Scott Ritter: Help Us To Stop The War

[gunnyg]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/764217/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/764217/posts

[Barndog]

So, Gunny, would I be correct in my belief that you are promoting the isolationist posture the Administration is, and therefore squashing any and all dissent, by calling, or (even worse 'alluding to calling') it treason? If not directly, then indirectly by posting the remains of the forum discussion where the lack of thought prevails in the abhorrable manner in which it is clearly self evident?.

One could safely conjecture this by the remainder of the post past the original article, in and of itself.

I'm STILL waiting for someone to refute the claims that Capt. Ritter made. All I have heard so far (since I originally posted this a couple months back), is the same old 'Either you are with us, or you are against us' argument' Baseless in fact, primarily isolationist and fear based but MOSTLY and fully " morally treasonable to the American Public".....(roughly paraphrazed) -
(quote by Teddy Roosevelt)

I say some fvcking people need to read the Constitution a little better.

1. There is NO DECLARED WAR.
2. The PRESIDENT CANNOT DECLARE WAR. ONLY CONGRESS CAN.

Until that changes, I guess we're stuck with what we've had all along, aren't we. I say no 'random interpretations' of the Constitution - to further your political gains.

That's what I wore the uniform to defend. Sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me GOD.

I will defend it as long as it is not manipulated, and the way I see it, it IS........

Semper FI

[gunnyg]

BD:

No, that would Not be correct--the fact of my posting anything here would not mean that I agree or disagree w/the article or the author of the article, but merely that an article has current interest, and/or the issue involved has current interest. I would not necessarily be in accord/disaccord 100% with anything posted unless so stated--the old saying may be somewhat correct--a little good in all bad men-a little bad in all good men.

I agree w/what you have to say about the Constitution, but things are not that clear--it would appear George may have us in a classic Catch-22--maybe not.

DickG

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by gunnyg
BD:

I agree w/what you have to say about the Constitution, but things are not that clear--it would appear George may have us in a classic Catch-22--maybe not.

DickG

George did not place us in this situation. This is not President Bush Catch 22. If anyone is to blame is the Arab dedication to destroying Israel and the United States. That has been on Saddam's and other Arab leaders mind each time they gather in their summits. Another one to blame for our current situation is Clinton because he failed to do what we had entrusted him to do.

We knew Saddam tried to assassinate a United States President, Clinton knew it, yet failed to go after Saddam, and twice when he had all the reason in the world to do so.

1. When Saddam kicked out our weapons inspectors, including Mr. Ritter who testified to congress a couple of months afterward he was booted out that Iraq could begin to reproduce biological weapons within months. Now Ritter is singing a different tune. Ever since the Iraqi government paid him to make a Jane Fonda type of propaganda movie, that no body believes.


2. When Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush, Clinton should have gone after Saddam at that time. No one would condemn him. No Arab leader would. Clinton didn’t do it because he lacks the courage we find in Bush today that is willing to lose the presidency for what he believes is right. Yes this may very well take us into WW III, but it was started on 9-11 not today. Iran is next and if we don’t do it, we will continue to get attack from within our borders.

We need to go into the Lion den, go lion hunting in winter, while everyone else would rather sleep and pretend everything is alright with the world, when its not. If we don't hit Saddam today, soon the next time we will face biological weapons of mass destruction and our policy is that if so attack we will use nukes.


And we will! Unless those protesting the war and their supporters elect Hillary as our next president and Barbara Streisand becomes her vice president.
__________________

[Barndog]

Hawk, I'll agree with you on a couple points, and disagree on a couple more.

1. You'd have to disembowel me before I'd vote for Hillary and Barbara. One point to 'us' (not takin sides)

2. From the S-2 I've seen, there is no clear link to Saddam and assasinations of the Prez (former's). Current schools of thought link them more so to the terrorist chains. Who the fvck knows really. point 2

Capt. Ritter's movie (as I stated before) wasn't funded by Saddam - it was funded by an Iraqi sympathizer. The film layed out the horrid problems the UN had with attempting to even trying to show where/what the issues with WMD were.
*note* WMD = weapons of mass destruction: sounds to me like a real 'wag the dog' catch-phrase. point for Capt Ritter ( according to my S-2)

Prez Clinton, as you recall - had his hands tied by the Republican Congress..... both times as I recall. I may be wrong, and waiting to be informed properly, if so.

Recalling my previous Constitutional cites:

Congress can only declare an act of WAR, not the President.

I still am not saying we don't need to go into the Lion's Den, Hawk...... yet, I'm waiting to see if Dubya gives some 'facts' tonite which in my Marine Corps mind, justifies it.

I don't think so, but I guess we''ll know later.

ps: Gunny - Semper FI..My Pop served from 50-56 - 3 tours. Ohhhh Raaaaaahhhhhh

Barndog