Rahm Emanuel wants you!

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2008
Rahm Emanuel wants you!
202
Sat, 11-15-2008 - 3:43pm

From a 2006 interview on his mandatory civil service plan...


I think he had it at 18, but we were saying

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 5:49pm

Ah... what threat?


See any threatening notes from Saddam after that resolution? See any missiles fly our way? I seem to recall the Iraqis saying they would allow inspectors back in.


Sorry, none of that supports an invasion. Not one ounce of it.

Full length fiction: http://llhaesa.org/ (pronounced la.hay.ess.sa)



Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2008
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 6:44pm
Oh sure, what was I thinking? Saddam Hussein would never hurt anyone.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2008
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 6:48pm

>OK...here's the scenario...a country with presumed WMDs presents a threat to the US and it's allies via direct attack, or by potentially arming terrorists...<

>>> Except the powers that be KNEW Iraq didn't have WMDs. Remember, they lied to Congress.

Really? I hadn't heard that either Clinton or Bush had been convicted of perjury...oops, Clinton was, but it had nothing to do with Iraq or WMDs.

>This rogue country has defied UN orders to disarm and disclose and refuses to allow mandated inspections.<

>>> Ya know, Korea does have WMDs. Korea refuses to disarm and disclose and allow mandated inspections. Yet we didn't think about invading there now did we?

I don't know...do ya think the fact that we haven't exhausted a decade on every other option could be a consideration?

>What would YOU do to ensure the security of the US and it's allies?<

>>> Not get ourselves up to our eyeteeth in debt to CHINA to fight 2 wars.

So you believe that not defending our national security in order to save money will ensure our national security? LOL!

>>> How about secure the situation in Afghanistan, make it a safe place, before trying to overthrow another government.

Hmmm...so you're saying that we have to make Afghanistan a "safe place"...when it's never been a "safe place" before we can address Iran's nuclear threat or Russia's saber rattling? Giving our enemies free rein to do whatever they want, because we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, doesn't sound like a very good policy to keep the country safe.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2008
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 7:08pm
What was that, a DNC talking point memo?
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 7:15pm

Nice try... I do not follow any party line. And I can cite a herd of examples.



Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 8:28pm

>Really? I hadn't heard that either Clinton or Bush had been convicted of perjury...oops, Clinton was, but it had nothing to do with Iraq or WMDs.<


Last time I checked, Clinton wasn't calling for an invasion of Iraq.


>I don't know...do ya think the fact that we haven't exhausted a decade on every other option could be a consideration?<


And how many DECADES have we exhausted in Korea?


>So you believe that not defending our national security in order to save money will ensure our national security? LOL!<


I believe that borrowing money to fund the invasion of a country that was not a clear and present danger to us is ALSo a national security risk. And so does George Will.


>Hmmm...so you're saying that we have to make Afghanistan a "safe place"...when it's never been a "safe place" before we can address Iran's nuclear threat or Russia's saber rattling?<


Are you proposing that we should start WWIII? Or perhaps revive the bad old days of the cold war?


>Giving our enemies free rein to do whatever they want, because we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, doesn't sound like a very good policy to keep the country safe.<


And rather instead that we fight two wars, on two fronts, not effectively fighting either of them, not completing our goals at all, is a good image to present to our enemies?

The 3 Day

Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 8:38pm
I do have to wonder if there is a connection between the facts you present, by which I am referring to the 25%. It could just be an amazing coincidence, but it does make me wonder. I never really bought that the surge was 'successful' it just reminds me of what happens when you put an increased police presence on a street corner - the crime moves to another corner until the police move to that corner. So it gives the appearance of being successful without the unnecessary paperwork of actual success.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 8:43pm
Well yes it actually does matter if he had ties or not. It was dangerous to set the precedence of 'preemptive' attack. What is to stop a country from attacking us on that basis in the future? Absolutely nothing. We have the facade of safety - we have never been nor ever will be truly safe as long as we go around provoking other countries. Oh I know you won't agree with me - but that doesn't really matter to me. I can see you are set in your thoughts.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Tue, 11-18-2008 - 10:34pm

The surge will prove an illusion. By what measure do we call Iraq a success? Is it by having responsible government, a thriving economy, equality for all Iraqis? Or is it lack of violence attributable to warring factions?


The Kurds still wish for their own country, women are fearful of leaving their homes without covering from head to toe, the government is weak, the economy sucks, and the latent hatred between ethnicities still exists.


Iraq is not a settled deal, nor will it be in ten years. The ramifications of our invasion will still be felt decades from now.


I am sure what happens now will be assigned by the right as the fault of Obama, much like revisionist history blames the left for our failure in Vietnam, failing to recognise the geopolitical realities of that time, and the simple reality is that those who opposed the Vietnam war saved this country from much worse. Two presidents fell from office due to that war and the efforts of the left, and one would have thought the lesson learned. Wrong. And if the right blames Obama for what follows our withdrawal, expect one day they will be all too ready to mess around in another country, the lesson unlearned still.

Full length fiction: http://llhaesa.org/ (pronounced la.hay.ess.sa)



Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2008
Wed, 11-19-2008 - 2:49pm

>As for your question...the President, the Congress the UN and our allies ALL perceived Iraq to be an imminent threat to our/their national security. Here, listen to the leaders of your party in their own words...<

>>> The question of war with Iraq was posed to Congress using falsified data.

Damn those Democrats for falsifying the data! LOL! …note the dates…

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998

"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."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

"Dear Mr. President: ... We 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 Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sincerely,

John Kerry, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998

HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001

"Dear Mr. President:

The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.

The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."

Sincerely,

Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)

Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas)
Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina)
Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)
Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)
Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)
Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama)

Letter to President Bush
December 5, 2001

Pages