[fletch521]

Congress voted overwhelmingly Friday to grant President Bush authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those behind Tuesday's devastating terrorist attacks. The House approved Friday's resolution 420 to 1. The sole dissenter was Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland).
Congresswoman Barbara Lee was first elected to the US House of Representatives on April 7, 1998 to fill the remaining term of retiring Congressman Ron Dellums of California's Ninth District, which includes Oakland, Berkeley, Piedmont, Emeryville, Albany, and Alameda, and re-elected in November 1998

We now know with certainty what side Congresswoman Barbara Lee is on and we also now know what to expect from here supporters and defenders!

Fletch

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: fletch521 ]

[finboy]

Yeah, I heard about this lady. You know, I support her right to be a Leftist. That's what America is all about. And that's why old Joe Stalin died with a smile on his face.

[fulmer]

finboy, you're the first member I've ever seen from SC. I'm from SC myself, not too far from Columbia, though my info to the right says Sewanee, TN (that's where I go to school). Cool.

[cheerios]

I respect the Congresswoman becuase she felt the need to stand up for what she felt was right even in the face of opposition. In her place I would probably have done the same. This does not make her bad, or anti-American at all. What is democracy for, if not to make sure all the opinions get heard in safetly??

[edit]: had to change a word correctly spelled but incorrectly used, to a word correctly used but incorrectly spelled... damn spelling and grammer to the nether regions of hell!!

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: cheerios ]

[Nile Crocodile]

Dude? Cheerios you need to get a dictionary. She didn't face "oppresion". She faced "opposition". Look up the difference.

[cheerios]

it's called a typo, Nile... thanks for pointing it out, but, dude, be nice about it?? I'm not an idiot, and I know what the words mean.

[Millennium]

Well, I respect her for standing up for what she believes in.

I also question her sanity, mind you. But I still respect that she'll stand up for her beliefs.

[fletch521]

We now know with certainty what side Congresswoman Barbara Lee is on and we also now know what to expect from here supporters and defenders!

[Korv]

Originally posted by cheerios:
<STRONG>I respect the Congresswoman becuase she felt the need to stand up for what she felt was right even in the face of opposition. In her place I would probably have done the same. This does not make her bad, or anti-American at all. What is democracy for, if not to make sure all the opinions get heard in safetly??</STRONG>

Word!

I know the California 9th district very well. She was doing the right thing and representing her constituants. We will do the right thing (I agree with Fletch on what that is), but being able to have an opinion, present it, and have it counted is the American way. If you've got a problem with Barbara Lee, I would suggest that you don't know who your enemy is.

[Mojo @ work]

Originally posted by fletch521:
<STRONG>Congress voted overwhelmingly Friday to grant President Bush authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those behind Tuesday's devastating terrorist attacks. The House approved Friday's resolution 420 to 1. The sole dissenter was Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland).
Congresswoman Barbara Lee was first elected to the US House of Representatives on April 7, 1998 to fill the remaining term of retiring Congressman Ron Dellums of California's Ninth District, which includes Oakland, Berkeley, Piedmont, Emeryville, Albany, and Alameda, and re-elected in November 1998

We now know with certainty what side Congresswoman Barbara Lee is on and we also now know what to expect from here supporters and defenders!

Fletch

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: fletch521 ]</STRONG>

Fletch, Don't be an idiot.

We live in a democracy. Part of living in a democracy is respecting that others may have a different opinion than you about what is best for our country.

Did you even bother to read Rep. Lee's remarks to the House regarding her vote? She has stated that she is not at all opposed to military action, but believes that military action is not the only response that the United States should have. She's also concerned that the resolution, as passed, grants the President too much power to prosecute a never-ending "war" that has no victory conditions, no exit strategy, and has significant potential to trample upon our most basic civil liberties.

We've already gone down that road, authorizing Presidents Johnson and Nixon to wage an unending war in Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. I don't know about you, but I'm not in any hurry for us to repeat that mistake.

Just because someone disagrees with you, that does not make that person un-American!!!

[Nonsuch]

Fletch, take a freakin' pill.

What is with this rabid need to denounce and persecute everyone with whom we even slightly disagree? The woman is not advocating pacifism or turning the other cheek, and the concerns she raises are perfectly valid and we're better off debating them sooner than later.

The only "side" she's on is that of democracy. Kudos to her for having the stones (so to speak) to stand up for what she thinks.

[mikithecrackhead]

I respect her, because in a room full of mostly men, she was the only person with enough balls to go against the grain.

[Nile Crocodile]

I have utmost respect for Mr. bin Laden. Despite twisting his religion and having most of the free and unfree world against him, he had the balls to stand up and do what he thought was right by murdering thousands of people.

Maybe someone needs to explain "separation of powers" to Congresswoman Lee?

[Mojo @ work]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>I have utmost respect for Mr. bin Laden. Despite twisting his religion and having most of the free and unfree world against him, he had the balls to stand up and do what he thought was right by murdering thousands of people.

Maybe someone needs to explain "separation of powers" to Congresswoman Lee?</STRONG>

Why? She seems to have a better grasp of that concept than most. Under our Consitution, Congress declares war, then the President wages it. Most people (including you, it seems, Nile Crocodile) around here seem to think that the President declares war, and then Congress is obligated to rubber-stamp his decision.

United States Constitution: Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress* shall have power... To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water..." (*My emphasis.)

[Korv]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>I have utmost respect for Mr. bin Laden. Despite twisting his religion and having most of the free and unfree world against him, he had the balls to stand up and do what he thought was right by murdering thousands of people.

Maybe someone needs to explain "separation of powers" to Congresswoman Lee?</STRONG>

Oh yeah. I MUST be wrong because placing a vote in a parlimentary precedeing is EXACTLY like killing 7000 people in cold blood. My bad.

[--Helen--]

Here's to the one's who see things differently, she obviously does. Good for her.

[fletch521]

Originally posted by Mojo @ work:
<STRONG>
Fletch, Don't be an idiot.
[/b]</STRONG>

If Barbara Lee and you are smart then I'd rather be an idiot.

Originally posted by Nonsuch
<STRONG>
What is with this rabid need to denounce and persecute everyone with whom we even slightly disagree?
</STRONG>

Posting Rep. Lee's vote on a forum is persecution? Save the pill Nonsuch and go straight for the Cool-Aide.


Fletch

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: fletch521 ]

[finboy]

Originally posted by mikithecrackhead:
<STRONG>I respect her, because in a room full of mostly men, she was the only person with enough balls to go against the grain.</STRONG>

Yeah, you gotta respect Adolf Hitler and his henchmen, too. In a world full of people who thought that gassing Jews was wrong, he stood up for his beliefs.

And good old Joe Stalin. In a world full of people that felt that starving your own citizens was wrong, he wasted about 20 million Ukrainians in the name of being different. That was his right, right?

And the Chinese. They shot some folks in their own streets, and they've spent generations oppressing entire regions. But at least they had the guts to stand behind their own beliefs. God bless them, too.

Finally, we have these terrorists (Usama Bin Laden or not). WHO ARE WE to judge them based on their belief that terrorism and ritual suicide involving innocents is correct? After all, how are we being sensitive to their culture if we don't allow them to do that kind of stuff?

Old Joe Stalin died with a smile knowing that the corruption of many of the freedoms that America enjoys would be used against us, time and time again. Witness Vietnam. Witness Rep. Lee, who worked with her Commie buddies in Grenada to actively compromise US intelligence sources and give the opposition insights into US military plans. In other times, she would have been called a traitor.


http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/06/07/scott/

Stalin was no dummy. A homicidal maniac to be sure, but not stupid.

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: finboy ]

[Korv]

Originally posted by finboy:
<STRONG>

Yeah, you gotta respect Adolf Hitler and his henchmen, too. In a world full of people who thought that gassing Jews was wrong, he stood up for his beliefs.

And good old Joe Stalin. In a world full of people that felt that starving your own citizens was wrong, he wasted about 20 million Ukrainians in the name of being different. That was his right, right?

And the Chinese. They shot some folks in their own streets, and they've spent generations oppressing entire regions. But at least they had the guts to stand behind their own beliefs. God bless them, too.

Finally, we have these terrorists (Usama Bin Laden or not). WHO ARE WE to judge them based on their belief that terrorism and ritual suicide involving innocents is correct? After all, how are we being sensitive to their culture if we don't allow them to do that kind of stuff?

Old Joe Stalin died with a smile knowing that the corruption of many of the freedoms that America enjoys would be used against us, time and time again. Witness Vietnam. Witness Rep. Lee, who worked with her Commie buddies in Grenada to actively compromise US intelligence sources and give the opposition insights into US military plans. In other times, she would have been called a traitor.


http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/06/07/scott/

Stalin was no dummy. A homicidal maniac to be sure, but not stupid.

</STRONG>

Fonboy, don't be an idiot (unless I am missing some serious sarcasm here). I repeat my earlier statments, with a little ammendment:

Oh yeah. You're right and I'm wrong, because placing a vote in a parlimentary precedeing is EXACTLY like killing 7000 people in cold blood, starving 20 million Ukranians, shooting civilians, and gassing Jews. My bad.

[finboy]

No, I wasn't equating those things, but I was saying that we can JUDGE this person's opinions. THERE ARE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG, if one only chooses to recognize them. Saying that "she had the right yada yada" is true, but avoids the issue. Her opinion in this case is WRONG. Sure, let's respect her opinion, but point out that she's a Leftist and respect her opinion in the context that she's subverted the national interest of the United States, in a systematic manner, in a foreign country, before.

Respecting everyone's opinion without judging it leads to the type of atrocities I listed above. I'm willing to do some judging.

[Mojo @ work]

Originally posted by fletch521:
[QB]

If Barbara Lee and you are smart then I'd rather be an idiot.

Oooh! What a stinging riposte! You've clearly undermined every point that I made!

Here are some other lines that you could have used to the same effect:

"Huh?"
"I know I am, but what are you?"
"I'm rubber and you're glue; whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!"
"The words you're using are too big for me."

Now why don't you try defending your point of view- oh, that's right- you won't because you can't!

[cheerios]

Originally posted by fletch521:
<STRONG>

Posting Rep. Lee's vote on a forum is persecution? Save the pill Nonsuch and go straight for the Cool-Aide.


Fletch

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: fletch521 ]</STRONG>

No, posting Rep. Lee's vote isn't persecution, but your sig is something else. Relax. You are just as bad as him, screaming for blood and revenge. Everyone is angry about what happened, but wholesale slaughter isn't the way to go. I think Lee was worried aobut exactly the things Bush is trying to have happen... a never ending war against a nebulous enemy, with no way out, and no end point.

Look at what Bush had to say last night:

We will direct every resource at our command - every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary weapon of war - to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

That sounds like an unending war, to me, with no resolution. Just something to gobble all the lives that are thrown at it, and I wouldn't have voted to give him the money to do that, either.

[Nile Crocodile]

What's your solution then? Do nothing? Sensitivity training for the Taliban? Maybe we should wait for the UN to have a vote on it?

Or more sitting on our asses waiting for more dead americans to fall from the sky?

Does anyone think that Miss Lee just doesn't give a crap about the people on the otherside on the country?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by finboy:
<STRONG>No, I wasn't equating those things, but I was saying that we can JUDGE this person's opinions. THERE ARE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG, if one only chooses to recognize them. Saying that "she had the right yada yada" is true, but avoids the issue. Her opinion in this case is WRONG. </STRONG>

From what I read, she was counseling caution so that the rush to retaliate against bin Laden doesn't lead to American's freedoms being thrown out with the bathwater. She was not, unless I was hallucinating before, advocating no military response at all, ever.

Originally posted by finboy:
<STRONG>Sure, let's respect her opinion, but point out that she's a Leftist and respect her opinion in the context that she's subverted the national interest of the United States, in a systematic manner, in a foreign country, before.</STRONG>

That's a pretty hefty accusation. Would you care to elaborate?

[Nile Crocodile]

"From what I read, she was counseling caution so that the rush to retaliate against bin Laden doesn't lead to American's freedoms being thrown out with the bathwater. She was not, unless I was hallucinating before, advocating no military response at all, ever."

Sure she says that now. Some back peddling on her part? Why can�t she talk to the White House and get an idea of what�s being planned before her vote? Her no vote was a no to protecting America. I�d guess she wants the US to fall as much as ben Laden does.

"That's a pretty hefty accusation. Would you care to elaborate?"

Hit the Salon link above.

[Mojo the Monkey]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>"From what I read, she was counseling caution so that the rush to retaliate against bin Laden doesn't lead to American's freedoms being thrown out with the bathwater. She was not, unless I was hallucinating before, advocating no military response at all, ever."

Sure she says that now. Some back peddling on her part? Why can�t she talk to the White House and get an idea of what�s being planned before her vote? Her no vote was a no to protecting America. I�d guess she wants the US to fall as much as ben Laden does.

"That's a pretty hefty accusation. Would you care to elaborate?"

Hit the Salon link above.</STRONG>

Hm... A two and a half year old op-ed article, written by David Horowitz, of all people, is supposed to convince me that Rep. Lee's lone vote last week was a Democratic plot intended to bring about the downfall of America? Oh, that makes lots of sense.

As I suggested before, you should read the Congressional Record. She explained her reasons for her vote before it took place. Until you read the relevant documents, I see no point in continuing this debate.

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Mojo the Monkey ]

[vega24]

Rep. Barbara Lee also represents a district that has the largest anti-war population in North America. Gee, I wonder if that had anything to do with her vote.

A democracy is notabout being forced to shut up and respect other peoples beliefs or decisions, it's about discussing and debating them openly without fear. Some people seem to have forgotten that.

[fletch521]

Originally posted by fletch521:
Congress voted overwhelmingly Friday to grant President Bush authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" ...

...The sole dissenter was Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland).

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: fletch521 ]

[neutrino23]

Originally posted by fletch521:
<STRONG>Congress voted overwhelmingly Friday to grant President Bush authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those behind Tuesday's devastating terrorist attacks.</STRONG>

"Necessary and appropriate". Well I feel a lot better now. We can sure trust ol' "dumber than you" to think this out carefully and do the wise and appropriate thing. I'll sleep much better tonight. NOT!

[vega24]

Originally posted by neutrino23:

"Necessary and appropriate". Well I feel a lot better now. We can sure trust ol' "dumber than you" to think this out carefully and do the wise and appropriate thing. I'll sleep much better tonight. NOT!

I guess you would sleep better at night if we sat back and did nothing, so that these people would be free to attack again and again and again and again...

[neutrino23]

Originally posted by vega24:
<STRONG>I guess you would sleep better at night if we sat back and did nothing, so that these people would be free to attack again and again and again and again...</STRONG>

There seems to be a group of posters here who look at this in a black and white sense - either we turn all power over to Bush immediately or we surrender our lives to terrorists. Why the rush to judgement? This is not a police state yet. We still have the legal right and the moral responsibility to publicly debate before charging off around the globe killing people indiscriminately.

[vega24]

orginally posted by neutrino23:

There seems to be a group of posters here who look at this in a black and white sense - either we turn all power over to Bush immediately or we surrender our lives to terrorists. Why the rush to judgement? This is not a police state yet. We still have the legal right and the moral responsibility to publicly debate before charging off around the globe killing people indiscriminately.

It is impossible to turn over all power to president Bush and if nothing is done in the short term we will surrender our lives to terrorists.

So, by debating this until we're all blue in the face we will somehow save innocent lives? Yeah, in the meantime planes are flying around smashing into buildings and innocent lives are not being saved. That's counter-productive.

[Nile Crocodile]

I think my comment about "separation of powers" was right on. For those of you here too young to have had government class yet here's some background.

The military works best with a top down management style. Orders come from above and they are followed. There's no committee on the best way to take the hill. The troops don't follow orders when they feel like it. Any other way does not win wars and leads to more people killed in action.

Our founding fathers made the President the "Commander and Chief". He's the civilian controller of our military. He's elected by the people (well? the states). He consults with the Admirals and Generals then gives the orders. he does not consult with a study group in congress to see what the opinion poll say about how America feels about taking the hill.

The Pres can't just go off and fight a war. Congress is the only one that has the power to declare war. But they don't have the power to tell him how to do it. Like I said above that leads in indisition and more people kill and failed objectives.

Congress voted. They gave the Pres power to go root out the terrorist. You had your say when you voted for your House and Senate Reps. You need to trust them. You'll have your say again when you vote for them the next time. But wanting the congress to muck in the military planning is a disaster.

It may fun to arm chair General or play Monday morning Diplomat. But the fact is the way the system is designed is the best way for it to work. 100s of years of history prove that. You put one guy in charge and let him do the job. Bush may not be the brightest bulb but he has the best the US has to offer. They will help him figure out the best way to defeat the Teliban and get bin Laden and pals.

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Nile Crocodile ]

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>I think my comment about "separation of powers" was right on. For those of you here too young to have had government class yet here's some background.</STRONG>

Heh. This is great. Crock gets busted re: a lack of Constitutional knowledge about who declares war, and is still trying to explain it away. Everyone should just sit back and watch the wriggling. It's a good show.

To all you folks who are telling people they shouldn't question our gov't:

Remember Haiti, Somalia, Serbia, Sudan/Afghanistan? Republicans were falling all over themselves to criticize Clinton during those situations. (Here's the Republican Senate questioning Clinton's use of the military in Yugoslavia just two years ago. It's very easy to find lots of conservative editorials questioning Clinton's use of the military.) Did you put flags and signs in your trucks that said "we support Bill," did you blare "I'm proud to be an American" out of your speakers, and write letters to your Republican representatives who criticized Clinton? No? So which is it, are we allowed to critically analyze foreign policy, or not?

In fact, when Clinton did try to kill bin Laden, he was accused, by these very same people, of doing it for political reasons - "Wag the dog," "bombing to distract us from Monica," etc.

It's amazing that this has to be said, but, here goes: It's OK to question foreign policy. It's the accountability of our form of gov't. It doesn't mean you're less patriotic, or care less about terrorism.

According to reports, Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, is one of those who is arguing about the direction we're taking. Why don't you e-mail him and call him a traitor: Colin Powell's e-mail address.

[Nile Crocodile]

"Heh. This is great. Crock gets busted"

Do you remember me from the AI UBB? I used to post as "Crock" over there. I guess it's never coming back is it?

Back on topic.

You're wrong. This aint about all that other stuff you injected. This is about letting the Pres do the job. We don't need micro-management from Comrade Lee in a time like this.

I also forgot to mention above that it's the White House that sets foreign policy and not the Congress. That's another "separation of powers" that should be respected. Powell passed his Senate aproval with flying colors from both sides. We can see his influence in this matter. So, yes, different sides are being heard.

[Mojo the Monkey]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>"Heh. This is great. Crock gets busted"

Do you remember me from the AI UBB? I used to post as "Crock" over there. I guess it's never coming back is it?

Back on topic.

You're wrong. This aint about all that other stuff you injected. This is about letting the Pres do the job. We don't need micro-management from Comrade Lee in a time like this.

I also forgot to mention above that it's the White House that sets foreign policy and not the Congress. That's another "separation of powers" that should be respected. Powell passed his Senate aproval with flying colors from both sides. We can see his influence in this matter. So, yes, different sides are being heard.</STRONG>

Once again, Nile Crocodile displays his incredible powers to misinterpret the Constitution whenever it suits him!

Nowhere does the Constitution say that the President defines our foreign policy. Here is the closest that it comes to saying this. Article II, Section II:

"(The President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."

Oh my god! Could it be? Could there possibly be limits on the President's power to make policy? Could it possibly be that he has to ask the rabble in the Congress for their Advice and Consent?

Yes, it does appear so, if one reads the Constitution, which it still seems that Nile Crocodile has neglected to do...

[Nile Crocodile]

Dude you are soooo dumb. I never said that it was in the Constitution. Just that is was one of the "separation of powers". Noticed I said that it should be "respected". You're a bore with your pointless attempts at one-ups-man-ship.

[golem]

If anyone cares this is her side of the story:

Why I Opposed the Resolution to Authorize Force

by Barbara Lee

�
ON SEPT. 11, terrorists attacked the United States in an unprecedented and brutal manner, killing thousands of innocent people, including the passengers and crews of four aircraft.

Like everyone throughout our country, I am repulsed and angered by these attacks and believe all appropriate steps must be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice.

We must prevent any future such attacks. That is the highest obligation of our federal, state and local governments. On this, we are united as a nation. Any nation, group or individual that fails to comprehend this or believes that we will tolerate such illegal and uncivilized attacks is grossly mistaken.

Last week, filled with grief and sorrow for those killed and injured and with anger at those who had done this, I confronted the solemn responsibility of voting to authorize the nation to go to war. Some believe this resolution was only symbolic, designed to show national resolve. But I could not ignore that it provided explicit authority, under the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution, to go to war.

It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events -- anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long- term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it would put more innocent lives at risk.

The president has the constitutional authority to protect the nation from further attack and he has mobilized the armed forces to do just that. The Congress should have waited for the facts to be presented and then acted with fuller knowledge of the consequences of our action.

I have heard from thousands of my constituents in the wake of this vote. Many -- a majority -- have counseled restraint and caution, demanding that we ascertain the facts and ensure that violence does not beget violence. They understand the boundless consequences of proceeding hastily to war, and I thank them for their support.

Others believe that I should have voted for the resolution -- either for symbolic or geopolitical reasons, or because they truly believe a military option is unavoidable. However, I am not convinced that voting for the resolution preserves and protects U.S. interests. We must develop our intelligence and bring those who did this to justice. We must mobilize and maintain an international coalition against terrorism. Finally, we have a chance to demonstrate to the world that great powers can choose to fight on the fronts of their choosing, and that we can choose to avoid needless military action when other avenues to redress our rightful grievances and to protect our nation are available to us.

We must respond, but the character of that response will determine for us and for our children the world that they will inherit. I do not dispute the president's intent to rid the world of terrorism -- but we have many means to reach that goal, and measures that spawn further acts of terror or that do not address the sources of hatred do not increase our security.

Secretary of State Colin Powell himself eloquently pointed out the many ways to get at the root of this problem -- economic, diplomatic, legal and political, as well as military. A rush to launch precipitous military counterattacks runs too great a risk that more innocent men, women, children will be killed. I could not vote for a resolution that I believe could lead to such an outcome.

[vega24]

Are bombs are going off in the streets, Are millions of innocent people dying at the hands of our military, Has every country in the world turned against us, Are americans too scared to leave their homes, Did President Bush become a war hungry dictator...

It's been 2 weeks and what's happened, what's changed for the worse... NOTHING. Like I stated in a earlier post, Rep. Barbara Lee represents a district with the largest anti-war population in America. She might like to be re-elected you know.

[cpt kangarooski]

That's right, it's been two weeks. Check out what the winter and spring of 1939 and 1940 were called in western Europe. It could prove enlightening.

The objections still seem valid to me. Particularly because your argument swings both ways: we haven't been attacked again, therefore we're fine, and can stand down.... it's kind of sucky, no?

[mr. natural]

Originally posted by vega24:
It is impossible to turn over all power to president Bush and if nothing is done in the short term we will surrender our lives to terrorists.

Back in May we had an interesting thread, titled The Senate, about the ramifications after Jeffords switched parties, giving the Democrats control of the Senate. The discussion therein also touched upon our Constitution, about which I posted some of my thoughts.

In any event, based on vega24's assertion about how "it is impossible to turn over all power to president Bush," I am reminded of something I wrote back then which is particularly presentient given this terrorist situation.

After someone posted the following quote by Scottish historian Lord Tyler:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most from the public treasury with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship."

I wrote:

"Am I the only one who sees the irony of this idea given what has just transpired in Washington?

Time will tell if such "loose fiscal policy" from the candidiate who promised the most from the public treasury leads to collapse & social anarchy, and then the dreaded "dictatorship." I would suggest that this is still a real possibility even under our all holy republican Constitution as it is presently rigged, should the right mix of circumstances arise.

And given the reality of our intensifying political gridlock, increased voter apathy, cynicism, and distrust of government in general, it wouldn't take much of a lit match from some unbidden yet vast social calamity to set in motion the fires of anarchy that bring forth a dictatorship (under the guise of a strong President and cowering legislative branch) to quell the engulfing chaos."

Now, about the only thing I'd think to add or change in my bold outlined sentence above is to delete the word "anarchy" and replace it with "fervent patriotism."

Then as now I ended by saying: "Don't think it's possible? You'd better think again."

To which I will only add, especially so as this terrorist war is likely to get a lot worse before it ever gets better. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan: "You ain't seen nothing yet."

[vega24]

Originally posted by mr. natural:

Time will tell if such "loose fiscal policy" from the candidiate who promised the most from the public treasury leads to collapse & social anarchy, and then the dreaded "dictatorship." I would suggest that this is still a real possibility even under our all holy republican Constitution as it is presently rigged, should the right mix of circumstances arise.
And given the reality of our intensifying political gridlock, increased voter apathy, cynicism, and distrust of government in general, it wouldn't take much of a lit match from some unbidden yet vast social calamity to set in motion the fires of
anarchy that bring forth a dictatorship (under the guise
of a strong President and cowering legislative branch)
to quell the engulfing chaos."
Now, about the only thing I'd think to add or change in my bold outlined sentence above is to delete the word "anarchy" and replace it with "fervent patriotism." Then as now I ended by saying: "Don't think it's possible? You'd better think again." To which I will only add, especially so as this terrorist war is likely to get a lot worse before it ever gets better. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan: "You ain't seen nothing yet."

Give me a freak'n break. You mean to tell me that because we all got a rebate check from the government, democracy is dead and George W. Bush is our dictator.

It may be true that for the last two weeks just about the only words that have came out of dubba's mouth has been about protecting our freedoms and our liberties, but where do you get off on thinking that he's hiding behind patriotism to become a dictator?!

[daimoni]

.

[Nile Crocodile]

Micheal Moore is a revolting person. The first thing he posted right after the attack was "too bad they coundn't kill more Republicans". He took it down since then. What a sick POS that guy is.

[Mojo @ work]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>Dude you are soooo dumb. I never said that it was in the Constitution. Just that is was one of the "separation of powers". Noticed I said that it should be "respected". You're a bore with your pointless attempts at one-ups-man-ship.</STRONG>

I'm a bore? How bored do you think I am by your lack of Constitutional knowlege?

You claim to be all for separation of powers, but you don't seem to be at all interested in our system of checks and balances. I've shown again and again that the Congress has a legitimate and vital role in formulating foreign policy, yet you just don't want to see it.

(What do you guys want to bet that Nile Crocodile was a passionate defender of Congress' role in helping to formulate foreign policy when Clinton was still president?)

Now go away. Take a US Government class, or at least sit down and read the Constitution. All of it, not just Article II. Then maybe come back and we'll have a reasoned debate.

[mr. natural]

To vega24: A little clarification. In "The Senate" thread of May, I argued against our Constitution as presently rigged, in that political gridlock is inherent in its structure. Some folks think this is great, whereas I tend to think otherwise. I further suggested that the more modern parlimentary forms of government as they have in England, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, etc., is a better kind of republican democracy than we have. It's more direct and generally more efficient in getting done what the people want done. In brief, this summarizes my argument against our ancient Constitution, which tends to settle into stasis until some crisis builds and explodes (ie, The Civil War & the Great Depression), and we fall in line to make up for lost time in trying to correct matters.

The quote by Lord Tyler was offered up by someone who wished to refute my argument for a more direct and unemcumbered form of direct democracy. Hence the irony, given that under our Constitutional Republic, as opposed to a purer democracy, Dubya was the one who sold himself on "the loose fiscal policy" of a huge "largesse from the public treasury" in the form of pitifully small individual tax rebate. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, in that now one can rest assured that whatever little budget surplus left after this plundering of the public treasury, especially in light of the recent terrorist attack & it's effect on our economy, will not likely meet any previous forcast - it's done & gone. The rainy day is here sooner than we expected.

As to the "dictatorship," I have tried to only make light of the fact that it is indeed possible under our Constitutionally rigged form of government for such an eventuality.

To requote: "It wouldn't take much of a lit match from some unbidden yet vast social calamity to set in motion the fires of fervent patriotism that bring forth a dictatorship (under the guise of a strong President and cowering legislative branch) to quell the engulfing chaos."

And given that this thread is about heaping scorn on one lone dissenting voice, I think I have proved my point, should the present terrorist situation worsen, how easily an american constitional dictatorship becomes a reality.

All one has to do is use one's imagination.

[ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: mr. natural ]

[vega24]

Mr. natural, I must be missing something, so I'll let you have the last word.

[neutrino23]

Originally posted by vega24:
<STRONG>orginally posted by neutrino23:


It is impossible to turn over all power to president Bush and if nothing is done in the short term we will surrender our lives to terrorists.

So, by debating this until we're all blue in the face we will somehow save innocent lives? Yeah, in the meantime planes are flying around smashing into buildings and innocent lives are not being saved. That's counter-productive.</STRONG>

I don't see how rushing off and bombing Afghanistan into the stone age will prevent more terrorism in the short term. Grounding commercial aviation effectively stopped that possibility. It appears that there are already a number of terrorists in the US. The FBI needs to root them out. Bombs in the Middle East won't help that process.

On the other hand, careless use of power could seriously compromise our own interests. Suppose that we launch an attack against a muslim country with actual warplanes flying out of Saudi Arabia? That could destabilize the monarchy. When an extremist government takes over then we will be in a much worse situation with radicals in charge of most of the world's oil. Won't that be fun?

The terrorists are not sitting on some island in the Pacific just waiting for the marines to charge in. They are like cancer cells infecting many societies of the Middle East. It will not be easy to root them out. Many of the proposed solutions could have terrible unintended consequences.

Of course people are terribly hurt and angry. Many have suffered terrible loss. Of course we must respond and decisively so. However, the heat of the moment is not the time to decide on a response that could lead to an even worse situation.

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by Mojo @ work:
<STRONG>


(What do you guys want to bet that Nile Crocodile was a passionate defender of Congress' role in helping to formulate foreign policy when Clinton was still president?)

</STRONG>

Well Clinton did do a bad job. But I never thought it was anyone's job but his. In fact I was critical of Senator Carol Molsy Brawn (sp?) when she courted African dictators, the brutal murdering kind. I mean? Her guy is in the White House and she sneaks around his back? Not a good way to run a country.

[mr. natural]

vega24, let us imagine this: Congress is attacked by terrorists, killing a lot if not all of its membership. The president declares martial law under the chaotic constitutional situation that would ensue. If in the ensuing war situational uncertainty, things continued to get worse, the president could suspend all manner of legal rights in order to quell the unrest, and ostensibly to better root out and fight against the terrorists who may well be living here.

To a certain extent, in the name of national security, some loosening of civil rights against government intrusion is already being proposed. Hence it is not hard to imagine further erosion of civil liberties if things got more out of hand.

One could turn the above crisis around, and imagine that president Bush is killed in a terrorist attack. Dick Cheney takes office and the stress of the situation causes him to soon thereafter have a heart attack. Who then takes charge? The next vice president, whomever that might be, or, without a VP, The Speaker of the House. All of this is arranged for in our Constitution but this scenario is still unprecendented and would be occuring while we are at war with unknown individual terrorists.

In either event, the pressure on the president to act decisively would be much greater than it is now, and it would all be couched in extreme patriotic fervor. If one extrapolates from the general scorn which Representative Barbara Lee seems to be garnering for her lone dissent under the present circumstance, bad as it seems, who would dare dissent should things go from bad to worse? This is how, in the midst of a national calamity, that a presidential dictatorship becomes possible.

Furthermore, as neutrino23 suggests: "careless use of power could seriously compromise our own interests. Suppose that we launch an attack against a muslim country with actual warplanes flying out of Saudi Arabia? That could destabilize the monarchy. When an extremist government takes over then we will be in a much worse situation with radicals in charge of most of the world's oil. Won't that be fun?"

Pakistan, which has nuclear weapon capability, is at risk to fall into the hands of their own Islamic fanatics should this war cookie crumble the wrong way. And let us not forget Saddam Hussein, who is quite capable of fostering unrest and terror (in the middle east and elsewhere) in league with bin Laden. As much as we are trying to keep this specific to Osama bin Laden, the sense of oppressed resentment that runs against us is more vast throughout the Middle East than we truly comprehend. Let us remember how quickly Iran fell into Ayatolla Khomeni's hands.

What I am trying to suggest is that this Islamic terrorist war is a potential tinder box waiting to explode in ways none of us, including the men running this show, can foretell as to how it will pan out. All this unclarified war rhetoric, and the posts to "bomb them into oblivion" is the blathering of idiots.

I'm in no way advocating we not fight against this terrorist threat, but we ought to be very wary of the dangers involved which unbridled patriotism unleashes here at home. As seen in this thread, castigating Rep. Lee under the guise of patriotism, is just the tip of the iceberg of what could easily turn into patriotic tyranny.

This is what makes me sit up and be concerned.