Tomorrow is the anniversary of the .......

[Dreadsox]

It would just seem that if Dreadsox is so concerned with his newly found conversion to AIDS activism, he would have shown the posters in his own thread about Africa the courtesy to first post in his own thread about AIDS before he starts this rather meaningless thread about the war.

I find it interesting, that because I started this thread, I am somehow still NOT committed to my "newly found conversion". I find your tone insulting and quite honestly unfair. I was not aware that there is some kind of test that I have flunked that says I cannot be active on the AIDS end of things. I was also not aware that there is an FYM test of ones worthiness in a cause based on where and when they post first. If that is some kind of standard, I guess we should check all of the other people who started threads and see where they posted before their own thread.

[Q]And, Dreadsox, I find it incredibly callous of you to make your comments to me after I did all I could several weeks ago to support you in your supposed conversion to advocacy on the AIDS issue.

I gave you a lot of helpful info and sources which has been useful to me and others in reaching out to others in regards to the Global AIDS crisis. [/Q]

I find it incredibly callous that you would judge if I have been using my time wisely. I find it incredible that you would be so offended that I would respond to your comments as I did. Nowhere have I said that I was not appreciative of any input from the members of FYM, I think if you go back you might see I thanked people.

What I find shocking is that you would now say I was "supposedly" committed. How disgusting is that? I am suddenly not worthy of being against global AIDS because of this thread? You are suddenly the judge and jury as to what is in side of my heart? "Supposedly committed"

It almost sounds like you regret sharing information with me on AIDS because of this thread....please....this is the way to stop AIDS? I do not walk around keeping a scorecard, why are you? You said something I found incredibly insulting, and it was directed at me and I responded. If that somehow makes me unworthy of help on this issue, maybe it is you who are "supposedly committed".


[Q]Is this what "compassionate conservatism" is all about - trying to defame others who question you? [/Q]

How exactly did I "defame you"? Please enlighten me.......I started a thread and YOU chose to direct things at me. I have reread my post, in which I thanked you and lightheartedly winked at the end. Now you throw another "LABEL" at me. If you have something personal to say to me, you could just as easily pm or email me.


Instead of attacking my use of time and if I am productive or questioning how committed I am maybe you could do something more useful with your time.

 

[Dreadsox]

I was complaining about the lead up to war DURING the lead up to war. Democrats had to put pressure on Bush to go to the UN BEFORE the war. They WERE complaining about it at the time, just not loudly enough.

They should NEVER have given him the power then. If this was their issue, they should have voted against it.

 

[starsgoblue]

Boo

 

[Dreadsox]

?

Seems to me that a lot of people (including those members of Congress who Dreadsox quotes) are complaining about the "rush to war" only after the fact. What did they think, that Bush was going to let negotiations drag on for another 12 months?

I think Kerry would be much more effective if he'd drop the "wrong war at the wrong time" shtick and focus more on how he's going to fix things. As far as I can tell, Kerry's entire plan is entirely contingent upon getting foreign/UN troops into Iraq, which doesn't seem terribly likely to me.

While he was still in the running, it seemed to me that Howard Dean had given much more thought to fixing Iraq, despite his opposition to the war from the outset.

Speedracer, you stated 100% things I agree with here.

The problem is Dean forced kerry and Edwards away from their original positions in the primaries. They had to solidify the base and take the mantle from Dean.

 

[Dreadsox]

Senator Biden Said this said this during the debates over the Bill:

[Q]The point about whether or not there needs to be an imminent threat to justify the President taking action is what is at stake. I am of the school that suggests the President need not, if the underlying amendment passes, have to show there is an imminent threat. He is enforcing a peace agreement in effect. He is enforcing, not preempting. And he is not responding to imminent threat.

I do not believe there is an imminent threat in the next day or two or week or a month. The reason why I oppose my friend from the State of Michigan is because I believe there is an inevitable threat. We are either going to have to react, if not tomorrow, we will have to in the next 5 years. If this man is unfettered, with $2 billion per year in revenues, on the course he is on, I guarantee you, we will be responding. I guarantee you, we will.

Is it imminent now? No. Is al-Qaida involved now? No. Is all this talk about the likelihood of cooperation with terrorist groups a real immediate threat? No. I don't believe any of that now. But I do know we are going to have to address it. So the question is, do we address it now or do we wait a year or two or three.

The reason I oppose the amendment of my friend from Michigan is because the basic premise upon which I began is consistent with where my friend from Connecticut began, and that is the threat need not be imminent for us to take action. That is because we would be enforcing Security Council resolutions. That is authority we are about to delegate to the President.

[/Q]

 

[diamond]

Dreadsox wins again
Patiently politely and systematically.

db9

 

[Jamila]

I see we have our old Dreadsox back!

Personally, I never believed the conversion to a kinder and softer Dreadsox - and I think we have proof of it here.

So go ahead and post until your heart's content, Dreadsox. But the more you return to your old tactics the more we will see the real you - not the reconverted soul of your Africa posts several weeks ago.

Personally, I didn't believe you then and your attacking attitudes here only further my suspicions.

So, I will not debate you or defend myself.

But you are free to post whatever the mods allow you to post.

I would encourage people not to debate our colleague - ignore his postings and he will disappear again.

I ask God to forgive me if I am mistaken in my opinion.

ELEVATION....

 

[nbcrusader]

Dread is one of the most esteemed members of FYM.

Picking a fight with him over what you deem "thread worthy" is a mistake.

 

[diamond]

Dread is one of the most esteemed members of FYM.

.

btw what does 'esteemed' mean?

db9

 

[BAW]

I see we have our old Dreadsox back!

Personally, I never believed the conversion to a kinder and softer Dreadsox - and I think we have proof of it here.

So go ahead and post until your heart's content, Dreadsox. But the more you return to your old tactics the more we will see the real you - not the reconverted soul of your Africa posts several weeks ago.

Personally, I didn't believe you then and your attacking attitudes here only further my suspicions.

So, I will not debate you or defend myself.

But you are free to post whatever the mods allow you to post.

I would encourage people not to debate our colleague - ignore his postings and he will disappear again.

I ask God to forgive me if I am mistaken in my opinion.

ELEVATION....

Do you have any clue how judgemental and out of line your posts in thread are coming across?

 

[Dreadsox]

Do you have any clue how judgemental and out of line your posts in thread are coming across?

BAM...I thouhgt I was the only one who felt it. Thank you for coming to my side.

Apparently you cannot unite over an issue like AIDS and have any opinions that might differ on the issues.

Unfortunately, many are not able to move beyond politics and unite over issues like AIDS. Bono has been able to work with those politically opposite. Others are not.


Thanks NB and Diamond as well.

 

[anitram]

I think I'm clearly missing a lot here. What is it that Dread has converted to? A kinder, better Dread version 2.0?

You know, there have been times I have agreed with him implicitly and times I have disagreed completely, but I don't recall a single time he has treated me disrespectfully, and that includes the time he mistook me for someone else. He's been nothing but gracious to both publicly and privately.

Are we freeing our minds here by wishing people away?

 

[Dreadsox]

Senator Specter [R] had this to say:

[Q] The advantage of the Levin amendment was that we would have multilateral action, very much like the Gulf War in 1991. The disadvantage would be that we would be subject to the veto of Russia, China, or even France, and that ultimately the United States would be ceding a considerable quantum of national sovereignty if we gave up our right to decide what course of conduct we should take, which is in our national interest.

I carefully considered an amendment which had been prepared and circulated by Senator Lugar and Senator Biden. That resolution emphasized that the President should exhaust all possible means for an international coalition. However, if the President found it impossible to organize an international coalition and believed that the interests of the United States were threatened, in self-defense the President could act on his own or in conjunction with Great Britain.

However, the President would not have to await U.N. action.

It would seem to me the proposal of Senator Biden and Senator Lugar was the best idea, and I had agreed to cosponsor that resolution or an amendment offered which contained the essence of that resolution. [/Q]

 

[Dreadsox]

Senator Specter pretty much stated my feelings on this. For those of you who were here during this time period, I started a thread saying that NOTHING short of Declaration of war was necessary.

[Q] I am concerned that the scope of the present resolution goes a little far in authorizing the President to use ``all means that he determines to be appropriate,'' which is a subjective test, contrasted with the 1991 authorization which said the President was authorized to use force in order to implement Security Council resolutions. It is too late in the day to press that distinction, but I think it is important to note.

Similarly, I think it is important to note the potential historical impact of the pending resolution which, in effect, delegates to the President the authority to declare war.

Make no mistake about it, this resolution for the use of force is the equivalent of a declaration of war, and Congress has the authority to declare war. However, we are saying in effect that the President may decide at some future time whether war should be declared.

In an earlier presentation on the Senate floor, I detailed, to substantial extent, the considerations and concerns I had about the constitutionality of that kind of a delegation of power.

So, in sum, we are faced with a tough decision for the first time in the history of this country to use preemptive action. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations. [/Q]

 

[Dreadsox]

I think I'm clearly missing a lot here. What is it that Dread has converted to? A kinder, better Dread version 2.0?

You know, there have been times I have agreed with him implicitly and times I have disagreed completely, but I don't recall a single time he has treated me disrespectfully, and that includes the time he mistook me for someone else. He's been nothing but gracious to both publicly and privately.

Are we freeing our minds here by wishing people away?

Fernando loves you baby

My wife gave me permission to say that to you...she just sat down next to me, the liberal that she is, and said to hug you....

 

[Dreadsox]

mR. sHELDBY hAD THIS TO SAY:

[Q]The law does not require us to wait to be attached with the other weapons in Saddam's arsenal before completing the task the Security Council has set for ending the threat Iraq poses to international peace and security. The law does not require this, and our security, and that of other countries in the region, and around the world, does not permit it.

I will close with these final thoughts. There are those at home and abroad who criticize U.S. intent to take action. I remind them that the United States did not pick this conflict. The United States doe not want this fight, Saddam Hussein forced our hand by not complying with his obligations under the 1991 cease fire. He forced our hand by not complying with U.N. resolutions. He forced our hand by building alliances with terrorists.

We do not make this decision lightly, we are very aware of the potential costs of taking action, but we are much more aware of the costs of not taking action. As said by Edmond Burke, ``All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.''
[/Q]

 

[Dreadsox]

I am asking you the citizens of FYM to take the time to read the Congressional record on this vote.

I have spoken in here many times about HOLDING your representatives accountable. Not just your President. If you are going to hold the President accountable, as I plan to do, then you should also hold the Congress and the Senate to the SAME standards.

This election is not just a Presidential one. No matter where you stand on the issue, there are COngressman and Senators that need examination too.

The point of my thread was not to take sides, I posted quotes from people that I do not agree with in here. The point was to make you think. These people had access to the SAME intelligence as the President. The letter I quoted from DEOMOCRATS who were running for President urging President Bush to take action is very telling.

This is not a Republican or Democratic issue......It is an issue that needs examining. Is it acceptable to you, that we did not EVER have an official Declaration of War?

PEACE....TO EVERYONE.

 

[Dreadsox]

Congressional record Here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/r107/r107.html

Click on October 10

Peace

 

[diamond]

This is not a Republican or Democratic issue......It is an issue

i think it's an honesty and an accountability issue.

db9

 

[Dreadsox]

ACCOUNTABLITY for politicians is the ability to make statements in such a way that you can claim you stood on either side of the issue depending on how things pan out.

 

[sharky]

The analogy I best like for this is that Congress gave the president the keys to the car to drive it responsibly, not drive it off a cliff.

Congress was lied to and deceived when they voted for this. Perhaps the president was as well although I'm a little more skeptical of that one. Beside the point. The fact remains that things went horribly wrong when the president used the bill to run over Iraq. Hence, we're in a mess now.

As for Dread, he's a great poster who has alot of interesting things to say on alot of interesting topics. I usually don't agree with him but at least he makes me think why I don't agree with him.

 

[nbcrusader]

The analogy I best like for this is that Congress gave the president the keys to the car to drive it responsibly, not drive it off a cliff.

Continue the analogy with all the back seat drivers.......

 

[Dreadsox]

Congress was lied to and deceived when they voted for this. Perhaps the president was as well although I'm a little more skeptical of that one. Beside the point. The fact remains that things went horribly wrong when the president used the bill to run over Iraq. Hence, we're in a mess now.

If congress was lied to, then so were the Presidents of Germany and France who also agreed with the assessments of theintelligence presented to the congress. Germany had an equally grim take on the situation in Iraq. Their politicians did not agree with the course of action that the CONGRESS and the President took, however, their intelligence showed the same if not worse as far as WMD and Nukes. That is a fact.

 

[U2democrat]

The analogy I best like for this is that Congress gave the president the keys to the car to drive it responsibly, not drive it off a cliff.

Congress was lied to and deceived when they voted for this. Perhaps the president was as well although I'm a little more skeptical of that one. Beside the point. The fact remains that things went horribly wrong when the president used the bill to run over Iraq. Hence, we're in a mess now.

As for Dread, he's a great poster who has alot of interesting things to say on alot of interesting topics. I usually don't agree with him but at least he makes me think why I don't agree with him.

amen. thanks dread for making us think! you're really challenging my convictions, which is a good thing. i'm not challenged (politically) nearly enough.

do i disagree with the vote that was passed on iraq? yeah. but that's the past. we need to work for the future.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Back seat drivers, patting the driver on the back while going on a joy ride into a tree?

LOL jamila...

Either way, Kerry and company should never have made a big issue of "going" to war b/c in the end they don't look any different then Bush.

 

[adam's_mistress]

Thanks for taking the time to post these meaty bits of information. It's very easy to blame President Bush, he is the figurehead but in the end there's more to it than black and white. We pay our congress' salary so they can work for us and, in a sense, speak for us. I have more ammunition to fire off at the people who are supposedly representing me, and I plan on using the knowledge gained to hopefully make a difference. The pen is mightier than the sword, so I've been told.

But I have to say this thread really, really took a disappointing turn and it was enough to bring me out of lurk mode. (beating a dead horse, I know.) Making things personal as a means of attack. It's a real turn off, especially between two posters who I admire for their passion and dedication to the issues at hand. I would like to say, dread, that I think you're a good person who's been through a lot in order to arrive where you are. So without sounding too much like the dreadsox cheering squad, I'm out...

Take a deep breath and peace be, everyone.

 

[diamond]

yo peace
out
diamond

 

[Dreadsox]

Thanks for taking the time to post these meaty bits of information. It's very easy to blame President Bush, he is the figurehead but in the end there's more to it than black and white. We pay our congress' salary so they can work for us and, in a sense, speak for us. I have more ammunition to fire off at the people who are supposedly representing me, and I plan on using the knowledge gained to hopefully make a difference. The pen is mightier than the sword, so I've been told.

I would say that there were members of congress who passionately argued against giving up the power for war.

Sen. Kennedy(D), Senator Byrd(D), and Senator Spector(R) and one other republican who's name escapes me, spoke passionately against the resolution. In hindsight, they made excellent points on this issue, points at the time, I strongly disagreed with. Hindsite is a wonderful thing.