Has the CIA Balanced Your Checkbook?

[luke warm]

Jimmy, let me address these points one at a time. It may come as a shock but I would classify myself as leaning more toward isolationism than one-world government, and have a strong belief in the concepts of the constitution - I believe, because human nature does not change, that the reasons for the strong separation of powers in the 18th century are just as valid today.

 

My views begin with the individual - the best any of us can hope to do is to control our own actions. We have absolutely no control over what another person chooses to do. This extends to countries, as well.~~

winston, you and i aren't so different in our beliefs (imho ;))

[Winstonm]

QUOTE 

2. Our national security has been damaged

 

 

i would (or could) argue that our nat'l security has improved as it pertains to terrorist attacks on our soil

 

There is no way to quantify this, as you are aware, although it may be accurate in the short term - but what about longer term, say 5-10 years?

 

 

3. Iraq has been damaged

 

 

yes, and in another decade or two that damage will approach the genocide proportions during sadaam's rule

 

 

I am not about to defend Saddam Hussein's regime, but IMO there are aspects unaddressed here - that the chemical weapons used against the Kurds were supplied by the U.S. (or so I have read), and that it was the U.S. who encouraged the attack against Iran. No one is ever quite as evil or quite as good as the picture painted by our press.

 

4. Our national security, Iraq, and the Middle East will be further damaged when we leave Iraq

 

 

this is not necessarily true, although if we leave prematurely it's probable we will receive more attacks at home

 

I simply don't follow the logic here - what is the correlation between staying in Iraq and terroist strikes inside the U.S.?

 

5. This will happen whenever we leave Iraq

 

 

this depends on the answer to mike's question re: "winning" the war

 

 

If you use the president's definition of "winning", the only outcome can be a permanent presence of the U.S. military in Iraq in order to safeguard the puppet government established. I mean, really, liberate Iraq from Saddam so it will become the country we think it should be - is this not nation building?

 

And again, why do we allow the discourse to focus on what should be done in Iraq when the critical issue is what got us into Iraq? Does anyone really accept that it was simply a "mistake" caused by faulty intelligence, but now that we are there we have to see it through? Are we really going to allow this administration to get away this easily with a war of aggression based on fairy tales, spooky campfire stories, and saber rattling?

 

The president is commander-in-chief, and thus has the power to increase the troops, and Congress is simply wasting its time debating a given - what Congress should be doing is investigating whether this president committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the establishment of a reason for war.

 

Whatever happens in Iraq will not affect the American way of life even a tenth as much as the enormous shift in power to the executive which has ocurred already, the dismantling of the constitutional checks and balances that are supposed to prevent this type of war from occurring in the first place, and the shredding done to the Bill of Rights.

 

Let me take a moment to cover what IMO are critical concerns.

 

First, say at 11:30 p.m. some Tuesaday night a couple of black cars pull up outside your house and 6 members of Homeland Security burst through your door, terrify your family, handcuff you and drag you off to a military holding cell, claiming you are an enemy combattant. You have no rights. You can be held forever without charges. This is now the president's power.

 

And if you believe public outcry would prevent this abuse, don't be naive. Sure, the nieghbors may look out their windows, but then they will go back to bed because it's not their business. Maybe a local newpaper will pick up the story, and may even express some minor outrage. But will it make national headlines? No. Will CNN and Fox even care? No. So for 15 minutes in your local town, perhaps you are famous - and then your story gets stale and the only ones left to talk about it are the internet blogs and conspiracy whacko websites. Meanwhile, your life and your family's life has been destroyed and you are held indefinitely as prisoner of the state. This is now the president's power.

 

Second, let's say things get really out of hand and a huge anti-war demonstration is planned for New Orleans - the President calls out the National Guard from New York and Pennsylvannia and sends them to the Big Easy to quell the insurrection and establish martial law. This is now the president's power.

 

Don't think it could happen? Do you remember the slant towards the Vietnam War protestors early on? Whose side was taken by the major press? Does Kent State ring a bell? This is now the president's power.

 

Third, the President claims powers to eavesdrop without judicial oversight, open mail without judicial oversight, and use the CIA and the military to investigate banking transactions within the borders of the U.S. These are claimed powers of the President in his signing statements, as yet unofficial but unchallenged as well.

 

So you've just posted in Bridgebase Forums that you believe the President has overreached with his power grab and Congress should initiate hearings and consider impeachment - and a few hours later you try to use your ATM and your account is frozen, the letter from your friend in Somalia is overdue, and later that night two automobiles from Homeland Security pull up in front of your house (See "First" above.)

 

I would finish this post but there's someone at the door......this is the president's power.

[luke warm]

4. Our national security, Iraq, and the Middle East will be further damaged when we leave Iraq

this is not necessarily true, although if we leave prematurely it's probable we will receive more attacks at home

 

I simply don't follow the logic here - what is the correlation between staying in Iraq and terroist strikes inside the U.S.?

this was part of #1 above, and the premise is that we are fighting terrorists abroad which prevents attacks at home... as you said, it is hard to quantify

 

If you use the president's definition of "winning", the only outcome can be a permanent presence of the U.S. military in Iraq in order to safeguard the puppet government established.

i don't know that's his definition, and it's certainly not mine... but that's the rub, eh? the way it's defined determines actions or lack of them, which is what i think has been mike's point all along

So you've just posted in Bridgebase Forums that you believe the President has overreached with his power grab and Congress should initiate hearings and consider impeachment - and a few hours later you try to use your ATM and your account is frozen, the letter from your friend in Somalia is overdue, and later that night two automobiles from Homeland Security pull up in front of your house

i think i've said before that i also am leery (almost frightened, but i'm too old) of these things... it's the old freedom vs. security argument... if freedom is defined by that great philosopher kris kristofferson, then we're fast approaching that state

[Winstonm]

You read Mike-ese better than I do. B) I can always understand what you are saying, on the other hand. Speaking down to my level, no doubt. :P

 

Yes, the crux is: what does "win" mean in the context of Iraq?

[pbleighton]

"Yes, the crux is: what does "win" mean in the context of Iraq?"

 

This is important. Even more important, though, is what is the best (or more accurately IMO least bad) outcome which can reasonably be expected in Iraq in the long run as well as the short run, and how do we get there.

 

It's time to stop chasing rainbows and deal with reality. More and more people are realizing this, as reflected in the huge majority against the escalation, pardon me, I meant "surge" :)

 

How are 21,000 troops going to stop an escalating civil war in a country of 26 million? I haven't heard an explanation of this from the administration or its defenders which is even remotely plausible.

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

"You read Mike-ese better than I do"

 

Key point in understanding Mike:

 

He asks lots of questions. He's very good at that. His questions are usually good ones, and are easy to understand, though not necessarily easy to answer.

 

OTOH, he HATES to take a position himself. I think he is deliberately vague and difficult to understand sometimes.

 

Keep the questions coming, Mike, but don't be such a chickens**t!

 

:)

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

I listened closely to the president's speech the other night and had my Bush-to-English translation guide by my side. Here is what he said:

 

Bushese:

But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people.

 

Translation:

Iraq will become Israel-light or else.

 

Bushese:

A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security

for our children and grandchildren.

 

Translation:

Not really Israel-light - more like Israel/USA-light.

[Winstonm]

"You read Mike-ese better than I do"

 

Key point in understanding Mike:

 

He asks lots of questions. He's very good at that. His questions are usually good ones, and are easy to understand, though not necessarily easy to answer.

 

OTOH, he HATES to take a position himself.  I think he is deliberately vague and difficult to understand sometimes.

 

Keep the questions coming, Mike, but don't be such a chickens**t!

 

:)

 

Peter

Mike does ask provoking questions - I just with I were smart enough to understand his thrust. Come on, Mike, don't be so vague so we idiots can join the fray, as well. :P

[helene_t]

i don't see anything inherently wrong with allowing the u.n. certain powers, but those powers disappear when measured against our nat'l interests... do you agree?

This is the same as saying that U.N. (as well as any non-U.S. governement) has no power at all since any decision they make can be turned down by a U.S. president who thinks (or pretends to think) that the non-U.S. decision was against U.S. interests.

 

A sovereign U.S. means that the U.S. governement is in charge of U.S. territorry. I does not necessarily mean a U.S. governement in charge of the World.

[luke warm]

i don't see anything inherently wrong with allowing the u.n. certain powers, but those powers disappear when measured against our nat'l interests... do you agree?

This is the same as saying that U.N. (as well as any non-U.S. governement) has no power at all since any decision they make can be turned down by a U.S. president who thinks (or pretends to think) that the non-U.S. decision was against U.S. interests.

 

A sovereign U.S. means that the U.S. governement is in charge of U.S. territorry. I does not necessarily mean a U.S. governement in charge of the World.

you're right, the u.s. is not in charge of the world... you're also right that the u.n. has no power over decisions made by the u.s. unless the power is given... isn't the same true in germany?

[helene_t]

you're right, the u.s. is not in charge of the world... you're also right that the u.n. has no power over decisions made by the u.s. unless the power is given... isn't the same true in germany?

I'm not saying that the U.S government is not in charge of the World. Nor am I saying that the U.N. has no power to veto decisions made by the U.S. (or the German, or the Naurian) government.

 

All I'm saying is that if the governements of the U.N. member countries accept that the U.N. is in charge of something (i.e. that it is more than just a coctail party club), then this must necesarily mean all member countries must be willing to live with occasional U.N. decisions that go against their (by their government perceived) interests. Saying that the U.S. reserves the right to use it's de facto power to undermine any decision made by the U.N. is the same as saying that the U.N. is just a coctail party club.

[Al_U_Card]

The UN does a lot of good work, for a bunch of diplomatic dilletantes with no "real" power.

 

This is all it can realistically expect, given the past-history of international affairs.

 

Only one force can control the wielding of US military might....and that is the people of the US. Perhaps one of the few countries where this is (still) true. So what are you Yanks waiting for....get off your ever-widening butts and turf Georgie-Boy and his band of psychotics the hell out of office before its too late!

[mike777]

1) A show on NBC this saturday night suggested we draft all the usa people in uniform. This would give us 75 million to send to Iraq.

2) Another option would be to put the UN in charge of the US military.

3) In the USA we got a screwy non parlimentary system so we are stuck with them until the end of their terms in office. We cannot kick them all out in the middle of the term.

[Al_U_Card]

1) including those who say "You want fries with that?"

 

2) international pressure in all of its forms works when consensus is achieved

 

3) "Un-impeachable.....that's what you are!" Nat KING Cole..... :)