Conservative/Liberal Joke

[zman1200]

Is this Calvin and Hobbes without the pictures

[YankeeRose]

With all of this evil nafarious goings on, how do you sleep at night?

You ought to email all of this to Micheal Moore.

There are times I don't sleep very well at all, actually, but it has more to do with pain and nothing to do with what's going on in this Country or the World. How did YOU sleep at night with all the "evil, nefarious" things you say Clinton did? Oh, wait, I know! It seems you and William Jefferson have more in common than you'd think, except that well, you know what he said about that...yeah right, like I believed him! Why don't you send an e-mail to Moore, Soros, who ever...ucJoe, you seem to be the expert about all of those people, not me.



There is no comparison with assisting Bosnia and any of the other wars, or with the current quagmire, in my estimation. What about Reagan's numerous forays into various and sundry countries? Those were just fine and dandy I suppose. He tried his damnedest to get us into a BIG war. With the help of GHW Bush's Ambassador to Iraq, Daddy Bush finally succeeded getting us into what promised to be a big one, but it was over way too quick, that's why he let Saddam go, "war insurance". They were looking to the future and just like terroritsts, being very, very patient. Next time, they'd be sure and have it all planned out.



A letter exists that Cheney either wrote or helped to write to then President Clinton - Cheney signed it, any way...but I doubt many would waver in their one-track mindset about who helped to mislead whom about what and when. If I recollect correctly, Clinton was largely an un-Partisan President. He made appointments no matter the political party and picked those he simply thought were best suited. Bash Clinton until the Cows come home...no members of either of his Cabinets ever abandoned ship on him in droves.



"Calvin and Hobbes" rock!

[Banned]

This has to be the funniest thing I have ever read on these pages:

"Clinton was largely an un-Partisan President."

Ha ha ha ha ha ....ouch it hurts I am laughing so much.

[YankeeRose]

It's said that he, or she, who laughs last, laughs best...only thing is, I can't laugh at what is below - these people are insane with power. Here you go. This is an actual Society with an actual Web Site and although not "Directors", just look who signed the "Statement of Purpose" - they are Members. Cheney, Jeb and quite a few others...I just bet Daddy GW and Dubya are members, too, albeit "silent members"! "Moral clarity"? HA! The letter I'd mentioned is contained on their Web Site...it's from '98 and is, of course, a lie as we now know there were no WMD. They were trying to get Clinton to do what Dubya went ahead and did. I only thought Cheney had signed it because he is a member...however, Rumsfeld did. They don't say how this country is supposed to pay for all of this Defense spending and globe trotting, do they? They REEK of Fascism and greed...I wonder how many of them have Defense and Oil Interests and are making $ from the war? I like to know what "shaping circumstances before crises emerge" means, exactly. It leads one to draw the conclusion that they would go to just about ANY lengths to achieve their "new world order". Go ahead, keep on laughing, if you can. If you can, please don't tell me, I don't want to know.



THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY


Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt.


Project Directors
William Kristol, Chairman
Robert Kagan
Bruce P. Jackson
Mark Gerson
Randy Scheunemann
Project Staff
Ellen Bork, Acting Executive Director
Gary Schmitt, Senior Fellow
Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow
Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow, Director of the Middle East Initiative
Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director
Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate


http://www.newamericancentury.org 


STATEMENT OF PURPOSE


June 3, 1997


American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.


We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.


Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:


• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.


Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.


Elliott Abrams    Gary Bauer   
William J. Bennett    Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney    Eliot A. Cohen   
Midge Decter    Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg   
Francis Fukuyama    Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby    Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle    Peter W. Rodman    Stephen P. Rosen    Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld    Vin Weber   
George Weigel    Paul Wolfowitz
 

[Bag]

I usually stay out of the political shit, but when people blame Bush for the war in Iraq, saying that he made up the WOMD and stuff, well....

These are quotes from '88, BEFORE Bush became President.

We've been lied to!

But, exactly who's been doing the lying?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Anyone care to help me out here. I'd just love to understand how anyone can believe that GW Bush and the Republican Party is responsible for Iraq.

From what I can see here, there were a couple of prominent Democrats who seemed to think the same thing, and think it way before Bush took office.

Or, is it just that the Democrats were only talking and they really didn't mean for anything to happen.

Go ahead, explain.

[Bag]

By the way, did ya hear the one about the guy who walks into his bedroom with a sheep under his arm and says,"Honey this is the pig I fuck when you have a headache." His wife, lying in bed says,"I think you'll find that that's a sheep." He says, "I think YOU'LL find that I wasn't talking to YOU!"

[YankeeRose]

That's what it is, not a "Society".
You insisted, so here's the letter and please, do note that it's dated January 26, 1998...I believe you have a typo...Clinton was not President in 1988, Reagan still was...
I can't believe the sheer audacity
for them to write such a letter to a President. All I can say, is, here's your proof and maybe even veiled threats. "John Bolton", where did I hear that name before? Any way, Abrams, Bennett, Rummy and Woolfy all signed their names, but Cheney, Jeb and many others are all in the Cartel. The totally ballsy thing is, they haven't even been trying to hide their agenda...just click on their web site...it's a hoot.



 
January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC



Dear Mr. President:



We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.  In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat.  We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.  That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.  We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months.  As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections.  Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished.  Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production.  The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.  As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East.  It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard.  As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.




Sincerely,



Elliott Abrams   
Richard L. Armitage   
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner    John Bolton    Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama    Robert Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol    Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld   
William Schneider, Jr.   
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz    R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

[Bert|Evil]

This has to be the funniest thing I have ever read on these pages:

"Clinton was largely an un-Partisan President."

Ha ha ha ha ha ....ouch it hurts I am laughing so much.

As much as I dislike him and what he’s done to this country, I do need to give him credit for one thing. He was quite the opportunist in taking a good thing (i.e. stable, but boring, Reaganomics) and creating a GROSSLY hyped surplus in theory to let the stupidity of our society run amok. It’s amazing to look back on all of this and see just how mislead people were. Even worse, these people seem to have embraced this as a reality.

If you need a local example, look at Murtha’s relationship with the area. Nothing but false prosperity!

[Bert|Evil]

I usually stay out of the political shit, but when people blame Bush for the war in Iraq, saying that he made up the WOMD and stuff, well....

These are quotes from '88, BEFORE Bush became President.

We've been lied to!

But, exactly who's been doing the lying?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Anyone care to help me out here. I'd just love to understand how anyone can believe that GW Bush and the Republican Party is responsible for Iraq.

From what I can see here, there were a couple of prominent Democrats who seemed to think the same thing, and think it way before Bush took office.

Or, is it just that the Democrats were only talking and they really didn't mean for anything to happen.

Go ahead, explain.

I like what you’ve done here!

The Democrats are a very frustrated bunch these days, but they have themselves to blame. Quotes like these are examples of why. Everyone knows that we should have (a) finished the job in Desert Storm, but the U.N. and the inauguration of a new president stopped us from taking Saddam and (b) done something about the WTC bombing in 1993. The Clinton years and Gore’s involvement in the Ollie North trials were basically telling terrorists “yep, we’ll be your bitch”.


This, Yankee Rose, is complacency!!

[Bert|Evil]

That's what it is, not a "Society".
You insisted, so here's the letter and please, do note that it's dated January 26, 1998...I believe you have a typo...Clinton was not President in 1988, Reagan still was...
I can't believe the sheer audacity
for them to write such a letter to a President. All I can say, is, here's your proof and maybe even veiled threats. "John Bolton", where did I hear that name before? Any way, Abrams, Bennett, Rummy and Woolfy all signed their names, but Cheney, Jeb and many others are all in the Cartel. The totally ballsy thing is, they haven't even been trying to hide their agenda...just click on their web site...it's a hoot.

I never realized that padded rooms could be Wi-Fi enabled and that a person could keystroke so much with their nose and mouth.

[lonewolf]

THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY


Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt.


Project Directors
William Kristol, Chairman
Robert Kagan
Bruce P. Jackson
Mark Gerson
Randy Scheunemann
Project Staff
Ellen Bork, Acting Executive Director
Gary Schmitt, Senior Fellow
Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow
Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow, Director of the Middle East Initiative
Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director
Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate


http://www.newamericancentury.org 


STATEMENT OF PURPOSE


June 3, 1997


American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.


We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.


Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:


• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.


Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.


Elliott Abrams    Gary Bauer   
William J. Bennett    Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney    Eliot A. Cohen   
Midge Decter    Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg   
Francis Fukuyama    Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby    Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle    Peter W. Rodman    Stephen P. Rosen    Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld    Vin Weber   
George Weigel    Paul Wolfowitz
 

Yeah! That's what I'm talking about baby!

[Bert|Evil]

Thanks, I'm just tired of "Larry the Cable Guy, Conservatives" who don't like Democrats not because they disagree with a political stance but because of the perception that Democrats are Pussies and ya know what Democrats have been Pussies and that needs to change.

Yes, I believe that they are called the “pee sitting down Democrats”.

You REALLY need to get out a little more often!!!

[lonewolf]

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC



Dear Mr. President:



We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.  In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat.  We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.  That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.  We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months.  As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections.  Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished.  Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production.  The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.  As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East.  It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard.  As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.




Sincerely,



Elliott Abrams   
Richard L. Armitage   
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner    John Bolton    Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama    Robert Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol    Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld   
William Schneider, Jr.   
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz    R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Yeah Rose! Great letter. I wish I'd have written it. I would have been more inclined to write one to him in 1994 when he gutted the CIA at the "end" of the cold war. As we have seen from 9/11, we now need MORE CIA, not less.

[RAM Z]

Oh they have WMD's for sure ! Just because nobody found some huge stockpile of shit doesn't mean they don't have them, and what makes anyone think Saddam would keep them in Iraq to begin with? He has lots of allies in the Middle East who would hide them for him I'm sure. It does'nt have to be some huge bomb or be used with a missle to cause "mass destruction" . Technology is very advanced in this day and age as we all know. Their kind of warfare is very different from ours and they would rather smuggle peices and parts for said devices into our own country and build them here but, that's just my opinion. It would be fairly easy for them if you really think about it. Some of the things that could contain a nuclear device might blow your mind if you saw how small some of them can be and still destroy an entire city. We can't stop looking for them.

I honestly belive we will see a nuclear blast with in the next 20 to 30 years if not from the Middle East it'll be from North Korea. I think if the rest of the world should'nt have WMD's then neither should we! What if a bunch of other countries think we are a threat and decide to attack us ,that's right we're allowed to have all of the nukes we want so why would they wanna do that ? Mankind was given a great gift of technology and this is how we abuse it ,what a waste. Unlike the dinosaurs we shall become extinct through our ever growing lust for power and knowledge and we may take the entire planet with us. Such a shame.

[lonewolf]

Ah yes...what to do when there's free coffee and nobody here!!!

Here is the 26th amendment in it's entirety:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

That's it.
15 is says basically the same thing with respect to race, 19 covers sex.

How, exactly, does forcing the states to use specific voting equipment prevent the government from revoking my right to vote based on age, race and gender? It doesn't.

Since voting machines work indiscriminately, these amendments do not grant congress the power to oversee them.

14 says

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sections 2,3, and 4 are about representation and other stuff but

Section 5 says: The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It is a reasonable interpretation to conclude that the negligent miscounting of votes, deliberate or not, is a violation of the 14 amendment and depending on who's votes get miscounted possibly the 15, 19, and 26, therefore Congress does have the authority to legislate how elections are conducted. They have this power under Article IV section 1 (full faith and credit) as you can't have fair elections in some states and not in others

Wow, is that a stretch! Due Process and guaranteed citizenship gives Congress the power to force voting machines for the states? I doubt if the authors of HR550 even made that association. How, exactly, will forcing the states to use specific voting equipment prevent the government from revoking my citizenship or seizing my property?

Article IV Section

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

This one comes close, but the election process does not fall under this category. This is a federal voucher that tells the states that they can trust the other states. Since a states's election information is not any other state's business, it does not fall under this clause.

This one might be interpreted as giving Congress the power to determine the final public record format. It doesn't give them the power to tell the states what machines they'll do it with, nor does it extend beyond the final format to the precincts.

Section 4 goes on to say

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

It's a republican form of government not a Republican Party form of government.

In a republican form of Government, Every Citizen gets a vote, every vote counts and vote is counted.

Yes, you are correct. The only thing that has guaranteed a Republican party government are the ridiculous red herring outer fringe issues that the Democrat party keep espousing.

In a system of tens of millions of votes, there are always going to be errors. ALWAYS. Since there will always be errors, according to the Democrat mantra, we may as well pack it in, because "nothing else will matter if even one vote is not counted". What a load of rhetorical demagoguery. (For those of us in Southern Blair County, that means bullshit).

Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Probably the most important amendment of the Constitution (with possible exception to the 1st). It throws a blanket over the states and the citizens that tells the Feds what to do with themselves.

Remember it! Love it! Live it!

[FretBored]

Oh you guys are talking about the vote recount in FL I think? Sorta? Where they had the dangles or whatever on the voting ballots?

[FretBored]

I vote for the voting machines.

Which button do I push. I don't know grandpa they said something about a mouse....

No... No... just touch the screen....

Oh are we at Sheetz again.... We ate there yesterday....

[lonewolf]

Oh you guys are talking about the vote recount in FL I think? Sorta? Where they had the dangles or whatever on the voting ballots?

That's what started the legislation we're "discussing".

We are talking about HR550, a bill sitting in committee that is a funded mandate on the states telling them how to run their elections, what recording format is to be used and what equipment to use/not to use.

Its funded, but I cannot find what the price tag is. That's really scary. Judging from the cost of voting equipment times the number of precincts out there, it could easily be in the tens of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars.

[FretBored]

I guess if my brother was counting the votes I might have a slim chance of becoming prez..... No let me think....

Statement From Governor Jeb Bush Regarding Letters From Broward And Miami-Dade County Elections Officials

FRIDAY , SEPTEMBER 20, 2002
Contact:
Elizabeth Hirst
(850) 488-5394

Voting in free elections is a privilege and an honor afforded to all of us as Americans. Every vote must be counted. If any human or mechanical error impedes our ability to conduct a fair election, immediate and swift action must be taken to protect the integrity of our system

Last week, I gave the supervisors of elections in Broward and Miami-Dade counties a deadline of today to inform me in writing what went wrong in the September 10 election and what they plan to do to correct it.

The responses I received today are a good first step. Election officials in both counties are clearly taking this matter seriously. The key now is for local election officials and community leaders to follow through on their plans to ensure that the November election is properly conducted.

Broward and Miami-Dade officials have assured me that they will conduct intensive training for their poll workers to ensure the voting process in those counties runs smoothly in November. I am confident they are on the right path. I commend the intense activity and attention both counties' leaders have shown in this last week to address these problems. I will continue to receive updates and provide assistance as requested to guarantee the return of integrity to the entire Florida election process.

Yippie Ki Ahhhh! I won!

[lonewolf]

Sept. 10 elections? Sept. 10! Sept. 10, 2002!

A very strange date for an election.

[FretBored]

Sept. 10 elections? Sept. 10! Sept. 10, 2002!

A very strange date for an election.

Dude I don't know, all I know is good ole Jeb is fixin' election things so to speak...

[FretBored]

Sept. 10 elections? Sept. 10! Sept. 10, 2002!

A very strange date for an election.

Don't look at me.... It is from Jebs FL web site... Maybe they miscounted the date.. Guess it could happen!

[Banned]

Oh you guys are talking about the vote recount in FL I think? Sorta? Where they had the dangles or whatever on the voting ballots?

That's what started the legislation we're "discussing".

We are talking about HR550, a bill sitting in committee that is a funded mandate on the states telling them how to run their elections, what recording format is to be used and what equipment to use/not to use.

Its funded, but I cannot find what the price tag is. That's really scary. Judging from the cost of voting equipment times the number of precincts out there, it could easily be in the tens of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars.

Since when do liberals ever worry about the cost of anything. They specialize in telling US how THEY will spend OUR money. And GW Bush has become one of them.

Conservatives are supposed to reduce federal spending, reduce the size of federal government and in doing so, return some power back to the people, (remember the 10 th amendment).

Bush has done the exact opposite, and the stupid democrats still keep pounding him. They cannot realize they have one of their own in the White House.

I bleieve the only future for personal feedoms lies in the Libertarian Party and the Constitutional Party. Look into them.

[FretBored]

Oh you guys are talking about the vote recount in FL I think? Sorta? Where they had the dangles or whatever on the voting ballots?

That's what started the legislation we're "discussing".

We are talking about HR550, a bill sitting in committee that is a funded mandate on the states telling them how to run their elections, what recording format is to be used and what equipment to use/not to use.

Its funded, but I cannot find what the price tag is. That's really scary. Judging from the cost of voting equipment times the number of precincts out there, it could easily be in the tens of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars.

Since when do liberals ever worry about the cost of anything. They specialize in telling US how THEY will spend OUR money. And GW Bush has become one of them.

Conservatives are supposed to reduce federal spending, reduce the size of federal government and in doing so, return some power back to the people, (remember the 10 th amendment).

Bush has done the exact opposite, and the stupid democrats still keep pounding him. They cannot realize they have one of their own in the White House.

I bleieve the only future for personal feedoms lies in the Libertarian Party and the Constitutional Party. Look into them.

It's all about money then? I see now.

A =time
Z = money then
A = Z correct?

If Time = Money and Money is the root of all evil then Time is Evil.

Just jokin dude. I wish we could all fix the politics in the US. Do you think our forefathers would be rolling over in their graves if they could see what a mess this has all become? They had a good simple plan and we have trned it into a maze that simple men can not understand. Not sayiny that I'm simple or anything of the sort :wink:

[Banned]

Bag wrote...

"Anyone care to help me out here. I'd just love to understand how anyone can believe that GW Bush and the Republican Party is responsible for Iraq.

From what I can see here, there were a couple of prominent Democrats who seemed to think the same thing, and think it way before Bush took office.

Or, is it just that the Democrats were only talking and they really didn't mean for anything to happen.

Go ahead, explain."


Bag, do you notice the crickets and cheepers. Awful quiet around this question. When you point out that virtually every ranking democrat had said the same thing, and then you point this out, there isNEVER a response.

Come on Damed Yankee (ha ha) and Fat Vin. You got som splainin to do.