In reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision, President Bush said he thought “there is a way forward with military tribunals in working with the United States Congress.” How Congress and voters respond will determine a lot, Walter Shapiro argues:
“Significant as this ruling is, decisions like Hamdan do not by themselves instantly transform behavior as if they were a fiat from Mount Sinai. Their broader implications are bound to be tested in the courts and challenged by the administration. If Congress and the voters lack the political will to act on the Hamdan precedent, then Thursday’s decision will probably be remembered as a momentary flicker of judicial independence in the era of a ‘laws only apply to little people’ presidency.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- KSGolfnut on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Monkeyhawk on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Mr_Kia on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- lindainks55 on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Chrisfrommactown on Foulston could face fight
- KSGolfnut on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Rage on Obama nomination transcends partisanship
- Mr_Kia on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Monkeyhawk on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- CF2K on Obama nomination transcends partisanship
55 Comments
How shocking it is that an American court would actually follow the law! I guess someone had to, but of course with a swipe of his pen G.W. could declare the supreme court null and void. I can see a tipping point coming, a day when either the old system will uphold or the new empire will be the final say. There maybe another chapter in the history of this country written in blood before this is through. Good on the supreme court for upholding the law. But I can hear it now, the shout ringing through the cambers “Who do those activist judges think they are?” . Shoot I have already read it, it is not there place to question the President of the United States!
It has been said that this is a war of ideals, but it is not the country of Iraq that is the battle front.
I said it once and here I say it again. Will the congress give Bush the power to have tribunals?Not if there is a God in heaven and a country that still believe in the rule of law.
I want to have an honest discussion about these things, but when people insist on inserting comments like:
“laws only apply to little people presidency.”
and
“…or the new empire…”
You don’t want to have a discussion, you want to simply do your best to label the President and ridcule him because you don’t like him.
If you have something to say, I am sure you can do it without all the silly euphemisms.
President Bush is not above the law. The implications that he doesn’t care about the law or is running an empire are purely political smears which bring nothing to the discussion.
In our system of government it is a balance of powers between the 3 branches. Each of them do what they can within the bounds of the law. Sometimes any one of the 3 branches can and will do things which are not so clear and if there is a problem with it then this is the process.
It doesn’t make Bush some evil emperor who thinks he is above the law.
Another prophecy on how this issue will be used politically:++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Arlington, Va.: What’s to prevent the Bush administration from ignoring the Supreme Court’s decision? The Republican led Congress has shown contempt for its oversight duties, so who would actually hold the administration responsible?
Dana Milbank: The administration would be foolish to ignore it; they can campaign against it. Have Specter et al draft some legislation that creates the tribunals the administration wants but goes further than the Democrats want, then accuse the Democrats who vote against it of supporting the release of terrorists. It’ll be Max Cleland all over again.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The above from Dana Milbank’s chat:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/26/DI2006062600696.html
Nathan,
Would it be more geniune if we told you why we don’t like him?
(And thank you for not using the word hate.
)
Nathan,Bush has time and again bypassed the rule of law, and has had an “in your face” attitude while doing so. He has said he is not bound by laws congress passes on many occasions; in fact on over ninety such occasions.
So you are shocked by people using terms like, “laws only apply to little people presidency”, and “…or the new empire…”? What do you expect people who are used to being in positions where the rule of law, as passed by the Supreme Court, are supposed to call Bush?
I certainly think Bush has gone over the top on too many occasions to qualify as a “rule of law” president. His actions on the war prisoners has been in clear violation of federal as well as world law. He has attempted to build a dynasty that is destroying the things better men than he have died for. And he is doing it in a manner that is dividing the people of this country in a way not seen since the ill fated Viet Nam war.
Regardless of what the war prisoners have done, they deserve their day in court. This is the United States of America, and we have a Constitution and Bill of rights that have served us well for over two hundred years. For one man to attempt to thwart what they stand for is just plain wrong. And, in my opinion, Bush is just plain wrong, and I will make my anger at his lying and lawlessness known at the polling place by voting against any politicians who side with him.
Well said, JM!
JM Walker,
The outcries of “lawlessness” are a bit over the top.
The term is used to imply that President Bush is somehow completely in disregard for the law.
President Bush follows the law, in the absence of clear rulings or no precident being set he is doing what he thinks is legal.
As the process goes, the Supreme Court can and does have the authority to weigh in and keep the President in check when or if they feel the law is not being interpreted correctly.
The matters in which you think and claim that the President is “clearly” in violation of the law, people like myself and the President disagree with you. When there is disagreement then we have the courts. It is just part of the process which is working.
President Bush is doing what he believes to be the best thing to protect our Country. That is his job. He has the authority to do that.
You may disagree, that is just fine. However, the calls for him being lawless are just plain silly.
Saying Bush is dividing this country is a bit far fetched too. The constant distortion, name calling, and complete disregard for an honest discussion by many on the left is what is dividing the country.
The President will continue to do his job, while it is the left he is dragging kicking and screaming.
Nathan it is not a matter of liking or disliking G.W. Bush, it is about the actions of the President of the United States. It is about how this actions are being done, he has openly disregarded the laws of this country and the other two branches of the Government. Bush has stated that he does not have to comply with what either of them say. There are there solely in a advisory role, but he has the final say.
Joe express that he feels that if it was anyone else it would be different, if anyone, Democrat, Republican, green party had done what he has done. It WOULD be the same, it is not about his party affiliation or personality. It is not about partisan politics, it is about the course he has taken and ultimately the reason he took them. It has become not about fighting terrorism, or defending the nation. It is about a small group of like minded people that have finally move to fulfill the desires. It is not a conspiracy theory if it is true!
Many in the administration are students of a man who believed that it would be in the best interest of America to have perpetual war. That it is not wrong to tell a “noble lie” if the truth is not good enough to bring people to agree with what you want to do. Even Paul Wolfowitz has admitted that WMDs and a link between Al-Qaeda were not the real reason for the invasion of Iraq. It was a noble lie, because to have said that the real reason was to gain control of the oil fields and install military bases in the middle east would not have been supported by the American people.
They have used the horror of 9-11 to move on their own goals and yes it is their desire to impose a American empire over the world. They use partisan politics to mask their movements, to distract the people from their real plans. It seem to work well with you, even after the truth is laid at your feet you have dismissed it as liberal spin.
Why, oh why sir would the President of the United States of America be in favor of torture? It has been dismissed as a unreliable way to gain information. Yet he would null and void a plainly stated policy that said the United States will not use torture. If that is not stating he is above the law, what is?
Why if the administration is not control by members of the PNAC, would it follow the plans laid out by that organization? What a odd stroke of luck that many of the top officials of the PNAC would happen to be also in the Bush administration! Why when the President of the United States when called to testify before the 9-11 commission. Insist on it not being under oath, that only ten members of the commission would be present as he testified. Why would he insist that no recording of his testimony be made. Why would he have insisted that not his attorney be present, but Dick Cheney?
No it is not a matter of liking or disliking President Bush, it is not a matter of partisan politics. It is about not standing silent while there is a threat to this nation. To this democracy, it seems like it has been a year since I first said it. President Bush can do more damage to this country then Bin Laden flying a thousand planes into a thousand buildings. Al-Qaeda can not bring this country down, it can not be said the same of the Bush administration.
Back on subject, the SCOTUS did the right thing, it upheld the Constitution which is its job. A court martial is not a free ride, but it is a fair trial under the code of military justice. Evidence will have to be presented instead of simply saying we think he is a terrorist. This will prove to the world that the U.S. still believes in justice and the rule of law. To do any less is to betray the country and the very ideals we hold dear.
Writerdog,
Lets just go down your little list piece by piece:
“….he has openly disregarded the laws of this country and the other two branches of the Government. Bush has stated that he does not have to comply with what either of them say.”
There are certain laws which the President is in disagreement with Congress on in scope and power over the President. That is not open disregard for the laws of this country. Just more sensationalism by you. When did Bush ever say he doesn’t have to comply with what either of them say? You are definitely taking that way out of context and splicing it into your statement to portrat a blatantly false image of the President.
“It has become not about fighting terrorism, or defending the nation.”
And here you sprinkle in more of your wild accusations…
“Many in the administration are students of a man who believed that it would be in the best interest of America to have perpetual war. That it is not wrong to tell a “noble lie” if the truth is not good enough to bring people to agree with what you want to do.”
Who is this man they are all students of? What is “many?” Who is this “all” you speak of? You purposely are vague and skew things here to paint your distorted little picture of the President.
“Even Paul Wolfowitz has admitted that WMDs and a link between Al-Qaeda were not the real reason for the invasion of Iraq.”
When did he ever say that?
“It was a noble lie, because to have said that the real reason was to gain control of the oil fields and install military bases in the middle east would not have been supported by the American people.”
This is your assertion…aka…lie about the president. You have no proof to show that this was the real intention of the President. All your little strung together and misconstrued pieces of information make for little more than some good conspiracy theory material and not much else.
“They have used the horror of 9-11 to move on their own goals and yes it is their desire to impose a American empire over the world.”
And you know this how? Where you at the super secret meeting where they discussed this? Let me guess… You ASSUME this based on… nothing?
“They use partisan politics to mask their movements, to distract the people from their real plans. It seem to work well with you, even after the truth is laid at your feet you have dismissed it as liberal spin.”
What truth? You misquote people, you link things togheter with a bit of fact and assumption to paint a picture which is nothing more than pure speculation purposefully meant to make the President look bad! Now you accuse me of being blind to the truth? Sorry, I don’t read the same conspiracy theory nut magazines you seem to subscribe to.
“Why, oh why sir would the President of the United States of America be in favor of torture?”
Once again, more distortion. The President doesn’t favor torture. What you and I consider to be torture and what the President and many others consider it to be are completely different. What is torture? Is keeping the lights on all night torture? This is a very subjective thing, and you jump right off with accusing the President of supporting torture. I think you do it to purposefully try to portray the President as being worse than he actually is.
“President Bush can do more damage to this country then Bin Laden flying a thousand planes into a thousand buildings. Al-Qaeda can not bring this country down, it can not be said the same of the Bush administration.”
So now you think the President is worse than the terrorists? This is why you and I can’t have an honest and reasonable discussion. Your perception of reality is pretty skewed if you are comparing Bush to Al Qeada.
Nathan,I will point you to 3,630,000 instances of of people pointing out Bush’s disregard for the rule of law. http://www.google.com/search?q=bush%27s+disregard+for+law&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:officialThese are articles written by people from every walk of life; from constructiopn workers to federal officials; from house wives to retired generals; from liberal commentators to conservative senators.
Bush has made a mockery of the Constitution, and he will be called to task for it if congress has the huevos to do so. If this gets to the Supreme court, he will be ruled against. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.The Constitution pointedly states so. Thats why we have three separate agencies.
Nathan, you are wrong on this one, and with any guts by congress, Bush will be put back in his place; hopefully Texas.
JM Walker,
How much more ridiculous can you be than by citing a google hit list as evidence of over 3 million articles?
Sorry, but showing me how many hits you got on google is not proof of anything and then you try to use it to lead into your typical wild accusations:
“Bush has made a mockery of the Constitution,”
Made a mockery of the Constitution? Is the only way you think you can make a point by continuing to make your statements even more preposterous?
“HE DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.”
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT TRYING TO!I am not on the wrong side of anything. So far all I have been doing is pointing out how patently absurd your claims and others are here.The more outrageous and zealous you are with your claims doesn’t make you more true.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/commentaries/3024lar_show_strauss.html
A Corner on the TruthStart this way. It’s clear that the guys who launched this war—Rumsfeld, Cheney, so on—they have a problem. That, what everybody else is saying to them—in the United States and in other countries, whether France, Germany, or whatever—it just goes in one ear and out the other. They march to their own, different drummer. And, what you say about it, what I say about it, what all the retired generals say about it, what Colin Powell says about it, it just doesn’t make any difference. They obviously think it just doesn’t apply to them. That they are on a different level of some sort, and whatever we may say, from whatever background, or whatever reasons, it really makes no difference. They don’t even have to respond to it—of course as Rumsfeld shows: or, as he just blows up in rage. But he never responds to these objections.Now, in the center of the war party, organizing it now for decades, you find students of this late Chicago University professor Leo Strauss (who died in 1973) as the key people. Both his students, the students of his students, and even their students—that’s the third generation—and even the fourth generation, is now in government.People like Lewis Libby, the chief of staff of Vice President Cheney. Lewis Libby is a student of a student of Strauss. He is a student of Paul Wolfowitz, who is the Deputy Secretary of Defense under Rumsfeld, actually runs the Department of Defense day to day, who is himself a student of Allan Bloom, who was the top student of Leo Strauss. So these guys, whether they learned directly from Strauss or from one of these disciples, they are conscious Straussians. They know they are. As you’ll see, they are members of a kind of secret cult.Abram Shulsky is the guy, when Rumsfeld became dissatisfied with all the intelligence from the CIA, which contradicted the reasons for which he wanted to launch a war—Rumsfeld, as many of you know, set up his own intelligence unit inside the Pentagon to give contrarian analysis to the CIA. The guy who he put in charge of that was Abram Shulsky, a conscious Straussian, a student of Straussians. It’s nothing that Shulsky doesn’t know; he is very aware of this. His whole life, his whole internal life, is Strauss. Similarly, on the ideological side, the famous names of conservatives, neo-conservatives and so-called: William Kristol, of the Weekly Standard; John Podhoretz of the New York Post. These are conscious Straussians, students of, in this case, again, students of students of Leo Strauss
Can Bin Laden suspend the Constitution? Can Bin Laden in prison citizens of the U.S. without a court order? Can Bin Laden pick and choose what laws will be enforced?
Can Al-Qaeda use a warrant-less search then use any evidence he finds to convict someone?
It is true that Al-Qaeda can take people off the street and they may never be seen again.
No there is a lot of things that Bush&Co. can do that the terrorist can not do.
Good post writerdog, very good. It is important to remember that Strauss was and these neo-cons are statist and LEFTIST to the core!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
Good post writerdog, very good. It is important to remember that Strauss was and these neo-cons are statist and LEFTIST to the core!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html
Here is the link to the signing statement that said Bush can negate the policy against torture and notifcation of Congress.
Honestly Writerdog, do you ever sit there and think to yourself how much you have to stretch things like the whole “connection” to professor Leo Strauss thing?
Logically speaking, lets look at the problems with your claim.
#1. You have shown a coincidental link to a man, not a causal one.
You somehow are able to stretch people to being connected to this man. So what?
#2. You have no proof that they are actively doing what this man teaches or taught.
#3. You take all the assumptions you have made now and then link them to your claim that this war was faught for personal gain and what-not while it is nothing but an unproven assertion.
I am sorry Writerdog, but weak links to some teacher is not further proof for your unproven assertions.
Building a case on more assertions doesn’t work. At some point you need things like facts.
Of course conspiracy theories wouldn’t be so hokey otherwise…
Writerdog,
I read your link, perhaps you can elaborate as to how it:
“said Bush can negate the policy against torture and notifcation of Congress.”
“This is why you and I can’t have an honest and reasonable discussion.”
I agree with this statement Nathan, but it is not for the reasons you gave. For there is no honest or reasonability to your logic. Keep your head down my friend and please come home in the same condition you leave in…rose colored glasses and all.
So far writerdog, you have provided nothing more than assumptions mirrored with laughable links to some teacher.
Unfortunately that is not proof of anything more than your desperation to try to make Bush look bad or just believe something really outlandish.
Oh, and I will be making the enemy keep his head down!
torture
The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the President from altering command and control relationships within the Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the authority of Commander in Chief.
notification of CongressLanguage in Division B of the Act, under the heading “Office of Justice Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance,” purports to require the Attorney General to consult congressional committees prior to allocating appropriations for expenditure to execute the law. Because the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with congressional committees or to involve them in executive decision-making, the executive branch shall construe the provision to require only notification. At the same time, the Attorney General shall, as a matter of comity between the executive and legislative branches, seek and consider the views of appropriate committees in this matter as the Attorney General deems appropriate.
There are no such thing as coincidences; only pathways on the road of life.
Too bad those who don’t want to see have the ability not to. Linking things together is how things are studied. Point A to point B and on.
Read the PNAC, Nathan. Try opening a tiny pinprick in you mind and suspend your disbelief.
RD,
I see you don’t bring anything like proof to the table either.
Did anyone read the article in the guardian about tribunal witnesses?
The Guardian found in 3 days the 4 witnesses that the US couldn’t find in 4 months. One of the witnesses worked for Karzai and had never been approached to be a witness.
By not even looking for the 4 witnesses the victim was authorized to call to prove his innocence just makes the tribunal appear to be a sad, sick joke by this administration
No matter what crime you are charged with, everyone should have the right to at least have their side of the incident told.
I am glad to hear that Nathan, they can not shoot while worrying about their own heads! I am a ole mother hen, I worry about all that go until they come back. Good thing I wear a 44 shirt huh?Broad shoulder!
Nathan,
writerdog gave you the information you need. Beyond that, you need to use your head. Try a little cognitive thiking. If you can’t, then why bother with anything else?
RD,
I would hardly call stretching the truth, misquoting people, misrepresenting facts in a string argument to try and prove nothing more than a fancy conspiracy theory “cognitive thinking.”
We all know if there was a choice for the Democrats to either hang Bush and let the terrorist go free or to hang the terrorist and let Bush go free, The Democrats would hang Bush in a second.
R.A. a tree has many branches!
Nathan, try the facts with no spin. From either side. They are there. All you have to do is skip over the rhetoric.
You call it stretching the truth. I call it seeing it for what it is, i.e. facts. You call some things coincidence. But after so many coincidences, a little bell goes off, and you realize that there’s a reason behind them.
Maybe Bush didn’t lie, per se, but is telling only half-truths okay? Personally, I call those lies by omission.
You know, did John Hinckley really shot President Regan? Oh I know people say he did, I even saw the video of that day outside the hotel. And most certainly they took a bullet out of the President’s body,I believe that!But after seeing that video several times I never really saw Hinckley with the gun in his hand.I have read statements that were reported to be Hinckley saying he did it to impress Jodie Foster.Eye witnesses to the crime said that they were there and heard the shots, they say they saw Hinckley with the gun! But I did not see it! How do I know that Hinckley really was the shooter? Maybe someone shot the President and shoved the gun in Hinckley hand! You know, Hinckley may have been a DEMOCRAT!They could have just been saying it as a partisan trick, lying bastards will do anything to discredit a Democrat!
No after thinking about it I do NOT believe that John Hinckley shot President Regan! His parent said he is a fine boy and I believe his parents. I don’t understand why those Republicans would want to bash Hinckley?All the evidence that people can bring up to me will not change my mind. It would be nothing but misquotes and lies. You know I really don’t care if they can show the shooting from another angle, one that shows me that he did have a gun. No Hinckley is one of the finest Democrats this country has ever seen and he is right to want to impress Jodie Foster. He was fighting for all the deranged mental patents of this world!You all just do not know! Hinckley being outside that hotel was a just and noble cause, ok you say he really was wanting to impress Brook Shields! Where is your proof? You say that people saw her poster on his bedroom wall? They are lying, it is all lies he love Jodie and you just want to side track the issue with your lies! It was really a poster of Jodie Foster, but you know what they can do with photo shop!
It is interesting that Lt. Comander Charles Swift, representing Hamdan was allowed by his superiors to speak on C-SPAN. This guy Hamdan was a major risk to the U.S. He had a FOURTH GRADE education. He drove a car with Osama Bin Laden in the back seat. We also know that other Guantanamo Bay detainees include people who COOKED FOOD for Bin Laden. Probably could have qualified to flip burgers at McD’s over here. MAJOR TERRORISTS. Not.
Mr. Swift is a naval officer. He is pleased that Mr. Hamdan will receive a more rigorous form of justice than a secret, can’t confront your accusers, invented by Cheney et al (don’t blame Bush, he’s too stupid to design anything, he’s just a cupcake “face” for shrewd handlers who can say a speach if the teleprompter is close enough for him to read, and if his ear-microphone is working).
Let’s hope that Cheney doesn’t call for Lt. C Swift’s and superiors’ courts martial. The schemers have already made billions, ala the post Civil War Republican robber barons.
You have the majority of the American public against this war. You have most of the Iraq-deployed soldiers wanting to get our of Iraq. You have the vast majority of Iraqis wanting the American invader-occupiers to leave. How hard is it to do the math here? Not very, unless you are really mentally disturbed. Maybe Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and company warrant VA Hospital psychiatric intervention.
heartlander, you should check out the PBS program Foreign Exchange, airing on Friday nights at 9:30pm. It’s hosted by Fareed Zakaria, usually considered kind of an honorary member of the neoconservatives. “Honorary” because he’s (a) Indian, and (b) has been honest of his assessment of President Bush’s incompetence in Iraq.
Thing is, he’s very thoughtful and, imo, offers easily the best foot forward of the American foreign policy ideals of the neoconservatives.
He also makes a point of having Iraqis on his program, and usually devotes the last half (15 minutes) to their experiences in Iraq.
The experiences are definitely NOT stacked in favor of President Bush’s claims, so in that way he represents a breath of fresh air. That said, he consistently and forcefully argues for a continued American presence in Iraq.
Smart guy, too. He’s a PhD of Harvard and has taught at [insert Ivy League college here].
http://www.foreignexchange.tv/
Airing locally on Friday nights, that is (Wichita).
I have a son who will be deployed to Iraq, unless we pull out. I want him to have the benefit of a full commitment, if he has to go, like a million troops. We defeated our enemies in WWII by using overwhelming force. We started trying to bomb Germany with so-called “Flying Fortresses”. They were decimated by German fighters. So we made P-51 Mustangs that had drop-tanks enabling them to escort the bombers ALL THE WAY, and it was lights out for the German M-109s. We fought fanatical Japanese on Iwo Jima. But we outnumbered them 4 to 1. Plus we had massive naval artillary and air cover superiority. You want to stop IED’s? Pre-run roads with robotic vehicles. Let them blow up. Nobody dies. Secure towns with 7 times as many troops as we have now.
Quadruple reconstruction funds, and directly give the Iraqi people a quarter billion dollars to make friends. When insurgents attack, cut off a town’s funding. That will make the noncombatant citizens report the insurgents–before they strike.
Heartlander,
Most IED’s are set of by remote detonation. Running the roads with robotic vehicles wont stop this.
We already equip vehicles with radio jaming equipment to. However, the IED’s are starting to use more high tech infrared triggers now.
It is a constant struggle of adapting our tactics to overcome and the enemy doing the same.
Your simplistic solution of running robotic vehicles down the road ignores the history of the tactics used and the ability to adapt by the enemy.
If only things were really that simple.
As time has progressed since the outset of the war, the number of attacks has remained about the same. The targets have been changing.
More and more of the targets are the Iraq security forces and civilians.
Most of the insurgency is not against coalition forces. The insurgency is mainly the Sunni Muslims trying to cause whatever civil unrest they can against the Shia Muslims.
Have you heard of the Sunni Triangle? Why do you think they call it that?
I know that all of you armchair generals at home think you have all the solutions, yet you don’t even have 10% of the knowledge of what is actually happening.
Much like a civil war, huh, Nathan?
RD,
Actually, that is what much of the insurgency is aimed at trying to create RD.
I am sure that pulling our troops out on some artificial timetable will do wonders to help that happen.
Colin Powell and others warned of the likelihood of an invasion triggering Civil War. Even Bush 1 knew better.
BushdaBum knew or should have known that this would happen. Instead his administration told us this would be easy and that our troops would be there for months not years. Lies, lies and more lies …
Ben,
I remeber the President saying over and over agian that this was not going to be easy or short.
Did I miss where he said this would take months?
“Actually, that is what much of the insurgency is aimed at trying to create RD.”
Excuse me for putting it this way, but… well, duh! My point, exactly.
But why do you use the term “artificial timetable?” What makes a timetable artificial?
Seems to me it was Bush and many other Republicans who pointed the finger at Clinton about no exit plan, yet when Bush went into Iraq, he didn’t bother with one.
Need qoutes? Need links? I’ll be happy to oblige.
“Did I miss where he said this would take months?”
Of course, this is not a pipe but…
Didnt rummy say “three weeks, three months, but certainly not three years”?
I know he isnt bush, but he is bush’s direct mouthpiece on war. If bush didnt agree, shouldnt he have said so… THEN?
But of course, this is not a pipe…
KFG,
I don’t think Rumsfield ever said that we would only be in Iraq for months.
Do you have a source?
I’m not KFG, but here’s your answer, Nathan.
* Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm
But if USA Today isn’t good enough for you, how about the DoD?
Same day, complete quote:
“We don’t talk about deployments in the specific, but we have brought a good many Guard and Reserve on active duty. Fortunately, a great many of them were volunteers. We have been able to have relatively few stop losses. There are some currently, particularly in the Army, but relatively few in the Navy and the Air Force. And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t02072003_t0207sdtownhall.html
RD,
That is wonderful! Now if you look at CONTEXT.
The “war” or actual fighting to take Iraq did take only about a week.
It is obvious those quotes are before the invasion in reference to how long it would take to topel the Iraqi government.
Sigh…
Yes Nathan - CONTEXT. The BushBots were warned that invasion would trigger chaos and likely civil war. They ignored those warnings, clinging instead to their belief that Ahmed Chalabi would quickly take over. They knew or should have known that was all false.
Nice parsing of words there in regards to just what constitutes ‘conflict’ - you would do Clinton’s “did not have sex” claim one better.
Ben,
I am not the one who started twisting words to make a case. I am here trying to clarify.
The word used was conflict Nathan. Is the conflict in Iraq over after 3 years?
* Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
3 years in Nathan. Clearly Rumsfeld was either foolish or lying. The conflict goes on.
JR,
The only thing clear is that you will try to find anything said and twist it to try and support your contempt with the war.
War? The word was conflict. Which Rumsfeld said would be over before now.
Yes, Nathan, you are the one twisting words. As noted, Rumsoaked said CONFLICT. Is the conflict over yet?
It is really easy guys…
When looking at someones statement it is called context.
Who was the person talking to?
When did the person say what he did?
What was the person talking about when he said what he said?
What did the person mean with what he said?
So here we are. The claim was that Rumsfield said we would be in Iraq for months.
So, after searching for anything to back that up, you find a statement by Rumsfield where he said the conflict wouldn’t take more than 6 months.
Now, if we were to look at this honestly, instead of simply finding anything you can to try to back up your claim, there are those questions I brought up earlier.
Of course you are not going to look at this honestly though.
So have a good night.
Here’s a great timeline of the lead up to and the beginning of the “conflict.”
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html
So, Nathan, no American servicemen in Iraq have died since after the six-month end-of-conflict date, is that correct? cuz, the conflict is over, so nobody is getting shot or IED-bombed, right?
On robots, and IED’s. IED’s cannot be triggered except through open line of sight. Try taking your TV remote behind the sofa and changing channels. This means, the sensors of IR IED’s protrude above ground level. You can spot them with robotic cameras.
Outside cities, you can take Humvees off the road. That’s what they’re designed for. In cities, make Iraqis accompany vehicles on board, or walking next to. If somebody bolts, interrogate them. If the terrorists kill their own kind to get to Americans, that’s not going to work very long: they’re fellow Iraqis will turn them in.