the major preoccupation of the current administration.
That is a very creative and original interpretation of Orwell. But 1984 is too important a work to be trivialized into this type of partisan attack. In fact, if there was a regime in the world that resembled the Orwellian world, it had to be Hussein's Iraq. (Even up to the very end, with their minister of information unable to differenciate reality from propaganda as the city of Baghdad fell right in front of him). We should be thankful to America's leadership that this obcene regime is no longer in power.
I'm guessing most Iraqi's KNEW they were being lied to. Here, 69% of Americans are too stupid/stubborn to spot lies.
That, in a nutshell, is the elite liberal philosophy. Most of us are too stupid to think on our own, so we should follow the liberal elite like sheep follow a shepherd.
A) What is wrong with that philosophy? When multitudes or even a majority believe a (in your eyes) patently wrong idea, what is the problem with believing that those people should not be allowed to have power (and to act on that belief)? B) How is this different from the actualization of your own philosophy? If you lived in a socalist nation, would you shift your own beliefs to match the common belief?
a) I dissagree with that philosophy because I believe that individuals should be able to decide what is best for them. If a person believes, (as Plato argued, and as liberals seem to think), that it is better for an elite to decide for us because we are too stupid to decide on our own, then I cannot agree with them. That line of thought ended freedom and democratic principles in ancient Greece and it will endanger freedom and democratic principles today. And who gets to decide what is a patently wrong idea? The liberal elite? b) If I lived in a socialist nation I would get out of there and move to a free country like the US. That is why socialist countries tend to have problems keeping people in, and America has a problem keeping people out. Because people appreciate the American system. I guess we always have the choice of leaving a society if we think the majority of the people are too stupid to see what we know is the true. Perhaps the liberal elite should do just that, and it will the best result for everybody.
This is a fine high minded discussion and all but ASF I must ask you - 69% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein had a role in 9.11. despite all evidence to the contrary. The also believe we have found WMD's in Iraq. There are three plausibel explanations for this: 1) Stupidity 2) Willful Ignorance 3) They were lied to Which one is it? p.s. And it is not the liberal elite decideing what is right and wrong. It is an accepted fact that Saddam had no role in 9.11 and we have not found WMD's yet.