published Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

Creepy

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

43
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Jhenry said...

Even out of office, regardless of what he says, you-the media, can't stop talking about him. Fuel for the fire. I personally want to hear what the man has to say. Turns out he was right. He said one thing, liberal said another and then the documents come out (without being covered in black magic marker) and he was right. Enhanced Interrogation worked. Water boarding worked on the three people it was ever used on. Saying water boarding fuels terrorism is crap. These people have been hating us long before George Bush and Dick Cheney. They cut heads off, we read them Miranda Rights. Total crap. Much like this cartoon.

September 2, 2009 at 2:25 a.m.
rolando said...

If the Far Left and its lapdog, the media, aren't attacking Sarah Palin, they pick Dick Cheney as their whipping boy. Those two are their most politically dangerous opponents...because they speak the truth.

The part they really detest is accuracy in reporting; they cannot bend or warp minds without their lies, innuendos, and deliberate inaccuracies.

Even when they are exposed as bigoted, deliberately lying, and without care for America and American lives...no, especially when so exposed. Then their hate knows no bounds...

September 2, 2009 at 5:50 a.m.
alprova said...

The media talks about Dick Cheney because he seeks the limelight and draws attention to himself by offering criticism of the current Administration on just about a weekly basis.

As Jhenry has so eloquently pointed out, we are hated by much of the world -- a true enough statement, but has anyone ever asked themselves why there is any truth to that statement? It's because Dick Cheney and his ilk have for years, portrayed themselves as martyrs of conservative Christianity on one hand, while waging wars, declared and undeclared, that have resulted in the intentional deaths of people who have never harmed so much as one person in this nation.

It's very hard to separate the leaders of this nation, who have often made claims of moral superiority, from those of others who have practiced outright torture and genocide as a means to control their nations, when our leaders are calling for and subjecting people to the same fate. Quantifying it as a "necessary means to a justifiable end" just doesn't cut it.

Dick Cheney is absolutely the man behind our intrusions into Iraq, and he trampled Americans to be allowed to do it. Ask Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame Wilson, Marine Corps general, Carleton Fulford, and let's not forget I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former Bush Chief-of-Staff, about the man's incessant desire to rush into Iraq with no evidence to support doing so.

All of these people, and more, were focal in reporting to the CIA that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had or was about to attempt to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium. Former President Bush stood before a nation during his 2003 State of the Union speech and told a lie. "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Dick Cheney is a man who is very afraid at the moment. His protestations are indicative of fear that his actions and lies may be outed by those whom he can no longer squash like a bug, as has been his tactic taken in the past to preserve his status of power.

The only thing more dangerous than a tyrant, is sometimes the man who thinks he has the moral right or invitation to intervene in the affairs of a tyrant, while calling for deplorable methods to used in an effort to achieve "peace."

Dick Cheney is very much like someone who would kill his parents and then throw himself on the floor, pleading for mercy by the court...because he is now an orphan.

September 2, 2009 at 5:56 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

So, low down, dirty, lying snakes do not like former V.P. Cheney? Good, he must be doing something right. LOL

The U.S. government's number one duty is to protect her citizens. Unlawful combatants who seek to kill us do not enjoy the protection of any laws as they operate outside of them.

Only a warped mind could equate the harsh treatment of murderous zealots with unlawful behavior.

These attacks on our national security apparatus may do a great job of firing up the anti-U.S., far left supporters of POTUS, but they will only make us more vulnerable in the future by chilling the resolve of our protectors.


jackattack,

I don't even know where to start.... Were you drunk when you posted?

September 2, 2009 at 6:22 a.m.
woody said...

In reality, I thought today's cartoon was rather cute and funny. and then I scrolled down to the comments below.

Talk about funny!!

Dick Cheney is a joke. Unfortunatly, he is an ongoing, fingernails-down-the-blackboard type of bad joke, but a joke nonetheless.

If the man had any redeeming qualities he lost them the day he shot one of his best friends on a hunting trip.

It wasn't the media that coaxed him out of seeming retirement just days after the new administration took office. No, Mr. Cheney drew "first blood" as Rambo might have said it.

Believe me when I say, only the most "Right" of the "Right Wing" even missed his disarming smile and unbelievable ability to lie in one's face (usually, a congressional committee). But I digress.

Liberals and Conservatives have too much else to argue about these days to concern themselves with a loudmouthed political has been. Besides even the biggest of cry-babies soon tire out and go to sleep eventually.

Thank you for your time and attention, Woody

September 2, 2009 at 6:30 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Bias. For an appraisal of Mr. Cheney predating his vice Presidency, read what Colin Powell wrote about him in his 1995 or so autobiography, MY AMERICAN JOURNEY (?), before they became, or expected to become, Vice President and Secretary of State. Alprova, "It's very hard to separate the leaders of this nation...from those...who have practiced outright torture and genocide"? Uh, we're not practicing genocide, waterboarding does not cause permanent injury (and was only used three times?!!)--and Saddam Hussein did both, besides attacking a foreign nation to take it over, whereas we're trying to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. (He murdered foreigners, so it was right for foreigners to execute him. I admit I suspected President Bush--Vice President Cheney's boss--of wanting the war, but removing Hussein was OK.) And if more dangerous than a tyrant can be the man who interferes in the affairs of a tyrant, does that mean President Obama may be more dangerous than insurance companies? Whatever the flaws of an oligarchy, it offers at least some competition, whereas a government monopoly or complete government control (i.e. corporatism/fascism) is harder to wiggle under.

September 2, 2009 at 6:31 a.m.
alprova said...

Do you know why you are smug in thinking that our leaders have not been guilty of genocide? Because no one ever talks about the body counts of the innocent.

If a declaration of war is unjustified and based upon a complete set of lies, the casualties of war ARE genocide. In Iraq alone, we are talking about tens of thousands of innocent life lost.

Our incursions in the Middle East were based on lies and deception, and those lies came right from the top. But you don't see them and theirs over there risking their necks, do you?

You don't need 50,000 troops to find one man. You don't need 100,000 troops to depose a tyrant either. All you need is a good sniper.

Don't even get me started on the deaths of our own in this quest to prohibit terrorism.

September 2, 2009 at 6:43 a.m.
dougmusn said...

Jackattack-

Robert Bolt described the importance of the rule of law in his screenplay for "A Man for All Seasons":

Roper, son-in-law to Thomas More, wants More to preemptively arrest a dangerous spy who has broken no law: Margaret: While you talk he's going! More: Go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law. Roper: So now you give the Devil benefit of law. More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get to the Devil? Roper: Yes! I would cut down every law in England to do that. More: Oh? And when the last law was cut down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.

September 2, 2009 at 6:53 a.m.
EaTn said...

To compare Dick Cheney to a snake is a low blow- to the snake. Bush was his puppet for the first few years while Dick called most the shots. How much lower can you get than to quietly let your best friend and confidant be tried and sentenced when his crime was loyalty. I hope Cheney lives to be an old man and face his deeds that will eventually be exposed.

September 2, 2009 at 7:03 a.m.
moonpie said...

There was a time when I admired Dick Cheney. That was when I thought he spoke the truth.

The man has simply lied too many times.

I will give one example in the interest of time, but it illustrates how vast policies are driven by a lie.

He told us the prisoners at Guantanimo Bay were "scooped" up off the battlefields. That's Dick Cheney's take, and the people who want to believe him don't question him. Like him, they are too busy trying to win an argument.

According to US documents only 5% were scooped up off battlefields.

Many were "sold" to the U.S., not because they were a threat to us. I'm sure some were guilty, but many were political or economic rivals or simply critics of the new regime. This is hardly the American way.

If Dick Cheney has so much trouble with simple truths, and outright lies about them to build major policy, how does he expect continued trust.

Under Dick Cheney's American Exceptionalism the US can do whatever we want whenever we want to because we're the good guys.

Too bad for all of us that he feels the need to lie to get his way. Ultimately this undermines him even when he tells the truth.

To his credit, or discredit, I have never seen a former VP work so hard to defend his record as a public serpant (or servant).

September 2, 2009 at 7:24 a.m.
Sailorman said...

Alprova

"You don't need 50,000 troops to find one man. You don't need 100,000 troops to depose a tyrant either. All you need is a good sniper."

I agree with you. BUT can you imagine the hue and cry if a sniper had taken out Sadam? The hand-wringing from the left would have been mindnumbing.

September 2, 2009 at 7:32 a.m.
najones75 said...

From Merriem-Webster...

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

In this case, couldn't you say that Liberals are committing genocide against America?

September 2, 2009 at 7:35 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

moonpie wrote,

"Too bad for all of us that he feels the need to lie to get his way. Ultimately this undermines him even when he tells the truth."

Wouldn't this also apply to the current POTUS?

Or is it OK to lie if you have the "correct" motivations, the ends justify the means, and all that?

September 2, 2009 at 7:41 a.m.
OllieH said...

I don't think this cartoon is comparing Cheney to a snake. I think it illustrates how creepy and repulsive Dick Cheney is. So, much so, that he would make a snake's skin crawl.

As for Jhenry's assertion that even out of office, the media can't stop talking about him. Well, that might be easier if he'd just shut the #@!&# up. For eight years we hardly heard a peep out of this guy. He was always skulking behind the scenes, pulling the wings off flies, or something. Now, he's taken it on himself to defend the indefensible.

I wish he'd just go back to his undisclosed location.

By the way- FANTASTIC CARTOON!

September 2, 2009 at 8:16 a.m.
trburrows said...

No one here seems to understand that the person in charge has to make decisions for the good of all americans as a whole. This might mean that you lie, torture or abuse other people. In the end its OK to lose some people to save the majority. Get it?

September 2, 2009 at 9:50 a.m.
brandon83 said...

Many of our soldiers fear the liberal media more than the Taliban...than is saying something right there!

September 2, 2009 at 10:16 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Drunken(?) leftist poster jackattack disappears into the memory hole. Was it the curse word that did it, or the double negative?

September 2, 2009 at 10:28 a.m.
miraweb said...

Dick Cheney protected his friends from criminal consequences, orchestrated an unprovoked attack on Iraq, diverted resources from a real enemy, Al Qaeda, to make a oil grab, and steered contracts to his own firm, Haliburton. If the previous administration lost its moral center, it was because of the black hole that was Dick Cheney. His recent TV tours - just ahead of a book release as it happens - only show that he still doesn't get it, and never will.

September 2, 2009 at 11:07 a.m.
aces25 said...

So are Obama and Biden the snakes in the cartoon?

September 2, 2009 at 11:15 a.m.
EaTn said...

brandon83-"Many of our soldiers fear the liberal media more than the Taliban...than is saying something right there!"

With IED's a constant threat, I believe this statement is a stretch.

As for Cheney, he has come from one of the country's most admired to one of the most loathed in a few short years. My guess is that he has to use an electric shaver in the morning with dim lights.

September 2, 2009 at 11:27 a.m.
brandon83 said...

EaTn, read Marcus Luttrell's account "The Lone Survivor"...I believe what I stated was an echoed sentiment in many groups of the armed forces.

September 2, 2009 at 1:39 p.m.
jackattack said...

My post was quite clear, if a little unorthodox. It's point: there is no evidence that torture was necessary to obtain that evidence, nor is there evidence (beyond Cheney's word) that it was obtained through torture, that torture is a violation of the law, even when it is deemed necessary, and that the executive's duty is to uphold the law, and that without law, we are like beasts. And finally that even were torture legal, it is immoral. If we are to be an example to the world we must stick by our principles, even when they are inconvenient. You can't be a light on the hill if you do not have any light. Cheney's light has gone out, and the Bush presidency was not a moral example to the world. Cheney is defending his record because he's guilty of war crimes. That's a capital offense.

Finally for some of the ignorant: Double negatives are not ungrammatical. They follow quite clear grammatical rules. Ask any linguist. It is merely non-standard English.

As for the other silly comments: No I was not drunk, though I was in a "mood". Nor did I avoid responding to comments; I had work to do. I don't spend all my time on message boards.

September 2, 2009 at 1:44 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

jackattack,

"It is merely non-standard English." = Incorrect grammar when posting on an English language website.

I mess up grammar as much as anyone, probably more, it only caught my eye because your usage of the double negative made the statement at odds with the rest of the post. I'd pull a copy down here if the post had not been deleted. Ignorant indeed.

In a "mood" I can understand, your post seemed disjointed and that usually happens to me when I'm PUI.

Finally you wrote in the last post,

"Cheney is defending his record because he's guilty of war crimes."

Which war crimes are you talking about? Before you answer, keep in mind that the Geneva Convention rules do not apply to unlawful combatants. They can be (and in the past always were) shot on the spot as they are not protected by any laws.

You can legitimately complain that the actions were immoral, as that is a subjective opinion and you are entitled to hold it as such. To argue that the actions were illegal, you need to point out which laws were broken.

September 2, 2009 at 2:15 p.m.
miraweb said...

There are a lot of soldiers wasting their lives at Leavenworth who thought they had a license to just start shooting people. Nothing in the laws of war allows that.

Cheney's argument is the same one that says slavery is justified if it improves the economy and embezzling is not such a big deal if you make a little money for the firm. Cheney is a lot closer to Bernie Madoff than George Washington. For a man who orchestrated a political hit which outed a CIA operative who was a specialist on the one issue that could be a real threat, whining about "political revenge" now is quite precious.

September 2, 2009 at 3:14 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

brandon83 - Please do not speak for me or anyone else in the armed services! Violations of any law, regulation, treaty or general order is a crime. I have done two deployments to GITMO in the last 4 years and will be returning in Jan (if it's still open). I am a member of MSST 91114 (911 is for the Sept 11 and 14 is the designator for my team). There are some very, very, very bad people down there, and there are guys who where turned over to US Forces for their land, property or for other non-security related reasons. The only way to find out who was who, is by conducting an investigation and having a trial. It makes me sick that it is taking so long for justice to be served for some of these murders, but it's the law and I took an oath to defend your rights and I will defend theirs. I know you don't like the sound of that, but the UCMJ is not waived just because you don't like someone. These are the laws of our country. SCOTTYM sorry for the bad grammar, I'm on a 25' boat, on an iPhone three mile SSE of Key Biscayne. (Joke) Love all you guys and love the chance to have a voice. Trust me it's a privilege.

September 2, 2009 at 4:42 p.m.
moonpie said...

Hey Scotty,

Any standard I hold Cheney to, I hold anyone to, including Obama.

I don't blame Cheney for having a different opinion, but to purposefully lie about documented facts and numbers to support his opinion is wrong. It's not like it was a differnt interpretation of the numbers that existed. He just made his up.

For years I believed what Cheney was selling. Did he fool me all that time, or did he once know the difference between truth and lies? I may never know.

I do know when he held a position of real authority, he told some non-factual whoppers to try to win arguments and to justify actions we would find reprehensible in other governments.

September 2, 2009 at 4:58 p.m.
alprova said...

Sailorman wrote: "I agree with you. BUT can you imagine the hue and cry if a sniper had taken out Sadam? The hand-wringing from the left would have been mindnumbing."

What people never know, never hurts them. While I doubt that very many people shed any tears when Saddam was put to death, if he had been taken out by a sniper, the end result would probably not be far different from what it is today. Life expectancy is not much better than it was before we went in there, and we are somewhat just as despised as we were by the Iraqi people. Time will tell if we did any good or not.

A sniper taking Saddam out would have resembled some of the other stuff that we, as in our leaders, have nosed in before, in an attempt to influence foreign policy.

September 2, 2009 at 5:58 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty, what has our current President lied about?

September 2, 2009 at 6 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty Wrote: "Only a warped mind could equate the harsh treatment of murderous zealots with unlawful behavior."

Just remember one thing. The same people who are claiming that those held in Cuba for being "murdering zealots" are the same people who took us to war in the first place, and I and a lot of other "warped minds" fail to see where any of all that "intelligence" was ever based in fact or truth.

You're free to believe what you want, but lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice and it becomes shame on me.

Who knows what the truth is? There are sure enough people doing their level best to see that none of those men ever see a courtroom where all will be public. Why is that? Our legal system is a cornerstone of our Constitution, and how long have those people been held in limbo and denied justice?

Do you ever question what does not make sense, or do you swallow everything hook, line and sinker when a Republican OR a Democrat says it?

September 2, 2009 at 6:12 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

moonpie @ 4:58,

Fair enough.

September 2, 2009 at 6:39 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

alprova @ 6:00,

http://obamalies.net/ Check it out.

Some are just silly, some are questionable, and some are plain old bold faced lies.


alprova @ 6:12,

"There are sure enough people doing their level best to see that none of those men ever see a courtroom where all will be public. Why is that?"

To protect our people who are still in the field, and to protect our intelligence systems which are still operational. How well would it have worked out in WWII if the Germans would have found out we cracked their codes before the end of the war, how many lives would have been lost? Each one of our guys is worth 10,000 of the bad guys in my book, and in the books of many other Americans as well. As long as their buddies are still trying to kill us, the bad guys at Gitmo can rot for all I care.


"Do you ever question what does not make sense, or do you swallow everything hook, line and sinker when a Republican OR a Democrat says it?

I don't believe much of anything any career politician says, they are all crooks and liars. This is why I do not want them involved in my life any more than is absolutely necessary. I know you couldn't have missed that sentiment in my previous postings.


alprova,

You keep rolling out the idea that the Bush administration made up the reasons for invading Iraq. You are conveniently forgetting that the Clinton administration made many of the exact same observations. You are also conveniently forgetting that most every intelligence agency on the planet was singing the same tune, and that there were multiple UN resolutions calling for Saddam to give up his programs. Going into Iraq was not only a bi-partisan decision in this country, it was a multi-national decision at the UN. Blaming the whole affair on Bush/Cheney is simply partisan revisionism of the highest order.

September 2, 2009 at 6:57 p.m.
moonpie said...

Scotty noted to alprova,

"You keep rolling out the idea that the Bush administration made up the reasons for invading Iraq. You are conveniently forgetting that the Clinton administration made many of the exact same observations. You are also conveniently forgetting that most every intelligence agency on the planet was singing the same tune, and that there were multiple UN resolutions calling for Saddam to give up his programs."

While I do not know what alprova remembers, forgets or interprets... I can say that Clinton did not invade.

However, I must concede that most people though Saddam was a menace and a threat. Granted, much of the world intelligence was U.S. driven. Still, most of the world thought Saddam was hiding something.

And although I didn't think we should invade, I thought he was hiding something, too.

Why did nearly everyone think he was hiding something and had arms he didn't actually have? Because he wanted everyone, especially Iran, to think he had them. This came out after the invasion. Whoops! He didn't think we'd actually invade. Bad judgement on his part, I guess.

And why were we so certain he had WMDs? Because we sold them to him. We just didn't know he'd used them all.

So I can't blame anyone for thinking he was a threat in the region. He wanted us to think it. And we had first hand knowledge that at one time, he had the weapons.

Invasion still didn't make since to me, for other reasons, but I can understand the belief that he was a threat.

September 2, 2009 at 8:40 p.m.
Oz said...

Nice rendering of Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. The resemblance is striking!

September 2, 2009 at 8:41 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

moonpie,

Again you astound me. It is totally honest to disagree with the invasion for no other reason than that one thinks it is just generally a bad idea to do such things.

It is not so honest to make statements to the effect that we were misled by Bush/Cheney into invading Iraq,(cough, cough) and I'm no big fan of the duo on many fronts.

As for Saddam pulling one over on most of the world, I believe you're dead right. He bluffed, and got called. He "misunderestimated" the resolve of the U.S. leadership.

To give the devil his due I'll also say Saddam was painted into a corner by Iran. He had to keep them guessing, thus he had to play hide and seek with the UN inspectors as well.

September 2, 2009 at 9:14 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty,

"http://obamalies.net/ Check it out."

I've seen the site. I couldn't get past the first moronic accusation. Employers change insurers all the time under the present system.

Really Scott, you've got to try to stick to reading sites written by people with a brain upstairs.

Regarding why those in Gitmo are not afforded counsel and trial, you wrote:

"To protect our people who are still in the field, and to protect our intelligence systems which are still operational."

Yeah...these cave dwellers know all of our military's secrets...right? They must have tied web cams on the tails of scorpions.

"You are conveniently forgetting that the Clinton administration made many of the exact same observations."

Been reading the "warriors" site? You're forgetting that Saddam was under the watchful eyes of U.N. weapons inspectors following the Gulf War, due the resolutions and sanctions that he was put under.

No one has ever denied that he HAD a minor stockpile of marginally functional nuclear weapons, but they were either depleted or corroding under the earth. as was found after we invaded the nation in 2003. Oops!! Sorry...our bad.

"You are also conveniently forgetting that most every intelligence agency on the planet was singing the same tune, and that there were multiple UN resolutions calling for Saddam to give up his programs."

What? The U.N. specifically refused to support our invasion BECAUSE repeated inspections had not found anything to "give up." When Hussein started refusing access, Bush hopped up and down and said, "SEE..SEE!!...HE'S LYING!!...WE'RE GOING IN!!"

The Bush administration justified its illegal actions on the basis of Security Council Resolution 678, a 1990 resolution that authorized 'all necessary means' to uphold previous resolutions related to Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

"Going into Iraq was not only a bi-partisan decision in this country, it was a multi-national decision at the UN. Blaming the whole affair on Bush/Cheney is simply partisan revisionism of the highest order."

Now Scotty, you KNOW that is not true. The United Nations implicitly voted against allowing an invasion not once, but TWICE. Bush quit asking, rallied a very minor amount of support from a very minor, minority of the U.N. members, and in we went.

Rewriting history and the facts are not going to change the truth. The world was watching, and so was I. I'm sorry if you were not.

September 2, 2009 at 10:36 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

alprova,

"I couldn't get past the first moronic accusation."

Perhaps if you didn't lose your train of thought when the first bump came along, you would not be so misinformed. I distinctly stated that some of it was "just silly", did you miss that part?

"Yeah...these cave dwellers know all of our military's secrets...right?"

You seem to think that our enemies are intellectually inferior to us. That is a suckers game.

"Been reading the "warriors" site? "

Never heard of it. But thanks for backing up my assertion that the whole thing unfolded under the "watchful" eyes of the UN.

"The Bush administration justified its illegal ....."

Really, repeating what I said, using more detail, is not a rebuttal. Thanks for backing me up again.

"Now Scotty, you KNOW that is not true. ....."

Again, adding details and spin does not change the meat of the story. There was bipartisan support here, and a coalition of UN members abroad, in the game. Thank you for backing me up again.

"Bush hopped up and down and said, "SEE..SEE!!...HE'S LYING!!...WE'RE GOING IN!!""

Video link, or admit you are the one shading the truth.

I've been paying pretty close attention since the mid 70's. I've seen enough to know that Bush/Cheney did not just up and decide to invade Iraq on a whim, as you imply.

September 2, 2009 at 11 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty Wrote: "You seem to think that our enemies are intellectually inferior to us. That is a suckers game."

No where did you see me state that they were "intellectually inferior" to us.

But let's get down to brass tacks. The only thing those people have been able to do, is to learn how to fly airplanes and how to make and set off bombs. A fifteen year old kid can do that after spending a night online.

Don't challenge my intelligence by claiming that they have access to anything close to ours.

"...thanks for backing up my assertion that the whole thing unfolded under the "watchful" eyes of the UN."

What is your point? On October 24, 1945, the United States entered into an agreement with what is now 192 countries, to abide by the counsel of an organization that is meant to address grievances on a world level. GWB and his master, Dick Cheney, broke protocol and flipped the world a bird, effectively disregarding that agreement.

As a result of our "efforts" in the Middle East, the United States is now $3 trillion dollars poorer, no closer to catching the alleged mastermind of 9/11, and who really knows how many people have died as a result of this unauthorized six and a half year war? And you find this acceptable? I can't cut the hypocrisy with a chain saw.

"There was bipartisan support here, and a coalition of UN members abroad, in the game. Thank you for backing me up again."

The Congressional vote was 297 - 133. Only six Republicans voted against invading Iraq. 126 Democrats, or 61% if you will, voted against invading Iraq. Only 82 Democrats voted for invading Iraq. Only in your world would such a tally be considered "bi-partisan support."

The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. No case on earth can be made to suggest that we invaded Iraq to defend The United States of America. We were denied TWICE by the Security Council to be allowed to invade Iraq. In the absence of either scenario, the UN Charter defines such an invasion to be a "war of aggression."

In 2003, we had the backing of 38% of all U.N. member nations. 73 out of 192 voted in our favor the second time we were denied authorization to invade Iraq.

There are now only 16 nations with troops fighting with and aiding the United States in the Middle East. Eight of them have less than 1,000 troops each in the region. The UK, our closest ally, and the country with the largest allied troop deployment in the region, has less than half the troops that we have stationed there at the moment.

Now those are the facts. Deny them all you want. They are indisputable.

September 3, 2009 at 1:27 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

alprova,

"seem to think" I never attributed the words "intellectually inferior" to you. Those are words I used to describe the way your opinion of the enemy sounds to me.

""Yeah...these cave dwellers know all of our military's secrets...right? They must have tied web cams on the tails of scorpions.""

These are, in fact, modern humans with access to modern technology.


""bi-partisan support.""

: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties

Jeez, you're right, and here I was thinking there were members from 2 parties in congress that voted for the resolution. I guess I do live in a dream world. Oh, wait!


"In the absence of either scenario, the UN Charter defines such an invasion to be a "war of aggression.""

And we were reprimanded when? I must have missed that one. You could be right, if we were reprimanded. Otherwise it was the typical UN farce.


"There are now only 16 nations with troops fighting with and aiding the United States in the Middle East."

There are, even now, troops from 16 different members of a MULTI-NATIONAL coalition fighting with and aiding the U.S. in the M.E.

Exact same information, just different spin.


I'm not in habit of denying actual facts. I will most assuredly continue to call you out when you distort the facts to demonize political opponents.

We started here,

"You keep rolling out the idea that the Bush administration made up the reasons for invading Iraq. You are conveniently forgetting that the Clinton administration made many of the exact same observations. You are also conveniently forgetting that most every intelligence agency on the planet was singing the same tune, and that there were multiple UN resolutions calling for Saddam to give up his programs. Going into Iraq was not only a bi-partisan decision in this country, it was a multi-national decision at the UN. Blaming the whole affair on Bush/Cheney is simply partisan revisionism of the highest order."

You have yet to show that any of this is wrong. You've merely filled in details and spun it around. You then interject a few sarcastic comments, declare the facts I never disagreed with as indisputable, and believe you've accomplished something other than largely agreeing with my statement.

Goodnight alprova. I've had enough banging my head for one day, you win the interwebs, I'm sacking out.

September 3, 2009 at 2:21 a.m.
Sailorman said...

Regarding the use of a sniper, Alprova said

"What people never know, never hurts them."

Have to admit you've stumped me with that one. Who are you and what have you done with Alprova? BTW I happen to believe that while the public may have a right to know, it doesn't always have a need to know.

September 3, 2009 at 8:33 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Sailorman, RE: alprova

Do you know any gun enthusiast who doesn't think snipers are pretty much the cat's meow? alprova has repeatedly supported basic gun rights. Some others from this group do as well, even if they are at total odds with some other "conservative" ideas. I am glad that it's not really a partisan thing on the ground.

The keeping secrets...OPSEC. I'm with.

September 3, 2009 at 12:09 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Alprova - my apologies - I obviously missed the fact that you're a gun rights supporter. Thanks for the correction Scotty

September 3, 2009 at 4:02 p.m.
alprova said...

I'm not quite the total, typical liberal. I try to be realistic and to weigh both sides of an issue or argument before taking a stance. And like many people, I have been guilty many times of changing my mind to many things over the years.

Right now, I'm well over the fence and standing on Democratic grass at the moment. The reasons why I am standing there are complex, and I'd be lying if I did not admit that some of it has to do with how my personal life has changed in recent years, but that's not all there is to it.

I, like many others, watched the Republicans abandon their core principles over the past 12 years. Far too many of them became absolute and unapologetic corporate lapdogs.

Three prominent Republicans, now no longer in office, with their introduction of a piece of legislation called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, started the massive snowball that made it's way down a very steep mountain. Embracing the worst that capitalism has to offer, as this nation found out one time before, these three gentlemen helped to lift the prohibition that separated the financial transactions of commercial banks, insurance companies, and investment firms. This dismantled a carefully protected financial system that had been in place following the Great Depression that occurred during the 1930's.

Republicans have come to think that they are the experts on the subject of morality, despite repeated incidents that prove that they are no more morally superior than the rest of us. They have come to think that they own the reproductive organs of every female inhabitant of this nation.

Top Republicans, namely GWB and Cheney, who were in every position to digest the facts, to know the truth, to use wisdom and discretion, and to weigh the costs in terms of dollars and cents and to that of human life, made a command decision to lead this nation into another bloody, baseless war.

And finally, it is more than apparent that Republican politicians in general, are more than a little reluctant in seeking to reform our system of health care -- a system that has been out of control for at least two decades. Rather than to be honest and to admit that they are in bed with corporate interests, who have reason to preserve the status quo because it will continue to fatten already outrageous bank accounts, they have taken the low road at every opportunity to violate one of the Ten Commandments, by bearing false witness.

I know that not everyone will agree with my reasons for jumping that fence. And that's okay. All of us are on one side or another for their own reasons. I did it after arriving at my own conclusions following hundreds of hours of research, contemplation, reasoning, and prayer.

And that's more than I am betting was done before the order to invade a nation was given.

September 4, 2009 at 5:08 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.