|
| HERE IS WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND |
| Tuesday, November 29, 2005 |
| Ted Turner says Iraq 'no better off' after U.S.-led war
The Associated Press -
November 29, 2005
MANHATTAN, Kan.Media mogul Ted Turner said Monday that Iraq is "no better off" following the U.S.-led invasion that ousted dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003.
Returning From Iraq, Lieberman Praises U.S. Strategy, Urges Bush to tout Successes
WSJ-
November 29, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, just back from Iraq, wants President Bush to give the American people details about the progress being made in that country - from military triumphs to the proliferation of cellphones and satellite dishes.
Do we go with Lieberman who has been over to Iraq 4 times in the last 17 months, or should we go with Jane Fonda's ex? |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/29/2005 02:15:00 PM   |
|
|
|
| Of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy |
| Monday, November 28, 2005 |
Years back I had an acquaintance I would characterize as a kook. "Kook", as defined by Webster, is "one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane".
This guy believed that the government was watching us through our television sets, that smallpox shots were injections of radiographic isotopes so that the government could track our movements, and that Roe vs. Wade was a plot to thin the population of African Americans. Kook.
At one time it seemed that kooks were few and far between. Maybe they still are, but now that we have the internet we have more exposure to them as interaction with the rest of the world becomes commonplace. While the "right", (which I would probably consider my former acquaintance as such) still seems to have their share, it seems the left's ranks have truly become swollen. I used to think that it was the fringe, but am beginning to question that.
Here are some of the fantasies that are accepted as truth (will not use the term "fact" as to these kind of people it is more about a philosophical or religious "truth" than something intellectual):
- George Bush with the help of Israel was behind 9/11.
- Karl Rove is Satan's general (Dick Cheney is Satan), and has a massive computer like brain that coordinates any and every move of the Republican Party and its candidates. He also forged documents and gave them to Dan Rather to create the Memogate Scandal.
- Two elections were "stolen" (still without specifics) but they were stolen.
- America is the equivalent of Nazi Germany and we torture people on a wholesale basis. All of the ills in the world are because of America and it is incapable of good.
- Black conservatives are really white
- The problem is, that all of the above did not come from "internet whackos" or Michael Moore types, but from supposed mainstream Americans like Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Madeleine Albright, Walter Cronkite, Dick Durbin. SUPPOSED.
Such paranoia usually begins to affect actions. Delusions become so real that it colors one's whole existence manifesting itself as anything from anger to irrational violence: - A self-made and successful conservative black man is peppered by Oreos during a speech
- College students fake attacks against themselves to blame on fellow students who are conservative.
- Internet sites everywhere calling for the assassination of President Bush.
- College professors calling on soldiers in Iraq to shoot their superiors.
- Left talk show hosts physically attacking people who disagree with them.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that the left is no longer about peace, pacifism and communality. It has become about anger, aggression and division. A place where the "kook" is no longer be the exception--but the rule. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/28/2005 06:00:00 PM |
|
|
|
| WEIGH IN |
|
| In my discussions with pro-abortion advocates, every argument usually comes down to defining the rule by the exception. (Abortion in the case of the mother's life, rape, incest, deformity, etc.)
Here is an exception for my pro-abortion friends. What impact do you think this should have on existing abortion laws?
50 Babies a Year born after failed abortions |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/28/2005 12:49:00 PM |
|
|
|
| YOU might be a redneck if... |
|
| WLTX News19 FYI What Do You Think of the State Christmas Tree?: "What Do You Think of the State Christmas Tree?"
There are a lot of things our state does that cause others to laugh at it. Here is the latest.
If someone would have told this as a Jeff Foxworthy joke I would have chuckled. But to decorate our State Capital Christmas tree with over 1,000 CD's?
You might be redneck if... |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/28/2005 06:18:00 AM |
|
|
|
| HAPPY THANKSGIVING! |
| Wednesday, November 23, 2005 |
| I realize that when giving thanks one has little time to complain. My worldly travels, my life in other countries has given me a perspective about our nation and the wonderful people who are in it. Even though we offer a continuous critique, I would wish to be nowhere else.
I am thankful for so much it is hard to start a list, so here I will just list out the friends I am thankful for--those I have come to know as a result of the blogosphere.
Lightning Bug--we go WAY back. You will always be "The Pontif" to me.
Hen Whisperer--another friend from ebloggy whose posts are much more than idle clucking.
Chickenhawk--much too level-headed and thoughtful to be so young.
Shea--as far left as I am right, but a friend with principle nonetheless.
Bookworm (BW)--who is smarter than anyone I know.
Mochi--the Neo-libs glue who is always willing to tackle any issue.
Overflow ("O")--who ebbs and flows in and out of my blogosphere life, but adds beauty and wisdom each time she does.
Nolff--a fellow SC'ian whose band I really want to see sometime!
And also some of the latest to visit the Snipet:
Round Man (RM)--Another fellow SC'ian who is just as conservative as me.
Mike of the North--Our friend from Alaska who has got to be freezing to death about now.
Nettie--My youngest visitor I think--but uncommonly wise and well read.
And many of you other bloggers that drop by to visit on the occassion (forgive me if I forgot--Jack's mind is not quite what it used to be).
In this coming holiday season may God richly bless you and your families.
-Jack
_________________________________________________
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor -- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be -- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks -- for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation -- for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed -- for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted -- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions -- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually -- to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed -- to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord -- To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us -- and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789. George Washington |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/23/2005 09:15:00 PM |
|
|
|
| NO PARTY FOR THE CONSERVATIVES IN THIS COUNTRY |
| Thursday, November 17, 2005 |
| Not long ago I posted an article concerning my disappointment in the Republican Party. To my knowledge, there is one good Republican left in the nation, but he is the governor of my state (South Carolina) and has no influence in our fiasco of a Congress. I feel it necessary to outline the reason I will no longer be voting Republican*.
Twenty years from now we will look back at the one shot American conservatives gave the Republican Party to halt the insanity. Through much time and sacrifice of our own, we gave control of the executive and legislative branches of government to the Republicans only to find out too late that our trust was sorely misplaced.
The problems with the GOP have become so entrenched that to vote for a single member would be to endorse and empower the party as a whole. For example, I cannot vote for an individual Democrat because the overall platform of the party is not compatible with my principle. To vote for a Democrat would be to empower a Marxist/Socialist Party whose aims are the subjugation of the American people. When Republicans abandoned the principles of conservatism (limited government and fiscal restraint) and the United States Constitution (individual freedom, and equal opportunity) they abandoned me, and I find the party inconsistent with my principle .
Recently, I listened to Republicans who spoke woefully of the "moderate" Republicans that "held the party hostage" concerning increasing the oil supply and cutting spending, and never before have I been repulsed by such lack of backbone. The Republican Party has placed themselves in this position by refusing to police their own and by allowing the presence of a few bad apples to corrupt the whole barrel to the point of ineffectiveness. "Frat" Party would be a more appropriate term than "Republican". Such drunken abandon was evident when liberal Arlen Specter** , ( the Pennsylvania Senator who has probably never read the Republican Creed and has broken every tenet), was challenged in the primaries by conservative Pat Toomey***, resulting in President Bush coming to town and endorsing the RINO**** Specter. Such is the verity of Washington "Republicanism" , a fraternal order of "drinking buddies" more about markers and personal power than the common good of the country and its citizens.
By refusing to discipline their own, for tolerating liberal policy from the Executive Branch and from within, and for generally lacking both commitment and backbone, the Republican Party will suffer decline for abandoning their principles and constituents. In 2008 I expect to be doing a lot of write-ins on the ballot.
__________________________________________________
*With the exception of Governor Mark Sanford. I have even lost confidence in our own state Republican legislature and its irresponsibility.
**Pro-abortion, pro-social spending, pro-affirmative action, etc.
***Voted Tax-payer Superhero by Citizens Against Government Waste, pro-life, etc.
****(R)epublican (I)n (N)ame (O)nly |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/17/2005 08:32:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Tsunami warning |
| Tuesday, November 15, 2005 |
| Having just been through one of the worst hurricane seasons on record, we know how people respond to a warning if they understand the nature of the problem. There is a hurricane that will hit you in 3 days, with winds of up to 150 miles an hour, and up to 20 inches of rain. We strongly suggest you get out of its path. Most people - certainly more than a majority - agree to evacuate. An even higher percentage would evacuate if it were a tsunami warning, having seen what it did (without warning) in Indonesia.
In today's USA Today, economist from both the left and right warn of an economic tsunami. We have time to evacuate, but not a lot of time.
I hope you will read the whole story. It's not a perfect analysis, but it's pretty good, and it's easy to understand. To make a long story short, when the baby-boom generation retires, it will destroy the economy to meet the promises to retired people that exist in current law. The deficits we're running today are irresponsible, but they are invisible compared to the debt we will create during the baby boom retirement years. Today's debt is too high, but serviceable. Tomorrow's debt will crush us.
There is virtually no educated economist from either side of the political spectrum who disagrees with the warning. They only disagree on how to evacuate. Liberals believe we need to raise taxes to pay for the promises. Conservatives believe we need to downsize the promises.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if we try to raise taxes enough to fund these promises to my generation that it will severely cripple the private economy that generates tax revenue. But I understand the American political system and its players well enough to be almost as certain that we will not evacuate properly. Millions will be destroyed by the economic tsunami, despite the warning.
Some folks will take the necessary personal steps to survive comfortably in spite of the widespread devastation. I plan to be one of them. I could spend my time and energy trying to convince Congress to do the right thing, or I could spend it preparing to survive when they do the wrong thing. I will choose the latter. If you are smart, you will too. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/15/2005 06:27:00 AM |
|
|
|
| SANFORD FOR PRESIDENT |
|
| Charleston Post and Courier
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Mangled by the hands of Time
South Carolinians can be expected to pay as much attention to Time magazine's rap on Gov. Mark Sanford, as they would to, say, an outsider's criticism of boiled peanuts or USC's Gamecock mascot. Some of the same reasons that Time finds to chastise the governor help explain his popularity in the state.
Time, for example, is dismissive of the governor's frugality, dating back to his years as congressman when he slept in his office to save money. South Carolinians recognize that there is something commendable in a public official who spends with caution, particularly when it's the public's dime.
One of Time's criticisms, however, is based on misinformation, to view it in the most charitable light. The state's AAA credit rating declined in part because of the Legislature's unwillingness to deal responsibly with state finances. When revenues fell during the economic downturn, the Legislature borrowed heavily from trust funds and engaged in unconstitutional deficit spending. Gov. Sanford convinced the Legislature to pay off its unconstitutional debt, but was only partially successful in urging the Legislature to use new revenue to pay trust fund debts before heedlessly incurring new expenses.
Indeed, the governor has achieved only limited success in curbing the appetites of a Legislature that has been historically used to having its own way. His spending vetos, cited by Time as an irritation to business leaders, have been generally overridden by a Legislature unwilling to give up its perks and pork.
Gov. Sanford's ambitious reform agenda has sought to shift authority to the executive branch of government to provide greater accountability, more efficiency and better service. The Legislature, however, has been unwilling even to give voters a chance to consider the constitutional amendments necessary for his restructuring proposals.
In remarks preliminary to its ranking, Time stated that 'Reeling from the biggest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, Governors, unlike Presidents, must show discipline.' There's no faulting Mr. Sanford on that score, whether or not you agree with the magazine's dire assessment of the nation's recent fiscal woes.
In ranking its best governors, Time observed, 'When it comes to raw political talent, there's not a Bill Clinton in this group.' The nation should perhaps count itself lucky that such a malleable talent comes along once in a blue moon. With Gov. Sanford, by contrast, what you see is what you get. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/15/2005 03:45:00 AM |
|
|
|
| IF YOU DON'T KNOW, SHUT UP! |
| Friday, November 11, 2005 |
| Bill O'Reilly is right more often than not, but when he's wrong, he's practically clueless. O'Reilly has been at the forefront of accusing oil companies of gouging consumers after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Yesterday, on his radio show, he cited, as evidence thereof, the fact that prices have come down so sharply in the past few weeks. I don't have his exact quote, but it was something like "The demand today is exactly the same as it was then."
Argggh!
Bill is not stupid, but for some reason he's stuck on stupid on this issue. Sure, demand is the same today, or maybe even a bit lower, but the supply is back today. That's why prices are lower. We had a major supply problem, caused by the hurricanes. The hurricanes forced the shutdown of refineries on the gulf coast and interrupted two pipelines that served the Southeast.
The oil company execs tried to explain the simple economic facts of life to members of the Senate without blatantly insulting their intelligence, but it wasn't easy. As Lee Raymond, chairman of Exxon Mobil Corp. put it, "By keeping prices higher, adequate supplies were assured."
"That's an astounding theory of consumer protection," replied Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon.
The only thing astounding is that Wyden and other members of Congress don't understand the first thing that a freshman economics student learns in college.
Therefore, I propose the following. There should be a federal law that requires all incoming members of Congress to complete a minimum of two semesters of college level economics courses within their first two years in Congress. If they remain in Congress for more than 10 years, they will have to take at least one refresher course.
We simply cannot tolerate members of congress attempting to destroy the American capitalist economic system out of ignorance.
And Bill O'Reilly should audit the first class. Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/11/2005 06:23:00 AM |
|
|
|
| FAILURE |
| Thursday, November 10, 2005 |
| Let's face it, our government has failed us miserably. The biggest dissapointment is the ineffective and incompetent GOP.
Tired of paying unheard of gas prices? Thank the GOP. They let go of the provision to drill in Alaska which would increase production, drive down prices, cut dependence on foreign oil, and do wonders at cutting funding to terrorist-enabling nations.
In short: No increase in production of oil, no decrease in pricing, which hurts you and me. So we continue to send our money to oil producing nations that hate us--who then use our money to send terrorists back to hurt us. Who hurts? We the people, and the GOP could care less.
Tired of sending .65 cents on every dollar to the government for everything from indoor rain forests in Iowa to dollars to foreign anti-American despots? Thank the GOP. Squandered is an opportunity to cut the budget and decrease the size of government.
In short: We realize its hard for you to make ends meet, but we are going to take more and more of your money, and drive up the deficit--and the GOP could care less.
We know what the Democrats are all about, but now we are just beginning to realize that the GOP are nothing but their cowardly little brother.
It looks like our choices this election are the Stalinist or the Nazi Party. This election I am going with my conscience and voting neither.
Get the latest |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/10/2005 08:02:00 PM |
|
|
|
| OSTRICHES |
| Wednesday, November 09, 2005 |
| I run across many liberals who still have their heads stuck in the sand denying WMD's in Iraq. Here is a quote from ardent war critic Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) on the Chris Matthews Show this last Monday. You would think the Democrats would inform their constituents of such to keep them from looking so...foolish?
LEVIN: I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after Saddam. They began to—look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that.
Whole transcript |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/09/2005 09:14:00 PM |
|
|
|
| REVOLUTION |
| Tuesday, November 08, 2005 |
| The editor of “the new republic” suggested the other day that “the new liberal political culture emerging on the Internet” looks a lot like the McGovernite revolution that descended on the Democratic Party in 1972. In a lecture at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Peter Beinart said the mostly young Internet activists are clearly taking over the party. If so, this would be the first ray of sunshine for conservatives and Republicans in almost a year. The McGovern movement severely damaged the party, pushing it toward four presidential defeats in five tries, until Bill Clinton won by dragging the party back to the center in 1992. If the Internet people had prevailed in 2004, Howard Dean would have won the nomination and then been buried in an enormous landslide, just like George McGovern.
Beinart wrote one of the most impressive magazine articles of 2004, a 6,000-word piece on the failure of liberalism to reshape itself in the wake of 9/11 and the rise of Islamofascism. He was highly critical of liberal “softs” who tolerate Michael Moore and MoveOn.org, the potent Internet-based group that has urged antiwar liberals to cooperate with the totalitarian left, specifically with International Answer, a front for the World Workers Party, which has defended Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, and North Korean madman Kim Jong Il. Beinart called on liberals to cut themselves off from totalitarian movements and from people who imagine that the terrorist threat is minor or nonexistent, just as mainstream liberals in 1947 girded themselves for the Cold War by ejecting pro-Communist and soft-on-Communism types like the followers of Henry Wallace.
That article was blunt. The speech last week was more circumspect and polite-no harsh words for the soft-on-totalitarians types like the George Soros-financed activists at MoveOn. Still, Beinart fears that the new activists are “largely in the dark about what they believe” and will come to power without the ideas they need to govern.
Let’s assume that Beinart is right and that the Deaniacs are today’s McGovernites. This would be an excellent time to ponder what the McGovern reformers did to the party. The changes at the 1972 convention removed the power of the city bosses and party regulars to determine the nominee and, in theory at least, increased the number of Democrats involved in selecting nominees. In reality, though, the reformers, through rule changes and some stealth and manipulation, stacked the convention and radically changed the party. Affluent, well-educated liberals were in-a “new elite,” as the Washington Post termed it. Party regulars, officeholders, and blue-collar Democrats were out.
New York, a union state, had only three union members as delegates, though it had at least nine members of the gay liberation movement. No farmer was a member of the Iowa delegation. Only 30 of the 255 Democratic members of Congress were selected as delegates. A full 39 percent of delegates had attended graduate school. Over a third of the white delegates were classified as secularists, compared with 5 percent of the general population. The reformers installed rough quotas for blacks, women, Hispanics, and people ages 18 to 25. The total of female delegates tripled, to 43 percent, with heavy emphasis on supporters of abortion and the hard-edged feminism represented by Bella Abzug
“A kick in the gut.” Jack Newfield and Joe Flaherty, both pro-McGovern Village Voice reporters from working-class backgrounds, asked, "Where are the quotas for Irish, Italians, and Poles? “The McGovernite movement,” wrote Murray Rothbard, a prominent libertarian, “is, in its very nature, a kick in the gut to Middle America.”
The regulars who picked candidates before the McGovern revolution always looked for a mainstream candidate who could win. McGovern’s activists had to be mobilized and sustained by ideological appeals that put the movement and the candidate decidedly left of the electorate. So McGovern couldn’t have won.
The McGovern reform commission and the people who changed the party in 1972 wrought lasting damage, and not just to Democrats: They helped mightily to create the modern split between red America and blue America. Many members of disfavored groups-Catholics, southerners, and much of the white working class and lower middle class-decamped for the Republican Party, while the Democrats emerged more clearly visible as the party of well-off liberals, the poor, identity and grievance groups, secularists, and the cultural elite. A second coming of McGovernite guerrillas wouldn’t do much to improve that image. John Leo |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/08/2005 06:10:00 AM |
|
|
|
| NON-PRACTICING PREACHERS |
| Friday, November 04, 2005 |
| There is a new book available from Amazon that has moved to #6 on the bestseller list. It is on liberal hypocricy--or the way the Snipet puts it, America's new Fundamentalists.
It makes some of the following points:
Air America radio host Al Franken says conservatives are racist because they lack diversity and oppose affirmative action. But fewer than 1 percent of the people he has hired over the past 15 years have been African-American.
Ted Kennedy has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax shelters. But he has repeatedly benefited from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family's fortune from the IRS. One Kennedy family trust wasn't even set up in the U.S., but in Fiji.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have spoken in favor of the estate tax, and in 2000 Bill vetoed a bill seeking to end it. But the Clintons have set up a contract trust that allows them to substantially reduce the amount of inheritance tax their estate will pay when they die.
Hillary, for her part, has written and spoken extensively about the right of children to make major decisions regarding their own lives, such as having an abortion without parental consent. But she barred 13-year-old daughter Chelsea from getting her ears pierced and forbade her to watch MTV or HBO.
Barbara Streisand has talked about the necessity of unions to protect a "living wage." But she prefers to do her filming and postproduction work in Canada, where she can pay less than American union wages.
As for other liberals who like to offshore things, there's billionaire Bush-basher George Soros. Soros says the wealthy should pay higher, more progressive tax rates. But he holds the bulk of his money in tax-free overseas accounts in Curacao, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.
We have a lot of modern day Liberal preachers, but do they practice what they preach?
Amazon.com: Books: Do As I Say (Not As I Do) : Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/04/2005 06:49:00 AM |
|
|
|
| AS DEMOCRATS TAKE ON THE IRAQ WAR AGAIN...AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN... |
| Wednesday, November 02, 2005 |
| "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: --Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemicalweapons throughout his country." --Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking anddeveloping weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. RobertByrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is areal and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is workingaggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including alQaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 11/02/2005 06:49:00 PM |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
