Paul O'Neil

Ralph 123 · Jan 14, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

There has never been any question about the existence of the WMDs even the French did not deny their existence. The debate was over giving the inspectors more time to find them. He had them. He used them. Do you think he would distribute atropine injectors and brand new chem suits to his front line troops for nothing? Don;t you remember all the stuff that was found during the early days of the war? The stockpiles? What about the UNs own report that showed tons of unaccounted for WMDs? Think they made that up too? Saddam, if he did indeed unilaterally destroy his WMDs, could have easily proved it. He chose not to. Do you think we could have invaded if he said to the world, "I destroyed everything come on in. Go where you want. Look where you want and I'll show when and how we destroyed them." Case closed. The Congress would never had authorized force and the Brits never would have joined us. As for fair debate, Congress debated the issue fully and authorized force. Period. Even Gephardt said he independently looked at the evidence with Sandy Tenant. The issues is, where are they? Buried in the dessert? Transferred to Syria or even Iran? We'll eventually find out. Don't forget after the first Gulf war we did not find his nuclear program for years and never would have found it if his son in law had never defected and spilled the beans. Saddam had months to hide and transfer his weapons during the UN/ diplomacy delay... Bottom line is the world is a safer place with him gone. The threat of force has caused despots like Qaddafi to give up their WMDs w/o a shot being fired (think Qaddafi had WMDs and not Saddam?). Iran has now said it will let in nuclear inspectors and stop their nuclear program. Kin Jong Il is backing off. The Syrians are becoming isolated. On and on and on.... As for judicial nominees, what do you want them to do shoot a Democratic senator or 2? They dems are filibustering. There is no way to break it w/o 60 Senators and the Republicans don't have that many. What else could they do???????

Skinnywater · Jan 14, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

Ralph, just the fact that this government doesn't follow the Constitution by requireing the legislative branch to "declare war", takes legitamate debate out of it. The fact that this entire government ignores this check and balance lends to it's illegitamacy......period! The fact that the judicial branch has been able to modify it's responsibilities beyond the Constitution in the first place lends to thier illegitamacy. If the administration took its responsibilities serious enough and believed enough, a leader would "bully pulpit" its nominees through. Here lets go to the moon. Lets keep massive troops abroad and go to the moon. Lets not worry about N. Korea or any of the other obvious threats to this country, lets go to the moon. Is the moon another front in this war? bwwaahaahhaa! Still hear his speach. The one I cried and fell lock step with him on. "This will be a long and difficult war." Hell, he had me convinced! Lets Roll! But since then he'll open the borders, ignore laws, and make the stinkin' moon a priority. OK Ralph, it's alright, I understand. It doesn't make sense that you and ply want to back a broken government. All of us say all the time it's broke, it's corrupt, and full of a bunch of low life meally mouth politicians. But we'll argue thier legitamacy any way. You do what you want, I've done it long enough. Yes, and calmly now. The world is better without Saddam in it. But how stinking convienient. Because.....it is about the oil...... I woulda never of thought until he open his hand and showed me ....the moon....

Ralph 123 · Jan 14, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

Ralph, just the fact that this government doesn't follow the Constitution by requireing the legislative branch to "declare war", takes legitamate debate out of it. The fact that this entire government ignores this check and balance lends to it's illegitamacy......period!

Come on Skinny I know you know we don't declare war in that old fashion sense any more. We did not declare war in Korea, Vietnam or even GWI Authroization of force is all that required and they voted for it like it or not. If you don't your beef is with Congress, not the president. Congress does not like to declare war becuase it gives the President too much power like the ability to suspend civil liberties at home. As for the judiciary, I agree but unless you have the votes in the Seante there is nothing you can do. There has been lots of jawboning and it hasn't made a difference. The only thing that will is putting more conservatives in the Senate. As for space, they have a new mission, which they needed but no huge increase in their existing budget.

Skinnywater · Jan 14, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

Well yes I do know. That's the point, responsibility and that "old fashion" document The Constitution. Were you even aware of what you said, comrade? Without the Constitution it's illegitamate. As evidenced, it causes distrust and the people to fracture and divide. Can't blame the Congress if the President is part of it too. If the Presidents goal was to increase a conservative count in the Senate why would he be so intent on alienating his Conservative base? He's doing a fine job of demonstrating his desire to loose his own election and fill seats with the opposite. Hey, I love the space program and agree with it. But it's more of a luxury. And again, it's laughable that he'd even suggest the stinkin' moon while we're at war. He's displaying his "politician" side so much, that first thing that comes to my mind is that his govenor brother in Florida has Cape Kennedy and the rest of the family has Mission Control in Houston.

Ralph 123 · Jan 14, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

There is nothing unconstitutional about going to war w/o a declaration of war. We've done it many times over many decades in our history. The last declaration of war was WWII. Heck, a President can even commit troops (go to war) for 180 days under the war powers act w/o congressional approval. To lay all this on Bush is just an excuse to find fault and ignore history and law. Congress gives a full declaration reluctantly because of the domestic powers in confers. It has little to do with the actual fighting. During "war time" a President becomes a virtual dictator. For example, during the Civil war virtually all constitutional rights were suspended.

If the Presidents goal was to increase a conservative count in the Senate why would he be so intent on alienating his Conservative base?

Clearly he has increased the number as he won the Senate and increased his majority in the House during the midterms. Before that the Dems were in control of the Senate. As for alienating his base, well, clearly he has alientated you but the polls show his base is solid (it has actually improved over the last few months)

Hey, I love the space program and agree with it. But it's more of a luxury. And again, it's laughable that he'd even suggest the stinkin' moon while we're at war

We went to the moon during Vietnam didn't we? All the time we were in the middle of that dirty, nasty, long, expensive war we spent tons on NASA to go to the moon.

ebbtide176 · Jan 14, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

skinny, i'm thinking you will be back tomorrow with some tylenol and a new outlook.

i think the 1st time you & i had some political discussions, you provided some links to the constitution, and i read them, and brought back a post using those links, which listed that the prez could declare war, and this special 'national emergency' provision was last signed into continuation by slickwilly? (i'm pretty sure this was the jist of it all) the deal you mentioned of space funds benefitting jeb & houston family seem very convenient, but for how long has the KSCenter been in FL, and the HSCntr been in TX? what's up with this kind of reasoning? dam - i mean you know i'm not the sharpest political tack but i thought the repub's haven't had control that many times in the last century. i have not had much of a family nest egg for the majority of my married life, mainly living in a deficit, but that doesn't prevent me from doing the things and providing the things that i think my family should experience in my short lifetime

i guarantee that if i had to sell my boat to keep up my life insurance, i would, as it will provide security to my family after i'm gone. ie: space & space funding - i don't think its gonna be a priority for democrats, when they eventually take over again -take this with a grain of salt-

Skinnywater · Jan 14, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

Then your stating as fact that Section 8 of The Constitution has been ammended or it has been discounted because we just don't do it anymore? To ignore the Constitution as it applies to war, how it is declared, by who and when ignores fault. To use the war powers act and the 180 days as example and ignore an obvious or actual intent to surpass that number also ignores law. To set presidence by breaking law and continueing to break law, is ignoreing the law. For a President, Congress, or Judicial to swear to uphold The Constitution then circumvent it is irresponsible and unlawful. The more you ignore The Constitution and the facts and gravitate to the offenders, the more illigitimate you become. See you and ply really want the same thing. You want to hold on to what it has all become more then what it was meant to be. You say because they can do it, it has to be right. Ply says look at the deficet. As long as we accept Congress to ignore thier responsibilities as explained in Section 8 "coining money" and think that The Federal Reserve Board is all legal and Constitutionally legitamate (after all we've done it this way most of the last century)that he's really to expect we'll ever not have a deficet? Come on Ralph! Your a smart guy! As long as the congress ignores thier responsibility when going to war and the President plays his spin games at it. Who the heck is to blame the people for having questions, attitudes, anger, fears, and rebellion over it? Dang it, this is not a game, this is a Country! And for you to say that there isn't any thing wrong with the way it's done now and it's just an excuse for me to find fault in GW? Hmmm. All I can say is you and ply are not very solution based. You'll both be talking about a "lesser" of two evils. The people of this country wouldn't have any problem with war or the domestic suppression of rights in time of a bona fide Constitutionally declared war, because it's completely legitimate. There wouldn't be a deficet if our Government didn't support a Constitutionally illegal Federal Reserve Board. We wouldn't need middle eastern oil if we were to make energy independence a National Priority. You see Ralph, all your, mine and plywoodys debating and soap boxing isn't going to change the fact our government is horribly corrupt illegitamate and broken. I'm glad you and him are here though. And the rest of you guys. Singularly one will recognise hypocracy, spin and illegitimicy coming from both sides and collectively we may actually do something about it.

We went to the moon during Vietnam didn't we? All the time we were in the middle of that dirty, nasty, long, expensive war we spent tons on NASA to go to the moon.

And we didn't win it Ralph, it wasn't a priority to do so! This war is ten shades more important Ralph! Ho Chi Min didn't come here, knock out infrastructure and entirely change the way we live. Apples and Oranges and you know it. ebb, yeah, your a cool dude man.

My statements on the Cape and mission control was more cynical then literally. I just think that Bush is showing his hand more and more that he has large personal interests that he's looking out for and they aren't nessesarily with the countries best interests in mind. But this shouldn't be a surprise since he is ultimately a politician....10-4? I sincerely thank you for our exchange Ralph. Please don't think bad of me for being sickend by the entire mess.

BRIAN03 · Jan 14, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

SEMPER FI.

BRIAN03 · Jan 14, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

SEMPER FI. I wounder if we didnt drop the A bombs where would be today? The USA would be Japan. I glad there were people who had vision for the future of this great country. I love my country and MY president. I dont blame my parents and I support my president. I'm glad someone has vision. I would make the middle east in to a big parking lot. Glad I dont have the button. Make me president for the day. I support the right to bear arms and lots of ammo.

Ralph 123 · Jan 15, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

Skinny, Don't you think if there was anything illegal about going to war w/o a formal declaration the opponents to the war would have a case pending in the federal courts (you known, if front of those judges that sympathize with them) as we speak? These 9 Democrats have accused this President of everything imaginable, including killing women and children and high treason yet I have yet to hear 1 of them say the war is illegal because congress did not declare war. Finally, to say we lost the war in Vietnam because of the space program is a conclusion I have never heard drawn before. So you are breaking new ground

Think badly of you? No way! You have every right to criticize him. Heck, He's done plenty to tick me off too

Skinnywater · Jan 15, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

The Constitution was ammended (16th)to modify the way Congress taxes but there isn't an ammendment to excuse it from declaring war. Executive order trumps The Constitution? I'm surprised your not even curious to investigate your questions yourself. Again, you show similarities with plywoody that your willing to accept breaches in Federalist/originalist Constitutional doctrine and completely lock step with a party view. Funny your take(spin)Ralph.

When my words clearly say and mean a lack of/or misguided priority was the reason we lost Vietnam. You tied space exploration to the Vietnam war. Again, thanks Ralph.

Ralph 123 · Jan 15, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

These 9 Democrats have accused this President of everything imaginable, including killing women and children and high treason yet I have yet to hear 1 of them say the war is illegal because congress did not declare war. Yet somebody who shares his ideology for the most part (you) are? Funny.. The issue has been determined by law long ago. Perhaps you should file a law suit since you are one of the few people in the country who does not seem to think so. Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Gulf War I.... TR settled the issue of committing troops long ago. And, we aren't talking specifically about an executive order but an act of congress.

ebbtide176 · Jan 15, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

SCO · Jan 16, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

In conclusion, I think what we all object to are conclusions based on a bias instead of logic. For example I saw some of Mike Moore on Charlie Rose where he accuses Bush of starting the war to enrich his Halliburton friends and oil people...all about greed. The logic test is: " do you really think GW would sacrifice American lives to this end?". We have on this board discussed the million reasons to go to war, so why does Moore apparently believe the most unlikely of explainations? Another shot at fame like that had with "Rodger and Me"? A Bias? A combo of both? This greed theory isn't the same as the survival need and competition for oil theory advanced by Toad. At least here we as individuals should be the watchkeepers of our arguments. I listen to both Skinnywater and Ralph and even Toad because I think they do this(most of the time

).

plywoody · Jan 16, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

Many of the reasons for this war were documented quite well by Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and others in a published document of the neo cons in the mid 90's. According to O'Neil's evidence, oil is a part of that as well, although it was not one of the documented reasons. A person can argue that their premises and conclusions were wrong, or right, but it was long known what the reasons for it were. My *only* point in this whole thing was that those reasons were not what was sold to the American people, and the UN, just ptior to the war, and that it had nothing to do with the war on terror or Spt 11th.

SCO · Jan 16, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

Fair enough except for the conclusion that it wasn't about the war against terror. Fundamentally, it is all about our national security. Oil is ever present, as is the mounting threat, boldness, and intent of terrorists to set off a wmd in one or many of our cities. Whats wrong with a twofer? 911 is what got this bee hive humming..it wasn't some governmental manipulation. Why wouldnt GW be subject to and motivated by the same sense of vulnerability that got the rest of us humming?

Ralph 123 · Jan 16, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

Skinny - The President must have heard you. He got Pickering in by a recess appointment the sneaky devil

Skinnywater · Jan 17, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

Excellent Ralph! This is the most important legacy this President can leave. I'll not care that he acts more like a liberal as long as he fights war and loads the courts with conservative values. SCO, thanks. But let me clarify a little more. It's hard to make points with 100% accuracy and percision that is requiered on a point as important as this. I was actually hoping someone would bring forward facts and law specific to my Constitutional example, i.e. War powers and other acts. I was very prepared to debate the one simple fact that when The Constitution is manipulated, or embraced when only it is a conveinience, a negative cause and effect to the society will be the burden on the government. Ralph was correct when he said The President was lawful to go to war. But in the terms of the Constitution and its founders it wasn't. This is only important to people who recognise the negative causes and effects to our society. More important to me any how and it was my main point. Constant rhetoric from the left or right is boring, shallow and in a debate, simply lazy. Well I learned something again here and on the following 'moon and mars" thread. I learned that rhetoric is prefered here. And that party line loyalty is stronger then logic and national defence. Oh, and calling names is Ok as long as a moderator does it.

Ralph 123 · Jan 17, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

Skinny, There is a fundamental ambiguity with the constitution. The Congress had the power to declare war. The President as CiC had the power to commit troops any, time any where, for any reason. He does not need Congressional approval. The issue sort of came to a head in the TR admin. It had been an open issue for many years. The compromise was the War Powers Act which is basically an agreement between the President and the Congress that although he has the authority constitutionally, he won't do it for more than 180 days w/o congressional consent. That is why the issue isn't even debated any more. When Congress gives its consent in advance, like it did for Iraq, it is in essence, a defacto declaration of war. BTW, in theory congress could declare war and force the President to commit troops.

Skinnywater · Jan 17, 2004

Re: Paul O'Neil

There is a fundamental ambiguity with the constitution.

Excellent again Ralph! No there isn't ambiguity in The Constitution Ralph. Not when the framers of The Constitution want in cases of ambiguity to revert directly back to the "original intent" of the framers. Agreed that, with inferior, corrupt Government and Statesmen and a abstract Judicial, the Constitution is preferred ambiguous. This preference is the irresponsibility I spoke of earlier. Please consider this source. It is factual, and is an excellent interface of this specific argument and the Federalists alternative. http://www.daveross.com/war.html#1417 In it, this small C&P goes on where your argument left off. "When is a Formal Declaration Necessary? These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force. But the issue [that has been] so much a source of controversy in the era of the Cold War and so divisive politically in the context of United States involvement in the Vietnamese War has been whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration.\1431\ The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented,\1432\ and the lower courts generally refused, on political question'' grounds, to adjudicate the matter.\1433\ In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant.\1434\ " Here Ralph, is the illegitimacy I spoke of earlier. This is ambiguity that this government wants to leave as status quo. Note that this is a single specific "ambiguity" pertaining to war. Not in the Constitution, but in a corrupt government. No lawsuit I'd be able start would change this. It takes much, much more. It takes the people. There are many other examples of political ambiguity but they are another topic. Understand that personally I agree with President Bush in the action he took in Afghanistan. There was vast support from Americans, the World and instant respect from our enemies. Undoubtedly it was legal in the eyes of The Constitution and was an example of noble leadership. So here isn't the problem. Here's the problem and the "negative cause and effect" I spoke of earlier. In the case of Afghanistan where perfect law and actions presided. As in the case of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq was different. Here are examples of "Political war." These are wars that Constitutionally shouldn't even be an issue. Politically the cause for war is purposely ambiguous. It requires being sold to the People and the World. And these are the wars that great lies, spin and propaganda are waged. By choosing politics over Constitutional responsibilily, the Congress "politically defers declaring war" its power to the President. Politically this removes the Congress of responsibility for it. Yet as witnessed, it allows them to question, ridicule and spin the Presidents leadership. He deserves this though, by also preferring politics and power over law. Now having power to advance political interests the President is illegitimately spinning political interests into national interests. This all works fine until in the case of current reality, truth is the judge. There comes a point when good leadership, righteousness and good intentions and even plain luck require more. It requires law. Law says, accusing someone of a crime is not the same as proof. Law says, having proof isn't the same as looking for it. Law says, a direct attack has to made against this country or matters of immediate National Defense before legal war can be waged. My opinion or yours isn't relevant. Law is relevant. And the judicial, as witnessed, is corrupted into ambiguity. The facts are Constitutional and have original intent, the war in Iraq is illegal. As was the Korean and Vietnam. Facts are, while Korea was an illegal war. The citizens were more nieve, as irresponsible government was evolving. The Vietnam and Iraq war and resulting negative "cause and effect" created dissent, polarizing ideology, and escalating contempt in government. So in essence, the Legislative, the Judicial, the Executive are irresponsible, corrupt and illegitimate. Politics over Constitution and law, over Federalism is not in this countrys best interests. It doesn't matter if it's TR, Nixon, Ollie North , Clinton or Bush. They all deserve their own fates. However, the People and this Country deserve much more.

That is why the issue isn't even debated any more.

It can be debated properly with a Federalist ideology. Ralph, for better or worse. I needed some foreplay. And I thank you for it. I've given it my best. I'm not a scholar by any means but i recognize that all the men in office are just men. I hold The President in no higher regards then I do myself. In many regards I hold myself much higher. If this was inappropriate, my apologies. I'll respectfully welcome any and all suggestions. And yes, the horse is thouroughly whipped.

Moderators lock it or allow respectful rebuke and thanks for your hospitality.

Paul O'Neil

Captain

Commander

Captain

Commander

Captain

Commander

Commander

Petty Officer 1st Class

Petty Officer 1st Class

Captain

Commander

Captain

Commander

Lieutenant

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Lieutenant

Captain

Commander

Captain

Commander