• Home
• Date-O-Matic
• Verse-O-Matic
• Web Tools
• WP-Members

Down the Political Path

I hate to take this blog further down the political path, but I guess I brought that on myself. So, in regards to some of my comments on Cindy Sheehan, here are some comments I recently received from Mr. Mark Patterson :

lost two friends in vietnam, THEY DIED FOR NOTHING, 1800 in iraq, DIED FOR NOTHING. saddam was poised to flood europe with cheap oil, his sanctions lifted, europe, russia, china, all would have got cheap oil, then suddenly HE HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION,NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL, HE IS POISED TO ATTACK US!!!, lies, and those people should now be in JAIL FOR TREASON AND STARTING A ILLEGAL WAR. not one weapon found, not even one. bush is a liar and a murderer, he got those kids killed for oil, plain and simple, wake up.remember also now they “blame” the protesters for any defeat in this illegal war, and say we must “stay the course”,kill more men to avenge the 1800, (who died in vain and for nothing!!!), same old vietnam crap, SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME!!!

Well, our friend Mark seems to think this is the “same old vietnam crap” and basically touts the “Bush Lied, People Died” leftist mantra. Before I get started, perhaps I should mention that I am not a registered member of either party. I make up my own mind based on reality. Also, a phrase I’ve used already once today seems to fit pretty well here - “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.” Mark, you are out of your league.

Ok, back to the leftist mantra. Wake up and smell the coffee. The only ones lying here are the extremist groups like the Michael Moores (”There is no terrorist threat”) and the MoveOn.orgs (”Bush Lied, People Died”). You want to talk facts, Mark? Ok. Here are some facts:

1. This is not about oil. Iraq never provided more than 4% of our total imports. It provides less than that today. I’m wondering, Mark, exactly how Saddam was planning to flood europe with cheap oil when his PEAK capacity of 3.7 million bbl/d was achieved in 1979, and he was never able to get back to that rate. His rate just before the war was 2.58 million bbl/d in January 2003. Interesting how you mention a continent and two countries that supposedly would have benefited from all of this cheap oil, yet each of those areas produce more oil than Iraq BY THEMSELVES. Russia produces about 8.6 mb/d, China 3.3 mb/d, and I’ll give you just one European country, Norway produces about 3.4 mb/d - all of them outstrip Iraqi production by themselves. Oh, by the way, so does the United States. US domestic oil production in the lower 48 states alone (I’ll remove Alaska for you) was about 4.58 million barrels per day, in 2004. Sure, the Iraq war was about oil. Repeating misinformation you received from someone else does not make you sound intelligent.
2. He was about to have his sanctions lifted? Where exactly did you get that idea? Sorry, but you are not even close on that one. While the United States, Britian, and other coalition members were calling for the UN to back up their words of “serious consequences,” the rest of the UN that opposed military action wanted to continue with sanctions. So I’m not seeing how you think that sanctions were about to be lifted. Also, we now know that there was too much money involved in the Oil for Food program for any of the beneficiaries of that corruption to let that one get away. No. I find it more likely that without military action, we would have seen an endless flow of resolutions and sanctions against Iraq for an indefinate period of time.
3. WMDs - If there was in fact disinformation regarding WMDs, Bush was not the only one getting or repeating this information. Consider the statement of David Kay, former UN Chief Nuclear Weapons Inspector in Iraq on September 10, 2002 before the House Armed Services Committee. He stated that not only did Saddam’s WMD programs span more than a decade and cost more than $20 Billion, he also noted that “Iraq’s pre-war nuclear accomplishments have ensured that if it can acquire fissionable nuclear material from any outside source it will be able to fabricate at least a crude, improvised nuclear device in months, not years. For Iraq, just like every other aspirant to nuclear status, the key obstacle is the acquisition of fissile material. Iraq had a viable weapon design and the capacity to produce all the elements of a weapon. ” He also noted that “Economic sanctions no longer significantly restrict the financial resources that Iraq can devote to WMD programs, and over the last five years have been of declining value in restricting the flow of goods and technology.” (We know this to be absolute fact in light of the ongoing “Oil for Food” scandal that is unraveling at the UN.) I chose this statement specifically because it came from a UN inspector, not US intelligence, lest our friend Mark think that Mr. Kay was some kind of a Bush puppet. I could grant you more examples but for sake of space, I’ll ask you to do your own research (which Mark obviously didn’t do before making his statement).
4. Ah, the old Bush should be in jail for treason argument. It becomes more obvious that when someone has absolutely no basis of fact to back up their argument, they resort to something ridiculous. This statement (and in Mark’s defense, he’s not the only one to be tossing this one around) is the intellectual equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I?” Ok, maybe that was low, but come on… You make it too easy. Do you even know what treason is? Have you read the Constitution? Probably not, since you obviously are simply regurgitating someone else’s talking points. Why would you bother to pick up a book? I quote for you Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
   

   Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

   I ask then for the evidence of Treason. Did Bush levy War on the United States? Did he adhere to the Enemies of the States by giving them Aid and Comfort? I don’t see any basis for your accusation based on reality. Sure it’s fun to spout off at the mouth but it really makes you look dumb. As my father used to say, “Those of you who think you know everything are very annoying to those of us who do.”

5. Illegal War? Again, another regurgitation of someone else’s talking points with absolutely no basis in reality. The U.S. Congress authorized the use of force to remove Saddam from power. I submit as evidence H.R. Concurrent Resolution 104 which passed 394 - 11 (The resolution garnered 224 Republican votes, 167 Democratic votes, and the vote of the lone Independent in the House of Representatives). In it the House stated (and the Senate concurred) :
   

   108th CONGRESS
   1st Session

   H. CON. RES. 104

   CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

   Whereas the United States Armed Forces, a total force comprised of active, National Guard, and Reserve personnel, are now undertaking courageous and determined operations against the forces of Saddam Hussein’s regime;

   Whereas the Senate and House of Representatives and the American people have the greatest pride in the members of the Armed Forces and strongly support them;

   Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) stated that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

   Whereas on October 16, 2002, the President signed into law House Joint Resolution 114 of the 107th Congress, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), which provides congressional authorization for the use of military force against Iraq;

   Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted on November 8, 2002, voted unanimously that Iraq `…will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations’ to disarm in accordance with all relevant United Nations resolutions;

   Whereas Iraq remains in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions;

   Whereas the United States has assembled and deployed an allied military coalition to apply pressure on Saddam Hussein to comply with the relevant United Nations resolutions;

   Whereas on March 18, 2003, the President transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate the President’s determination, consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), that reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and that the President’s use of military force against Iraq is consistent with necessary ongoing efforts by the United States and other countries against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001;

   Whereas on the evening of March 17, 2003, the President of the United States issued Saddam Hussein and his sons a final ultimatum to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face United States military intervention;

   Whereas, when Saddam Hussein failed to comply, the President ordered United States Armed Forces to commence military operations against the forces of Saddam Hussein during the evening of March 19, 2003, under the code name of Operation Iraqi Freedom, in order to liberate Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and neutralize Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction;

   Whereas the United States Armed Forces and allied forces are performing their missions with great courage and distinction in carrying out air, land, and sea attacks against Iraqi military targets; and

   Whereas the ability of the Armed Forces to successfully perform their mission requires the support of their nation, community, and families: Now, therefore, be it

   Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation–

   (1) to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the on-going Global War on Terrorism;

   (2) to the members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are carrying out their missions with excellence, patriotism, and bravery; and

   (3) to the families of the United States military personnel serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are providing support and prayers for their loved ones currently engaged in military operations in Iraq.

   In this resolution, you’ve got several other resolutions that you could include as evidence. As before, for the sake of space, Mark can go look them up himself to see if there was indeed a consensus on the use of force to remove Saddam from power. I’ll tell you that there was, but you should still do your own leg work.

   Furthermore, as we have an ongoing investigation into the UN Oil for Food scandal, we are discovering that those on Security Council that were against the use of force in Iraq had a pretty good financial reason for their position. Whose lying now?

It is sad that so many people in America just take inaccurate information that is spoon fed to them. I’m sorry Mark, but nothing in your statement holds water. I’m sorry you lost 2 friends in Vietnam. I’m sorry 1800+ soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. But these people died fighting for a cause. And it is a cause they obviously believe in. Why else would re-enlistment goals be above 100%? Our troops know what they face when they re-enlist, and yet every branch of service is above quota on the year. Why do you think that is? Do you think they feel duped?

If you don’t (or won’t) support the mission, then you don’t support the troops. It’s that simple.

Comments

• 

• Categories

  • Book Reviews
  • Rocketry
  • Science
    • Energy
  • Trading
  • Web
    • My Bookmarks
    • WordPress
      • Verse-O-Matic
      • WP-Members
    
    
    

    •