CLASSIC NEO CON THINKINGS
- Thread starter THE KOD
- Start date
It would be "you're".......but since I have never said any of that, you're just an stupid asshat.
American is where it is now as a country because of stupid idiots like you.
Reap what you sow.
American is where it is now as a country because of stupid idiots like you.
Reap what you sow.
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats announced a new effort Tuesday to unmask secretive election spending, floating a bill that would require so-called dark money groups to disclose their campaign donors and expenditures.
Secretive spending became an issue in 2010, when the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited electoral spending by corporations, unions and, ultimately, individuals. That sparked a dramatic surge in electoral activities paid for with dark money -- that is, funds from nonprofit groups not required to identify their donors.
In 2012, such nonprofit groups spent at least $400 million.
"Since the Supreme Court?s disastrous Citizens United decision, a torrent of dark money has swept through our political system, giving corporations and billionaires the ability to buy and sell elections, and allow them to beat real speech into submission," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a sponsor of the bill.
"The Disclose Act will require political groups to list publicly their big donors, so voters can at least know who is trying to sway their votes -- an important citizen right in a democracy, as the Supreme Court has recognized," Whitehouse said.
Democrats have made three prior attempts to pass legislation closing this disclosure loophole, but each time Republicans filibustered the measure. The GOP lawmakers argue that the legislation is simply an effort by Democrats to silence the opposition and that it would violate the First Amendment rights of nonprofit groups.
"The purpose of this legislation is clear: After Citizens United, Democrats realized they couldn't shut up their critics," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the floor of the Senate in 2012. "So they decided to go after the microphone instead, by trying to scare off the funders."
Democrats have responded with a list of Republicans, including McConnell, who used to support disclosure. Others include Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), all of whom said as recently as 2010 that they favored transparency in campaign funding.
"It wasn't too long ago that Republicans supported disclosure," Whitehouse said.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggested that the First Amendment argument was phony, noting that the right to free speech is not unlimited and arguing that restricting campaign spending is akin to other limits on speech, such as laws against libel or child pornography.
"If you believe in the First Amendment, you believe in disclosure, you believe in sunlight, you believe that letting people know, that giving people as close to what the economists would call perfect knowledge makes the system better," said Schumer.
Democrats also argued that allowing the wealthy to secretly spend as much as they want on elections gives them outsized influence with politicians and drowns out ordinary Americans' attempts to influence their representatives.
"The Supreme Court has determined that billionaires should have a louder voice in elections than everyone else. The Supreme Court is wrong," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). "But because it is the Supreme Court, the ultimate solution will lie in a constitutional amendment," she added, referring to a separate push for reform that Democrats also back.
She noted that while the Citizens United decision prevents Congress from restricting independent electoral spending, the Supreme Court also said that Congress can require donors to reveal themselves.
"Even this Supreme Court has said disclose, disclose, disclose in order to promote fairer elections," Warren said.
The latest bill would require any group that spends $10,000 or more during an election cycle to disclose campaign-related expenditures over $1,000 and donations and transfers of $10,000 or more. It would not limit spending.
"Those who are pouring money into elections at least have to be willing to stand up and admit that's what they are doing," Warren said.
Whitehouse said Democratic leaders have committed to bringing the measure up for a vote this year.
Later on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) committed not only to acting on the Disclose Act, but also to pushing a constitutional amendment on campaign finance.
"It's important that people understand what's happening to our country. The constant focus on who has the most money is just the wrong way to go," Reid told reporters.
............................................................................................................................
money rules
on and on it goes
Secretive spending became an issue in 2010, when the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited electoral spending by corporations, unions and, ultimately, individuals. That sparked a dramatic surge in electoral activities paid for with dark money -- that is, funds from nonprofit groups not required to identify their donors.
In 2012, such nonprofit groups spent at least $400 million.
"Since the Supreme Court?s disastrous Citizens United decision, a torrent of dark money has swept through our political system, giving corporations and billionaires the ability to buy and sell elections, and allow them to beat real speech into submission," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a sponsor of the bill.
"The Disclose Act will require political groups to list publicly their big donors, so voters can at least know who is trying to sway their votes -- an important citizen right in a democracy, as the Supreme Court has recognized," Whitehouse said.
Democrats have made three prior attempts to pass legislation closing this disclosure loophole, but each time Republicans filibustered the measure. The GOP lawmakers argue that the legislation is simply an effort by Democrats to silence the opposition and that it would violate the First Amendment rights of nonprofit groups.
"The purpose of this legislation is clear: After Citizens United, Democrats realized they couldn't shut up their critics," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the floor of the Senate in 2012. "So they decided to go after the microphone instead, by trying to scare off the funders."
Democrats have responded with a list of Republicans, including McConnell, who used to support disclosure. Others include Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), all of whom said as recently as 2010 that they favored transparency in campaign funding.
"It wasn't too long ago that Republicans supported disclosure," Whitehouse said.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggested that the First Amendment argument was phony, noting that the right to free speech is not unlimited and arguing that restricting campaign spending is akin to other limits on speech, such as laws against libel or child pornography.
"If you believe in the First Amendment, you believe in disclosure, you believe in sunlight, you believe that letting people know, that giving people as close to what the economists would call perfect knowledge makes the system better," said Schumer.
Democrats also argued that allowing the wealthy to secretly spend as much as they want on elections gives them outsized influence with politicians and drowns out ordinary Americans' attempts to influence their representatives.
"The Supreme Court has determined that billionaires should have a louder voice in elections than everyone else. The Supreme Court is wrong," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). "But because it is the Supreme Court, the ultimate solution will lie in a constitutional amendment," she added, referring to a separate push for reform that Democrats also back.
She noted that while the Citizens United decision prevents Congress from restricting independent electoral spending, the Supreme Court also said that Congress can require donors to reveal themselves.
"Even this Supreme Court has said disclose, disclose, disclose in order to promote fairer elections," Warren said.
The latest bill would require any group that spends $10,000 or more during an election cycle to disclose campaign-related expenditures over $1,000 and donations and transfers of $10,000 or more. It would not limit spending.
"Those who are pouring money into elections at least have to be willing to stand up and admit that's what they are doing," Warren said.
Whitehouse said Democratic leaders have committed to bringing the measure up for a vote this year.
Later on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) committed not only to acting on the Disclose Act, but also to pushing a constitutional amendment on campaign finance.
"It's important that people understand what's happening to our country. The constant focus on who has the most money is just the wrong way to go," Reid told reporters.
............................................................................................................................
money rules
on and on it goes
WASHINGTON (AP) ? President Barack Obama says he'll keep acting on his own as long as congressional Republicans block his economic agenda.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama says he has moved to attract jobs, raise workers' wages and help students pay off loans because Republican obstructionism is keeping the system rigged against the middle class. He says if it makes Republicans in Congress mad that he's trying to help people, they can join him so they can work together.
...........................................................................................................................
do it Obama
and now the Boenhead is going to sue him for trying to go around him.
what stupid shits they totally area. They just refuse to do anything good for the American people
they are ignorant racist fucks.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama says he has moved to attract jobs, raise workers' wages and help students pay off loans because Republican obstructionism is keeping the system rigged against the middle class. He says if it makes Republicans in Congress mad that he's trying to help people, they can join him so they can work together.
...........................................................................................................................
do it Obama
and now the Boenhead is going to sue him for trying to go around him.
what stupid shits they totally area. They just refuse to do anything good for the American people
they are ignorant racist fucks.
Obama in control ...........................
thats Boehner and Congress in the back seat .
whose your daddy !
Obama in control ...........................
thats Boehner and Congress in the back seat .
whose your daddy !
Four More Years.
:mj07:
It was only a year ago that Paul described the Republican Party as overly enthusiastic for war. During a little-noticed interview with the Christian Broadcast Network, Paul remarked, "Part of Republicans' problems?and frankly, to tell you the truth, some in the evangelical Christian movement?I think [they] have appeared too eager for war." This was a stark assessment of his own party.
Paul went further, noting that these Republicans and evangelicals were not in sync with Jesus:
When people come to me and they?re lobbying for ratcheting up some sort of bellicose policy towards one country, even if it's a bad country, I tell them that and when I read the New Testament, that when I read about Jesus, I don?t see him involved, he wasn?t really involved with the wars of his days. And, in fact, people rebuked him for not being [what] they wanted. They wanted somebody to stand up to the Romans. He stood up in a different sort of way, but he didn?t organize coalitions and guerrilla bands and arm them. Now I'm not saying that you shouldn't have people who want to defend against evil, bad forces around the world, but I think you need to remember that he was the prince of peace, you know, we?re talking about "blessed are the peacemakers," not "blessed are the war-makers."
...................................................................................................
I do respect Rand Paul and like his daddy
at least he recognizes his is a party of war mongers, thieves, and calabazoos
Paul went further, noting that these Republicans and evangelicals were not in sync with Jesus:
When people come to me and they?re lobbying for ratcheting up some sort of bellicose policy towards one country, even if it's a bad country, I tell them that and when I read the New Testament, that when I read about Jesus, I don?t see him involved, he wasn?t really involved with the wars of his days. And, in fact, people rebuked him for not being [what] they wanted. They wanted somebody to stand up to the Romans. He stood up in a different sort of way, but he didn?t organize coalitions and guerrilla bands and arm them. Now I'm not saying that you shouldn't have people who want to defend against evil, bad forces around the world, but I think you need to remember that he was the prince of peace, you know, we?re talking about "blessed are the peacemakers," not "blessed are the war-makers."
...................................................................................................
I do respect Rand Paul and like his daddy
at least he recognizes his is a party of war mongers, thieves, and calabazoos
U.S. stocks jumped on Tuesday as Wall Street started the second half of the year with the Dow rising to within two points of 17,000, as data showed expansion in U.S. manufacturing and better-than-expected sales for major U.S. automakers.
"The message continues to be, we had a really rough first quarter, and the second quarter is going to be better," said Andres Garcia-Amaya, global market strategist at J.P. Morgan Funds.
"These numbers are reassuring us that the first quarter was the outlier, not the other way around," Garcia-Amaya added of Tuesday's economic reports, which had the Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index coming in at 55.3 in June, nearly unchanged from May's 55.4 reading. New orders rose to a six-month high.
"The message continues to be, we had a really rough first quarter, and the second quarter is going to be better," said Andres Garcia-Amaya, global market strategist at J.P. Morgan Funds.
"These numbers are reassuring us that the first quarter was the outlier, not the other way around," Garcia-Amaya added of Tuesday's economic reports, which had the Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index coming in at 55.3 in June, nearly unchanged from May's 55.4 reading. New orders rose to a six-month high.
Senate Roll Call: Iraq Resolution
Friday, October 11, 2002
Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted on President Bush's Iraq resolution. A "yes" vote was a vote to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally. A "no" vote was a vote to defeat the measure. Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting "no" were 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent.
Alabama Jeff Sessions (R): Yes Richard Shelby (R): Yes
Alaska Frank Murkowski (R): Yes Ted Stevens (R): Yes
Arizona Jon Kyl (R): Yes John McCain (R): Yes
Arkansas Tim Hutchinson (R): Yes Blanche Lincoln (D): Yes
California Barbara Boxer (D): No Dianne Feinstein (D): Yes
Colorado Wayne Allard (R): Yes Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R): Yes
Connecticut Christopher Dodd (D): Yes Joseph Lieberman (D): Yes
Delaware Joseph Biden (D): Yes Thomas Carper (D): Yes
Florida Bob Graham (D): No Bill Nelson (D): Yes
Georgia Max Cleland (D): Yes Zell Miller (D): Yes
Hawaii Daniel Akaka (D): No Daniel Inouye (D): No
Idaho Larry Craig (R): Yes Mike Crapo (R): Yes
Illinois Richard Durbin (D): No Peter Fitzgerald (R): Yes
Indiana Evan Bayh (D): Yes Richard Lugar (R): Yes
Iowa Charles Grassley (R): Yes Tom Harkin (D): Yes
Kansas Sam Brownback (R): Yes Pat Roberts (R): Yes
Kentucky Jim Bunning (R): Yes Mitch McConnell (R): Yes
Louisiana John Breaux (D): Yes Mary Landrieu (D): Yes
Maine Susan Collins (R): Yes Olympia Snowe (R): Yes
Maryland Barbara Mikulski (D): No Paul Sarbanes (D): No
Massachusetts Edward Kennedy (D): No John Kerry (D): Yes
Michigan Debbie Stabenow (D): No Carl Levin (D): No
Minnesota Mark Dayton (D): No Paul Wellstone (D): No
Mississippi Thad Cochran (R): Yes Trent Lott (R): Yes
Missouri Jean Carnahan (D): Yes Christopher (Kit) Bond (R): Yes
Montana Max Baucus (D): Yes Conrad Burns (R): Yes
Nebraska Chuck Hagel (R): Yes Ben Nelson (D): Yes
Nevada John Ensign (R): Yes Harry Reid (D): Yes
New Hampshire Judd Gregg (R): Yes Bob Smith (R): Yes
New Jersey Jon Corzine (D): No Robert Torricelli (D): Yes
New Mexico Jeff Bingaman (D): No Pete Domenici (R): Yes
New York Hillary Clinton (D): Yes Charles Schumer (D): Yes
North Carolina John Edwards (D): Yes Jesse Helms (R): Yes
North Dakota Kent Conrad (D): No Byron Dorgan (D): Yes
Ohio Mike DeWine (R): Yes George Voinovich (R): Yes
Oklahoma James Inhofe (R): Yes Don Nickles (R): Yes
Oregon Gordon Smith (R): Yes Ron Wyden (D): No
Pennsylvania Rick Santorum (R): Yes Arlen Specter (R): Yes
Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee (R): No Jack Reed (D): No
South Carolina Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D): Yes Strom Thurmond (R): Yes
South Dakota Thomas Daschle (D): Yes Tim Johnson (D): Yes
Tennessee Bill Frist (R): Yes Fred Thompson (R): Yes
Texas Phil Gramm (R): Yes Kay Bailey Hutchison (R): Yes
Utah Robert Bennett (R): Yes Orrin Hatch (R): Yes
Vermont James Jeffords (I): No Patrick Leahy (D): No
Virginia George Allen (R): Yes John Warner (R): Yes
Washington Maria Cantwell (D): Yes Patty Murray (D): No
West Virginia Robert Byrd (D): No Jay Rockefeller (D): Yes
Wisconsin Russell Feingold (D): No Herb Kohl (D): Yes
Wyoming Mike Enzi (R): Yes Craig Thomas (R): Yes
? 2002 The Washington Post Company
Friday, October 11, 2002
Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted on President Bush's Iraq resolution. A "yes" vote was a vote to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally. A "no" vote was a vote to defeat the measure. Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting "no" were 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent.
Alabama Jeff Sessions (R): Yes Richard Shelby (R): Yes
Alaska Frank Murkowski (R): Yes Ted Stevens (R): Yes
Arizona Jon Kyl (R): Yes John McCain (R): Yes
Arkansas Tim Hutchinson (R): Yes Blanche Lincoln (D): Yes
California Barbara Boxer (D): No Dianne Feinstein (D): Yes
Colorado Wayne Allard (R): Yes Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R): Yes
Connecticut Christopher Dodd (D): Yes Joseph Lieberman (D): Yes
Delaware Joseph Biden (D): Yes Thomas Carper (D): Yes
Florida Bob Graham (D): No Bill Nelson (D): Yes
Georgia Max Cleland (D): Yes Zell Miller (D): Yes
Hawaii Daniel Akaka (D): No Daniel Inouye (D): No
Idaho Larry Craig (R): Yes Mike Crapo (R): Yes
Illinois Richard Durbin (D): No Peter Fitzgerald (R): Yes
Indiana Evan Bayh (D): Yes Richard Lugar (R): Yes
Iowa Charles Grassley (R): Yes Tom Harkin (D): Yes
Kansas Sam Brownback (R): Yes Pat Roberts (R): Yes
Kentucky Jim Bunning (R): Yes Mitch McConnell (R): Yes
Louisiana John Breaux (D): Yes Mary Landrieu (D): Yes
Maine Susan Collins (R): Yes Olympia Snowe (R): Yes
Maryland Barbara Mikulski (D): No Paul Sarbanes (D): No
Massachusetts Edward Kennedy (D): No John Kerry (D): Yes
Michigan Debbie Stabenow (D): No Carl Levin (D): No
Minnesota Mark Dayton (D): No Paul Wellstone (D): No
Mississippi Thad Cochran (R): Yes Trent Lott (R): Yes
Missouri Jean Carnahan (D): Yes Christopher (Kit) Bond (R): Yes
Montana Max Baucus (D): Yes Conrad Burns (R): Yes
Nebraska Chuck Hagel (R): Yes Ben Nelson (D): Yes
Nevada John Ensign (R): Yes Harry Reid (D): Yes
New Hampshire Judd Gregg (R): Yes Bob Smith (R): Yes
New Jersey Jon Corzine (D): No Robert Torricelli (D): Yes
New Mexico Jeff Bingaman (D): No Pete Domenici (R): Yes
New York Hillary Clinton (D): Yes Charles Schumer (D): Yes
North Carolina John Edwards (D): Yes Jesse Helms (R): Yes
North Dakota Kent Conrad (D): No Byron Dorgan (D): Yes
Ohio Mike DeWine (R): Yes George Voinovich (R): Yes
Oklahoma James Inhofe (R): Yes Don Nickles (R): Yes
Oregon Gordon Smith (R): Yes Ron Wyden (D): No
Pennsylvania Rick Santorum (R): Yes Arlen Specter (R): Yes
Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee (R): No Jack Reed (D): No
South Carolina Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D): Yes Strom Thurmond (R): Yes
South Dakota Thomas Daschle (D): Yes Tim Johnson (D): Yes
Tennessee Bill Frist (R): Yes Fred Thompson (R): Yes
Texas Phil Gramm (R): Yes Kay Bailey Hutchison (R): Yes
Utah Robert Bennett (R): Yes Orrin Hatch (R): Yes
Vermont James Jeffords (I): No Patrick Leahy (D): No
Virginia George Allen (R): Yes John Warner (R): Yes
Washington Maria Cantwell (D): Yes Patty Murray (D): No
West Virginia Robert Byrd (D): No Jay Rockefeller (D): Yes
Wisconsin Russell Feingold (D): No Herb Kohl (D): Yes
Wyoming Mike Enzi (R): Yes Craig Thomas (R): Yes
? 2002 The Washington Post Company
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Passage[edit]
An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002, statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.[4][5]
Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President Bush's requests,[6] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, H.J.Res. 114 sponsored by Rep. Hastert & Rep. Gephardt and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 sponsored by Sen. Lieberman were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 sponsored by Rep. Hastings was a separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the Hastert-Gephardt proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.
Passage of the full resolution[edit]
Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107?243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
United States House of Representatives[edit]
Party Yeas Nays Not
Voting
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 82 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3
82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.
United States Senate[edit]
Party Yeas Nays
Republican 48 1
Democratic 29 21
Independent 0 1
TOTALS 77 23
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:
Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).
42% of Democratic senators (21 of 50) voted against the resolution. Those voting against the resolution are:
Sens. Boxer (D-CA), Graham (D-FL), Akaka (D-HI), Inouye (D-HI), Durbin (D-IL), Mikulski (D-MD), Sarbanes (D-MD), Kennedy (D-MA), Stabenow (D-MI), Levin (D-MI), Dayton (D-MN), Wellstone (D-MN), Corzine (D-NJ), Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND), Wyden (D-OR), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), Byrd (D-WV), and Feingold (D-WI).
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)
Final Congressional vote by chamber and party, October 2002
Amendments offered to the House Resolution[edit]
The Lee Amendment[edit]
Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to have the United States work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.
Sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).[10]
Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 72 - 355[11]
The Spratt Amendment[edit]
Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces to support any new U.N. Security Council resolution that mandated the elimination, by force if necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Requested that the President should seek authorization from Congress to use the armed forces of the U.S. in the absence of a U.N. Security Council resolution sufficient to eliminate, by force if necessary, all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Provided expedited consideration for authorization in the latter case.
Sponsored by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC-5).[12]
Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 155 - 270[13]
The House Rules Amendment[edit]
An amendment considered as adopted pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 574[14]
Sponsored by House Rules.[15]
Resolution (H.RES.574) agreed to by voice vote[16]
Amendments offered to the Senate Resolution[edit]
The Byrd Amendments[edit]
To provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq.
Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).[17]
Amendment SA 4868 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 14 - 86[18]
To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.
Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).[19]
Amendment SA 4869 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 31 - 66[20]
The Levin Amendment[edit]
To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.
Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI).[21]
Amendment SA 4862 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 24 - 75[22]
The Durbin Amendment[edit]
To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).[23]
Amendment SA 4865 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 30 - 70[24]
International law[edit]
Further information: United Nations Charter and International law
There have been no findings by any legal tribunal with both legal authority and legal jurisdiction that any laws were violated. There are only two legal tribunals with both authority and jurisdiction to make such a finding: (1) The US federal courts and (2) the United Nations. Advisory opinions are prohibited in US Courts and are also prohibited by the UN Charter unless the security council authorizes them. There are no relevant advisory opinions or legal finding regarding the legality. The United Nations security council has made no findings on the issues.
International law - right of pre-emptive self defense[edit]
There is no requirement in international law that the United States (or any nation) seek permission to initiate any war of self-defense.[25] "The United States government has argued, wholly apart from Resolution 1441, that it has a right of pre-emptive self-defense to protect itself from terrorism fomented by Iraq.[26] Although this position has been intensively criticized, without any legal finding for support, claims for legality or illegality are merely debates. To prove illegality it would first be necessary to prove that the US did not meet the conditions of necessity and proportionality and that the right of pre-emptive defense did not apply.[27]
U.S. law[edit]
Further information: Doe v. Bush, US Constitution and US law
The invasion was reviewed by the US federal courts and it was determined to be legal.
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[28]
Legal debates - U.N. security council resolutions[edit]
Debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under international law, centers around ambiguous language in parts of U.N. Resolution 1441 (2002).[29] The U.N. Charter in Article 39 states: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".
The position of the U.S. and U.K. is that the invasion was authorized by a series of U.N. resolutions dating back to 1990 and that since the U.N. security council has made no Article 39[30] finding of illegality that no illegality exists.
Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under U.N. Resolution 687 (1991), which required cooperation with weapons inspectors. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that under certain conditions, a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty. Thus, the U.S. and U.K. claim that they used their right to suspend the cease-fire in Resolution 687 and to continue hostilities against Iraq under the authority of U.N. Resolution 678 (1990), which originally authorized the use of force after Iraq invaded Kuwait.[31] This is the same argument that was used for Operation Desert Fox in 1998.[32] They also contend that, while Resolution 1441 required the UNSC to assemble and assess reports from the weapons inspectors, it was not necessary for the UNSC to reach an agreement on the course of action. If, at that time, it was determined that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, the resolution did not "constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq".[33]
It remains unclear whether any party other than the Security Council can make the determination that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, as U.N. members commented that it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce U.N. resolutions for the entire council.[34] In addition, other nations have stated that a second resolution was required to initiate hostilities.[35] Some have asserted that the war was an illegal war of aggression, and Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary-General, expressed the belief that the war in Iraq was an "illegal act that contravened the U.N. charter."[36]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Passage[edit]
An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002, statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.[4][5]
Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President Bush's requests,[6] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, H.J.Res. 114 sponsored by Rep. Hastert & Rep. Gephardt and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 sponsored by Sen. Lieberman were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 sponsored by Rep. Hastings was a separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the Hastert-Gephardt proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.
Passage of the full resolution[edit]
Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107?243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
United States House of Representatives[edit]
Party Yeas Nays Not
Voting
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 82 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3
82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.
United States Senate[edit]
Party Yeas Nays
Republican 48 1
Democratic 29 21
Independent 0 1
TOTALS 77 23
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:
Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).
42% of Democratic senators (21 of 50) voted against the resolution. Those voting against the resolution are:
Sens. Boxer (D-CA), Graham (D-FL), Akaka (D-HI), Inouye (D-HI), Durbin (D-IL), Mikulski (D-MD), Sarbanes (D-MD), Kennedy (D-MA), Stabenow (D-MI), Levin (D-MI), Dayton (D-MN), Wellstone (D-MN), Corzine (D-NJ), Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND), Wyden (D-OR), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), Byrd (D-WV), and Feingold (D-WI).
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)
Final Congressional vote by chamber and party, October 2002
Amendments offered to the House Resolution[edit]
The Lee Amendment[edit]
Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to have the United States work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.
Sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).[10]
Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 72 - 355[11]
The Spratt Amendment[edit]
Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces to support any new U.N. Security Council resolution that mandated the elimination, by force if necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Requested that the President should seek authorization from Congress to use the armed forces of the U.S. in the absence of a U.N. Security Council resolution sufficient to eliminate, by force if necessary, all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Provided expedited consideration for authorization in the latter case.
Sponsored by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC-5).[12]
Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 155 - 270[13]
The House Rules Amendment[edit]
An amendment considered as adopted pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 574[14]
Sponsored by House Rules.[15]
Resolution (H.RES.574) agreed to by voice vote[16]
Amendments offered to the Senate Resolution[edit]
The Byrd Amendments[edit]
To provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq.
Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).[17]
Amendment SA 4868 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 14 - 86[18]
To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.
Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).[19]
Amendment SA 4869 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 31 - 66[20]
The Levin Amendment[edit]
To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.
Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI).[21]
Amendment SA 4862 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 24 - 75[22]
The Durbin Amendment[edit]
To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).[23]
Amendment SA 4865 not agreed to by Yea-Nay Vote: 30 - 70[24]
International law[edit]
Further information: United Nations Charter and International law
There have been no findings by any legal tribunal with both legal authority and legal jurisdiction that any laws were violated. There are only two legal tribunals with both authority and jurisdiction to make such a finding: (1) The US federal courts and (2) the United Nations. Advisory opinions are prohibited in US Courts and are also prohibited by the UN Charter unless the security council authorizes them. There are no relevant advisory opinions or legal finding regarding the legality. The United Nations security council has made no findings on the issues.
International law - right of pre-emptive self defense[edit]
There is no requirement in international law that the United States (or any nation) seek permission to initiate any war of self-defense.[25] "The United States government has argued, wholly apart from Resolution 1441, that it has a right of pre-emptive self-defense to protect itself from terrorism fomented by Iraq.[26] Although this position has been intensively criticized, without any legal finding for support, claims for legality or illegality are merely debates. To prove illegality it would first be necessary to prove that the US did not meet the conditions of necessity and proportionality and that the right of pre-emptive defense did not apply.[27]
U.S. law[edit]
Further information: Doe v. Bush, US Constitution and US law
The invasion was reviewed by the US federal courts and it was determined to be legal.
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[28]
Legal debates - U.N. security council resolutions[edit]
Debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under international law, centers around ambiguous language in parts of U.N. Resolution 1441 (2002).[29] The U.N. Charter in Article 39 states: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".
The position of the U.S. and U.K. is that the invasion was authorized by a series of U.N. resolutions dating back to 1990 and that since the U.N. security council has made no Article 39[30] finding of illegality that no illegality exists.
Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under U.N. Resolution 687 (1991), which required cooperation with weapons inspectors. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that under certain conditions, a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty. Thus, the U.S. and U.K. claim that they used their right to suspend the cease-fire in Resolution 687 and to continue hostilities against Iraq under the authority of U.N. Resolution 678 (1990), which originally authorized the use of force after Iraq invaded Kuwait.[31] This is the same argument that was used for Operation Desert Fox in 1998.[32] They also contend that, while Resolution 1441 required the UNSC to assemble and assess reports from the weapons inspectors, it was not necessary for the UNSC to reach an agreement on the course of action. If, at that time, it was determined that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, the resolution did not "constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq".[33]
It remains unclear whether any party other than the Security Council can make the determination that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, as U.N. members commented that it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce U.N. resolutions for the entire council.[34] In addition, other nations have stated that a second resolution was required to initiate hostilities.[35] Some have asserted that the war was an illegal war of aggression, and Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary-General, expressed the belief that the war in Iraq was an "illegal act that contravened the U.N. charter."[36]
Editor's note: Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and CNN political commentator, was a political consultant for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992 and was counselor to Clinton in the White House. He is a consultant to the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
(CNN) -- As an American, I am appalled by Dick Cheney and his relentless, pathetic and ultimately doomed effort to revise the history of his failures.
But as a Democrat, I am thrilled that an incompetent, dishonest and reviled figure is hell-bent on making himself the face of the Republican Party, hogging the spotlight from rising stars like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio -- and eclipsing more honorable Republicans from the Bush era, like Colin Powell.
Paul Begala
Paul Begala
Cheney's endless media appearances, including this remarkable interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, reveal a nearly sociopathic refusal to admit any error, express any remorse, apologize for any mistake.
And so let us review the Cheney record: No vice president has done more damage to our country, not even Vice President Aaron Burr, who shot and killed Alexander Hamilton 210 years ago.
In the first months of the Bush-Cheney administration, Cheney was ordered to convene a task force on terrorism. Instead, he ignored the problem, the Cheney terror task force never met, and the warnings about an impending terrorist attack were ignored.
Later, instead of apologizing, Cheney cravenly blamed the White House counterterrorism czar (PDF), Dick Clarke, who had tried to warn anyone who would listen that an attack was coming.
"Richard Clarke was the head of the counterterrorism program in the run up to 9/11," Cheney said. "He obviously missed it." Blaming the guy who did his job when you're the one who didn't do yours.
From there, it was off to the races, as Cheney did and said anything to drag America into a war with Iraq. The good folks at Vox have compiled a damning indictment of Cheney's deep dishonesty about Iraq. In the interest of brevity, let me focus on a few lowlights:
He said the lead 9/11 hijacker "did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service ... several months before the attack." Wrong, according to a Senate Intelligence Committee report.
He said Saddam had "an established relationship with al Qaeda." Wrong (PDF).
Cheney claimed there was "irrefutable evidence" Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program. Wrong.
He said Saddam "had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs." Wrong (PDF).
He said there was "overwhelming" evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. Wrong.
He said that we'd be "greeted as liberators" and that the insurgency was in its "last throes" nine years ago. Wrong and wrong.
Cheney: Breath of fresh air, or hot air? Cheney: We left Iraq in stable situation
And that's just on Iraq. Need I mention that, as CEO of Halliburton, Cheney opposed President Clinton's sanctions on the terrorist regime in Iran, calling the Clinton administration "sanctions-happy"? And he breezily defended doing business with the terrorists in Tehran -- through an overseas-based subsidiary -- explaining that "the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments."
Need I mention he told Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that "deficits don't matter"?
One can debate whether Cheney's misstatements were the result of willful mendacity or incompetence. I believe the former. But at a deeper level, it does not matter. Regardless of whether Cheney is a liar or a fool, thousands of heroic American troops are dead. Tens of thousands are injured. Iraq is a disaster -- and will be for years to come. And America is weaker and poorer because of Cheney.
I know that powerful people don't like admitting error. But Hillary Clinton did so in her new book, candidly admitting that in voting for the Bush-Cheney war in Iraq, "I got it wrong. Plain and simple."
Cheney, however, has no room for such candid introspection. When he turned 70, he was asked his greatest regret. He did not mention the death and devastation he brought to Iraq or that he and others ignored the terror threat before 9/11. He didn't mention his votes in Congress against banning plastic guns or opposing the release of Nelson Mandela.
He said, "My misspent youth." Seriously. A three-word oblique reference to a couple of drunken driving incidents a half century ago are the biggest regrets of this man's life. Other than that, Cheney sees his life as a flawless, virtuous existence.
Were it not for the tragedies of 9/11 and Iraq, perhaps the thing Cheney would be remembered for was that he was the second vice president to shoot a man, albeit Cheney's was in a hunting accident and Harry Whittington, thank God, survived.
Still, as a longtime quail hunter, I have no doubt Cheney was in the wrong. Every hunter is responsible for knowing where his buddies are. And Cheney violated a cardinal rule: He was drinking before he picked up the gun. (He claims to have had only one beer, but even one is too many when you're hunting.)
But here's the thing: Even after Cheney shot him in the face, there's no indication he ever apologized to Harry Whittington. I suppose being a sociopath means never having to say you're sorry.
(CNN) -- As an American, I am appalled by Dick Cheney and his relentless, pathetic and ultimately doomed effort to revise the history of his failures.
But as a Democrat, I am thrilled that an incompetent, dishonest and reviled figure is hell-bent on making himself the face of the Republican Party, hogging the spotlight from rising stars like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio -- and eclipsing more honorable Republicans from the Bush era, like Colin Powell.
Paul Begala
Paul Begala
Cheney's endless media appearances, including this remarkable interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, reveal a nearly sociopathic refusal to admit any error, express any remorse, apologize for any mistake.
And so let us review the Cheney record: No vice president has done more damage to our country, not even Vice President Aaron Burr, who shot and killed Alexander Hamilton 210 years ago.
In the first months of the Bush-Cheney administration, Cheney was ordered to convene a task force on terrorism. Instead, he ignored the problem, the Cheney terror task force never met, and the warnings about an impending terrorist attack were ignored.
Later, instead of apologizing, Cheney cravenly blamed the White House counterterrorism czar (PDF), Dick Clarke, who had tried to warn anyone who would listen that an attack was coming.
"Richard Clarke was the head of the counterterrorism program in the run up to 9/11," Cheney said. "He obviously missed it." Blaming the guy who did his job when you're the one who didn't do yours.
From there, it was off to the races, as Cheney did and said anything to drag America into a war with Iraq. The good folks at Vox have compiled a damning indictment of Cheney's deep dishonesty about Iraq. In the interest of brevity, let me focus on a few lowlights:
He said the lead 9/11 hijacker "did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service ... several months before the attack." Wrong, according to a Senate Intelligence Committee report.
He said Saddam had "an established relationship with al Qaeda." Wrong (PDF).
Cheney claimed there was "irrefutable evidence" Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program. Wrong.
He said Saddam "had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs." Wrong (PDF).
He said there was "overwhelming" evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. Wrong.
He said that we'd be "greeted as liberators" and that the insurgency was in its "last throes" nine years ago. Wrong and wrong.
Cheney: Breath of fresh air, or hot air? Cheney: We left Iraq in stable situation
And that's just on Iraq. Need I mention that, as CEO of Halliburton, Cheney opposed President Clinton's sanctions on the terrorist regime in Iran, calling the Clinton administration "sanctions-happy"? And he breezily defended doing business with the terrorists in Tehran -- through an overseas-based subsidiary -- explaining that "the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments."
Need I mention he told Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that "deficits don't matter"?
One can debate whether Cheney's misstatements were the result of willful mendacity or incompetence. I believe the former. But at a deeper level, it does not matter. Regardless of whether Cheney is a liar or a fool, thousands of heroic American troops are dead. Tens of thousands are injured. Iraq is a disaster -- and will be for years to come. And America is weaker and poorer because of Cheney.
I know that powerful people don't like admitting error. But Hillary Clinton did so in her new book, candidly admitting that in voting for the Bush-Cheney war in Iraq, "I got it wrong. Plain and simple."
Cheney, however, has no room for such candid introspection. When he turned 70, he was asked his greatest regret. He did not mention the death and devastation he brought to Iraq or that he and others ignored the terror threat before 9/11. He didn't mention his votes in Congress against banning plastic guns or opposing the release of Nelson Mandela.
He said, "My misspent youth." Seriously. A three-word oblique reference to a couple of drunken driving incidents a half century ago are the biggest regrets of this man's life. Other than that, Cheney sees his life as a flawless, virtuous existence.
Were it not for the tragedies of 9/11 and Iraq, perhaps the thing Cheney would be remembered for was that he was the second vice president to shoot a man, albeit Cheney's was in a hunting accident and Harry Whittington, thank God, survived.
Still, as a longtime quail hunter, I have no doubt Cheney was in the wrong. Every hunter is responsible for knowing where his buddies are. And Cheney violated a cardinal rule: He was drinking before he picked up the gun. (He claims to have had only one beer, but even one is too many when you're hunting.)
But here's the thing: Even after Cheney shot him in the face, there's no indication he ever apologized to Harry Whittington. I suppose being a sociopath means never having to say you're sorry.
I guess I dont blame you for feeling this way.. b/c the only articles you are going to see from the left about Tx are about the idiots.. Helps push the narrative.. I guess I get it. But I can tell you this person is in the minority... At least with the mid 30 to 50yr demographic and younger.. I can honestly tell you 100% of the people I know dont give a damn who you want to bang at night.. Even my old man doesn't give a crap hes just tired of hearing about it all the time.
Im sure you think down here gay men are hung from trees.. There are at least two gay couples in our neighborhood (that I know of).. One couple I speak with almost weekly while they walk their dogs.. And from what I can gather they live in complete peace and harmony without incident... " We love the neighborhood" they always say.
Sat we took the kids bowling.. There was a gay couple next to us.. And while I did think making out at the bowling line after every roll was a bit over the top.. from what I could tell no body gave a damn. They were not harassed or bullied, taunted or tormented..
But I guess the headline TEXAS GAY COUPLE BOWLS WITHOUT INCIDENT doesnt sell many news papers..
Last edited:
I was in Houston this month visiting for about a week. Nice people but it's just different than up here. Since I didn't interact with people whom I didn't know I couldn't tell you a whole lot about people. I note one reason why the area is obese, Texas has soooooo many fast food places it's rather shocking. Jack in the Box, Whataburger, James Coney Island and about 8 different chicken places to go along with the regular fast food. Don't know how you all can do it?
I guess when I knock the education of Texas it's due to the fact they rank very low educationally and it's no wonder cause the leaders seem obyuse
man up and grow a set
there is no way I would have allowed that in front of kids I brought to a bowling ally
one time it happens, and you walk up and say have some respect for my family please.
If they won't listen and understand the public situation, then they deseve to be bullied, chastised, and worse.
If that don't work and they do it again , you pull out the .45 and put it up their nose and have them beg for fucking mercy
it seems simple enough
