Check this article out!!

http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

I had to laugh, because at first I thought it was a CURRENT anti-war site; until I saw that it was Clinton that the site was referring to. Finally, I came upon this last section...

<snip>
IN A REPUBLIC, WAR IS A LAST RESORT

"‘War, indeed, is, in its mildest form, so dreadful a calamity; it destroys so many lives, wastes so much property, and introduces so much moral desolation; that nothing but the strongest state of necessity can justify, or excuse it. In a republican government, it should never be resorted to, except as a last expedient to vindicate its rights; for military power and military ambition have but too often fatally triumphed over the liberties of the people.’...

"Story was not only emphatic on the constitutional necessity of vesting the power to authorize war in Congress, but also on what might happen if it were given to the chief executive instead. ‘In monarchies,’ he wrote, ‘the power is ordinarily vested in the executive. But certainly, in a republic, the chief magistrate ought not to be clothed with a power so summary, and, at the same time, so full of dangers to the public interest and the public safety. It would be to commit the liberties, as well as the rights of the people, to the ambition, or resentment, or caprice, or rashness of a single mind.’"

THE UNAUTHORIZED IRAQ ATTACK WAS GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT

"Instead of putting off the impeachment vote, the House should have voted to impeach him that very day. A President who uses his duties as Commander in Chief to bomb foreign countries every time he wants to change the subject ought to be removed with alacrity," according to Ann Coulter (Human Events, 12/25/98, p. 6).

Very interesting!

We ought to hammer someone to the wall with it, say Bush*?
Any takers?

Trekkerlass

close attention! Send it where it can be used...might also send to Olbermann and/or Stewart and/or Letterman...people who might actually use it...

do you know any email addy's?

Trekkerlass

site; it's off to the left (just where everything belongs, hee hee!) on the home page; it's the 'contact us' button.
For the 'news' and the Daily Show I google my way to the spots I need...I really do need to put this stuff in favorites or my addy book or something...

"As the Constitution makes clear, the President of the United States does have the authority to take defensive action against an aggressor nation, but he has no authority whatsoever to make war against a country which has neither attacked the United States or posed to do so."

'course you know how Bush* would spin that...Imminent threat (haha)

trying to say it was that damn 'liberal media' who reported that was said...and of course they have been caught in their lies...this misadministration was blatantly obvious about the 'imminence' of the threat AND about desperately trying to link OBL, Al Qaeda and Iraq/Hussein.

Now that the imminent threat and WMD's have been debunked we now went to war to 'free the Iraqi people' according to the local 'Rush wannabe' :eyes:

there was a congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq in 1990, which never expired, so both Clinton and Bush were consitutionally permitted to wage war against Iraq.

Their treasonous propaganda changes 180 degrees if it suits their magalomaniacle agenda. These reprehensable prevaricators have no shame.

didn't "take care of al queda"
great find. maybe i should put some of the really nice tidbits on some buttons. i could replace the whole hypocrisy section on my website.

http://www.conservativeusa.org
It's not blatantly pro-WAR, but there's certainly nothing against it. And they list those obscene Iraqi Playing Cards. They're Neo-Confederacy WHACKOS, who aren't "conservative" in any meaningful sense of that term.

OTOH: Some of the TRUE Conservative groups have NOT flip-flopped. Here's an example from the Buchananites:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"“Imagine these startling headlines with the nation at war in the Pacific six months after Dec. 7, 1941: “No Signs of Japanese Involvement in Pearl Harbor Attack! Faulty Intelligence Cited; Wolfowitz: Mistakes Were Made.”

Or how about an equally disconcerting World War II headline from the European theater: “German Army Not Found in France, Poland, Admits President; Rumsfeld: ‘Oops!’, Powell Silent; ‘Bring ’Em On,’ Says Defiant FDR.”

It seems to me that when there is reason to go to war, it should be self-evident. The Secretary of State should not need to convince a skeptical world with satellite photos of a couple of Toyota pickups and a dumpster. And faced with a legitimate casus belli, it should not be hard to muster an actual constitutional declaration of war. Now in the absence of a meaningful Iraqi role in the 9/11 attack and the mysterious disappearance of those fearsome Weapons of Mass Destruction, there might be some psychic satisfaction to be had in saying, “I told you so!” But it sure isn’t doing my career as a talk-show host any good.

The criterion of self-evidence was only one of dozens of objections I raised before the elective war in Iraq on my afternoon drive-time talk show on KFYI in Phoenix. Many of the other arguments are familiar to readers of The American Conservative.
>
http://www.amconmag.com/2_2_04/article3.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

pnorman
STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone

great article. Send it on to those rare friendly media types...

WOW.

This is hilarious. The sad thing is, I bet you could show this to a lot of conservatives who wouldn't see the connection at all.

they could miss it, because it fairly jumped out at me.

It's not so much that they wouldn't see a connection, but rather that they wouldn't acknowledge that it was the same set of circumstances.

(i.e., Clinton was not justified in attacking, but Bush was. For this reason, their argument holds water and ours doesn't.)

It's the Republican way: deny everything.

You make a very good point. The Pukes twist Everything to their advantage.

Meanwhile we Dems attack each other every chance we get....*^%#^

I would suggest, yee who are Demo minded, that you bite your tongues and support our side. The old saying applies: "If you have nothing good to say, say nothing."

One bit of advice: Learn to do the twist. The pukes make good instructors for that dance.

The big difference in the success of the GOP vs. the Dems as I see it:

While we spend time fighting amongst ourselves for our various causes, they have one goal: WINNING. More specifically, winning no matter the cost. We need to get ourselves together and adopt the same attitude.

To some extent, we have started to do it...we're uniting to get * out of the White House. Let's keep it up. Let's take back Washington, and then we can worry about the more specific causes we want to champion.

(and yes, i'm addicted)

The object of a party should not simply be winning and only winning. It should be the intellegent debate to instill policies that benefit the people.

WE actually believe in the power of politics to help people, to protect the environment, to make life on earth better for people, and to educate those who need knowledge.

The right, since Nixon and probably before that, sees politics as a fucking rugby match in the mud, with their team recruiting the biggest, stupidest morals-less bruisers they can find.

If you have a problem with our side wanting to win, consider the stakes. We are NOT on our own playing field anymore. THEY own the SCOTUS, the House, the Senate, the Media, and the executive branch. If we intend to survive, we're going to have to go down on the field. The right will do everything in its power not to just be content with winning seats in the Senate, but with the complete eradication of Democratic ideals.

I agree that the object of a party should not just be winning....but that's the way it is. If you don't win, you lose power and influence and you can't get any of your issues to the forefront.

When you're up against a political foe who thinks that way, then you better alter your strategy...WE'D better alter OUR strategy or we'll be looking at four more years of getting screwed.

I'm not saying that we need to squelch all differing Democratic points of view, but we had better present a united front if we want to start making political gains in this country. The GOP has a bunch of different groups supporting them (Christian Coalition, corporations, anti-tax advocates, pro-military groups, pro-life), each with their own agenda...but they're marching in lockstep. They know that unless their party of choice isn't in the White House, they have less of a chance to get their voices heard.

kick

They probably can't use it form much but it should give the staffers a laugh.

for emailing it...even if they can't use it, hopefully they at least got a laugh from it.

They probably can't use it form much but it should give the staffers a laugh.

Whoops - Posted twice - how embarassing

Might as well leave your thread title blank.

There's 20-30 threads in this forum a day that say something generic along these lines. Thread titles that give no clue to the content of the thread are completely useless to thread readers, and 99% of these generic "Read this!" subjectless shouts get ignored.

Right?! Right, guys? Nine-eleven, y'know? Right?!! Everything changed, right? On 9/11? RIGHT? COME ON!!!! NINE-ELEVEN, DAMMIT!!!!!!!


Okay, so it doesn't justify EVERYTHING.