« France Calls for Fresh Start in Relations with U.S. | Main | Twinkle, twinkle, little scam... »

Dem Behavior Explained

Have you ever wondered why a group of people who claim to represent the oppressed and those in need of assistance actively tried to stop the liberation of 20 plus million people from a dictator?

Have you ever wondered why the Iraqi people being free has so annoyed the Democrats?

Answer below the fold.

Bush shows highest ratings in a year

WASHINGTON -- Americans gave President Bush his highest approval rating in more than a year and showed cautious optimism about Iraq in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken days after historic elections in Iraq.

In reversals from a month ago, majorities said that going to war in Iraq was not a mistake, that things are going well there and that it's likely democracy will be established in Iraq. (Related item: Poll results)

Bush's approval rating of 57% was his highest since he reached 59% in January 2004.

Millions of people may be free, but the Dems only care about their quest for power. Which, ironically, is the exact reason they keep losing.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dem Behavior Explained:

» Say Anything linked with Bush's Approval Rating On The Rise

» white pebble linked with Dem Behavior Explained

» Secure Liberty linked with Related News

» Democrat for a Free America linked with Liberalism and Iraq

Comments (62)

Again....the war was sold o... (Below threshold)
x:

Again....the war was sold on WMDs. WMDs have not been found. Bringing "democracy" to Iraq was a justification applied after the invasion. If the war had been sold to "liberals" on a humanitarian basis instead as a wild goose chase for weapons that have not been found "we" the "liberals" might have been more behind it. Now that we have killed as many people as Saddam has our "humanitarian" motives seem suspect. I hope that the Iraqi people prosper in spite of us.

x

Senator Boxer, you might wa... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Senator Boxer, you might want to read the actual war authorization you were voting on.

Oh, not that I don't sympat... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Oh, not that I don't sympathize with you. All you really have is the WMD topic and you have to twist in the most uncomfortable ways to try and use it. Poor baby.

I agree. I don't see any g... (Below threshold)
Joser:

I agree. I don't see any green grass growing in Iraq yet. Let time be the judge and let us get the hell out of Iraq. I would have been happy enough if, once Bush decided that this war wasn't about WMD's anymore, that he didn't make it common procedure to mentally, physically, and religiously torture everyone and their mother in Iraq. It wasn't a good time to me before, but then at least, I actually felt like we were in danger. After this war turned out to be simple minded religious warfare for fun and profit, I changed my mind about there being any justification for torture against a secular, sovereign nation that hadn't attacked us to begin with ever after the Repugnantcans finally conceded that there were no WMDs. Now imgine if you got your ass jailed and sodomized by a cross just for having a bible on your bookshelf. There's a special place in Heaven for Alberto Gonzales and all these American children turned killing machines, you know, not the ones who are really trying to do some good for every Iraqi, but those malicious scoundrels that sadistic repugs love who were/are taking part in butt bingo with innocent Iraqis and finding any way under the sun to degrade their religion. Did I really say heaven, I guess Islam isn't the only religion which rewards their holly warriors for committing terrorism.

And they're off!... (Below threshold)

And they're off!

Oh yeah, your absolutely ri... (Below threshold)
x:

Oh yeah, your absolutely right patrick, WMDs and the purported links to Al Quida.

Thanks for reminding me!
X

if you want to read it see H.J. Res 114 - here's a link:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

Your fantasy world is amusi... (Below threshold)
melior:

Your fantasy world is amusing, I'd love to see you post this next to your whining last year about how "meaningless" polls are.

What an asshat.

Unless they're 'exit... (Below threshold)
OneDrummer:

Unless they're 'exit' polls, planted by operatives... then they mean something... heh.

x - Killed as many as Saddam has? Prove it.

Joser - torture everyone and their mother? hmm. Ask those Iraqi's who've had their schools rebuilt. But I forget you get all your info from Eason. You act like every single service man or woman is a Lyndie England. Using your logic, every single Dem is a vandalizing, lying, win at any cost humanitarian, right? Right.

This would be funny if it w... (Below threshold)

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Apparently the moonbats don't realize that Sadaam shooting at US planes flying over Iraq constituted a breach in the peace agreement - a breach that allowed the US military to invade Iraq if we so desired.

Oh, and since when did Bush kill as many people as Sadaam?

The scandal at Abu Ghraib in no way compares to what Sadaam did to his own people, and when the subject came to light it was rectified... I don't think Sadaam ever felt pressured to stop once people found out what he was doing. That's what sets us (and Bush) apart from people like Sadaam, Hitler, Stalin, etc.

Oh, and as for WMDs, troops found sarin gas in Iraq, which is considered a WMD. Oops!

Just because the UN is too cowardly or too corrupt (after all, its leaders were in bed with Iraq the whole time) doesn't mean the US has to stand idly by and let Sadaam's atrocities continue. Oh, and by the way, the Iraqi government wants us there until they can get enough soldiers of their own trained to take over.

Silver, please. Let them gy... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Silver, please. Let them gyrate. Especially Joser, since his fancy names for the political party he doesn't like is sure to win friends and influence enemies.

I'm sure another political party will pop up to replace the Democrats. Maybe it's time to revive the Whigs or Bull Moose Party.

I came up with a theory abo... (Below threshold)

I came up with a theory about 1 1/2 years ago -- the better the news for the President, the more bitter the trolls get.

It's been a pretty good theory, predicting BOTH ways. If I see a wave of whining about the president, I check the news, and something good's happened. If I first hear good news, then I brace myself for the whining.

What I find fascinating about 'x' is that, well, his argument was well ventilated before the election, and the president still won. Maybe the argument doesn't have the magical qualities he believes. Perhaps -- my theory -- the American people are smart enough to remember when the Democrats told them the same thing, and don't think getting something wrong -- when everyone agreed with you -- is the same as a "lie".

Actually, it's not just bit... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Actually, it's not just bitterness. If things really get good, then it might get ignored while they desperately search for something, ANYTHING to use to smear the people they hate so much.

Let me see if I get this st... (Below threshold)
s9:

Let me see if I get this straight...

We get a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll right out of the gate after the liberal media finishes spinning a whole series of horrible lies about the election in Iraq— i.e. even before the counting of the ballots was started, we were treated to ridiculous claims about turnout and results, which everyone now regards as indisputable, when in reality there isn't any reason to think they were even as accurate as the exit polls in Florida last November—and this new poll says— surprise, surprise— the situation in Iraq is finally now approved by almost as many people as it was at the end of January over two years ago.

2005 Feb 4-6 50/48/2
2005 Jan 7-9 42/56/2
2004 Nov 7-10 47/51/2
2004 Jan 29-Feb 1 46/53/1
2003 Jan 31-Feb 2 54/42/4

This is somehow supposed to translate into "Have you ever wondered why the Iraqi people being free has so annoyed the Democrats? [...] Millions of people may be free, but the Dems only care about their quest for power. Which, ironically, is the exact reason they keep losing."

How the fsck is that supposed to work?

Oh, wait. I get it. You were just looking for another reason to call out your political opponents as potentially treasonous.

What is the point of doing that? Are you hoping that somebody else will do the dirty work of rounding up all the traitors and hanging them in the public square, so that YOU won't have to get your hands soiled with any wet work?

Coward.

X I would like to see the p... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

X I would like to see the proof that the US has killed more people than Saddam. I think you are at the very least missing a mass grave or two.

Also, the administration listed several reasons for war with Iraq, humanitarian reasons, was one of those listed. The problem is that the WMD's was overemphasized at the UN, in the media and by the administration, that it turned into the only reason for war.

I wonder if the mindless tr... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I wonder if the mindless trolls ever stopped to think that their behavior proved my point for me????

Na- They ain't that smart.

I'm sure the headlines tomm... (Below threshold)

I'm sure the headlines tommorow will shout that from sea to shining sea... then will come the inevitable BUT ....

PS> THE CARTOON CONTEST IS STILL OPEN GET YOUR COMMENTS IN NOW!

You were just looking fo... (Below threshold)
julie:

You were just looking for another reason to call out your political opponents as potentially treasonous.

No, he's calling you a bunch of hypocrites. And he didn't have to look for a reason, since you are.

julie wrote: No, ... (Below threshold)
s9:

julie wrote: No, he's calling you a bunch of hypocrites.

How's that?

p1. He didn't explicitly call any Democrats out for hypocrisy.

p2. He didn't make anything remotely close to a clear implication of hypocrisy.

p3. The poll results he cites in the article demonstrates nothing about whether any particular Democrats are hypocrits (or more generally, whether any category of Democrats, e.g. the party leadership, the rank and file, the activists, their pet sea monkeys are hypocrits).

If there is anything in the poll results that can show how even a single Democrat (much less the whole party) are engaging in hypocrisy, i.e. falsely professing to hold beliefs, feelings or virtues they don't really hold, then it would be nice to see an argument laid out for that.

It sure looks to me more like he's trying to paint Democrats as the remorseless enemies of the individual freedom and civil liberties of the Iraqi people— with no basis other than a citation to a completely irrelevant opinion poll.

Why do that? If your purpose is to expose hypocrisy, then the least you could do is to point out how anything some Democrat (or group of Democrats) has said or done goes to demonstrate some hypocrisy. But Paul didn't do that, did he? The message was clear: Democrats are the enemies of freedom and the friends of tyranny— with the unwritten and unsaid corollary that it would be appropriate if they were treated as enemies and not as if they are our fellow Americans, friends, neighbors and family.

Oh, and for the record: I'm not a Democrat. He isn't calling me out for anything. It's those other people who live down the street from me: Democrats. Them. The Evil Ones Who Must Be Destroyed If There Is To Be A Purification And Renewal Of National Greatness. Yeah, those people.

Can you still be a patriotic American who loves Mom, the flag and apple pie, and still think that the Iraqi people would have been better off overall if Saddam Hussein and his murderous sons were still in power? Or does professing that belief (which, you simply cannot show is a popular one in the Democratic Party) demonstrate conclusively that you are an enemy of freedom, a friend of tyranny and therefore aligned with the ideology of terrorism?

Go ahead. Make the call. When you decide what you really want to put your kidneys on the line to defend, you can come into my neighborhood and tell my Democratic neighbors in person.

Yeah, like the war is the o... (Below threshold)
Bullwinkle:

Yeah, like the war is the only thing the democrats are crying crocodile tears about, pretending to care about freedom but showing that the only thing they care about is staying in power. We're talking about the party that claims to want to empower people, but after 40 years in control of both houses hadn't yet empowered anyone, in 40 years only made people more dependent on them. Why does it shock anyone that they'd gladly allow Saddam to rape, tortue and murder another 500,000 of his own people to keep that power? The only thing the "party of the people" ever accomplished was maintaining the perceived need for itself. They've proven for once and all that they couldn't care less about freedom or about empowering people, their belief that people just can't be empowered unless they did it coupled to the fact that refuse to do it should tell people like x what their true intentions are.

Paul wrote: ...pe... (Below threshold)
s9:

Paul wrote: ...people who claim to represent the oppressed and those in need of assistance...

This is not a claim made by the Democratic Party or any of its prominent members. The usual claim is that Democrats represent all Americans, not just the wealthy powerful elites who are well represented by Republicans. It would be political suicide for any Democrat to make the claim that Paul is ascribing to them here. It's ludicrous on its face.

Bullwinkle wrote: <i... (Below threshold)
s9:

Bullwinkle wrote: They've proven for once and all that they couldn't care less about freedom or about empowering people, their belief that people just can't be empowered unless they did it coupled to the fact that refuse to do it should tell people like x what their true intentions are.

I'm really not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Perhaps, it would help if you explained what you think Democrats have now proven with certainty are their "true intentions" as well as how your reasoning leads to that conclusion.

Perhaps a remedial reading ... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Perhaps a remedial reading course would help.

"They've proven for once and all that they couldn't care less about freedom or about empowering people"
Seems to be pretty well self-expanatory to me. However, you seem to be having difficulty understanding it, so I'll try to make it clearer. If they ever truly wanted to empower people they wouldn't have them so dependent on them, and surely would have been able to accomplish it by now.

"their belief that people just can't be empowered unless they did it coupled to the fact that refuse to do it should tell people like x what their true intentions are."

By constantly reminding those people of their false claims of wishing to empower them then doing nothing more than making those same people more dependent. Democrats CLAIM to want freedom for people, like the Iraqis, then when it happens, since it wasn't from the actions of democrats, the downplay the value of it. Therefore, we can correctly assume that the democrat style of empowerment is not now nor has it ever been empowerment, it's dependence enforced by dishonesty. It's also every bit as sincere as my concern over your inability to read and comprehend what you have read. I certainly hope that clears things up for you!

1) The war was sold to us o... (Below threshold)
Bleck:

1) The war was sold to us on WMDs. It's great Iraq is free and everything, but to say that's why we went there in the first place is just stupid.

2) The sarin gas is NOT a WMD. Sarin gas can be a WMD, but you need a LOT more of it.

3) When did we become world police? And if we are, looks like it's our responsibility to invade Saudi/Iran/The Entire African Continent/Plus Many More! Why did we go to just Iraq? If it's freedom, there are lots more places that need it more. It was WMDs, and there's just no denying that. Iraq and the Iraqis are much better off now, but that doesn't change the reason we went there in the first place, and it doesn't mean that the Americans who died in this war lost their lives for a good reason, just a reason.

4) Wow! 57% Approval Rating! HOLY CRAP. That's nearly 100%. Oh wait, even Clinton had 69% during the Monica Lewinsky stuff. Man, you people have low standards. Mind you, I don't even think Bush is doing that bad, I would've expected it to be more. Especially with all the cuts he is proposing for the upcoming budget. No more of this Republican spending spree, too bad Iraq will be taking a lot of money still, but hey, it's gonna take some money to get it right and then get outta there.

5) What the hell? Republicans care about freedom but you can't marry unless you meet our standards? Come again? At least Bush isn't giving the FMA priority, he's not stupid, and he knows what is right sometimes, but he knew how to get the votes. Sorry, but "I support freedom" and "You can't marry cuz I don't like it" does fit the definition of hypocrisy. Sorry guys.

6) Bush is starting off his second term pretty great so far, Iraqi elections, big budget cuts. Hopefully things won't be so controversial this time around, and some of the hate will die off ("Moonbats", give me a freaking break. Constant Europe bashing, "liberal media" BS, ditto for the other side too from the liberals (Neocons, repugs, etc...)). Hopefully it'll die down and we can actually be a country.

No, you're not patriotic if you hate a good chunk of your country's population so much, and that goes for both sides(it's just this blog is obviously one-sided, so I only mention that part that applies).

Bullwinkle wrote: <i... (Below threshold)
s9:

Bullwinkle wrote: Perhaps a remedial reading course would help.

I was just beginning to think that might be your problem...

Bullwinkle continued: "They've proven for once and all that they couldn't care less about freedom or about empowering people" seems to be pretty well self-expanatory to me.

It explains nothing in answer to the questions I posed for you. It neither explains what you believe are the "true intentions" of Democrats, now how your reasoning leads you to your conclusion.

Bullwinkle continued: By constantly reminding those people of their false claims of wishing to empower them then doing nothing more than making those same people more dependent. Democrats CLAIM to want freedom for people, like the Iraqis, then when it happens, since it wasn't from the actions of democrats, [they] downplay the value of it.

p1. You haven't shown that the claims of Democrats wishing to empower people are false. You cite no evidence.

p2. You haven't shown that the claims of Democrats wanting freedom for the Iraqi people are false. Again, you cite no evidence.

p3. You haven't shown that freedom has "happened" for the Iraqi people. You might expect our readers to infer that a deeply flawed election is equivalent to freedom for the purposes of your argument, but that would pretty much mean your case relies on savaging the meaning of the word freedom.

p4. You haven't shown that whatever it is that has happened to the Iraqi people, which you believe to be "freedom" and which your claim is that Democrats have "downplayed the value" of it, was or was not the result of any actions by anyone, Democrat, Republican, Communist or Monster Raving Loonie. If it was the elections in Iraq, then you've clearly jumped the shark, since Democrats have been calling for elections in Iraq since the day the Hussein regime fell and the Republicans opposed them for the better part of two years before finally caving.

Bullwinkle continued: Therefore, we can correctly assume that the democrat style of empowerment is not now nor has it ever been empowerment, it's dependence enforced by dishonesty.

So "dependence enforced by dishonesty" is what you think are the "true intentions" of Democrats.

p5. By the way, dishonesty is not a force, and it therefore cannot "enforce" dependency of any sort.

This really doesn't make any sense as an argument. This supposed "true intention" isn't even a specific enough to rise to the level of propaganda, much less dogma or doctrine. It's just not possible to organize a party around it.

Perhaps you'd like to reposition your arguments to show how it is now a proven case that Democrats have a hidden "true intention" to take specific actions that you think are reflected in— well, how exactly is it you think something has been proven here?

So far, you've just made blind assertions that Democrats are liars and bent on promoting the enslavement of the Iraqi people. Oh, wait— you didn't have the backbone to say "enslavement"— you used the word "dependency," as if that were somehow qualitatively different in your mind. But it isn't different in your mind, is it? No, you snarled the word "dependency" as if it were morally equivalent to the Opposite Of Freedom, i.e. slavery.

Why can't you people really say what you mean? Why can't you say you think Democrats are all liars who want to enslave everyone. What are you afraid of? That if you say it out loud, then you won't be able to deny it later when the inevitable truth and reconciliation commission holds hearings?

Well, obviously the message... (Below threshold)
julie:

Well, obviously the message is clear to everyone but you and your ilk: you are a bunch of hypocrites.

"Bullwinkle wrote: They've ... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

"Bullwinkle wrote: They've proven for once and all that they couldn't care less about freedom or about empowering people, their belief that people just can't be empowered unless they did it coupled to the fact that refuse to do it should tell people like x what their true intentions are.

I'm really not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Perhaps, it would help if you explained what you think Democrats have now proven with certainty are their "true intentions" as well as how your reasoning leads to that conclusion."

There's a question there? This poor dumb conservative can't seem to find it. I do see a comma after the word perhaps that doesn't seem to belong there, but no question mark.


p1. What have democrats done to empower people? p2. If the democrats truly wish or wished for Iraqi freedom why have they fought every step of the way since the beginning of the 2004 election season? Amazingly enough, I do remember when they were behind the war in Iraq, before they realized that a victory there would shine a favorable light on Bush.....
p3. Do the Iraqis have more freedom now since being liberated from Saddam? Isn't the right of self-determination a freedom that didn't have?
p4. Doesn't your lack of admitting that what you call "whatever it is that has happened to the Iraqi people" downplay the value of what has happened there, that being the removal of a murdering, torturing, terroristic regime? Or would you prefer that Saddam stayed in power?
p5. Buy a dictionary or use any of the free ones available online. I recommend Dictionary.com.

en·force ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fôrs, -frs)
tr.v. en·forced, en·forc·ing, en·forc·es
1.To compel observance of or obedience to: enforce a law.
2.To impose (a kind of behavior, for example): enforce military discipline.

That's like you reinforcing the idea that you are right by dishonestly claiming that I somehow misstated or misused the word "enforce".
And lastly, I will say it as clearly as I can again for you, the democrats would have gladly allowed Saddam to continue torturing, murdering and raping the Iraqi people rather than have any republican administration stop him. They are only interesting in empowering the party, the people they claim to want to help finish a distant second. Always have, always will.

For some reason the third d... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

For some reason the third definiton of enforce didn't paste, here's the whole thing again:
en·force ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fôrs, -frs)
tr.v. en·forced, en·forc·ing, en·forc·es
1.To compel observance of or obedience to: enforce a law.
2.To impose (a kind of behavior, for example): enforce military discipline.
3.To give force to; reinforce: “enforces its plea with a description of the pains of hell” (Albert C. Baugh).
Number three is the one that works here. As in, you reinforce your arguement by dishonestly claiming that I somehow misstated or misused the word "enforce".

x and Joser,Since ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

x and Joser,

Since I don't know if you've taken the time to actually research material, I'm posting a portion of UN Res. 1441 for your convenience. My apologies to the hit on bandwidth, Mr. Bloghost, but it's increasingly important that the misinformed or intentionally misleading not continue to rewrite history and be checked for veracity. And for the love of God, Allah, Buddha, or other Higher Being of Choice, please refrain from repeating the tired mantra that it was only WMDs. While the entire resolution should be highlighted, I've selected one statement in particular that should be of interest. You'll note that humanitarian concerns are explicitly stated in this resolution. Further, recall, this is but one of many resolutions addressing S. Hussein's Iraq and some would say 1441 was one of the weaker ones:

Resolution 1441 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on 8 November 2002
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting that the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;
– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998) of 2 March 1998;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter...

Their quest for power is ba... (Below threshold)
Rod Stanton:

Their quest for power is based on a model that is 80 years old. The "leading" democrats are stuck in 1929. Recall the references to W as Herbert Hoover; their defense of a Social Securty "system" that looked good to folk in 1929 but everyone has known was obsolete for 35 years. The only Dem who may be aware that it is the 21st century is Hill; the rest refuse to admit the Depression is history. This is why their registration margin has gone from 1.6:1 to 1.1:1 in 40 years.

They keep fighting an old war. In this case a war that was fought three (3) wars back.

Iraqis are "... better off ... (Below threshold)
LJD:

Iraqis are "... better off overall if Saddam Hussein and his murderous sons were still in power?"

I guess taht pretty much proves the point about Dems not giving a shit about Humanitarian efforts.

What I don't get is WHO are these 10-20% that keep changing their mind? I understand why Bush supporters remain firm in that, and I understand why the asshats remain firm in their hysteria.

Who says " Well, this week things are better, so I support the President, but last week the MSM said things were bad, so I didn't support him them". You're either with us or against us.

"And lastly, I will say it ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"And lastly, I will say it as clearly as I can again for you, the democrats would have gladly allowed Saddam to continue torturing, murdering and raping the Iraqi people rather than have any republican administration stop him. They are only interesting in empowering the party, the people they claim to want to help finish a distant second. Always have, always wil"

This is spot on correct. The dems are about being the people in charge, and their behavior since 2000 has more than proven this.


"What I don't get is WHO are these 10-20% that keep changing their mind?"

My guess is that they are the people who get the bulk of their news from the TV, and don't do a lot of independant research. They shift their opinions based on whether recent news is "good" or "bad."

the Democrats (e.g. the Dem... (Below threshold)
tee bee:

the Democrats (e.g. the Dem elected reps and very vocal financial activists) tipped the scales from opposition to obstruction using the cry of No WMDs! some time back, and no amount of reasonable discourse or facts such as Dem's decrying Saddam and his dangerous WMDs a few years back will return the discourse to calm respectable disagreement over other more reasonable things.

similar behaviors such as the judicial nominee embargo they've held for four years to the contemptuous treatment of Rice and stubborn refusal to appreciate any positive occurance since January 2001 - the containment of terrorism in America! free elections in Iraq! a jubilant Iraqi populace! - demonstrates that they will not acknowledge, ratify or support anything they do not control.

go ahead, forget about Saddam and the global equivalent of having Jeffrey Dahmer for a neighbor watching kids play in your backyard (and making it plain that he will eat them if you ever look the other way). look at the Dems' attitude toward NCLB, for crying out loud! Ted "I left my car at Chappaquidik" Kennedy, the most vocal and liberal (if not upstanding) of Democrats, is the author of that bill! they stand by humming quietly while the NEA gets press for trashing it as Bush's travesty. so you can call them out for this ill-service to the party, if you're a Dem, or you can live with the portrait others have drawn of you.

but no, Pelosi and Kennedy and others have been returned to D.C.; these are the face of a party and the power behind it, leaving little room for common ground. so your neighbors are Democrats? so they don't think the war was a good idea? they probably aren't as het up about it as you are, and I would guess that many of them still voted for George Bush - unless you live in Berkeley, that is.

s9, I think Democrats are a... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

s9, I think Democrats are all liars who want to enslave everyone. Oh wait, I didn't say that out loud...I THINK DEMOCRATS ARE ALL LIARS WHO WANT TO ENSLAVE EVERYONE!!!!!!!

The best example I can thin... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

The best example I can think of that truly shows the hypocrisy of the democrats is straight form the Kerry campaign promises. He promised if elected he'd show reveal his secret plan on fighting a "smarter" war. He still hasn't shared this plan with us, so we must assume one or a combination of the following things are true.
1. He lied, there was no plan.
2. He had a plan but isn't sharing it because he's angry he wasn't elected, thereby allowing our soldiers to die because he's a selfish, spiteful, and bitter loser.
3. He had a plan that was so stupid he knew it wouldn't ever work so he's keeping quiet about, hoping we'll all forget about his plan.
That would mean that his supporters either knew then and/or know now that it was one or more of the three. Since none of them are pressing him to unveil his still secret plan they are also guilty of either lying if they claim to have believed it or were and are more than willing to let our soldiers die out of spite, just to show us how wrong we are. If they still claim to believe in him why aren't they pressing him to let us in on the secret? Not only would the gladly allow another 500,000 Iraiqs to die at the hands of Saddam, they are allowing Americans to die every day by withholding the secret plan, or they are just lying about the whole thing.............

See Kerry <a href="http://w... (Below threshold)
Jack Tanner:

See Kerry today. Yikes! A 'great campaign', 'they have more to be worried about than we do', 'a great message'. Whatever, dude!

D-Hoggs wrote: Oh... (Below threshold)
s9:

D-Hoggs wrote: Oh wait, I didn't say that out loud...I THINK DEMOCRATS ARE ALL LIARS WHO WANT TO ENSLAVE EVERYONE!!!!!!!

Very nice. And what are you personally prepared to do about the problem posed by all those Democrats who are liars and want to enslave everyone? What do you think I should do about them?

Man, you just can't please ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Man, you just can't please some people. s9 says..."Why can't you people really say what you mean? Why can't you say you think Democrats are all liars who want to enslave everyone. What are you afraid of?"

Well, I said it for you s9, isn't that what you wanted? You seam to know what we "people" think about the matter so why don't you just tell us what to do? What are you afraid of?

bullwinkle wrote: <i... (Below threshold)
s9:

bullwinkle wrote: p1. What have democrats done to empower people?

Too much to enumerate here. As a political party, they're over two hundred years old. Assuming you are just asking about what they have done to empower the Iraqi people, the answer is not much since Clinton was President— for the simple reason that they've been pretty much frozen out of all positions of real political power at the federal level by Republicans who don't need to compromise with them to advance their own policy goals. Among a small number of accomplishments in that category, the Democrats have been able to force the President to accede to the demands of Ayatollah Sistani and other prominent Iraqis, who insisted on conducting elections on a firm timetable. The President and his supporters had to be dragged kicking and screaming to agree to that.

bullwinkle continued: p2. If the democrats truly wish or wished for Iraqi freedom why have they fought every step of the way since the beginning of the 2004 election season? Amazingly enough, I do remember when they were behind the war in Iraq, before they realized that a victory there would shine a favorable light on Bush.....

If only any of that were true. First, many Democrats are supporters of the Iraq War™ and only a few are former supporters who have since changed their minds. Senator Kerry is a high profile example of one, but it's hard to find many others. Most who supported it two years ago continue to support it now. Most who opposed it then are no closer to supporting it now. Democrats are split (not evenly, I'll admit) on support for the Iraq War™, which shouldn't be a surprise since that's true about Republicans as well (though, the faction of Republicans who oppose the War™ is much too small and quiet).

bullwinkle continued: p3. Do the Iraqis have more freedom now since being liberated from Saddam? Isn't the right of self-determination a freedom that didn't have?

Wouldn't it be nice for you if it were true that the Iraqi people now enjoyed any such right of self-determination? They don't, and the election results (no matter what they are) will not change that. The likely outcome of the election is actually that it will empower a parliament of religious whores who will proceed to establish Sharia as the law of the land in Iraq. That will set back the rights of the Iraqi people substantially.

bullwinkle continued: p4. Doesn't your lack of admitting that what you call "whatever it is that has happened to the Iraqi people" downplay the value of what has happened there, that being the removal of a murdering, torturing, terroristic regime? Or would you prefer that Saddam stayed in power?

No, it doesn't downplay anything— it recognizes that you weren't being very clear at all about what you were complaining about being downplayed.

And, wouldn't it be nice if America had not removed a murdering, torturing, terroristic regime and replaced it with one that wears an American uniform while it murders, tortures and terrorizes Iraqis? That would have been so nice, but alas— THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, wasn't it?

bullwinkle continued: p5. Buy a dictionary or use any of the free ones available online. I recommend Dictionary.com.

What an excellent idea... did you think of that all by yourself?

So now our military is a "m... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

So now our military is a "murdering, torturing, terroristic regime...(that)...murders, tortures and terrorizes Iraqis" s9? WTF?!? Anyone else get the feeling s9 was a little disengenuous when stating..."Oh, and for the record: I'm not a Democrat."?

D-Hoggs wrote: We... (Below threshold)
s9:

D-Hoggs wrote: Well, I said it for you s9, isn't that what you wanted? You seam to know what we "people" think about the matter so why don't you just tell us what to do? What are you afraid of?

Oh. You don't know what to do about it? That's pretty damned funny.

I got an idea: why don't you shut the hell up? If you're not willing to step up and put your ass on the line between "LIARS WHO WANT TO ENSLAVE EVERYONE" and the people you think they want to enslave, then what use is your whinging?

Somehow, I doubt you will like that idea. More likely, you'll continue complaining about how Democrats are LIARS WHO WANT TO ENSLAVE EVERYONE hoping that someone somewhere— somebody who hears your calling out plaintively for help saving you from those evil Democrats and their lying, slaving ways— will do your wet work for you.

Gee, I'd like to help you out— but I have a rule I learned from my crusty old uncle: no contract, no killing. You want me to kill somebody for you, I'll need a lawfully executed contract before I will lift a finger to save your sorry ass. Go find some other fool to do your killing for you.

Why ask me what to do about... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Why ask me what to do about it if you just want me to shut the hell up s9? And why bolden the words " LIARS WHO WANT TO ENSLAVE EVERYONE"? They were your words, not anyone elses. And what is "whinging"? Anyway, not really looking for anyone to kill for me, but I did end up finding a fool.

D-Hoggs wrote: So... (Below threshold)
s9:

D-Hoggs wrote: So now our military is a "murdering, torturing, terroristic regime...(that)...murders, tortures and terrorizes Iraqis" s9? WTF?!?

Yeah, I had a hard time believing it too. But then the Pentagon kept confirming it in official press releases. What am I supposed to do? Disregard them because the Pentagon is obviously lying about it to make themselves look bad?

I'd like to see one of your... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

I'd like to see one of your "official press releases" from the Pentagon that describes the US military's "terroristic" actions. Does your crusty uncle go by the name of Ward Churchill by chance?

We have the Tinfoil Asshat ... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

We have the Tinfoil Asshat posterboy in our midst. Ignore him and his hitman uncle and maybe they'll both go away.

Bleck,Pt 1 - Read ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Bleck,

Pt 1 - Read the U.N. Resolution I posted in this thread... all of it. While the threat of WMD was the primary reason for toppling Hussein, there were many others not the least of which was to give the U.N. some backbone in enforcing its paperwork. You cannot disregard the entire rationale of the coalition endeavor by cherry-picking. Hussein was the most destabilizing entity in the region though there still remain others.

Pt 2 - Hussein retained the knowledge to develop WMDs and was waiting for the U.N. to cave in on enforcement of its resolutions to ramp up production and continue his quest for nuclear. But I'm still not convinced that WMDs do not exist. The coalition continues to find buried arms depots throughout Iraq (remember Fallujah's humongous stocked bunkers?) so I'll not discount the fact that stuff is still buried throughout that desert. Does that mean there are people alive that still know where everything is? Who knows. But that was not a risk the coalition, wisely, was willing to take.

Pt 3 - The U.S. is doing its best to bring freedom to the world, and to say that if you don't free everyone on the planet then you shouldn't free anyone is ridiculous. The country, even this relatively rich one, has limited resources, so the policing/humanitarian action is one of priorities. Iraq seemed to be the most imminent threat to world stability and the U.S. and Israel in particular. It would not have mattered if Bush took on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or anyone else since political enemies were inevitably going to challenge whatever choice he made. Notice how the Democrats wanted unilateralism for North Korea and multilateralism for Iraq. And why was that? Political pre-election expediency to take a contrarian position to the Republicans. A dangerous game of politicizing very serious positions on the world stage and utterly contemptuous. Further, the soldiers have not died in vain. They have sacrificed so that others get a chance at freedom, to support the initiation of a paradigm shift in ME affairs, and to provide a peace dividend. Remember Libya? Dying Americans, coalition allies, and those that supported them did that.

Pt 4 - This country remains equally divided almost all of the time. A percentage point or two at election time almost always determines this country's direction, and it is the only poll that really matters. Considering the hand that the "unelected" Bush received, I'd say his approval ratings are quite good. But about Clinton's 69% approval - really!? Damn, what was the country smoking? Or was that an internal CBS poll of producers and newscasters?

Pt 5 - Are you trying to equate the right to live to the right to marry? Isn't that a bit hyperbolic whatever one's position on state's rights and marriage law?

Pt 6 - The country is moving along quite nicely, thank you, despite the lunatic rants of quite a few Democratic leaders and Hollywoodheads. "Moonbattery" will continue to marginalize the Democrats unless they start severing some ties. Heck, just look at Hillary darting to the right to reach the middle. If that doesn't scream out to the party to rethink their strategy, I don't know what will. Dean's selection as DNC chairman is a sure barometer that the Dems still want to dig a deeper hole... bad for the country but good for the GOP.

Bonus Pt - Remember to read UN1441.

RE: s9's post (February 8, ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: s9's post (February 8, 2005 03:57 PM)

...the Democrats have been able to force the President to accede to the demands of Ayatollah Sistani and other prominent Iraqis, who insisted on conducting elections on a firm timetable.
Are these the same Democrats who also said the election needed to be postponed because Iraq was too unstable, that Baghdad Sunnis were going to be disenfranchised, and that Iraqis would be too afraid to vote?

First, many Democrats are supporters of the Iraq War™ and only a few are former supporters who have since changed their minds.
No, the positions of leadership remain anatagonistic. Kerry/Edwards, Pelosi, Daschle (now Reid), Kennedy, Dean, and Sharpton are the highest profile and vociferously anti-"Free Iraq". Gephardt is the exception that proves the rule. Which leadership position or high profile Republican is against "Free Iraq"?

Wouldn't it be nice for you if it were true that the Iraqi people now enjoyed any such right of self-determination? They don't, and the election results (no matter what they are) will not change that. The likely outcome of the election is actually that it will empower a parliament of religious whores who will proceed to establish Sharia as the law of the land in Iraq. That will set back the rights of the Iraqi people substantially.
It is self-determination even if they select a religiously-based one. Remember, they are in the process of recreating their government and will suffer the rewards or consequences of such an endeavor. But it is too early to know what the outcome of their creation will be. Further, no one expected Jeffersonian democracy. In fact, I don't think we have one in America today though we are still guided by the concept. Democracies are dynamic though ours is quite stable. Hopefully secularism of some sort will prevail and they can incorporate Sharia law as a balance and as they deem appropriate. America certainly incorporates religion in its society and some law is based on religious foundations. Maybe the Iraqis can strike an acceptable balance of their own.

And, wouldn't it be nice if America had not removed a murdering, torturing, terroristic regime and replaced it with one that wears an American uniform while it murders, tortures and terrorizes Iraqis? That would have been so nice, but alas— THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, wasn't it?
Bullshit. What are you talking about? If referring to present, that's certainly untrue. If referring to pre-Hussein, those politics are a bit before my time. But we have been trying to get rid of Hussein for quite some time and long before we invaded post 9/11. We tried to accomodate the world in '91 and had to recruit a coalition to purge him from Kuwait. We wanted him dead long before that but needed to be good little Earthlings and respect Iraqi sovreignty and the U.N.'s delicate constitution. Were will still respective of the U.N.'s self-proclaimed authority, Hussein would still be grinding people up and filling mass graves. So please cut with the bullshit of an insinuation that Hussein was our ideal choice of tyrant eons ago and that we only recently got interested in removing him from power and in saving Iraqis. Also, ask some Kurds what they think.

Okay, so we have discrepanc... (Below threshold)
Joser:

Okay, so we have discrepancies in how we picture the "liberation" of Iraq, and all I have to say about that now is, let time tell what's going to happen. How about what has happened to us, you know in the US, because of this, what I believe to be pointless war. Good old Bush got a chance to blame the Clinton administration right off the bat, and shed his I'm a uniter not a divider skin. Now, I don't remember Clinton blaming the former Bush administration for the attack during his presidency, even though it happened a lot sooner in his presidency than the attacks during Bush's. From there on, he has empowered a negative campaign that simply equates to, Dems=bad, reps=good. And you guys say that we separated the country. I can say pretty conclusively that Clinton did no such thing, and a lot of the dems who stonewall republicans are doing out of sure frustration and retaliation to the Rep's egocentric attitude.
Now, in America, because we had to make some cut backs for this good ole justifiable war, anti-choice Bush is in power during an age where there are more abortions than ever, intentional and not. People can't afford to live and have children, so they chose to just live themselves because of our "booming" economy. Also, we don't need to fund any clean water and pollution acts anymore because of the cost of this war, so there goes an untold amount of life unrealized due to Bush. Hell, it seems like he is looking to kill us over here because of how he handles environmental issues by letting his corporate buddies do the decision making for him. No need to worry though, HE can afford a bubble to live in if it ever comes necessary.
And, don't get me started on education. The only educational program that he is really insistent on funding with his new budget proposal is the one program that has pretty much proven to be counterproductive. No, it's not no child left behind, it's abstinence education! We can’t afford to really fund real education, because then people might really start thinking. Bush wants to make sure that we poor are dumb for a really long time, and he sure is going to tout this war for all its worth, so he doesn’t have to justify all of the cuts he has proposed to make in education.
So, now in America, where I think a president should be concerned with first and foremost, is led by fear. He makes us afraid, afraid that social security is crumbling, afraid that Iran is going to attack us next, when we really should be afraid about the next drink of water we have, or the next piece of fish we eat. Thank you George Bush. Thank you so much. It was so much worth the plight we have in our own country now to "liberate" a secular, sovereign nation. Oh yeah, I guess all of our money problems are due to that bastard Rhode's Scholar economist Bill Clinton who was president during a damn good time to be an American. It’s because of his dastardly funding of democratic programs, having the world see him as a role model, and most importantly, getting a BJ that the dollar will soon be more useful as firewood than a monetary unit. It’s not George Bush’s detrimental and unprecedented tax cuts during a time of war, nor is it his inherent lack of fiscal responsibility. I figured your arguments were bound to blame Clinton somehow, so I wanted to hell you guys out. I'll leave it up to all of you knowledgeable republicans to comment on the merits of my argument by attacking grammar or saying how I'm a moonbat or whatever arbitrary keyword you'll use this week.
The only other thing I have to say is, instead of outright attacking a dem, or even attacking a rep's (if you're democratic) inteligence/patriotism/integrity, why not look at what that person as a PERSON is saying. I don't care that some arrogant jerkwad on a right-wing blog wants to rubber stamp democrats as impedements to democracy. That in no way changes my mind or my heart about what we are fighting for, ie the people. And I'm talking about the AMERICAN people first and foremost.

Joser,Um, you're m... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Joser,

Um, you're meandering like a babbling brook. Were I to dive in, I most certainly would be banging my head against the rocks. No thanks... I'll stick to the deep end.

Have you ever wondered w... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Have you ever wondered why a group of people who claim to represent the oppressed and those in need of assistance actively tried to stop the liberation of 20 plus million people from a dictator?

Paul do you really believe that the Iraq war was purely an altruistic endeavor to save the people of Iraq? Is it really that simple? Hardly. You have to acknowledge the strategic and economic importance of the region, among other factors. Do you disagree that such factors played a role? If humanitarian reasons were the primary motive, then why did we start in Iraq? There are humanitarian issues all across the globe. Of course, the answer is that there is more to it than what you stated.

Have you ever wondered why the Iraqi people being free has so annoyed the Democrats?

Right. Now Democrats dont want people to be free. Really Paul, this is stupid. Just because people disagreed with the war, doesnt mean that they are automatically on the mythical "other side." By your logic, anyone who is against the death penalty is in favor of murder. Bad logic. Maybe some people thought that it should have been dealt with differently. And thats fine, people are allowed to disagree here in the US.

Some people are optimistic about the elections, some arent. Everyone has the right to express that opinion, and thats what creates dialogue and improvement. All you seem to want to hear is cheering for your side, and you want to demonize the other as much as possible.

You like to pretend that you are such a great humanitarian, yet you are so goddamn derisive toward people that live in your own country that I can't even believe it. Just because they dont agree with you doesnt mean that they are anti-american, or evil, or stupid, or anything else that you frequently put forth.

You believe in some highly polarized world where there is only the good, and the evil, and anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong, stupid, or unamerican. Well, IMO there is alot more to it than that. There are multiple truths, multiple perspectives that are insightful, important, and worth considering.


RE: bullwinkle's post (Febr... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: bullwinkle's post (February 8, 2005 10:53 AM)

Nice recall. Clearly Answer 1. But even if he had a plan, he's never at work long enough to share it with anyone. He only has time to come back and veto Presidential Cabinet appointments of successful minorities.

Bleck:"5) What the h... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Bleck:
"5) What the hell? Republicans care about freedom but you can't marry unless you meet our standards?"

Why is it that the gay 'marriage' issue has gone from 0 to 100 mph in about three seconds? Can you imagine even having this debate as recently as 6 or 7 years ago?

For the past hundreds or thousands of years, marriage was between a man and a woman. It seems the current trend is to Demand Gay Marriage Right Now, Everywhere. Doesn't a change as big as this deserve extended debate?

For those who support it, then what exactly is the reason that a woman couldn't marry a man and another woman (or some combination thereof)?

Joser is completely unhinge... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Joser is completely unhinged, laughable. How does he expect anyone to take anything he says seriously when he says that repubs will be...

"attacking grammar or saying how I'm a moonbat or whatever arbitrary keyword you'll use this week."

Than he pleads to us to please...

"instead of outright attacking a dem, or even attacking a rep's (if you're democratic) inteligence/patriotism/integrity, why not look at what that person as a PERSON is saying."

All this right before he says people here are "arrogant jerkwad(s) on a right-wing blog" HA!! Lets not forget that he claims W. is now responsible for abortions because these "parents" can't afford to have a child now in our poor economy...HAHAHAHAHA, that is so ridiculous. My favorite part is where Joser says "Bush wants to make sure that we poor are dumb for a really long time." Now, I am pretty sure that Bush has no intent on keeping poor people dumb for a really long time, but I am 100% sure that Joser will be.

nessman wrote:F... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

nessman wrote:

For those who support it, then what exactly is the reason that a woman couldn't marry a man and another woman (or some combination thereof)?

generally here in the US, marriage to more than one partner is illegal, i.e. polygamy or polyandry. it happens in other countries around the world, and has for thousands of years, but not so much here.

so the laws about bigamy would pretty much prevent what you are talking about.

Paul, while I am usually up... (Below threshold)

Paul, while I am usually upset when you preclude the opposition from having any legitimacy, you do have a point. Where are the humanitarians now? If Bush indeed has made a mess of Iraq, shouldn't we be trying to help the innocent Iraqi people, who had little to do with either Saddam's or Bush's actions, rebuild?

If Bush indeed has made ... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

If Bush indeed has made a mess of Iraq, shouldn't we be trying to help the innocent Iraqi people, who had little to do with either Saddam's or Bush's actions, rebuild?

yes.

RE: r.a.'s post (February 9... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: r.a.'s post (February 9, 2005 11:45 AM)
...so the laws about bigamy would pretty much prevent what you are talking about.

This is exactly Les Nessman's point. Law or the presumption of one has prevented homosexual unions in this country ever since its creation. Now we have begun to cross a legal/social threshold that would allow/bless it as an acceptably sanctioned bond. Some fear the slippery slope that other non-traditional unions would become equally acceptable should the homosexual union be legally bound. His concern is not without foundation and he is only asking what legal precedent would deny such an inevitability.

There is every reason to expect current laws regarding bigamy to eventually succumb to contemporary social norms when another social norm that used to have legal standing falls by the wayside. Your comment that "it [polygamy or polyandry] happens in other countries around the world" is the proof in the pudding since these other civilizations and their liberal evolution predate our own.

You have proven Nessman's point and reinforced his concern that other previously "unacceptable" behaviors will assuredly challenge our legal, social, and political foundation. Call it the camel's nose under the tent. Under the right pressure and proper political packaging, homosexual unions will become acceptable. You can bet that polygamy and all of its incarnations will follow suit and at an accelerated rate due to precedence. Activist courts like that.

Now how did we deviate so much? From the original topic, I mean...

Anon, Law or th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Anon,

Law or the presumption of one has prevented homosexual unions in this country ever since its creation.

Sorry, no. As you may have noticed several states have found that their laws do not prevent homosexual unions, as they do not specify gender. Furthermore, there is as yet no federal restriction thereof, and why would conservatives push for one if state laws all forbid it? I'm not sure how many states have laws against bigamy, but I'd bet it's all of them. Furthermore, if states change their laws to allow the union between two people regardless of gender there is no reason why this will legally allow bigamy, despite your claim that the precedent will lead to that. No judge will interpret a law allowing any two people to join in union as meaning multiple people. So there goes you're legal argument. Remember we are talking about the law here, and despite your paranoia about activist courts, rulings that contradict the law are thrown out, as they have been in some of the states that tried to legalize gay marriage.

Your comment that "it [polygamy or polyandry] happens in other countries around the world" is the proof in the pudding since these other civilizations and their liberal evolution predate our own.

Right, the liberal evolution of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

Les,

Why is it that the gay 'marriage' issue has gone from 0 to 100 mph in about three seconds? Can you imagine even having this debate as recently as 6 or 7 years ago?

The struggle for equal protection under the law is a long one, just ask any black person. Gays have made a lot of progress in the past couple of decades, and have a lot more to go. The marriage/civil union issue is just another link in that chain. If you think it has snuck up on you, you have obviously not been paying attention.

correction:instead... (Below threshold)
mantis:

correction:

instead of "states that tried to legalize gay marriage", to "states where judges tried to illegally allow gay marriage."

RE: mantis's post (February... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: mantis's post (February 9, 2005 02:19 PM)

As you may have noticed several states have found that their laws do not prevent homosexual unions, as they do not specify gender.

In what state is it or has it been legal? You may be parsing things a bit here as we differentiate "civil union" and "marriage", but the goal of everyone seems to be redefining marriage. San Francisco and Boston(?), I believe, tried to create homosexual unions but they were subsequently annulled. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as reaching the federal level, nothing as yet (I could be wrong) has gone to the upper chambers of the courts on appeal, so the states have laws on the books, or at least some limited restraints, on what is a legal union and what is not. The fact that nothing has reached federal challenge is because state law is limiting the definitions, and its constituents' actions, so far. But that can change. A sympathetic mayor, a politically opportunistic governor, and a complacent attorney general with a particularly vocal political action committee can do wonders to written law.

Furthermore, if states change their laws to allow the union between two people regardless of gender there is no reason why this will legally allow bigamy, despite your claim that the precedent will lead to that. No judge will interpret a law allowing any two people to join in union as meaning multiple people.

That's a mighty strong statement there. You must feel pretty confident. Once upon a time, no judge would have interpreted law allowing any same gender union as meaning an acceptable marriage or union either. My how times have changed... who'd a thunk it? As society changes, so does the interpretation of law. Law is a reflection of the people living by it which explains the intervention of activist courts that are not stict Constitutionalists in their rulings. Can you say States' Rights versus Federalism? A bit of a tangent but not too far off the mark.

The point is that the interpretation of law changes with those elected and selected to chair the benches. I think we all know how law gets interpreted, reinterpreted, appealed, and passed up the chain. Some have even proclaimed that an election or two was decided by a partisan Supreme Court that leaned the wrong way. This is how law, good or bad depending on one's POV, gets passed and a social paradigm shift results. Not every ruling is thrown out... some of them even winnow their way through the legal filters and become precedential law. This explains why timing and venue is so important - just look at the Ninth Circuit and its appellate cases. A liberal President and a liberal judicial appointment to the Supreme Court would likely not overturn many of the Ninth's decisions, and I think we'd all be looking at a very different country right now. Good or bad, one cannot proclaim that a law in one state will not eventually trump a law in every other state and become Federally mandated due to the "Full Faith and Credit Clause". These are the reasons why I do not share your confidence that written law is sound. I suspect many would agree with that insecurity.

Right, the liberal evolution of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

What's your point? Are you insinuating that I sense an inevitability that we'll eventually accept bigamy as well as some othe traits common to some oppressive ME regimes? If you are, you have insinuated incorrectly. If not then I'm missing your point.

Ok, so perhaps I worded tha... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Ok, so perhaps I worded that too strongly, but I do doubt that a judge would interpret a law providing the union of two people to mean 3 or 4 or whatever. As I understood it MA allowed gay marriage because it was against the state constitution which did not specify gender, but maybe I'm wrong. And as far as I've heard, those marriages still stand.

As for the last part, I'm not insinuating anything. You seem to claim that other, older, and more liberal nations allow bigamy. I was just pointing out that bigamy was an old form of marriage, still practiced in places that could hardly be called liberal. What were you talking about?

mantis,I was using... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

mantis,

I was using the term "liberal" in the sense of a more open social behavior (at least for men, Allah help the women) as opposed to the more conservative, traditional values or behavior patterns of Americans. r.a. mentioned bigamy as a not uncommon practice around the world and I wasn't really interested in researching marriage norms of the globe. As a rule, I'd call multiple partners in a marriage, or union, or association, or bond, pretty "liberal" while ignoring any concomitant behaviors or societal norms that are not. It was a focused observation and conclusion without the associated baggage.

If I use the capital "L" liberal, then you'll know I mean the Left of center politically.

My mistake. However the id... (Below threshold)
mantis:

My mistake. However the idea of this liberal evolution seems strange to me as countries such as that didn't sanction homosexual union and then polygamy/polyandry to the best of my knowledge. Muhammed certainly didn't condone it and he had multiple wives. So the implication that the progression of changing social norms to allow polygamy as a natural next step after gay marriage is natural or inevitable has no real basis, merely a speculative one. At least regarding other civilizations. If the European countries that now allow gay marriage also start to allow bigamy, or if they already do (never heard of it), then maybe.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy