Posted on 09/14/2002 5:32:18 AM PDT by Boonie Rat
Answers to Ron Paul's Questions on Iraq From an Opponent of the War
by Jacob G. Hornberger
In the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002
From Representative Ron Paul, Texas.
Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won't be asked – and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.
1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
Hornberger: Yes.
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate – which just confirms that there is no real threat?
Hornberger: Yes.
3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?
Hornberger: Yes.
4. Is it not true that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?
Hornberger: Yes. Also, former Marine and former UN Inspector Scott Ritter is openly challenging the administration's thesis that Iraq is a threat to the United States.
5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year?
Hornberger: Yes.
Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
Hornberger: That fact doesn't support an attack on Iraq, making it easy for U.S. officials to forget it.
6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism?
Hornberger: Neither the president nor Tony Blair have produced any evidence to contradict that conclusion.
7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?
Hornberger: Yes.
8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?
Hornberger: Yes.
9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?
Hornberger: Yes, but U.S. officials don't criticize their allies, even when they are headed by non-democratic, brutal military thugs.
10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?
Hornberger: What better way to divert people's attention away from the chaos in Afghanistan and the failure to capture Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar (remember him? He was the leader of the Taliban and a prime suspect in the 9-11 attacks) than to attack Iraq? And you can't deny it's a brilliant political strategy to galvanize wartime "support-the-government-and-the-troops" patriotism right around election time.
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States – and who may again attack the United States – and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?
Hornberger: Good question. Here's another one: Why was the FBI spending so much time and resources spying on bordellos in New Orleans and harassing drug users prior to 9-11 rather than pursuing the strong leads that pointed toward the 9-11 attacks?
12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US – and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?
Hornberger: Yes. The U.S. government's attack will engender even more hatred and anger against Americans, which will engender more attacks against Americans, which will engender more U.S. government assaults on the civil liberties of the American people. As Virginian James Madison pointed out, people who live under a regime committed to perpetual war will never be free, because with war comes armies, taxes, spending, and assaults on the rights and freedoms of the people.
13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?
Hornberger: It's convenient to compare any target of the U.S. government to Hitler in order to make people emotionally negative toward the target. That's why federal officials called David Koresch Hitler before they attacked the Branch Davidians, including (innocent) children, with deadly, flammable gas at Waco. Remember that Hitler took over Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia and then had the military might to fight on two fronts against the Soviet Union, France, Britain, and the U.S. Iraq, on the other hand, has invaded no one in more than 10 years and, in fact, invaded Kuwait only after U.S. officials failed to give Saddam (their buddy and ally at that time) the red light on invading Kuwait. By the way, notice how they never refer to their targets as a "Joseph Stalin" even though Stalin was no better and possibly much worse than Hitler. The reason they don't is that Stalin was a friend and ally of Franklin Roosevelt and the U.S. government.
14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress?
Hornberger: Yes, but since the Congress abrogated its constitutional duty in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Granada, Panama, and other invasions, interventions, and wars, the president and most members of Congress believe that the declaration of war requirement has effectively been nullified, which is similar to Pakistan President Masharraf's unilaterally amending his country's Constitution to give himself more power.
Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion?
Hornberger: No. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be obeyed regardless of public opinion. In fact, the Bill of Rights expressly protects the people from the visisitudes of public opinion. The Consitution prohibits the president from waging war without an express declaration of war by Congress. That's why both Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt could not intervene in World Wars I and II without a congressional declaration of war.
Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?
Hornberger: No. The supreme law of the land – the law that the American people have imposed on their federal officials – is the U.S. Constitution. We the people are the ultimate sovereign in our country, not the United Nations.
15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?
Hornberger: I have not seen it, but it would not surprise me. As history has repeatedly shown, public officials in every nation consider it proper and useful to lie as a way to galvanize public support in favor of the war that they're determined to wage. Decades later, when people are finally permitted to view the files, the records inevitably reveal the falsehoods that led the people to support the wars. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which Congress enacted on the request of President Lyndon Johnson, comes to mind since it cost the lives of 60,000 men of my generation in the Vietnam War, including some of my schoolmates at Virginia Military Institute.
16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?
Hornberger: I didn't know that but it wouldn't surprise me. But when was the last time you saw high public officials worry about the welfare of American GIs? Vietnam? Somalia? VA Hospitals?
17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?
Hornberger: It's impossible to know how many American casualties there will be, and you could be right about thousands of American casualties, given the urban fighting that will have to take place. On the other hand, American casualties could be light given the U.S. government's overwhelming military might and tremendous domestic dissatisfaction in Iraq against Saddam Hussein (many Iraqis will undoubtedly view American forces as liberators, given Hussein's brutal, dictatorial regime). From a moral standpoint, we should not only ask about American GI casualties but also Iraqi people casualties. After the Allied Powers delivered the people of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and East Germany to Stalin and the Soviet communists after World War II, those people suffered under communism for five decades, which most of us would oppose, but who's to say that they would have been better off with liberation by U.S. bombs and embargoes, especially those who would have been killed by them? I believe that despite the horrible suffering of the Eastern Europeans and East Germans, Americans were right to refrain from liberating them with bombs and embargoes. It's up to the Iraqi people to deal with the tyranny under which they suffer – it is not a legitimate function of the U.S. government to liberate them from their tyranny with an attack upon their nation.
18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a $100 billion war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?
Hornberger: Federal spending is now out of control, which means that taxes are now out of control because the only place that government gets its money is taxation, either directly through the IRS or indirectly through the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. My prediction is that they'll let the Fed do it, so that President Bush avoids blame for raising taxes and so that U.S. officials can blame inflation on big, bad, greedy businessmen who are "price-gouging." When you add the costs of the war and foreign policy in general, including foreign aid and bailouts to corrupt foreign governments, to the federal "charity" and pork that the members of Congress send back to their districts in an attempt to buy votes to get reelected, it doesn't portend well for the future economic well-being of the American people. After all, let's not forget how Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Empire – he made it spend itself into bankruptcy.
19. Iraq's alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
Hornberger: Yes. And since these are UN resolutions, doesn't that mean that only the UN, not a specific member of the UN, has the legal authority to enforce them?
20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?
Hornberger: I have no reason to doubt that this is true.
21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?
Hornberger: I didn't know this but nothing surprises me anymore.
22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?
Hornberger: Absolutely, and what does it say about the U.S. government's commitment to the rule of law?
23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharraf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?
Hornberger: The U.S. government's commitment to democracy is a sham, evidenced not only through its support of brutal non-elected dictators who follow its orders but also through its support of ousting democratically elected leaders who refuse to follow its orders, such as Chavez in Venezuela or Allende in Chile.
24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 – including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?
Hornberger: I read a New York Times article on this just the other day. At the risk of modifying my statement above about not being surprised by anything anymore, I was stunned to learn that U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were supporting Iraq when it was using chemical weapons against Iranians. From a moral standpoint, how low can they go? And how hypocritical can they be?
25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran?
Hornberger: This is during the time that Saddam was a buddy of the U.S. government. I wonder why they're not just offering him money again to re-become a buddy, as they do with other dictators, such as Masharraf, the brutal army dictator who took over Pakistan in a coup and who was a strong supporter and close friends of the Taliban.
Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?
Hornberger: No, it's highly hypocritical but it's effective with respect to those who refuse to believe that their federal government has engaged in wrongdoing overseas.
26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?
Hornberger: Yes, and wasn't that the preferred pretext of the Soviet Union when it committed acts of aggression during the Cold War?
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
Hornberger: Good question.
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?
Hornberger: I suggest that we form a "Suicide Brigade" for all men over 40 who support sending American GI's into foreign wars. Their mission would be to blow themselves up on enemy targets, thereby bringing the war to a quicker conclusion. They've already lived their lives anyway, and their suicides would be helping to save the lives of younger American soldiers. My prediction: Not one single "hard-charger" will volunteer, but I would oppose drafting them into "service."
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
Hornberger: There is no moral argument. And here's one back at you: At what point does an unprovoked attack against a weak nation that kills innocent people go from being "war" to becoming murder?
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
Hornberger: It doesn't, but we are now experiencing the consequences of permitting U.S. officials to ignore the Constitution for decades, especially with respect to the declaration of war requirement. Question back to you: Did you ever think you would live in a nation in which one man has the omnipotent power to send an entire nation into war on his own initiative and the omnipotent power to jail any American citizen in an Army brig for the rest of his life without the benefit of trial or habeas corpus?
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
Hornberger: Yes.
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?
Hornberger: Absolutely. We are learning that our Founders were right – that an unrestrained federal government is highly dangerous to the best interests of the American people. That's the reason they required a Constitution as a condition of bringing the federal government into existence – they didn't trust unrestrained government and intended the Constitution to protect us from unrestrained government officials.
33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and – not coincidentally – we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?
Hornberger: Absolutely true, and such false and fake resolutions as the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" are shams that have prematurely snuffed out the lives of tens of thousands of American GIs.
34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?
Hornberger: Yes, but the brutal Army general who took over in a coup and who recently unilaterally amended his country's Constitution without the consent of the people or the Parliament, is now doing what Washington tells him to do, and that's the difference.
35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?
Hornberger: Because they're afraid to take individual responsibility, both politically and morally, for their actions. This way, they can straddle this fence – if the war goes well, they can claim credit and if it goes bad, they can blame the president. It's called political and moral cowardice, a malady that unfortunately has pervaded the U.S. Congress for many, many years.
September 14, 2002
I hope and think they will.. But you never know with congress...
So why isn't Paul objecting on the grounds that the WPA is un-Constitutional instead of suggesting that Bush should seek a formal declaration from Congress per the WPA? And please, don't say that suggesting that the Constitution be followed is the same as saying that the WPA doesn't follow it. Those are two separate arguments, and Paul only makes one.
But exodus also says: ""He is limited by a written Constitution that says that he DOES NOT go to war without the permission of the citizens of his nation, in the form of a Declaration of War from the representatives in Congress."
Now you've got me confused, exodus. In one quote you say there is no requirement and in the next you say not only is there a requirement, but it is in writing. Which is it?
Regards,
Boot Hill
The other being that since it's inception, the rush to interpret the same language several ways was on. The FOUNDERS argued about what the constitution meant. 'Constitutionalists' live in some sort of ideal history where the founders all agreed on the 'plain meaning' of the constitution and there were no differences in opinion about what it meant until the founders died...
Puhleeeze. We have a place for determining constitutionality -- it's called the Supreme Court. Laws that are inacted -- even bad laws -- are in full force until someone challenges them and proves them to be in violation. If you say it's un-Constitutional, YOU have to prove it.
exodus says: "The power to declare war is a Legislative power."
Yes, but the power to fight a war is an executive power.
Note that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, is not co-CIC or deputy CIC, nor is he a member of the CIC committee or council. There is only one CIC and the President is it. The essence of the concept of command (noun) is to command (verb) and that includes the command to go to war. Unless you can show me an explicit article in the Constitution that requires the President to say "mother may I", then you cannot wish for, invent or pretend such a requirement exists. That is unless you care to "discover" such a requirement in some "penumbra" of the Constitution in much the same way that SCOTUS invents Constitutional provisions when they want one.
Regards,
Boot Hill
To: Boot Hill*************************
"These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force."
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article01/41.html#5
# 265 by Roscoe
Wow. That's an eyefull, Roscoe, but I read it.
"...the argument was advanced that the war power of the National Government is an attribute of sovereignty and hence not dependent upon the affirmative grants of the written Constitution..."
That's a stupid argument. What good is a written Constitution, if the powers of government don't need to be defined?
"... namely that the power to wage war is implied from the power to declare it..."
Well, that makes sense.
"...the colonies were a unit in foreign affairs, acting through a common agency--namely, the Continental Congress, composed of delegates from the thirteen colonies. That agency exercised the powers of war and peace, raised an army, created a navy, and finally adopted the Declaration of Independence. . . . It results that the investment of the Federal Government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution..."
Again, a stupid argument. The several States were just that, SEVERAL States. The fact that they acted in unison against a common enemy didn't result in a loss of sovereignty by any State.
That's the arguement I've been making in regard to the United Nations. We act at the direction of the U.N., inviolation of our own laws. We DID NOT give up any sovereignty when we joined the U.N.
The several States at war with England, DID NOT act as a single nation. They acted as allied States fighting against a common enemy.
Declaration of War
In the early draft of the Constitution presented to the Convention by its Committee of Detail, Congress was empowered ''to make war.'' Although there were solitary suggestions that the power should better be vested in the President alone, in the Senate alone, or in the President and the Senate, the sentiment of the Convention, as best we can determine from the limited notes of the proceedings, was that the potentially momentous consequences of initiating armed hostilities should be called up only by the concurrence of the President and both Houses of Congress.
In contrast to the English system, the Framers did not want the wealth and blood of the Nation committed by the decision of a single individual; in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, they did not wish to forego entirely the advantages of executive efficiency nor to entrust the matter solely to a branch so close to popular passions.
Just as I've said all along.
"...Sixty years later, the Supreme Court sustained the blockade of the Southern ports instituted by Lincoln in April 1861 at a time when Congress was not in session..."
The view of the majority was proclaimed by a unanimous Court a few years later when it became necessary to ascertain the exact dates on which the war began and ended. The Court, the Chief Justice said, must ''refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates; and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department, which may be, and, in fact, was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken. The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second.''
The President may act in an emergency, just as I've said. However, even though the absence of Congress constitutes an emergency, when Congress reconvenes, THE EMERGENCY IS OVER.
Once Congress is in session, a Declaration of War is required to comtinue a war. Otherwise, an aggressive President only has to wait until Congress goes home to declare war on his on power.
These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress.
These cases settled nothing. These cases merely set precedents, which is just another way of saying "don't bother me with any additional facts."
When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force. But the issue so much a source of controversy in the era of the Cold War and so divisive politically in the context of United States involvement in the Vietnamese War has been whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration.
There is only "controversy" if everyone avoids reading the Constitution and relying on the words written there. By relying on precedents, the opinions of judges, instead of the Constitution, all things are possible.
The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented, and the lower courts generally refused, on ''political question'' grounds, to adjudicate the matter.
The Cold "War," the Vietnam "war," the Korean "war."
Yes, they REALLY were wars, but they were illegal wars. They were fought without a Declaration of War.
In all that time, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case claiming that those wars were illegal. Our Judicial branch is just as corrupt as the other two branches of government.
In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant.
I can read and understand the plain meaning of the Constitution. I don't believe that I'm that much smarter than our elected leaders.
The plain fact is, our leadership is corrupt.
Our government plans and commits murder, and the agents who actually do the killing are promoted rather than being punished.
President Clinton sells military secrets to foreign enemies, and act of treason, and is protected by Republicans who are supposed to be his political opponents.
President Bush declares war as if he has the legal power to do so, and Congress accepts the war as fact.
Democrats and Republicans band together to pass the un-Constitutional Patriot act, and President Bush signs it into law. Never mind that if followed, our freedom ended the day it was signed.
To: exodus*************************
Article II/Section 2 of the Constitution -
The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States
The air force isn't mentioned here. Do you think that the Air Force shouldn't recognize the president as the commander in chief? After all, the constitution clearly states that he's the CIC of the Army and Navy.
# 270 by Isle of sanity in CA
You're being facetious.
I'll play.
The Air Force didn't start out as the "Air Force." It was a part of the Army. Later, when air combat became more important and more specialised, it branched off from the Army and was RENAMED "The Air Force."
The Marines have always been a part of the Navy. (Don't tell them, though)
There has been talk for decades about breaking them off from the Navy and creating a new branch of military called "The Marines." (Original, huh?)
If they do create a new branch called "Marines," it will still be under the overall command of the Commander in Chief.
To: exodus*************************
Begging the question (Circular Argument): Concluding that some statement is true because you have used it as a premise.
# 271 by Roscoe
Neet!
Thanks, Roscoe.
Without that Congressional decision to make war, the President is acting outside of the Constitutional limits placed upon the Executive branch*************************
To: exodus
If he directs the Air Force to fly sorties, isn't he acting outside of the Constitutional limits placed upon the executive branch? How about the Marine Corp (although technically they're part of the Dept of Navy)
# 274 by Isle of sanity in CA
If the sorties are flown over a country that might take offense, YES.
If I waved a gun in your face, you would be justified in stomping me into the ground. If the Presisent directs military planes to fly over a foreign nation, they are justified in declaring war against us.
Our military plane in foreign air space is an act of war. Whether by verbal declaration or outright invasion of another country, the President is not to start a war without the official support of Congress, in the form of a Declaration of War.
Got any reply to #285 & #289?
Regards,
Boot Hill
Saddam Hussein even asked permission of the United States ambassador to Iraq, and waited for her to give that permission BEFORE attacking Kuwait.*************************
To: exodus
Presuming, for the sake of argument, that is a fact -- if "permission" of the US was so desired, why did Saddam refuse to evacuate Kuwait after the US withdrew it?
If you wish to invest in the idea that Saddam was April Glaspie's lapdog, when her higher-ups overruled her and pulled on the reigns, why did he resist?
# 275 by L.N. Smithee
If you know the woman's name, you know that I'm telling the truth. I had forgotten her name.
Saddam was not April Glaspie's lapdog. He told her to let him know if the United States government, in other words, the President, had any objections to his conquest of Kuwait.
Saddam was told that the United States had no interest in Kuwait.
April Glaspie was not "overruled." She checked with the State Department and said what she was told to say. She didn't "decide" anything, she was a MESSENGER.
Saddam was greedy, true. But the United States DID give him permission to attack Kuwait.
It was a trap. Saddam fell for it.
To: exodus*************************
Got any reply to #285 & #289?
Regards,
Boot Hill
# 294 by Boot Hill
Yes, but they'll be long and drawn out.
I have to sleep now, my friend.
I'll come back later
Dear Mr. Smithee,
W is turning our country into the Evil Empire du jour, if you pardon my French. This continues the trend on which Clinton embarked while he was the prez but he is advancing a lot faster than Clinton. As you may remember, there was at least 'some' opposition to Clinton's military escapades in Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia and other minuscule and nearly-defenseless territories even though, in the end, he did receive broad support and approval of his sending flying, remotely-controlled, explosive charges into civilian 'targets' such as TV stations or a foreign leader's private residence. This was not viewed as state terrorism at the time. Subsequently, it came as a great surprise that other terrorists employed nearly-similar methods to terrorize us. Like I said, it was not easy for Clinton to advance on the path toward the Evil Empire status but he did advance. It is a lot easier for W to do so.
It was even more difficult for Clinton and his accomplices to make a mockery of our internal freedoms. While he managed to successfully shoot, gas and burn a large number of Americans early into his presidency, the Congress only reluctantly supported him on that path which forced him to select more discrete methods of controlling the citizenry.
W, on the other hand, has no problems whatsoever to re-define or criminalize any civil right or liberty for as long as the Demos agree that such rights or liberties were no longer needed or were criminal in the first place. He is happily growing our national debt and allowing our trade deficit to grow beyond what Clinton could have dreamed while in office. His spending on items that the Feds have no business spending, such as Education - therefore ensuring that the State can indoctrinate more of our children - could not have been achieved by Clinton or any Democrat. W's about to begin war on Iraq makes no sense whatsoever unless one cares more about Israel's security than one does about the U.S.A.'s - if he had the U.S. as priority #1 then he would have addressed China and North Korea which are real and growing threats, not Iraq. And W would have disarmed Pakistan and India, the 2 newest nuclear powers, while it is still easy to disarm them - note that it is very likely that Pakistan will turn into an enemy of ours at some time in the future and, while we do not know what Iraq has in its arsenal, we know for a fact that Pakistan has nukes which COULD be stolen by or given to terrorists before we could do anything to prevent it.
And, yes, W can do and is doing everything Clinton didn't dare dream because he will be giving the automatic support of his coward Republican politicians base and the enthusiastic support of his loyal Democrats. Of course, he could not do anything the Democrats dislike. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats may be hysterical bitches but they don't seem to be political cowards.
Examples: Clinton couldn't get the authority to place the destruction of our economy on the fast track while W obtained that quite easily. While there were limits in Clinton's ability to ignore our Constitutional rights, W faced practically no resistance for as long as he didn't touch abortion or anything related to homosexuality. Of course, the rights of 'other species' remain sacrosanct on W's watch. Clinton had to go through all kinds of maneuvers to bring more foreigners into the country while W is just about to make the admissions of illegal aliens our official policy - remember: making a mockery of our laws is just another way in which Mexicans coming in this country illegally are expressing their 'family values'. We could continue on this path for a long time. While W publicly challenges the U.N. to act or lose its credibility he is also re-joining the UNESCO, on corrupt organization that Reagan got us out of - atta boy W!!!
Now, perhaps someone could tell me which 'conservative' items did W implement so far. Other than a minuscule tax cut set to expire shortly after it takes effect. I mean, it's true, he didn't have sex with interns in WH and this IS conservative. Is there any other W accomplishment worth noting lately? And, please, don't make bombing Afghanistan a 'conservative' achievement. It has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism - it's a natural reaction.
You obviously cannot define American--one thing it is NOT is giving up our rights like cowards and invading countries without provacation because you think the sky is falling.
Well, at least the quality of your thought has gone up from the post I answered. You are now at the level FR has become with its goon squads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.