Hess

[sirs]

Just like I thought: inane.

You mean like clumsily asking the same question over and over again in different ways, with no effective answer?  Heaping scores of criticisms with no alternative measures/ideas?  That kind of inane?

[BT]

Just like I thought: inane.

Do you dispute my point?

[Michael Tee]

<<"America" does not need to be convinced to go to war against Iraq, only the members of Congress.>>

Very good, and an A+ in civics for you, little boy.

Now in the real world, it is generally considered wise for the members of the Congress to have the U.S. public behind them when they vote to make war, otherwise civic discord can develop.  In their wisdom, members of Congress and the Executive Brance realize this, even if you and sirs don't, and they make some considerable effort to persuade the public that what they are doing is right.

I'm talking of course of the real world, something that you and sirs seem to have minimal acquaintance with.

Now it was in the course of attempting to secure that public support that the Bush administration unleashed upon the American people a flood of lies and bullshit the likes of which have never before been experienced in the life of the nation.  I guess if they had read your post first, they wouldn't have bothered, but whattayagonnado?

[Michael Tee]

<<The fact remains 77 senators voted for authorization. It's not Bush's War. It was and is America's War. >>

I guess one day, BT, you will come to the realization that in government as in the rest of human endeavour, there are leaders and there are followers.  Obviously that day has not yet arrived, but when it does, I guess you might greet it by asking, in the decision to go to war against Iraq, who were the leaders and who were the followers?

And - - this is just my guess, BT, I would not presume to usurp your judgment - - but I'd bet you would NOT come to the conclusion that Bush followed Hillary and Rockefeller into Iraq.

[_JS]

I love this argument. Because the machinations of protocol were followed the war itself must be justified.

One wonders how many miscarriages of justice that has been used to justify throughout history. Honestly, is that it? That's the condensed version?

77 Senators voted "yes" and a few made speeches and that's it. End of.


No moral thought process? No reflection? No idea on whether or not this was a just war? Or in Condi's case - thought about how talk of "mushroom clouds" was pure unadulterated emotional manipulative manure.

Nope. "We followed protocol, hence war is justified."

[BT]

I'm sorry. You seem to be hung up on the process.

If 77 Senators voted for the war do you think all of them were sheeple or do you think possibly they did due diligence and came to the conclusion that war was in fact justified.

I fear for the future of this country when we look to the grown up body of congress, the slow deliberative one, and the best they can do is shrug their collective shoulders and say we were hoodwinked.

[BT]

I guess one day, BT, you will come to the realization that in government as in the rest of human endeavour, there are leaders and there are followers.

Mikey, In case you don't know it I am a part of government. I happen to be a councilman for a small town. 

If i were to introduce a motion i would have a good idea whether that motion would pass before i introduced it, having polled the other members of council and modified as necessary so that when introduced it would in fact pass.

Is my world so different than DC. Legislative bodies are legislative bodies, no?

How does it work in your world.

[Plane]

Mikey,

I'm not blaming Hillary or Jay for the War. I simply posted their comments concerning their vote for authorization. If you like i'll post Russ's comments concerning his vote against the resolution.

The fact remains 77 senators voted for authorization. It's not Bush's War. It was and is America's War.

There was a time when the war was more popular than it was now.
If there had been 77 votes against it I would have expected an upwelling of discontent and some incubancys lost in the following elections.

We have forgotten ourselves as we were.

[BT]

There was a time when the war was more popular than it was now.

Seems it took quite a while for the numbers to drop below 50%.

[Plane]

There was a time when the war was more popular than it was now.

Seems it took quite a while for the numbers to drop below 50%.

If we had elected John F Kerry , we migh have marked the fifty first percentile change with a change in policy.

[_JS]

I'm sorry. You seem to be hung up on the process.

If 77 Senators voted for the war do you think all of them were sheeple or do you think possibly they did due diligence and came to the conclusion that war was in fact justified.

I fear for the future of this country when we look to the grown up body of congress, the slow deliberative one, and the best they can do is shrug their collective shoulders and say we were hoodwinked.

No. You seem to imply legitimacy simply through proper procedural outcome. Your paragraph is a ruse. It isn't as if the twenty-three Senators who voted against the measure somehow did not do due dilligence to the conclusion that war was justified.

The problem here Bt (and others) is that you are simply not bothering with evidence or principles, but only going on the outcome of procedure as justification for a pre-emptive war.

Do you really want me to list the injustices that simple procedural outcome has afforded us over history? I can take that "woe is me" final paragraph Bt and use it to justify a number of horrible ideas.

[sirs]

The problem here Bt (and others) is that you are simply not bothering with evidence or principles, but only going on the outcome of procedure as justification for a pre-emptive war.

And your problem Js (and others), you are either so bent up in opposing war or Bush or both, that you continually ignore the evidence and situation AT THE TIME Bush made his decision to go to war.  Yea we know now Saddam got rid of wis WMD stockpiles (and have a reasonably good idea where), but at the time it was overwhelmingly believed Saddam still had them.  And with the direct & indirct connections Saddam had with terrorists like AlQeada, and with the events of 911, it would have been irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into Iraq to take out that threat.  Why the left religiously ignores the events at the time, and continues to pretend it either didn't happen, or worse try to lay claim that Bush lied about it, really demonstrates just how much tunnel vision the anti-war and ABB crowd posseses, when it comes to criticising Bush & the war

Do you really want me to list the injustices that simple procedural outcome has afforded us over history? I can take that "woe is me" final paragraph Bt and use it to justify a number of horrible ideas.

Apples & Oranges

[Michael Tee]

<<I fear for the future of this country when we look to the grown up body of congress, the slow deliberative one, and the best they can do is shrug their collective shoulders and say we were hoodwinked. >>

Fear more for the future of a country so fucking ignorant that it is vulnerable to demagoguery, to the point where the opposition party rubber-stamps every proposal, no matter how idiotic and ill-advised, that takes the country to war, out of naked fear of appearing "soft on Communism" (Viet Nam) or "soft on terrorism" (Iraq.)  Fear more for the future of a country where the agents of a foreign powr (AIPAC) are the major contributors to BOTH sides of a supposed "two-party" system and the biggest foreign policy issues are, in effect, decided unilaterally under foreign influence.

[Michael Tee]

<<Mikey, In case you don't know it I am a part of government. I happen to be a councilman for a small town. >>

How could I not know it, BT?  I congratulated you on it.

<<If i were to introduce a motion i would have a good idea whether that motion would pass before i introduced it, having polled the other members of council and modified as necessary so that when introduced it would in fact pass.

<<Is my world so different than DC. Legislative bodies are legislative bodies, no?

<<How does it work in your world.>>

Same way, BT.  What's your point?  Is there any lobbyist in your small town comparable to AIPAC, who finances virtually every member of the town council so there is no real debate on the issues that matter to the lobbyist's client?  Has anyone recently bamboozled your council with threats of horrible weaponry aimed at you from another small town so that your council would decide to invade the other town and force a regime change on it?  Does the other small town have a huge oversupply of hominy grits that your council has determined to get its hands on?

[BT]

No. You seem to imply legitimacy simply through proper procedural outcome. Your paragraph is a ruse. It isn't as if the twenty-three Senators who voted against the measure somehow did not do due dilligence to the conclusion that war was justified.

I did not imply anything nor imply the dissenting votes were the results of shoddy homework.

The problem here Bt (and others) is that you are simply not bothering with evidence or principles, but only going on the outcome of procedure as justification for a pre-emptive war.

Nor was I attempting to justify the war. That is a subjective exercise, much like the turdiness of VP Cheney.

Do you really want me to list the injustices that simple procedural outcome has afforded us over history? I can take that "woe is me" final paragraph Bt and use it to justify a number of horrible ideas.

 

The fact oif the matter is that a veto proof majority voted to authorize the war. Representatives of the several states, put there by popular vote. Which, if my understanding is correct,  is how this government of ours is designed to work. Which means it isn't Bush's War, it is Americas's War. That is the nature of the beast, your disagreement with the vote, notwithstanding.