If Pelosi broke law, Bush did so in spades
Once again, a reader sends in a suggestion that the U.S. government should go by the letter of the law.
This is referring to Marvin Taxar’s letter, “Pelosi violates Logan Act,” suggesting putting Nancy Pelosi on trial. OK, I’ll go along with that. If that’s the case, I suggest handing an indictment to President Bush for invasion of Iraq. He authorized the invasion of a sovereign nation without provocation.
As a result, thousands of Iraqis and American troops are dead — and are dying every day.
Bush went against the United Nations vote, and basically said we are America, we can do what we want, when we want, we don’t care what the rest of the world thinks.
Incidently, our signature is on the United Nations charter, so we are bound by international law, just like everyone else.
So, Mr. Taxar, you want to hand down indictments to politicians who break the law? Let’s get serious and hand down indictments.
Michael Franzen, Aurora
Michael, how wrong you lefties are. I suggest you go back and read the United Nations resolutions concerning Iraq. Military force was authorized as far back as 1991. Just a few months after the socalled surrender by Saddam to the first coalition. Of 14 resolutions all authorized military use. Oh wait I am sorry for you on the left that doesnt mean squat because you are simpley Bush haters and the facts and truth do not matter.
Of coarse I am sure that "old grouch and truth "will shed light on this as they use this forum to spout thier vitral and hatred with emotional arguments and no facts. A couple of users (referance to an AOL punk) .
Just go and look up the resolutions voted and passed by the United Nations then come back and spout your hatred.
Posted by Tom on May 22, 2007 05:22 AM Michael, how wrong you lefties are. I suggest you go back and read the United Nations resolutions concerning Iraq. Military force was authorized as far back as 1991. Just a few months after the socalled surrender by Saddam to the first coalition. Of 14 resolutions all authorized military use. Oh wait I am sorry for you on the left that doesnt mean squat because you are simpley Bush haters and the facts and truth do not matter.
Of coarse I am sure that "old grouch and truth "will shed light on this as they use this forum to spout thier vitral and hatred with emotional arguments and no facts. A couple of users (referance to an AOL punk) .
Just go and look up the resolutions voted and passed by the United Nations then come back and spout your hatred.
Posted by Tom on May 22, 2007 05:23 AM Michael, how wrong you lefties are. I suggest you go back and read the United Nations resolutions concerning Iraq. Military force was authorized as far back as 1991. Just a few months after the socalled surrender by Saddam to the first coalition. Of 14 resolutions all authorized military use. Oh wait I am sorry for you on the left that doesnt mean squat because you are simpley Bush haters and the facts and truth do not matter.
Of coarse I am sure that "old grouch and truth "will shed light on this as they use this forum to spout thier vitral and hatred with emotional arguments and no facts. A couple of users (referance to an AOL punk) .
Just go and look up the resolutions voted and passed by the United Nations then come back and spout your hatred.
Posted by Tom on May 22, 2007 05:23 AMMr. Franzen,
It's hard to understand how you missed the news but the Congress authorized the invasion:
Dateline: 10/11/02
The U.S. Congress yesterday passed a resolution authorizing President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States against Iraq.
The House of Representatives on Oct. 10 passed the resolution (H.J. Res. 114) by a vote of 296-133. Senate approval came in a late-night vote of 77-23.
Resolution Authorizes Use of Military Forces in Iraq
Specifically, the resolution authorizes President Bush to:
use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
This was in all the newspapers. It's getting tougher and tougher to re-write history.
Posted by James Jones on May 22, 2007 06:00 AMmike we all know that what ever a far extreme socalist left liberal does it ok and very upstanding in all liberals eyes.
Thats why they all cheered when ted kennedy spoke of SSI on Mary Jo's 65th birthday, and had she been still alive.
Bush=lies liberal dems= the most wonderful people on the earth. NOT
Hey Tom could you post that again? I need to read it 4 times. Of course, since you are king of the facts I am sure you can enlighten all of us as to how it is a crime for a Democrat to make the trip to Middle East but not an issue for Republicans to be on the same trip.
Posted by just sayin' on May 22, 2007 08:01 AMjust sayin'
Nancy has learned that you can get the more gullible leftists to believe you're patriotic if you just hang out with Republicans.
It works too!
She always takes a couple along when she goes overseas to meet with the enemy during a time of war - just in case things get sticky later.
Posted by James Jones on May 22, 2007 09:04 AMfrom James JOnes..She always takes a couple along when she goes overseas to meet with the enemy during a time of war ----She met with the enemy? Who is our enemy in the Middle East? What are we trying to win? How will we know if and when we win? Is there any plan to leave?
Posted by Question Man on May 22, 2007 09:11 AMQuestion Man
Our enemies are the individual Islamofascist terrorists and the governments that support them. We will continue to fight them in every theater, militarily, politically and economically until we win.
We win when they give up the goal of establishing a Caliphate and stop their barbaric acts.
We plan to leave just as soon as it is safe for us to do so - not one hour before.
Posted by James Jones on May 22, 2007 09:41 AMNo one has succeeded in getting Islam to abandon the idea of a Caliphate in some 1900 years. Are we then to occupy the region until some kind of miracle happens? Or until we have "settled" another people's religious differences? When will it be "as soon as it is safe for us" to leave?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 22, 2007 09:50 AMPelosi met with Osama? She met with the terrorists in Baghdad?
Why wasn`t that reported?
Did she go to a country with which we are in a declared war ?
What country in the middle east is our "enemy country"
We are fighting a movement, an idea and not a nation. Did she visit a movement or an idea?
James Jones
Don't try to argue facts or concepts with OG or Sharon B or Question Man. They don't acknowledge the fact that Syria, a Baathist state which supports Hamas and Hezbollah is, along with Iran, one of the major underminers of Middle East stability.
Pelosi doesn't understand what her role is as speaker of the House. It is NOT to undermine the foreign policy of a sitting administration no matter how much she may disagree with it.
San Fran Nan is just clueless but we already knew that. She is just as corrupt as any politician in Washington but remember, she was going to change the "culture of corruption" there. Yeah, right.
Look into her background and her husband's business and how legislation has been written to benefit them.
According to many in love with Pelosi and her ilk, the true enemy is not terror supporting states, but it is US. Their hatred of Bush precludes an ability to think and reason. WE are the problem. Simple for simpletons.
Posted by [Truth is Relative] RU Serious on May 22, 2007 11:11 AMI want to give full disclosure that I did not read the comments anyone else wrote, and just want to do a quick comment on Mr. Franzen's lack of understanding the Contstitution.
Mr. Franzen, the power to declare war was made very clear in Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution:
"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
If you would like, Mr. Franzen, here is the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
And finally, sir, here is Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) of the UNITED NATIONS: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement
Maybe you should do a little bit of research sir, and not rely on mantra and hyperbole.
Question Man asked James Jones "who is our enemy" in the middle east? And James Jones started spewing this nonsense about "islamofacists terrorists..." without actually identifying the enemy.
Dude, if you can't identify your enemy, how are you going to beat them? That's part of the governments' folly is that they don't recognize the evil neocon-likudnik chamelions who dwell amongst them as the enemy. They call any resistance to agression 'Terrorists" without actually Identifying them. How about Luis Posada Carriles? Was HE a terrorist? That depends...He was one of OUR terrorists. So he's not a terrorist. Until our government can actually identify the enemy, instead of trying to fight a tactic, We're just swatting at the fog.
As far as Ms. Pelosi's visit to Syria, and what the Logan Act actually states:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held talks with Syria's leader Wednesday despite White House objections, saying she pressed President Bashar Assad over his country's support for militant groups and passed him a peace message from Israel.
Pelosi said she and her delegation "expressed our concern about Syria's connections to Hezbollah and Hamas" and discussed the issue of militant fights slipping across the Syrian border into Iraq.
"These are important issues not only in the fight against terrorism but important priorities for us for peace in the Middle East," she said.
In her own words, and without the authorization of the President, it would indeed appear that Ms. Pelosi, in her one on one meeting with President Assad, may have indeed violated the Logan Act. It should be looked into, in my opinion, and any and all of those in that group that acted to influence the realtionship with Assad's government.
Posted by Dan2 on May 22, 2007 11:47 AMTruth is relative,
You have certianly picked a good posting pseudonym. Relative to what? To whatever be the propaganda line of the Party in power today?
mike h,
See posting above, from Truth is relative? These people don't need FACTS! Nor do they bother much with using them.
Are we still beating this Logan Act dead horse? It's not going to get up and go anywhere. But, at least it manages to give those who can't come up with constructive proposals elsewhere time to jaw on about something.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 22, 2007 12:07 PMCommenting on Truth is Relatives' post to James Jones. In your first paragraph "...They don't acknowledge the fact that Syria, a Baathist state which supports Hamas and Hezbollah is, along with Iran, one of the major underminers of Middle East stability." How deluded can you get? Do you not think that inserting one hundred fifty thousand troops into a hornets' nest had any effect on middle east stability?
Posted by mike h on May 22, 2007 12:20 PM(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
This was in all the newspapers. It's getting tougher and tougher to re-write history.
--both of which have been accomplished...--
Posted by ron on May 22, 2007 01:30 PMmike h,
Well, you see, we're there to bring them "freedom and democracy"' for which we will be "welcomed with open arms and flowers". Or some such blather anyway.
And isn't "peace and democracy" just going to make everything warm, fuzzy, and sweet all over? Why of course it will. The Great Decider said it will, doesn't he?
Don't, - repeat, DO NOT - bother them with the historical facts that the Middle East doesn't even know the meaning of "stability" to begin with. Or with the facts that the Moslems have been carrying on their blood feuds - personal, clan, tribal, and religious - for some 1900 years, or so, now; and we're not about to begin to be able to stop them.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 22, 2007 03:01 PMTruth is Relative
Thanks for the head up. I'm already on to Sharon B and Old Grouch - Don't know Answer Man.
I respond to them when they accidentally swerve into something interesting.
You've nailed the Nancester. I'm sure the Republicans won't pursue the Logan Act violation or the corruption because she is a political asset for us as Speaker. She can't do any actual damage since only the lunatic left take here seriously.
I'd give anything to know what Assad said about her to his aides about their meeting.
Posted by James Jones on May 22, 2007 04:59 PMmike h
The men machine gunning young boys playing soccer in Baghdad, beheading reporters, shooting rockets into Israeli school buses, blowing up weddings in Jordan and train commuters in England, Spain and India, butchering playwrights on the streets in Holland and flying airplanes into buildings in New York are the enemy.
You'd probably know one if you met up - they really don't like leftists.
Posted by James Jones on May 22, 2007 05:13 PMOld Grouch,
We defeated communism and won the Cold War over your objections.
We'll do the same thing with the War of Terror.
And we'll tell you when it's over so you don't have to keep asking.
Posted by James Jones on May 22, 2007 05:18 PMLets just give up then.
Why even try to make the middle east more stable?
It's all our fault anyway, right Grouch?
Posted by Get Real on May 22, 2007 07:02 PMMr. Jones,
Let me know when we've won the War on drugs, or the War on poverty.
A more apt description of King George's current travesty would be a War for war's sake. We all know there's big money in war, there's no honor in war proftieering.
Better yet, "Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box". C.J.McDonald.
Wait, Cons won't allow that to be shown , so your boy will die alone and lonely, and forgotten by Chickenhawks Bush and Cheney.
Oh how I love all the euphenisms and catch phrase slogans dreamed up in Washington for their latest social spending programs.
The phrase "War on Terror" is idiotic. Terror is a tactic. That's like saying a war on "bombing."
A more apt phrase might be "War on Islamic Extremism." But nobody will use that one for PC reasons because it includes the word Islam. CAIR would scream bloody murder and claim that the U.S. is at war with Islam.
This current war against extremism will be a long struggle possibly lasting generations but some, like dmz don't see the point just like his post had no point.
When the next successful terror attack by a small group of extremists that are already inside the U.S. occurs, perhaps it might get the deniers' attention. It WILL happen. We just don't know when or where or how.
We just can't let the terror tactic work. It only took 19 hijackers to plunge the nation into fear and almost wreck our economy. Maybe the terrorists will make a mistake and hit the Dem convention in Denver........[/sarcasm off]
Posted by RU Serious on May 22, 2007 09:15 PMOld Grouch, still on this thread? so JJ has found us out has he? I think what really bothers some of these good ol boys is that Pelosi is one pretzel and one blood clot away from the White House.
If the Republican party had not imploded over the war that would not be true perhaps?
If America is attacked again, by a small group within the country, I wonder what Bush etal will say about "fighting them over there etc."
How many days left for Bush in office ?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 23, 2007 03:25 AMOnce again the left is on fire. First CONGRESS authorized the military action in Iraq and if you'll read it, you'll find that fighting Al Qaeda there was included in that Act. Second; Pelosi was on a foreign policy negoatiation against the official policy of the US basically overstepping her bounds, with total disregard for our policies about "negotiating with terrorists", all for political positioning...a real show of patriotisim. And for those saying 'Bush lied because the war didn't go as we planned" ....all things change when the enemy gets involved in the conflict. Bottom line, Pelosi takes her marching orders from the left bloggers in daily conference calls, our president gives them in the best interest of the country
Posted by tt on May 23, 2007 06:28 AMSharon B,
Are you hoping we will be attacked again so that Bush will be proved wrong?
Posted by James Jones on May 23, 2007 07:07 AMJJ, when I am hoping for something, look carefully at what I write and try to find the words "I am hoping".
That will be your clue that I have expressed a "hope"
Love,Sharon B.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 23, 2007 10:53 AMSharon B,
I know that you expressed wonder not hope. You wonder about quite a bit which doesn't really tell us much except what pops into your head somehow.
I was wondering whether you hope for an attack which is a fair question based on your post. But, you did not answer when asked. I'll ask another:
Do you hope Bush and Cheney will succumb to pretzels and blood clots so Nancy can be President?
Posted by James Jones on May 23, 2007 12:23 PMSharon please defend good ol boy for me as you have referenced? I am assuming you are referring to uneducated and backwards? Making the assumption from this and many other threads.
Lets step back a bit then
Sharon do you still claim Iraq to be a landlocked country (ie without any coastline or port or even Navy)?
Do you still claim that Evolution is Fact? (again think Evolution is the best bet, but still does not keep it from being Theory)
Yours and others Hatred for 1 Administration is blinding true thought. I have a feeling that most on here are not big Bush supporters, but that does not get in the way of dialogue and reasonable discussion.
BTW Terrorists are already here. Have the acted yet? No Are they? possibly
Posted by bwr on May 23, 2007 01:09 PMJJ, so you ask a goofy question and I am required to answer it? Nah.
Some things "pop" into my head and some jump in and some just weasel in quietly. How do you get your thoughts?
Do they stomp in, or are they the result of careful, reasoned study?
BWR good ol boys can haves PHDs.
According to my Atlas, Iraq has about one inch of coastline down by Kuwait. So let me be real clear "How will all those Iraq terrorists get to Amerilca from a mostly land-locked country? To get here they need to get to the ocean somehow. Unless they all fly.
Maybe this is where OG talks about flying carpets.
Evolution is a fact of life: the primary fact of life.
JJ every time you ask me a question you are "wondering".
And yes you really are a wonder
Who says IRAQIS are coming here. Terrorists possibly and most likely. But your view of Bush is so blurred that all you can say is IRAQIS. Terrorists terrorists terrorists Not Iraqis
1 Inch of coastline and now Mostly land locked? Cmon Sharon you and I disagree mostly but have respected your posts. Dont pull that one. Its not flattering! This is not horse shoes nor hand gernades here.
50some kilometers of coastline. Has a Navy. Has Ports.
Evolution is STILL DEFINED as Theory. To say it is fact makes even the most ardent Evolutionist cringe a bit as most respect the Scientific process.
So the Good ole boy comment is just name calling......got it. Well I would prefer to be called a long haired Croc wearing hippie. Thank you
Posted by bwr on May 23, 2007 02:58 PMAlso Please show me a reference from Bush Admin where they say....
..... IF we (USA) pull out of Iraq, Iraqis will come over and attack us?
Posted by bwr on May 23, 2007 03:01 PMShaaron B,
No offense - you don't have to answer anything.
It's just that it's hard not to notice that these thoughts that weasel or stomp their way into you head seem to involve death quite often.
I have all sorts of thought. I just don't speak every one. I think about things before posting. It's all part of the wonder.
Posted by James Jones on May 23, 2007 04:54 PMIf we don`t fight them over there, we will have to fight them over here. That comes from the right all the time. Who says it? Letter writers, posters and people in the Bush admin, and their surrprters. I`m sure I`ve heard Cheney say it on Fox news. More then onces.
I truly did forget those, what 30 miles of coast.?
Peoples who talk about terrorists comming here usually put Iraq in the same statement. So it is natural tho think they mean Iraqis Terrorists. If they mean all the others in middle east, they should say so.
That what is so nutty, linking our being in Iraq with keeping terrorists from all over the
Middle East over there.
As for Evolution: you can ignore it, out-vote it, not teach it in schools and pretend it doesn`t exist but you can not change the natural world
Lots of theorys exist in science: light theory, theory of gravity, etc. why pick on poor little Evolution and not all the others.
Could it be that light and gravity theory do not make the Bible and young earthers look so childish?
Why doesn`t light theory get your dander up.?
You realize that rainbows did not exist before the great flood? That property of light was not in light when it was created. God gave light the rainbow ability to reward humans.
Lovely, should we teach that as alternative light theory?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 23, 2007 04:56 PMHi Sharon,
I've been kind of catching up. I see where Nicholas Couch encountered our resident Pluperfect Pundit on abortion too, with the usual results.
On this one,I really enjoyed the one about the "we" who "defeated communism and won the Cold War". (Over my objections, no less!) It did remind me of that rather ancient one about "Who's the "we"? And while I have heard a rather scatological reply; I believe the "hall monitor" might be offended were I to continue there.
Maybe with Jonesy it's a pocket full of some of those fetuses that are "persons", because they are not chipmunks, since chipmunks can't create the Moonlight Sonata. (Really, one of his better attempts at logic at that, by the way.)
And then we have "Get Real", who wants to blame everyone else, because he can't comprehend simple English, and flunked in history.
The forum still provides more fun than NBCs Thursday night sitcoms.
Anyway, Sharon, I await the answers to your last posting. "Alternative light theory": That's worth developing, next time one of the Flat Earth Society turns up. When did light acquire the refractive properties necesary to be seen as a rainbow? Was that before, or after, the dinosaurs didn't manage to make the ark? (I wondered why the Rocky cancelled Alley Oop. Too close to being a sales pitch for Creationism, maybe?)
Some of these guys ought to try out for the script writing staff for Jay Leno's Friday night show. They couldn't do worse than some of what I've heard in his monologue at the end of the week lately. Although they might not want to follow up there, since Leno is very much an "equal opportunity" master of the political knifing; and they couldn't just use Clinton for the fall guy all the time.
But then, they wouldn't really be able to write anyway, since anything funny with reference to Bush would be wide open to all the accusations about "hating him". Ah! Well! they do give lots of laughs right here.
Nice to see you're keeping them on their toes. Have a good evening.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 23, 2007 06:55 PMOld Grouch, and how did you object to ending the Cold War?
I am glad JJ mentions chipmunks so often, since his pig references went so well.
I discussed chipminks in my "Plunk Down Theory" where God sees a need for a new animal and just "Creates" one on the spot.
Maybe that explains the rains of frogs or fishes. Maybe they are new species.
A new thouight just popped into my head today. If a fetus is a person from the beginning, then, the men who father them, get to pay 9 months extra child support and pay 50% of all pre-natal care.
By, Old Grouch
Posted by Sharon B. on May 23, 2007 07:18 PMHey!
I just had a great idea.
Old Grouch,
Sharon B
Charles B
Anderson
Drew
Truth
Why don't you get yourselves a chat room where you can all be in agreement with your earth shattering, (sorry, I mean earth healing) wisdom and clear up a little room on the RMN blogs.
Posted by RickyLee on May 23, 2007 08:28 PMSharon. You state:
Evolution is Fact. Please provide proof of fact in scientific community
Read what you will. I have stated repeatedly I believe in the Evolution THEORY. IT is theory however . NOT FACT. Again not a practicing christian and doNOT subscribe to creationism or other sorts. But again read what you will
You state Iraq is a landlocked country. It only has an Inch of coastline on your map. Is it landlocked or not
Again I will ask the question
Also Please show me a reference from Bush Admin where they say....
..... IF we (USA) pull out of Iraq, Iraqis will come over and attack us?
Posted by bwr on May 23, 2007 03:01 PM
Sharon where do they say Iraqis. That is something you provide but have no proof.
Is it only Libertarians and conservatives that are held to the letter of the truth on here. You try to spin the truth to fit your needs. Hell if you stick to the facts we would probably agree more than not on the above subjects
Posted by bwr on May 23, 2007 08:33 PMCmon OG you wouldnt let others get away with what Sharon states as truth and then tries to defend. I have too much respect for both of you to try and argue.....
Posted by bwr on May 23, 2007 08:36 PMSharon B,
Could it be that light and gravity theory do not make the Bible and young earthers look so childish?
What exactly do you imagine that the theory of light is?
Posted by James Jones on May 23, 2007 08:45 PMOld Grpuch,
I'm quite certain that I taught you earlier that a fetus and a wart are different.
But with your pocket full of fetus remark I see that you remain a moral pervert.
Posted by James Jones on May 23, 2007 08:51 PM