Why you should be happy George W. Bush is our President

[Rooster7]

No. By a vote of 5 to 4, the Constitution was enforced as written. As was the case in the Dale decision. ;-)

 

If Democrats didn't like the rules of a Presidential election as dictated by the Constitution, they should of complained long before their guy lost. As it was, they're complaints rang hallow and that of a sore loser.

[KoreaScouter]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to

develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.

That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We

want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass

destruction program."

- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great

deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,

chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest

security threat we face."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten

times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the

U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if

appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond

effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass

destruction programs."

- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,

John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass

destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he

has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass

destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

 

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons

programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs

continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam

continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a

licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten

the United States and our allies."

- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and

others,

Dec, 5, 2001

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a

threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the

mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass

destruction and the means of delivering them."

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical

weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to

deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in

power."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and

developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are

confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and

biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to

build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence

reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the

authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I

believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is

a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working

aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons

within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always

underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of

mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,

every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy

his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has

refused to do"

- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show

that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological

weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He

has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda

members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will

continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,

and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that

Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity

for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

 

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,

murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a

particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to

miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to

his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass

destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass

destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

 

[denver4und@aol.com]

Come on Rooster, not even you can believe that the Supreme's did anything other than pick their man. Even Justice O'Connor was quoted (during a party) as saying the night of the election that Bush would win before her court.

 

I am a lawyer. I have not met one lawyer, even the staunch republican lawyers in my own office, who claims to believe that the Bush v Gore decision had ANYTHING at all to do with the constitution with the sole exception that when 5 black robes agree it becomes law.

 

A justice's son belongs to a law firm. That firm argues for Bush. In ANY OTHER court in the country, the firm would have been disqualified. Not so with right wing idealogues pushing a Bushwacker agenda. In this case, his side wins.

 

You should read the opinion. In your heart of hearts even you will not be able to see anything other than a gerrymandered decision to let the majority's man win.

 

But then what would you expect from a pres and vp that talked over Enron's troubles before the bubble burst with the crooks at Enron, then tried to deny they had the conversations? (forgot that one on my list of special prosecutors).

 

Oh well, coffee's all gone, and some folks will never understand why they had to pay back their $400 "tax refund".

 

 

 

[Rooster7]

denver4und@aol.com,

 

If you're a lawyer, you should study your Constitution morea lot more, because all they did was enforce it as written. If you have not found any Republican lawyers that agree with this decision as a matter of law, then you're looking in the wrong places. You should try stepping outside of Starbucks one day and joining the real world.

 

KoreaScouter,

 

That's quite a list of hypocrites that you've assembled. Regardless, when they're not aligning their quotes to slander conservative opponents, it's clear to see that most Democrats viewed Saddam Hussein as the clear threat that Bush advertised him to be. So what does that say about liberals? That's also very clear to see. They care more about positioning themselves for the next election then to do about this country

 

[KoreaScouter]

I think the point is that this debate is not over whether international terrorism poses the gravest long-term threat to our country that we've ever seen -- that's not debatable if you clearly understand the threat (I work in this business every day, so I may have an unfair advantage). Rather, the debate is purely political. But, at the same time, our politcal memory is getting more short-term all the time. Peel away the election-year rhetoric and the partisan bickering, go back a few years, and you'll see leaders across the political spectrum speaking with one voice.

 

KS

[bobmarley54]

Written in response to Rooster's quote :

 

"We are fighting terrorists who are more than willing to spread their vision to every part of the globe. We are fighting people who want to die for their cause, who are willing to bring their cause to you, and who want to take as many innocent lives with them as they possibly can."

 

Call me crazy, but I don't think that taking as many innocent lives as they possibly can is their intention. I don't think that an event like 9/11 was aimed at killing off 3000 American people. They do what they do for a cause, and in more than a of the few cases, a just cause.

 

I think that if I came home one day to a home and family destroyed by an American bomb aimed at a military installation, I just might lose a little love for the USA.

 

Im not saying that I am happy about 9/11, but I do think it't time for the American people to wake up and smell the coffee (to quote denver

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[denver4und@aol.com]

Rooster. HUH?

 

Ok, I'll bite. Please quote to me the exact wording that you believe the supreme court acted to "enforce it as written".

 

If you don't have the language, please refrain from impuning my professional knowledge (which you do not have), or my professional interpretation (which you are, as far as I can tell, unqualified to question).

[LovetoCamp]

bobmarley, Could you please tell us how terrorists that killed 3000 people had a "Just Cause"? Just Cause? Also are you a recent graduate of an American University? Which one? Are you a registered adult leader in BSA? Thanks.

[Rooster7]

denver4und@aol.com,

 

First, you don't know what my professional qualifications may be.

 

Second, while I have read your post stating that you are a lawyer, it hardly qualifies as concrete evidence. In fact, your subsequent statements give me good reason to doubt your claim. But you being the qualified professional that you claim to be, already knew that - right?

[denver4und@aol.com]

Rooster says: "First, you don't know what my professional qualifications may be."

 

Nope. But its clear you are not a lawyer.

 

Rooster also writes: "Second, while I have read your post stating that you are a lawyer, it hardly qualifies as concrete evidence. In fact, your subsequent statements give me good reason to doubt your claim. But you being the qualified professional that you claim to be, already knew that - right? "

 

See, they teach you that in law school. Now I say "Your Honor, Please instruct the witness to answer the question." and then the judge says:

 

"Rooster, Please quote to me the exact wording that you believe the supreme court acted to "enforce it as written".

 

And then, you say, because its the only true answer:

 

"I guess I don't really know" because its not there.

 

see, that's a debate. Not changing the subject to question the other guys integrity. Its PUT UP OR SHUT UP TIME.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Rooster, so there is no misunderstanding, Clinton proved himself to be slime.

 

GW has proved himself to be a much better warrior than nation builder and he promised to do both.

 

On the moral register. Clinton rates much worse than GW, but GW does not rate re-election either.

 

 

[Rooster7]

denver4und@aol.com,

 

I will back up my stance in due time...But before I "put up", I'd just like to point out that you have not made your argument yet, at least not one based on law. You've made claims, like the election was stolen by the Supreme Court. However, I have not seen any logic or reason to back that up. Instead of pointing me to a legal document, why don't you tell me in your own words how the Constitution was circumvented by these jurists?

[bobmarley54]

I apologize if I came off as offensive towards the innocent lives lost at 9/11.

 

I was merely stating my disagreement with Rooster's generalization that the terrorists responsible were a bunch of crazed maniacs attempting to take out as many innocent lives as they possibly could. There are two sides to every story. Although it was unfortunate for the people of New York, for the country as a whole, it was sorely needed.

[Rooster7]

bobmarley54,

 

It was sorely needed...

 

You're idiot!

 

If that offends, I'm sorry. It was a message that was sorely needed.

[LovetoCamp]

"it was sorely needed."

 

Hey, I see you majored in Free Thinking at the University of Latrine Bottom. Congrats on your accomplishment!