Irony

Seahawk said:
Let me try and explain this to you on your level.

1. As Cawacko pointed out, the timeliness is wholly relevant. Today, there is not much support for the Iraq war. Back then there was a near fever pitch for it. So comparing the two as equal is not taking an open and honest look at the two situations.
- so, it's better to voice dissent when more people agree w/ you, and when it will no longer have any effect on policy? Got it.

2. They made the comment overseas. I'm unaware of the so called unwritten rule against that, but I can certainly and at the time remembering, that this was very disrespectful to our President. It wasn't so much their anti war stance as was their comment about our President.
- so, it's better to offer dissent in a way that is 'respectful'? Got it.

3. Wanting to shut someone up is within the constitution. Making them shut up is not. One is just a reaction, the other is an actual action. That you don't know the difference is bizarre.
- Never said it was unconstitutional. That you haven't seen that is dopey.

4. Your snide comments are in line with someone who simply cannot see any other POV than his own. You simply are incapable of it. Hence why you project and claim I think in a linear way. For example, I do not approve of people calling anti war protesters traitors etc. At the same time, that is their right to do so.
- again, never said they didn't have the right. Your other comments here are meaningless & baseless.

5. The ultimate fact is, the DC's were not shut up and in fact the controversy made their words heard all the more.
- Yeah - and it kept a lot of other artists & individuals in general from speaking out.
Click to expand...

See bolded.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#UN_resolutions




Resolution 1441[edit]

UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, to give Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (resolution 660, resolution 661, resolution 678, resolution 686, resolution 687, resolution 688, resolution 707, resolution 715, resolution 986, and resolution 1284).

The resolution strengthened the mandate of the UN Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), giving them authority to go anywhere, at any time and talk to anyone in order to verify Iraq’s disarmament."[21]

The most important text of Resolution 1441 was to require that Iraq "shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect".[22] However, on January 27, 2003, Hans Blix, the lead member of the UNMOVIC, said that, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it". Blix noted that Iraq had failed cooperation in a number of areas, including the failure to provide safety to U-2 spy planes that inspectors hoped to use for aerial surveillance, refusal to let UN inspectors into several chemical, biological, and missile sites on the belief that they were engaging in espionage rather than disarmament, submitting 12,000-page arms declaration that it handed over in December 2002 which contained little more than old material previously submitted to inspectors, and failure to produce convincing evidence to the UN inspectors that it had unilaterally destroyed its anthrax stockpiles as required by resolution 687 a decade before 1441 was passed in 2002.[23] On March 7, 2003, Blix said that Iraq had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament but the cooperation was still not "immediate" and "unconditional" as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[24] The US government observed this as a breach of resolution 1441 because Iraq did not meet the requirement of an "immediate" and "unconditional" compliance.[25]

On the day Resolution 1441 was passed, the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, assured the Security Council that there were no "hidden triggers" with respect to the use of force, and that in the event of a "further breach" by Iraq, resolution 1441 would require that "the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12." However, he then added: "If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security."[26]

At the same meeting, UK Permanent Representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock KCMG used many of the same words. "If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12."[27]

On March 17, 2003, the Attorney General for England and Wales Lord Goldsmith agreed that the use of force against Iraq was justified by resolution 1441, in combination with the earlier resolutions 678 and 687.[28]

According to an independent commission of inquiry set up by the government of the Netherlands, UN resolution 1441 "cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions
 
1.she had access to Intelligence Committee level reports on Iraq - she failed to do deep research ( she was far from alone)

2.She completely screwed up on Libya -
she took promises of "democracy" from the Ansar al-Sharia and Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (NTC coalition) for" democracy" post-Qadaffi
and organized international 'humanitarian war' against Qadaffi, while calling for regime change ( surpassing UN Res 1973)

3. She repeatedly called for arming various Syrian "rebels" -despite the failure of the CIA project in Jordan, and to this day still supports a 'no fly'
in Syria -which would put us in direct conflict with Russian air.
She also organized "Friends of Syria" that weakened Assad, enabling the Islamists to gain

4. The Russian reset failed to consider Russian interests !

she's a screw up
 
Desh you rail on the "corporate media" but your head would explode listening to the very non corporate Pacifica Free Speech radio that rails against Hillary's Iraq War vote nad her foreign policy hawkesness
 
your fucks took the shit cork out of the bottle of bees asshole



we told you it would make an intractable mess of the ME



you lied us into it anyway



now you seek to blame the people you lied to


fuck you evil one
 
cawacko said:
Desh you rail on the "corporate media" but your head would explode listening to the very non corporate Pacifica Free Speech radio that rails against Hillary's Iraq War vote nad her foreign policy hawkesness
Click to expand...

they are wrong

you are wrong and evil
 
Thing1 said:
See bolded.
Click to expand...

You do realize that it makes it harder to respond to you when you reply in my quote. Whatever. Please try not to do that again. Thanks.

1. As Cawacko pointed out, the timeliness is wholly relevant. Today, there is not much support for the Iraq war. Back then there was a near fever pitch for it. So comparing the two as equal is not taking an open and honest look at the two situations.
- so, it's better to voice dissent when more people agree w/ you, and when it will no longer have any effect on policy? Got it.
Click to expand...

No. I never said that. Stop lying.

2. They made the comment overseas. I'm unaware of the so called unwritten rule against that, but I can certainly and at the time remembering, that this was very disrespectful to our President. It wasn't so much their anti war stance as was their comment about our President.
- so, it's better to offer dissent in a way that is 'respectful'? Got it.
Click to expand...

I would think so. Do you not? Sure, there are times when respect is not going to make a point, but they didn't even try. They immediately went full bore. You can cry all you want, but they reaped what they sowed. Just like all the anti gay businesses' have.

3. Wanting to shut someone up is within the constitution. Making them shut up is not. One is just a reaction, the other is an actual action. That you don't know the difference is bizarre.
- Never said it was unconstitutional. That you haven't seen that is dopey.
Click to expand...

You sure seem to be saying it. Very loudly. If you are not, then what is your problem?

4. Your snide comments are in line with someone who simply cannot see any other POV than his own. You simply are incapable of it. Hence why you project and claim I think in a linear way. For example, I do not approve of people calling anti war protesters traitors etc. At the same time, that is their right to do so.
- again, never said they didn't have the right. Your other comments here are meaningless & baseless.
Click to expand...

Your entire premise is that they do not have the right Thing. Admit they have the right, right here, right now.

5. The ultimate fact is, the DC's were not shut up and in fact the controversy made their words heard all the more.
- Yeah - and it kept a lot of other artists & individuals in general from speaking out.
Click to expand...

k
 
evince said:
your fucks took the shit cork out of the bottle of bees asshole



we told you it would make an intractable mess of the ME



you lied us into it anyway



now you seek to blame the people you lied to


fuck you evil one
Click to expand...

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
Speech at Federal Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
October 2, 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002

http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#viL8sPidHw
 
evince said:
5 Myths (And One Big Truth) About Hillary’s 2002 Iraq War Vote






Although Hillary Clinton has many advantages in the current Presidential campaign (advantages of policy, programs, and, yes, personality) surely her greatest strength vis-à-vis her principal primary opponent is in the area of foreign and global policy—including matters of war and peace, global development and economics, our war against terrorism, and even climate change and preserving the environment. This writer believes that the success of the next President in dealing with these issues will define her or his legacy; indeed the survival of the human race may well turn on how these issues are handled over the next eight years.


In the face of Secretary Clinton’s undisputed strength in these areas, when Bernie Sanders is asked how his experience measures up to hers in the “Commander In Chief” category, he invariably comes up with a single Talking Point.


Unfortunately that Talking Point, presented in Bernie’s shallow vernacular, simply isn’t true. It usually goes something like this:





The key foreign policy vote in modern American history was the 2002 vote as to whether we should go into Iraq. I made the decision not to go to war. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, voted for the war...




Like many simplistic and “sound bite” arguments of the modern era, and of Sanders in particular, the argument that Hillary Clinton supported the war George W. Bush prosecuted in Iraq is nonsense. This falsehood can be broken down into five sub-myths.
"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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

Myth #1: The 2002 Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, on which Hillary Clinton and a large majority of U.S. Senators voted yes, gave George W. Bush “carte blanche” to pursue war against Saddam Hussein.


False! In fact exactly the opposite is true: While that Resolution did indeed authorize President Bush, under strict requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act, to use force, Section 3(b) of the Act also required that sanctions or diplomacy be fully employed before force was used, i.e. force was to be used only as “necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” and to do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that “diplomatic or other peaceful means” would be insufficient to defang Saddam.
You mean Bill Clinton was bombing and killing Iraqis without sanctions or diplomacy be fully employed before force was used, i.e. force was to be used only as “necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq
Are you sure about that ?

Despite those legal conditions, the following year we were at war—and millions of us were astonished that the Bush Administration, running roughshod over Congress’s requirements, hadn’t given more time for U.N. inspectors to complete their job of searching for weapons of mass destruction.

Myth #2: By voting for the 2002 Congressional Resolution which authorized (but was also designed to limit) George Bush’s power to wage war in Iraq, Hillary Clinton cannot be considered a “progressive” Democrat.


False! On October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, in voting in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. Later on, Clinton came to deeply regret giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Resolution, and she has plainly admitted her mistake. Yet it is a “mistake” which many other senators of conscience made with her; if Clinton bears any blame for the resulting war, it is because she placed too much reliance on legislation that was actually designed to check a president’s war-making ability but instead inadvertently gave that president cover to run roughshod over the interests of both Congress and the public at large.
Yeah....Hillary later came to regret the vote...but then she's a compulsive liar too....its also irrelevant..

Myth #3: At the time of her vote, Clinton was very supportive of going to war in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power.


False! While Clinton quickly turned against the war, another piece of “lost history” is the deep concern she expressed at the very time of her vote in the fall of 2002. Given the Resolution’s several prerequisites to waging war, Clinton’s vote was for a Resolution that was also supposed to restrain the President’s ability to wage war, and her 2002 floor speech leading up to consideration of the Resolution made this clear:

Hillary's a flip flopper ?...Nahhh...Hillary's a hypocrite.



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




These words presaged the doctrine of “smart power” Clinton later espoused as Secretary of State. Her vision is neither interventionist on the one hand nor hesitant and supine on the other, but rather something in between: a belief that the United States is the indispensable leader—in a troubled world where such leadership matters—but a belief still grounded in reality, the limits of American power and, perhaps most significantly, the importance of collaboration with like-minded actors who can be found in every corner of the globe. Meanwhile, as Clinton has said many times, then as now, armed intervention is only to be used as a last resort.

Myth #4: At the time of the 2002 vote, the “architecture” of George Bush’s Presidency was well understood, including a philosophy and history of carrying out pre-emptive wars.


False! In 2002, Clinton palpably feared a precipitous rush to war, but was willing to trust a leader who at the time was only in the second year of his presidency, having just suffered the most calamitous attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor—and, notably, whose only international venture up until then was a widely applauded campaign to overthrow the Taliban in Al Qaida’s sanctuary of Afghanistan. While it was already well known that Bush had neocon advisers like Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, the true extent of their influence had not yet been manifested. (Colin Powell was also an important adviser and George W. was, after all, George H.W. Bush’s son.)

Myth #5. Hillary Clinton’s vote belies support for an “Imperial Presidency” that brooks no dissent, and disrespects Congress and other partners, foreign or domestic.


False! To the contrary, one of the reasons Hillary Clinton is so well qualified to be president is because she deeply respects the rule of law and, in particular, appropriate Congressional prerogatives and the Constitutional principle of checks and balances. (Indeed, this is precisely why she voted the way she did on the 2002 Iraq Resolution.) In this vein, she is also uniquely capable of reaching across the aisle to forge common-sense solutions, a “progressive who delivers results,” as she says.


One big truth: Hillary Clinton possesses another, singular, quality: she has the capacity to learn from the hard lessons that our Iraq adventure taught us, including from the misplaced trust she and others conferred on an Administration that brought so much grief to this country. She has said as much in her memoir, Hard Choices:





As much as I might have wanted to, I could never change my vote on Iraq. But I could try to help us learn the right lessons from that war and apply them to Afghanistan and other challenges where we had fundamental security interests. I was determined to do exactly that when facing future hard choices, with more experience, wisdom, skepticism, and humility.




It is clear that Hillary Clinton is a candidate for president who has learned from the lessons of history, and is capable of applying them to the future; in fact this quality is a critical ingredient of great leadership.
Click to expand...

Your whole super whine is full of shit....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top