Tom DeLay says the Democrats lack seriousness on foreign policy

Great Debates
41

While I would find such an event amusing, I don’t think the GOP will dump him that quick. Why? Because he can play “bad cop” to Bush’s “good cop.” To wit:

  1. Tom DeLay says something outrageously stupid. Not very hard, I know.
  2. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or anyone else in the White House gives Tom a verbal smackdown, then proposes a toned-down alternative.
  3. Mindless Republican drones cite #2 as “proof” that the Bush Administration is “moderate.”

Well, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Fox News reach the audience they do largely due to satellites in space, so in a sense we’re already there… :wink:

42

Point of Clarification: perjury is defined as a lie under oath, not a misleading answer under oath, at least that is what the latest ruling in the relevant state said. http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00626/002404/title/Subject/topic/Legal%20Practice_Ethics%20%20Professional%20Responsibility/filename/legalpractice_1_258
So clinton wasn’t guilty on that regard (the other count is more open to interpretation)
Intentionally misleading Congress is illegal under one of the lobbying reform acts. Depending on how thew statue is worded, that might appply to Bush.
Though I would not endorse it, this site has a list of 17 charges.
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/articles_rc.htm
personally, I think the buck stops with either Rice or the VP.

December on your points I have a few quick remarks to add to the volume of others:

Seeking nuclear weapons.
not proven even now. only evidence i’ve seen is a centerfudge that wasn’t left in someones garden even though inspectors have been gone for 5 years

Building an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons
without a delivery system of great sophistication, chemical and low level biological weapons are of no real threat to us. also, no stockpiles have been found and programs seem dormint, once again despite 5 year absense of inspectors.

Use of chemical weapons.
So did their enemies, Iran. no threat to us now, see above.

Brutal invasion of Kuwait
land army was quite ineffective. in a rematch, my bet would have been on the one brigade of equipment we had deployed in Kuwait

Brutal invasion of Iran
see above

Failure to obey Security Council demands and its own 1991 peace accord comitments
covered by others

Firing on US reconnaisance planes
with nearly no effect

Support for middle east terrorism
miniscule besides payments to suicide bombers in Palestine, which was hardly a threat to our interests

Anti-American comments and displays
this is the middle east we’re talking about, everyone does that.

Some degree of contact between al Qaeda and Saddam’s government.
I’m not impressed by any evidence either pre or post war

Baath party expressions of support toward al Qaeda’s anti-American terrorism.
Did Al Qaeda needed the encouragement?

43

Point of Clarification: perjury is defined as a lie under oath, not a misleading answer under oath, at least that is what the latest ruling in the relevant state said. http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00626/002404/title/Subject/topic/Legal%20Practice_Ethics%20%20Professional%20Responsibility/filename/legalpractice_1_258
So clinton probably wasn’t guilty on that regard (“is” remember)
Intentionally misleading Congress is illegal under one of the lobbying reform acts. Depending on how thew statue is worded, that might appply to Bush.
Though I would not endorse it, this site has a list of 17 charges.
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/articles_rc.htm

December on your points I have a few quick remarks to add to the opens previously posted:

Seeking nuclear weapons.
not proven even now. only evidence i’ve seen is a centerfudge that wasn’t left in someones garden even though inspectors have been gone for 5 years

Building an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons
without a delivery system of great sophistication, chemical and low level biological weapons are of no real threat to us. also, no stockpiles have been found and programs seem dormant, once again despite 5 year absense of inspectors.

Use of chemical weapons.
So did their enemies, Iran. no threat to us now, see above.

Brutal invasion of Kuwait
land army was quite ineffective this time around, just as our intelligence predicted. in a rematch, my bet would have been on the one brigade of equipment we had deployed in Kuwait

Brutal invasion of Iran
see above

Failure to obey Security Council demands and its own 1991 peace accord comitments
covered by others

Firing on US reconnaisance planes
with nearly no effect

Support for middle east terrorism
miniscule besides payments to suicide bombers in Palestine, which was hardly a threat to our interests

Anti-American comments and displays
this is the middle east we’re talking about, everyone does that.

Some degree of contact between al Qaeda and Saddam’s government.
I’m not impressed by any evidence either pre or post war

Baath party expressions of support toward al Qaeda’s anti-American terrorism.
Did Al Qaeda needed the encouragement?

44

december

The real problem seems to be that you are not looking for a serious foreign policy here – you are looking for alternatives on Iraq. Your OP (and Delay’s comments) should actually be phrased as “The Democrats were against a military action in Iraq; they have not provided any reasonable alternatives.” Most Democrats do have cohesive views about the world and America’s place in it. They do have cohesive views about the war on terrorism. It is just that most Democrats can’t fit military action in Iraq into these views.

The Democrats, for the most part, realize that Iraq had very little to do with terrorism. What your list stands on is 10 year old charges, half-truths, and outright exaggerations. The Democrats were all for a war in Afghanistan, as there was a reasonably clear mandate there. Iraq is fundamentally different.

If you want a clear foreign policy, then you have to ignore Iraq. Iraq is a big giant meatball hanging off of our foreign policy. I get the feeling that most liberals are scratching their heads wondering what ultimate purpose the Iraq actions will serve. We didn’t get terrorists, we didn’t eliminate clear threats, we didn’t increase our security, we didn’t improve our standard of life, and it is still a big crapshoot if we will improve the average Iraqi’s standard of life in the long term. So, IMHO, most liberals have not proposed an alternative to Iraq, because the alternative would have been to maintain inspections, shoot the occasional cruise missile, bomb the occasional missile site. It seemed to work from 1991. In 1991, Saddam was able to mobilize a large force to invade and efficiently take over a neighboring country within a week. By 2003, he couldn’t even mobilize the Republican Guard against a foreign force who had been obviously organizing along his borders for around 6 months. He was a bad guy. He had mass graves. But there are a lot of bad guys out there responsible for mass graves.

Democrats lack seriousness when it comes to Iraq. I agree. It’s because Iraq posed a relatively minor threat. Our military (and diplomatic) muscle could have been better spent in cleaning out Afghanistan properly, or perhaps even routing out terrorist cells in Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan, the Phillipines, Syria, Palestine, Iran, North Korea, or any of a number of bigger targets.

Oh, and I would like a cite on where Clinton commited a felony. I though that in the USA, one hasn’t commited a felony until one is convicted of it. Last I checked, there were no charges ever brought against him. Since I am clueless about the law, I could be wrong.

45

A “pattern of activity which could be a threat?” This is just unreal. The USA is becoming the bully who picks fights with anyone who looks at his woman.

>> Seeking nuclear weapons.
At first it was “possesing” nucular weapons. Then it was possesing nucular weapons programs. Now it is “seeking” to possess, maybe. . . Who knows where this will end?

>> Building an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons
Yes, a lot of it with the help and encouragement of the USA.

>> Use of chemical weapons.
Yes, a lot of it with the help and encouragement of the USA.

>> Brutal invasion of Kuwait
Which was dealt with more than adequately and does not in any way justify the present invasion by the USA.

>> Brutal invasion of Iran
With the help and encouragemnet of the USA

>>Failure to obey Security Council demands and its own 1991 peace accord comitments
That is up to the UN to decide and deal with and the UN did not authorise this invasion.

>> Firing on US reconnaisance planes
Which they believed were violating their airspace but in any case, so what? the US planes fired back. How does that justify the invasion?

>>Support for middle east terrorism
That is not proven and very disputable but, in any case, why does the US not go after the terrorists themselves? What is this bullshit of leaving the terrorists alone and going after someone who may sympathise with them?

>> Anti-American comments and displays
Give me a fucking break. You really want to maintain that Anti-American comments and displays are a reason to invade a country? The stupidity of such a statement speaks for itself. And, in any case, words do not justify an aggression.
>> Some degree of contact between al Qaeda and Saddam’s government.
Again, it used to be “solid ties” but now it is “some degree”. Bullshit. “Some contact” is grounds for invasion? The sheer stupidity of this is overwhelming.

>> Baath party expressions of support toward al Qaeda’s anti-American terrorism.
Not true. Cite please. And, in any case, words do not justify an aggression.

In summary: your post is nothing but bullshit

46

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sailor *
Firing on US reconnaisance planes
Which they believed were violating their airspace but in any case, so what? the US planes fired back. How does that justify the invasion?

Firing on coalition planes was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and an act of war.

Support for middle east terrorism
That is not proven and very disputable but, in any case, why does the US not go after the terrorists themselves?

Wrong again. Saddam was paying like $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. This is not disputable.

**In summary: your post is nothing but bullshit **

I think your post is full of it.

47

Not so. This is perhaps the main recent evidence, although there is also some evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa. However, there’s an enormous amount of evidence that Saddam has been seeking nukes during the past two decades or so. Israel stopped him in 1981 by bombing his nuclear reactor. The US and allies stopped him in 1991 due to victory in the Gulf War.

Are they a fake threat to us? :wink: These weapons could be used to attack our allies in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Israel. They could be used against our troops if we came to the aid of our allies, as we did in 1991.

This is true. Time will tell whether there still was a dormant WMD program. I have seen no evidence that Saddam ever decided to stop seeking WMDs. Furthermore, based on his past record, Bush was right not to give him the benefit of the doubt IMHO.

:confused: Are you saying Iran is no threat to us? Or that chemical weapons are no threat? I’m confused.

Unless Saddam had nukes with which to threaten us.

No, but that attitude means an increased chance that Saddam might aid or work with al Qaeda in the future.

Edwino, yes I am focusing on Iraq, as I believe Tom DeLay was. However, I don’t agree that Democrats have come out squarely against our military involvement in Iraq. I may have missed it, but I cannot recall any of their serious Presidential candidates flatly taking the position that the US would have been better off if we had left Saddam in power. That’s the lack of seriousness. They are carping, rather than support Bush’s policy or stand behind an alternative. I believe that a majority (or a large minority) of Congressional Democrats voted to allow Bush to attack Iraq. It’s seems backwards for them to change their minds now that we have virtually won the war, relatively quickly and easily.

sailor, I believe you are arguing from a POV of international law or from some sort of morality. However, from a realpolitik POV, when an evil, aggressive tyrant hates the US and is seeking nuclear weapons, that’s a big potential danger.

Telcontar, in order to avoid prosecution for perjury, Clinton made a deal in which he voluntarily gave up his law license. He must have believed that there was a substantial chance that he’d be convicted. Since no trial was held, we’ll never know for sure.

48

It seems pretty apparent that DeLay’s little talk represents the approach that will be taken by the fanatical, froth at the mouth, take no prisoners and shoot the wounded branch of the GOP in the next election. Notwithstanding December’s and Milroyj,s analysis, the approach has precious little to do with truth or fairness and a lot to do with frequently repeating the big lie. As has been noted, it does serve the political objective of making the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense and his minions, and the Attorney General and his running dogs look moderate and rational by comparison.

It does however seem to me that Congressman DeLay is playing to a specific voting group. The President already has the “I don’t like taxes” constituency nailed down. He has a pretty good grip on the Anti-abortion voters and the voters who want the particular theology of their sept made part of the public school curriculum. He has the allegence of the voters who don’t want the government interfering with the way they make money. What DeLay and the boys give him is a shot at the voters who want the country to become an imperial power, the American Chauvinists, the guys who think that the way to assure US security is to blow up anyone who might someday conceivable think about getting in America’s way. DeLay also allows the President to have it both ways on Palestine–on one hand the President can insist on the creation of a Palestinian State while at the same time his Pit Bull, Representative DeLay, runs around baying that there is no policy that will give rise to a viable Palestinian State.

Before this is over it is going to get much uglier. It is also going to get much less mature–I fully expect claims that Senator Kerry actually knows a Frenchman and is thus disqualified from office.

On one of this mornings political blather shows Mr. Pearlman actually claimed that the successful occupation of Iraq was central to the so called war against terrorism. He did not explain how, but there you are. If the Administration repeats this balderdash enough people may believe it that it will make a difference in the next election.

And December, you know full well that the view of the vast bulk of the voices in these boards questioning the President’s policy on Iraq has been directed to the flimsiness of the pretext for the invasion, before, during and after the invasion. Neither you not our President has done anything yet to persuade me that there was an adequate cause for war or that there were no alternatives for dealing with the supposed thereat posed by Iraq other than war. Right now, as Mr. Pearlman said this morning, the occupation of Iraq is central to the war against terrorism. How occupying Iraq safe guards the US and the world generally from terror I don’t know, since Iraq seems to have had precious little to do with 9/11 or any of the prior or subsequent terror attacks on the US or anyone else.

49

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by milroyj *
Firing on coalition planes was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and an act of war.

[quote]
These flights were not under UN mandate and therefore unilaterally impossed by the USA. The Iraqis has as much right to fire at them as the USA had to be there in the first place. BUT, in any case, it does not justify an invasion except in the minds of the most jingoistic.

And I am not disputing it. Read what I posted. How is it Ok to go after someone who donates money to someone related to a terrorist and not go after the terrorists themselves? Why doesn’t the USA go and get the Palestinian terrorists? It makes no sense and it is not a valid justification except in very distorted minds.

50

These flights were not under UN mandate and therefore unilaterally imposed by the USA. The Iraqis has as much right to fire at them as the USA had to be there in the first place. BUT, in any case, it does not justify an invasion except in the minds of the most jingoistic.

And I am not disputing it. Read what I posted. But how is it Ok to go after someone who donates money to someone related to a terrorist and not go after the terrorists themselves? Why doesn’t the USA go and get the Palestinian terrorists? It makes no sense and it is not a valid justification except in very distorted minds.

51

Yes, morality, international law, objectivity, truth and common sense. All lacking in your posts.

Saddam was not a threat and you know it. If anti-American rhetoric is a justification for invading a country then the USA could start with Cuba and continue with the rest of the world. Words can never justify the use of force. If Saddam said the USA was an imperialist bully. . . the USA has just proved he was right.

52

Abstracting away from the other posturing, let me once more highlight the ridiculous illiteracy that is “homocide bombing” and politically correct distortion of the langauage in the usage.

The standard term, the term which worked just fine until some ultra-Zionists and rabid if illiterate right wing pundits in the US suddenly decided bombings in Israel were somehow special is “suicide bomber.” Worked fine in describing such bombings in Sri Lanka etc before 2000 and the outbreak of such in Israel. But then for some people certain kinds of dead people are more important than others.

To the point. The usage is illiterate on several levels:

First, in general bombings are indeed intended to kill, as such any bombing may be a “homicide” bombing (although there bombings otherwise intended however in the general I have never seen anyone who felt so overly moved to call, for example, the Oklahoma City Bombing a “homocide bombing.”).

Second, as we can see from point one above, using the term ‘homocide bombing’ further misses the key point an adjective should be used for, to differentiate from what the unmodified noun already implies or intends. The main difference between a suicide bombing and a non-suicide bombing is the suicide bomber blowing himself up with the rest of the victims. It, then, rather is the key point of differentiation, and also is key difference in understanding the act. The suicide bombing is harder to stop, for example.

Now I suppose if one accepted the tortured explanation that december has offered in the past of focusing on the victims - although very clearly this is a function of numbers - then one should use “homocide bombing” for all bombings aimed at killing people or that kill people, and “suicide homocide bombings” for that subset.

Rather obviously political posturing in the place of clear language usage, or clear thinking for that matter.

I suppose we must tolerate Fox News et als empty minded, politically correct posturing (indistinguishable in this case from certain Arab stations calling the same ‘martyrs’), but I see no reason to tolerate politically motivated abuse of the language here.

53

I’m sorry to say that this post reflects a POV that I find upsetting. The main point isn’t whether the bomber lives or dies. IMHO the key to a homicide bombing is that these bombs have no military purpose. In fact, there is no state of war. The bombs are designed to kill and maim innocent men, women and children – the more the better. That’s why the Oklahoma City bomb was so shocking and horrible.

BTW I grant you that nobody called Oklahoma City a “homicide bombing”, but everyone called it “terrorism.” AFAIK no media described Timothy McVeigh as merely a “militant” or a “partisan.”

54

Since 2001 of course.

In terms of description, yes it is.

That is an illogical red herring. {b]Any** goddamned terror bombing, or more broadly non-military bombing has not a “military” purpose, the suicide aspect of suicide bombings does not in any way shape or form differ from any non-military bombing used by terrorist or guerrillas, except insofar as the bomber deliberately dies in the event.

Your strained pretension this is somehow an usual issue is devoid of sense. For example, the Japanese Kamikaze pilots - a phrase indicating in English usage suicide attacks - were not called “homocide bombers.”

Irrelevant.

As any terror bombing, suicide or not, so again, irrelevant hand waving objection.

Very nice, so start calling it a homocide bomb. You now otherwise we might all get confused.

In short, the objections you raise are illogical and inconsistent. There is no logical basis for the usage “homocide bombing” in place of suicide bombing. The only internally consistent logic is to apply homocide as the adjective to any bombing that kills people and add suicide when the bomber kills people.

The remainder is simply pandering to a group of semi-literate political flacks looking for some means to emphasize a particular group. It’s bankrupt and frankly disgusting.

55

So the question remains: How can Saddam Hussein giving money to the families of the dead terrorists be used as a justification for the USA to invade Iraq? It makes no sense. Why doesn’t the USA go after Hamas and the terrorists themselves in the Palestinian territories? Why doesn’t the USA invade Palestine? The reasoning is so patently absurd that it only makes sense to closed-minded fanatics.

56

By the way, rather than let december dezinformatsia / blog spotting go unremarked, I direct readers attention to some comments on the werewolves to this thread, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=200438&perpage=50&pagenumber=2 notably Simmons and Eolbe comments towards the bottom.

Always glad to see evidentiary standards up to standard in blogs.

57

The term “suicide bombing” doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Much of the media refuses to call it terrorism, e.g. BBC, Reuters, and (I think) CBS News, USA Today, & National Public Radio.

You are analagizing attacks against Israeli civilians during a time of peace with attacks against* US warships during a declared war*. That attitude is becoming more common in recent years, perhaps fomented by Arab and Muslim hostility to Israel and to Jews. It says that Arabs and Muslims are at war with all Israelis, and, by extention, with Jews as well.

Accepting such attacks on Jews also doesn’t occur in a vacuum. The world has seen 2000 years of anti-semitism. What’s happening today can be seen as an extension of this ugly pattern.

58

So you claim. I find your claim laughable.

It was illustrative of the usage of suicide, not illustrative of the terror aspect. Spare me your posturing.

59

Interesting you should use this metaphor, *rjung, because I was thinking what I’d like to see is a Democrat who could play “good cop” get elected and mend the fences and undo the damage in foreign realtions caused by the neccessary dirty work of Bush in his role as “bad cop”.

60

Two points:

  1. It only takes one side to start a war. There was no “declared war” during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Some idea that the words from the Congress make some sort of difference is disengenous.
  2. It is common knowledge that suicide bomber = terrorist. Suicide bombing is a terrorist tactic and this point was very much hammered home after Sept 11. A headline which reports a suicide bombing DOES report an act of terrorism.

Enjoy,
Steven

Enjoy,
Steven