Putz boy wrote : "Good morning my anonymous teletubby. Where to begin......"
you're still here ?
"Saddam: He's never gone away since the end of the Gulf War."
yeah, that's what I'm saying, he's been there since the early 70s, and was at his worst in the mid to late 80s, why all of a sudden is he supposed to be an issue ? Oh yeah, the election.
"After 9/11 it has been determined that Saddam is a major sponsor of terror in addition to being close to having his own nuke. "
Bullshit. The 'sponsor of terror' stuff does not hold up under any scrutiny and was a lame attempt to associate him with the real crisis of the moment, al-quaeda, to provide cover for the Bush admisistration's failures there and give them what they wanted all along: a little war, to help their friends in the business, revenge, for personal movtives related to his fathers' administration, and access to Iraqi oil, which Bush has openly talked about having access to after a 'regime change'.
The supposed link between the WTC terrorists and Iraq was a meeting that US intelligence thought one of the highjackers had with one of Saddam's guys in Iraq, but later turned out to be mistaken about the meeting ever taking place, it turns out the highjacker was here the whole time and they had proof of it (it was Atta I think but I'm not 100% sure from memory).
"So let's play out a few scenarios: We, with our allies, continue on our present course of forcing Saddam to conform to UN resolutions, which include proof that he has gotten rid of his WMD's."
that's pretty much the common sense course of action.
"OR....
We can do nothing, suffer another catastrophic attack, and have Shrillary on the floor of the Senate asking, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" (Which, by the way, we should all be asking her sorry ass. Really, Chillary, HOW MANY TIMES during your tenure as co-president did the Sudan offer to turn over UBL on a silver platter?)"
well, it wouldn't be 'another' catastrophic attack, since he had nothing to do with the first one, and nobody who knows what they are talking about says otherwise.
I don't know what your point is in bringing up Hilary Clinton (it amazes me how much hate you have for the Clinton administration; I bet you didn't hate what it did for your 401K, and in any case, they're not in office anymore; I mean, I didn't think much of Nixon, but I wasn't bringing him up in every political discussion I had in the 80s). But, if Osama gets us again and it turns out it could have been prevented, obviously somebody needs to review the process we have for dealing with this stuff to prevent further attacks. When something doesn't work, you have to get more involved and give it the attention and resources it takes to get the results you need. In a two party system, the party who was in control when the shit went down has little incentive to blow the whistle on themselves, so logically the other party, who may have something to gain by the first one getting called on the carpet, may speak up at that time. I don't see much of an alternative, unless you had non political watchdog groups that could fulfill the role of overseer or raise a stink when problems occur. Maybe the media can play that role to an extent, they do try, but the last time I checked, you right wingers were always whining about them as it is, and I doubt you'd have much respect for anybody else that dared to suggest that something could have been done better than the Republicans did it.
"Again, you should be asking YOUR boy why he didn't offer up the treaty to the United States Senate."
My boy ? Whatever.
He didn't offer it up to the Senate because the Senate had already indicated it wouldn't get ratified without certain conditions being met (including participation by certain other countries and 'assurance that it wouldn't hurt the US economy'). The Senate did that via a resolution even before the Kyoto conference had started. Clearly the Clinton administration hoped that with more work in that direction that the treaty would eventually be ratified...since then quite a few more countries have signed on, which is especially important for that treaty because it needs a certain number of ratifications to go into effect (it does not need a US ratification for it to go into effect for the countries that did ratify it, of course).
"He did sign some executive order regarding Kyoto, but was essentially non binding because....... if you'll remember your basic civics THE SENATE IS THE ONLY BODY THAT CAN RATIFY A TREATY. Politically, such an anti-Western treaty will never fly in this country because of Big Labor. "
I am aware that the treaty has not been ratified by the US and that 2/3 of the Senate would need to vote for it in order for it to happen. Do you think you're the only person that reads the paper ?
I don't think "big labor" as you call it is the biggest enemy of the treaty in the US. Big business is the main player in US politics and gives a lot more money than labor groups, favoring the Republicans heavily, in exchange for all manner of kickbacks. That's who is keeping the treaty down, the oil companies and all of the idiots that deny global warning exists. It's like the environmental equivalent of holocaust deniers.
I also envision said forum moderator being surrounded by properly uniformed waitresses plying him with food and strong drink. :D :D :D
