Legalizing Illegal immigrants

[BrentAllen]

Wow - that is quite an argument. Let me make sure I got this straight. The CIA says Libi is a "likely fabricator" but the Bush administration KNOWS he is a liar. The CIA also says they have "Curveball" and Chalabi making similar claims. I guess the Bush administration KNEW they were liars, too. For such a stupid guy, Bush sure does know a lot! I guess the CIA wasn't torturing Libi enough to get him to recant before January, 2004. I guess it really didn't matter, since Bush already knew he was lying. Let's see - Bush is smarter than the CIA, able to dupe the entire Democratic Party, but is dumber than a rock. That is pretty remarkable!

I guess the Democrats have given up criticizing on the WMDs, since they were so adamant that Saddam had them while Clinton was in office.

[Trevorum]

 

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

 

 

[BrentAllen]

C. WALLACE: As we noted, the Democrats forced the Senate into a closed session this week to try to force or get the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate the manipulation, the exaggeration of pre-war intelligence by the White House.

 

I want to play a clip from your statement back in October of 2002 when you voted to authorize the use of force. Here it is.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SCHUMER: "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the United States."

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

C. WALLACE: Senator, you read the intelligence and you came to the same conclusion the president did.

 

SCHUMER: Yes. The bottom line is I wasn't as sure of it as the president was, but I believe in a post-9/11 world, Chris, that the president does need latitude to keep our national security strong. And you know, that is true.

 

But we also have to make sure, once you give the president that latitude, that you keep him accountable, and that's what we tried to do in the Senate the other day. Just because you give the president latitude, that's not at all a blank check.

 

And it seems that subsequent to that time, the president made many, many, many mistakes in the use of intelligence, and all we got from the committee and there was a lot of talk that the White House was directing Pat Roberts (search) to do so. He's the chairman of the Intelligence Committee was stonewalling on the use of intelligence.

 

And I think it's really important not to point fingers of blame, not to gain any political advantage, but so we don't make the same mistakes again. After all, we have an Iran. We have a North Korea. We have other problems that are going to come down the road for this president or future presidents. And we ought to see where things went wrong and correct them.

 

Whoa!! Did Schumer not get the Democratic Talking Points, or are those Talking Points now being rewritten (for the 99th time) now that his comments have been brought to light?? To repeat, "Senator, you read the intelligence and you came to the same conclusion the president did.

 

SCHUMER: Yes."

 

Trevorum - Schumer just dropped a MOAB on your argument!! Who, exactly, is the blind one??

O.K. - what is your next fictitious argument? Let me guess - Bush assassinated Kennedy! It was in Texas, after all...

[packsaddle]

Well...no, Bush didn't assassinate JFK. Bush was only 17 and attending Phillips Academy in Andover, MA. And probably drunk already.

Nevertheless, ALL persons who knew the information was doubtful and anyway told the American people that there was 'no doubt' were guilty of a lie. Bush was the one who sent thousands of good men and women to their deaths for that lie.

[BrentAllen]

Yes, Bush is the anti-Christ, yada, yada, yada...

According to that right-wing mouth piece, the NYT, maybe it wasn't a lie?

 

On June 25, 2004, The New York Times reported on an internal Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) document that discussed relations between Saddam Husseins regime and Osama bin Ladens al Qaeda. The document, authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community, reports on meetings between bin Laden emissaries and Uday Hussein in 1994. The document further reports that the Iraqi regime agreed to a request from bin Laden to broadcast sermons from an anti-Saudi cleric. The IIS document advises that cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement. And when bin Laden was ousted from Sudan in 1996, the document reports that Iraqis were seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship.

 

All of which makes one thing clear: Carl Levin may still believe there was no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

 

But the Iraqis, who might have had unique insight into such matters, certainly did.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Help a faulty memory here, what was the role the UN played in all this anyway? I thought they were involved somehow

[SR540Beaver]

I'm coming into this thread pretty late in the game. I'm hitting the age where I'm losing almost as many brain cells as I am hair. My rememberer seems to not function as well as it used to. But it does still function enough to remember some things. I always get amused at how little the American public remembers in this day and age of 24 hour cable news and talk radio chasing the latest news. We tend to forget things that happened yesterday. Less than a decade ago, the roles were reversed. Clinton was using military power against Saddam and guess who was criticizing him for it? This is why I always have a chuckle over the sanctimonious pundits who thrash their arms crying that Dem criticism of Repubs is unprecedented. Read on!

 

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/13/iraq.us/index.html

 

Clinton to explain his goals for Iraq

 

He'll use the media to reach American people

September 13, 1996

Web posted at: 11:00 p.m. EDT (0300 GMT)

From Correspondent Claire Shipman

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With a possible second strike against Iraq looming, and criticism from some corners mounting, the White House is launching a public relations offensive to spell out its Iraq strategy.

 

President Bill Clinton will lay out his plans in his Saturday radio address. And the administration's top guns, including National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, will blanket television talk shows for the next few days.

 

The media saturation comes in response to Republican criticism that Clinton has not consulted enough with the American people -- and with the majority-Republican Congress -- on his plans in the Persian Gulf.

 

"Before we haul off and start escalating the bombing which we may need to do, we need to know what the president's end game is. And he has not come to Congress, and he has not consulted with the American people," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said Friday.

 

Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp also criticized Clinton.

 

"My hope would be that he would consult the bipartisan congressional leadership, consult the leadership that was put together, the tremendous coalition in the Persian Gulf under President Bush, and also consult very closely and carefully with all our allies," he said.

 

The White House is defending itself against Republican complaints by claiming that they are seasonal.

 

"We seem to be in a political season when there will be a variety of criticisms raised," said White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry. "The president has been very clear about his objectives as we deal with the provocative behavior of Saddam Hussein."

 

Complicated issues

 

Deputy National Security Adviser Samuel Berger explained Clinton's objectives this way: "The President is determined to enforce an expanded no-fly zone in the south, which restricts Saddam's capacity to threaten his neighbors and our strategic interests."

 

While Berger's synopsis is straightforward, the situation in Iraq is less so. Professional observers say the complicated situation partially accounts for the difficulty Clinton is having in explaining his actions and goals in Iraq. It was easier for the previous administration.

 

"This is not as clear as saying, 'We are going to turn back the invasion of Kuwait.' The objectives here are a little bit more complex, a little bit more difficult for a president to explain, especially in the middle of a campaign. Bill Clinton really has his job cut out for him," presidential historian Michael Beschloss said.

 

White House aides say they are well aware that they need to make a better public case for U.S. action, and that it won't be easy.

 

While polls indicate the president is reaping a political gain right now by standing firm against Iraq, his aides worry that this is just the sort of unpredictable situation that could end up hurting Clinton before the November election.

[BrentAllen]

I fail to see how the two events come close to being similar. In 1996, the Republicans were asking Clinton to discuss the strategy with Congress and the American people. In 2002/2003, after the UN had already issued 4 resolutions against Saddam, the Democrats wanted another, so Bush went and got it. After Congress had already given Bush authority to act, they wanted yet another vote on the subject, and Bush gave it to them. How do those two compare?

When Clinton decided to bomb Iraq the night before Monica was to testify, the Republicans were justifiably skeptical. I don't remember the Republicans ever demanding Clinton get approval from the UN before he launched any attacks in Iraq, or even in Bosnia. No, this comparison is apples to oranges.

[SR540Beaver]

Brent,

 

Apples and oranges? First, let me say that I'm an independent. I don't carry water for either side of the aisle and I try to be fair, unbiased and objective when it comes to politics. Second, a little history....remember how I said people don't remember past yesterday? The story I quoted is from 1996. Monica didn't happen until 1998. You can check it out. Clinton spent a good deal of time dealing with Iraq and Saddam and had constant criticism from the Republicans. Two presidents dealing with a foreign threat to our nation and being criticized by the other side. Apples and apples.

[scoutingagain]

Wow! 11 pages and counting. I figured this thread somehow morphed into why the BSA shouldn't allow gay illegal aliens to be adult leaders, but I was wrong.

 

I'm older than the Beav and am probably losing brain cells at a faster rate. My recollection is the 9/11 commision concluded that while there had been contacts between the government of Iraq and al-Qaeda, there was no "collaborative relationship" related to 9/11. There is no doubt Saddam supported terrorism. He publicly rewarded families of suicide bombers that attacked Israel. There was wide spread belief the he had some type of WMD probably, biological and or chemical with a desire to reconstitute his nuclear program. This belief, which generated support for the war, was promoted by this administration:

 

George Bush: There is "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

 

Dick Cheney: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

 

Donald Rumsfeld: "We know where they are."

 

 

It wasn't just Bush that believed this. Tony Blair and the Aussie's bought into this too.

 

The basic premise of the war, which even Wolfkowitz? acknowledged was the only thing everyone in the administration could agree on was that Saddam had WMD, was not playing straight with UN inspectors, and it was believed would have no hesitation in providing WMD to terrorist groups either for $$$ or just because he wanted to.

 

But, some of the key conclusions of the Bush Iraqi Weapons Survey Team include:

 

"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

 

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq

unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdads desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

 

"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."

 

In short, while Saddam was a really bad guy, wanted WMD, he didn't have any, and was not likely to get or produce any WMD any time soon. Yet, this administration made a judgement call, based on whatever evidence they had, to sacrifice the lives of thousands American military personnel, kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and squander 100s of billions of dollars on a war that had nothing to do with protecting the American people from an imminent threat.

 

The question is how could we have gotten it so wrong and who's accountable for such a monumental error. One the administration doesn't even acknowledge it's made. If it wasn't a mistake, and data was deliberately spun to persuade the American people to support a war under false pretenses, it is one of the most hienous crimes commited against the American people and the world.

 

In the mean time, Osama Bin Laden remains at large and he and his followers continue to try and figure out how to kill us and our allies.

 

Sorry for the rant. This issue really gets to me. I consider myself an indepenant, but vote Republican more often than not. However, I will not vote for another Republican for President until the Party can demonstrate to me they can nominate a candidate that can return dignity, competence, and integrity to the White House. Not that I like Dems any better, but if all they do is screw around in the White House and not get anyone killed, that's a better alternative and a sorry state of Presidential politics.

 

Have to go vote now.

 

SA

[BrentAllen]

Beaver,

I remember my history - reread my post. I commented on the 1996 bombing (when Republicans wanted to know strategy) and then (in 1998) when they were skeptical of the bombing the night before Monica's testimony.

For your comparison to be valid, Republicans would have been in front of cameras demanding Clinton get a UN resolution authorizing the us of force. Republicans never did! They questioned his true motives (in 1998), which I think was entirely appropriate. They did not demand he seek UN approval, or even call for a Congressional vote. Yes, both parties have questioned the president, but the level to which the complaints and protests rose were entirely different - no comparison! If you can't see this difference, I suggest you check your alphabet - you sound more like a D than an I.

Which brings up another point. Nearly everyone I have ever met who said they were an Independent usually turns out to be on the left, once a few questions are asked. All in the mold of "Jumpin'" Jim Jeffords. Just a personal observation.

 

I used to be a Fox...

[Prairie_Scouter]

So, OGE, do you understand now why it is that illegal aliens can get driver's licenses?

 

Yes, Brent.

Bush is the anti-Christ. So was Clinton. They're, like, step-brothers.

And, as we all know, Democrat are all bottom feeders, while Republicans always rise to the top.

Nixon wasn't a crook, he was just misunderstood.

Reagan didn't illegally trade arms, they were just early holiday presents.

The Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility. Your check is in the mail.

 

And yes, studies show that most people who describe themselves as "independent" in fact vote Democratic more often than not. So what?

 

Neither party has done much to be proud of over the past few decades. Why is it so hard to see that?

[SR540Beaver]

Brent,

 

I knew I shouldn't have bowed in to this thread and I am going to bow out. I am fully aware of how true-believer neocons view us independents. I doubt I can change your mind about us. Neither party fully represents my values and/or beliefs. I weigh each candidate and issue on their merits and vote in line with my values and beliefs. I try to be fair and balanced. I have voted for Dem, Repub and independent candidates. In many ways, I could be considered a paleo-con or liberterian. A good read of some of Pat Buchanan's columns concerning the war in Iraq would give you a fair understanding of my views on this war. In my estimation, there was little need for it. Hindsight is 20/20, but it appears that much of the push for this war was inaccurate. Being an independent, I can admit that. Hardcore Repub Bush supporters don't seem to be able to. From where I sit, the containment option was working. Saddam's military, weapons programs and infrastructure were in a shambles. He posed no threat. Spider-hole Saddam is a survivor. He wasn't about to cut his own throat by attacking the US. He knew his nation would be turned into a sea of glass if he attacked us. He may be crazy, but he isn't stupid. The run up to the war reminded me of a child asking a parent for something. If one reason or tactic doesn't work, try another. Bush wanted this war. PNAC wanted this war while Clinton was still in office. The fact that many of the PNAC folks were part of this admin wasn't lost on me. This war was going to happen one way or another. 9/11 provided the needed "justification" even though it has been proven to not be related. I suspect that the real reason for the war is a noble one of providing a seed of democracy in the region in the hopes that it will spread. It is a grand experiment with the potential of exploding in our faces. It is also a form of imperialism and as a conservative, I find it repugnant. I believe people should be able to live as they want and if they are under tyranny and don't like it, it is their job to do the dirty work of removing it. We should only engage in military action for defense. I was behind Bush 100% when he went after OBL and the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11. He lost me on Iraq. Is Bush a bad President? No. He isn't a great President either. Was Clinton a bad President? No. He wasn't a great President either. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. For many Repubs, they still can't quit blaming every ill in the world on Clinton after he has been out of office for 5 years. For many Dems, they blame it all on Bush. I just try to call a spade a spade and not follow any particular idelogy other than just being an American. Just my two cents.

[BrentAllen]

As an American, I clearly remember watching the towers fall, and thinking this country is in real trouble. We were just attacked by a terrorist army that is not anchored in any one country, and does not identify itself by wearing a uniform. My initial thinking was this country did not have the guts to fight this battle. Winning would require taking the battle to the terrorists' backyard, wherever it may be - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Somalia, Egypt. This country had gotten too soft, drifted too far to the left, and had become too politically correct to fight this battle. Even if we were to get started, we wouldn't have the stomach to see it through. The left would drag the country down and force us out of the battle, either because of their anti-war beliefs or because they could use the argument to win political points. I saw this all in the span of a few minutes, as those towers fell to the ground.

The terrorist problem is clear to me. The political leaders in the middle east countries harbor the terrorist, either because they believe in their cause or because they fear them. Al-Qaeda is not restrained by any political boundaries - they go where they please. The only way to get rid of them is to go into those countries and clean house. Remove those political leaders who sympathize with Al-Qaeda, and convince the others they should fear/respect the US more than they do the terrorists. I could not think of any other way to rid the world of Al-Qaeda, and I knew they would not cease to hate us. We certainly were not going to negotiate with them. I did not think we could ever muster the resolve to take the first step, much less see any way we could possibly win. How do you fight an enemy who refuses to show itself (either in uniform or on the battlefield)? How do you fight an enemy that has free reign of the area, while we would be constrained by political boundaries (country borders)? How many of their operatives were already in this country, waiting to strike? Looked pretty hopeless to me.

Then, we went into Afghanistan and won - drove out the Taliban. A small step, but in the right direction. Then we went into Iraq. Hindsight shows Saddam was living a lie, but he had fooled everyone - the US (Republicans, Democrats alike), the UN, Britain - everyone. Regardless, we are there and we are killing the terrorists. We are fighting in Iraq, instead of in the US. Sure, the terrorists are coming in from Syria and Iran - I say let them come. Kill then now in Iraq, instead of later in the US or somewhere else. Some will claim we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. I say they claimed to hate America before the war started. They attacked us, not only on 9/11 but also on the USS Cole and other locations. We were infidels before we ever entered Iraq, and we will always be. They will not stop hating us when we leave. If we were not fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq, would we even know where they were? Would we be able to get to them?

We have removed a leader who gave sanctuary and free passage to the terrorists, as well as financial support. Regardless of whether anyone believes Saddam trained Al-Qaeda or not, we all know Saddam would never be our ally in this battle. He would never help us in any way. He was an evil dictator who is now gone, and we are building allies in the area.

I have friends, 40 & 50 years old, who joined the Georgia 48th so they could go to Iraq. They left their families and friends behind and are risking their lives for this cause. They honestly believe if they don't win this battle now, their sons and grandsons will be fighting this war here in the states. I know students at North Georgia College who have done the same. Even though they are in a military college, they also joined the National Guard, so they could go fight. These are not mercenaries - these are decent men with strong families.

You may not agree with them. You may not agree with the war. Can you at least consider they may be fighting for you? Can you understand that much of the political attacks against the president and the war might be helping the terrorists? Signs of weakness only emboldens the terrorists.

[Trevorum]

This is a long-winded thread, even for Issues & Politics. I know! Let's change the subject! (again...)

 

How about our government's refusal (just this week) to promise we won't torture people? I consider that to be a moral nadir, even worse than our refusal to promise we won't use land mines, or our refusal to take the lead in combating global warming. Whatever happened to the moral high ground?

 

No? OK, back to immigration.