US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part Catorce! - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-01-2008, 01:06 PM   #136
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Why?

It is the stupid ignoramus people who listen to Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter and take their words as gospel who will cost you the election. Perhaps if they had several more brain cells to rub together they wouldn't be simpleton drones who just follow whatever the blowhard on the radio tells them.


it's true.

they've been trying to convince people for years that it's conservative to try to rewrite the laws to create unaccountable executives, or that it's conservative to spy on people, or to give the president the power to detain anyone he sees fit, or to torture people.

these are not conservative things, yet they are the core beliefs of this group of self-described conservatives are really just very wealthy individuals who are only out to maximize the power (and thereby wealth) of their own particular clique of connections.

those in the middle of the country who vote on things like abortion or judges have been had.

nice to see McCain's likely nomination waking some people up to this.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 01:56 PM   #137
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:14 AM
abcnews.com

Democratic Debate: Fact Check

Clinton Overestimates Health-Care Reach; Obama Exaggerates His Voter Support
By JAKE TAPPER

Feb. 1, 2008 —

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were gracious during Thursday night's debate, but the facts they ran up against were stubborn.

Clinton for years has attempted to rewrite history about her Iraq War vote. Thursday night was no different. She said of her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq that she "warned at the time it was not authority for a preemptive war."

A review of her speech on the Senate floor, however, shows that she said that her vote was not one in favor of a broad change in U.S. policy.

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose," she said, "all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

Moreover, regardless of whatever she warned, the legislation was called Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. And the other comments she made in her floor speech indicated she knew full well what her vote meant. "It is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president," she said then. "And we say to him, 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"

The Clinton campaign maintains that there is nothing inconsistent with the senator's statement, or her vote, and that she had been given assurances by the White House that the vote was merely one to give the president the proper tools to force Saddam Hussein to let in U.N. weapons inspectors.

Thursday night Clinton also claimed that there are "20,000 National Guard and Reserve members in California who have access to health care because I teamed up with Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to get that done."

That's a misleading figure, one Clinton often overstates, applying it to every National Guardsman and not just those who benefit from her law. As Factcheck.org has pointed out, all National Guardsmen and women, and reservists have health insurance while on duty and for a short time afterward. According to a Pentagon survey, four out of five of the soldiers have health insurance when they're off duty as well, because of their job or spouse. Clinton's legislation gives these soldiers the opportunity to purchase health insurance called TriCare when not on active duty.

In practice that legislation benefits the remaining 20 percent because 80 percent already have health insurance. A more accurate number would not be to cite every one of the 20,000 members of the California National Guard and Reserves, but the 20 percent who actually benefit from the program, more like 4,000.

Clinton's campaign underlines that she literally claimed that her legislation gave the 20,000 National Guard and Reserve members "access to health care"  not health insurance  and that since the law could in theory apply to any of them, what she said was factual.

Overstating Support

Obama inflated figures as well. Speaking of how both he and Clinton were bringing new voters into the process, he said, "In Iowa, about 60 percent of those new voters voted for me."

That's inaccurate. About 60 percent of those voting in Iowa were first-time caucus goers and around 40 percent of them voted for Obama.

On the subject of illegal immigration, Obama also said Thursday night that he believes "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

That seems to contradict his previous position. Asked in a 2004 questionnaire, "Should the government crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants as major part of overhaul?" Obama answered "Oppose."

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton explained that his boss' position has evolved because of the advent of "tamper-proof electronic employment verification systems" that would make cracking down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants a more realistic option.

"Those employers have never been given the necessary tools to distinguish which workers are legally here and which are not," Burton said, explaining that Obama has tried to take the lead on the new technology during congressional debates over illegal immigration.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 02:17 PM   #138
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Happy Valentines Day


__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 02:22 PM   #139
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 05:14 AM


Any guess as to what Obama whispered in her ear?
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 02:29 PM   #140
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


[q]In regards 1441, I’d like to point out that you ignored the assurances by Negroponte and Greenstock assured everyone that it was not a green light for an invasion. You say it was; they say it wasn’t. Why did Tony Blair work furiously for another resolution to authorize force (one that France said it would veto) if 1441 is as clear an authorization for war as you make it out to be? Finally, and this is an important point: it is up to the Security Council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. What 1441 says and doesn’t say isn’t for the United States to decide.

Another point: resolution 678 contains the phrase “all necessary means." 1441 does not.

Clearly, you are in the wrong here. Anyway …

[/q]
Lets make a few things clear first. The United States and other member states of the United Nations already had legal authorization from the United Nations Security Council to use military force to enforce any resoluctions passed against Iraq under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

That authorization came from Resolution 678 passed in the fall of 1990. Paragraph 2 of Resolution 678 states the following:

"Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS and to restore international peace and security to the area"

The term all subsequent relevant resolutions applies to EVERY single UN Security Council resolution passed under Chapter VII rules against Iraq since that time! Resolution 678 was always sited by the Clinton administration prior or after any of its major military actions against Iraq during the 1990s or whenever the issue of the legality of the use of military force against Iraq came up after 1991.

It is absolutely clear, that when it came to the legality of the use of any military force against Iraq to enforce compliance, the member states of the United Nations already had prior authorization from the UN Security Council to do so.

On the suggestion of Colin Powell, the United States went back to the United Nations to get a new resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq for POLITICAL reasons only, not because the United States or any other member state no longer had the legal right granted by the Security Council to us military force to enforce the resolutions.

Negroponte and Greenstock said there was nothing automatic about resolution 1441 in the sense that if Iraq did not satisfy UN demands upon the arrival of inspectors, they would be pulled out immediately and B-2 Bombers and Cruise Missiles would be on the way within 30 minutes of their depature. It was a promise to discuss the issue after Iraq issued its report(which was EXACTLY the same totally unsatisfactory one they issued in 1998) and that happened.

Negroponte and Greenstock NEVER assured anyone that there would be another resolution prior to a military invasion, and they NEVER assured anyone that Iraq's violations of 1441 would not eventually lead to a military invasion. There is no mention of a need for a further resolution in the body of 1441 and it reafirms the prior resolutions like 678 which already made military enforcement of the resolutions legal and was sited by the Clinton administration when people questioned military action in the 1990s.

Tony Blair pushed for a new resolution for political reasons, not because he felt invasion without another resolution would be illegal.

The Security Council authorized the use of military force to enforce all UN Security Council resolutions passed against Iraq under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations in both resolution 678 and resolution 1441.

In the fall of 1990, when the United States was attempting to get resolution 678 passed, the original version contained the actual words, "military force", but the Soviet Union said they would VETO any resolution that had those words in it, so the phrase "use of all necessary means" was put in place and was a more ambiguous term than "military force" which would make it easier for the Soviet Union and other countries to distances themselves from any military action if they chose to do so later on.

"Serious Consequences" in resolution 1441 is far less ambiguous than the "Use of All Necessary Means" in 678 do to the situation at the time and all the prior resolutions that had already been passed against Iraq as a consequence of its actions. Essentially every non-military resolution or sanction that could be passed against Iraq, had been passed. In addition, there was already a legal basis for any and all military action, and Iraq was already being bombed every year, sometimes heavily in between 1991 and 2003. The only consequence that Iraq could suffer that was more serious than what it was already going through in terms of international relations was a full scale military invasion!


Resolution 1483 authorized the occupation which was brought about by the invasion of Iraq which was authorized by resolution 1441. Every year since the summer of 2003, the United Nations has authorized the occupation of Iraq. If the United Nations thought the invasion of Iraq was illegal, the first thing it would do would be to call for the immediate withdrawal of foreign forces and the immediate cecessation of hostilities. I don't recall the United Nations doing that on March 19, 2003 as the invasion was getting under way. There was not even an attempt at a resolution calling for a cecessation of hostilities on the first day of the war. Yes, the United States and others would not vote for such a resolution and the US would definitely veto it, but that has not stopped the United Nations from attempting to pass dozens of resolutions against Israel for the past several decades.

The fact that the United Nations Security Council has authorized the occupation(every year now) and never attempted to call for a cecessation of hostilities on the first day of the war or any sort of withdrawal, or even a resolution of protest or condemnation is the final nail in the coffin on the idea that the war was illegal and without UN approval.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 02:32 PM   #141
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Serenity now!!!
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 02:43 PM   #142
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 12:14 AM
you see?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 02:43 PM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:14 AM
What is all of that stuff doing in this thread?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 02:46 PM   #144
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,061
Local Time: 12:14 AM


You knew he wouldn't be able to hold back.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 02:51 PM   #145
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 12:14 AM
i mean, we could then get into Resolution 687 and the very clear fact that most member governments of the Security Council made it abundantly clear that resolution 1441 was no authorization for the use of force, but i'll spare everyone.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 02:55 PM   #146
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat


Any guess as to what Obama whispered in her ear?
Let's ditch Bill and Michelle and get down to some resolution1441ing (that's what they're calling it these days)
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 04:27 PM   #147
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 05:14 AM
At the time that I posted in this thread, it had 1441 views...............................................................

__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 06:43 PM   #148
Blue Crack Addict
 
unico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,747
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat
At the time that I posted in this thread, it had 1441 views...............................................................


http://forum.interference.com/t183667.html

i bet it is a track off the new album
__________________
unico is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 08:33 PM   #149
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i mean, we could then get into Resolution 687 and the very clear fact that most member governments of the Security Council made it abundantly clear that resolution 1441 was no authorization for the use of force, but i'll spare everyone.
If thats how the governments really felt about 1441 then they should not have voted for it. But they did, and then they voted to approve the occupation that resulted from the invasion. Where was the attempt at a resolution calling for a cessation of military action on the day military action began? Where was the attempt at a resolution condemning the " illegal and unilateral United States military invasion of Iraq"? Where was the resolution calling for the coalition forces to withdraw? There was plenty of time for one given that it took three weeks to remove Saddam from power.

The Soviets tried to have it both ways in 1990 with resolution 678, but the actions and votes speak far louder than anything said on the sidelines.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 08:38 PM   #150
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 10:14 PM
Getting back to the campaign.

On the GOP side.

McCain =Gerald Ford circa 1976. (Ford won nomination, lost to Carter)
Romney=Ronald Reagan circa 1976. (Reagan lost to Ford, but came back in 1980 and kicked butt).

dbs
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com