"It appears to me that Sept. 11 was an excuse to invade Iraq for oil." Yea and there are those who conspire that 9/11 was an inside job by the US govt. in order to take over the Middle East and it's oil. Nop planes actually hit the WTC & Pentagon. You in with that crowd Mr. Peer? ZZZZZZZZZ

"Why are President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney still in power?' Did you fall asleep in school and miss that part Mr. Peer?

Pretty amateur stuff, run out of LTEs today N&R?

Nice rant from a Neoliberal.

I'd wager Jr. has no problem with the confiscation of one's property being seized and turned over to another in a vast vote buying scheme, as long as it's "for the children", right Jr?

So what do you think we went into Iraq over, Dan?

Here's my guess:

You said .. planes driven into the WTC and the Pentagon .. OK. Well those planes were not from Iraq.

You'll now say .. Saddam had WMD's, or so most thought, and they had al Qaida training camps .. OK.

Others say .. Saddam was making noise about nuclear capability, he was sitting on top of all that oilm and he was within spitting distance of Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of the world's daily oil travels every day. Combine all that and you have a SERIOUS threat .. arguable well beyond the 3,000 Americans that died on 9-11.

Noe -- what's your reference about confiscating property to buy votes?

There is no reference in the constitution about legalized theft of one's property. That's the point.
:]

Robert Peer: "The last 30 years have seen a most marked decline in the principles of that great document."

My favorite example of deviancy from the Constitution during that period is the 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision, a five-to-four Supreme Court decision that forced taxpayers to fund schooling for children illegally in the United States. (So many expansions of judicial power and examples of Constitutional deviation are five-to-four decisions.)

Plyler was a major step in the legitimization of mass illegal immigration. Message to illegal aliens: bring your families to the U. S. American citizens (and their children) will have to bear the burden of overstressed public schools.

A piece I wrote on "Plyler v. Doe" is highly ranked on Google for the phrase "Plyler v. Doe" (just underneath law site references). See: "Plyler v. Doe (1982) Transforms American Schools":
http://www.ednews.org/articles/85/1/Plyler-v-Doe-1982-Transforms-American-Public-Schools/Page1.html

This is one more reason elections matter.

In an era of make-it-up-as-you-go-along, "evolving," "changing," "morphing" "living" document theories of Constitutional interpretation, a voter has to decide if he or she wants an unelected ACLU "creative" type judge deciding how we should live and a range of social issues or someone who believes the Constitution can be changed only by the consent of the people through the Amendment process.

Five judges or the American people? Who should run the country?

Neo - so your just talking trash? Makin' stuff up to be provocative? Who is stealing Whom's?

Tom - I'll try to find time to read your article .. but cut the "an unelected ACLU "creative" type judge" crap.

Yea there are some. There are also some unelected 'creative' Neocon judges.

Judges come in all stripes .. some are elected directly by the people, some are appointed, some are there for a limited period, some for life. There are more levels / types / terms / paths / etc. within judgeship than you can imagine ... so to focus on one of that diverse category is disingenuous and deliberately divisive - maybe we should start a D&DD rhetorical category.

Tom:

Your statement "Five judges or the American people? Who should run the country?" sums up the 2000 election very nicely.

Neo:

Please refer to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. constitution.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

JDR: "Judges come in all stripes .. some are elected directly by the people, some are appointed, some are there for a limited period, some for life . . . to focus on one of that diverse category is disingenuous and deliberately divisive "

Talk about disingenous!

The judges who tell us what our changing, evolving, morphing "mystery" Constitution means --- at the Supreme Court level (and secondarily, the appellate level) --- are unelected, appointed by the President.

If we want a lot more of these creative, make-it-up-as-you-go-along types sitting on federal courts, we need to elect Democrats.

Whether to put such judges on our courts or not IS a divisive issue. The news media, being universally left liberal in this state, is highly unlikely to make what's at stake clear to the public.

The Internet makes it possible to get some of these realities past these traditional information/opinion gatekeepers --- which, apparently, makes some on this message board uncomfortable.

Yes, I've read that Mr. Ribar. The
'provide for the general welfare' is interpreted by the liberals as providing everything from government sponsored child daycare to government funded abortion to cash for which they are free to buy nose candy if they so desire.

`

First of all, the headline writers and the N&R nailed this one. It says it all.

Secondly, there is no such animal as a "neoliberal". It is just more drivel from Bush's local 'buttboy'.

`

`

This is what Dan, neo, and others should view--IN ITS ENTIRETY!

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=b9c7a6d8-3453-47a9-b211-e498c8722cb2&p=Source_Countdown&t=m5

Maybe they'd understand a little better. Of course, probably not.

`

Neo:

Your earlier statement that "there is no reference in the constitution about legalized theft of property" suggested some unfamiliarity with article I, section 8 and Congress' authority to raise taxes and make expenditures on our behalf. It now sounds like you simply want to repudiate that part of the constitution for personal gain--uh, just as the letter writer states.

By any chance, are you secretly in cahoots with letter writer to bolster his case? It would really explain a lot :)

`

Dave,

When you "corner" neo, he just spouts drivel about Canadian flags, or he disappears. Don't expect much and you won't be disappointed.

`

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE,

That's an odd accusation to make. Or, at the least, an odd one for you to make. I'm still waiting for your clarification on the statement you'd made on August 27 regarding acceptance of continuing deaths in Iraq because the president needed to "stew in his own juice" (your words).

It was, as I recall, not long after I'd initially asked what you meant that you accused me of being a member of the GOP. This was before you began multiple postings concerning Larry Craig on a letter's forum discussing withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

The topic is back, and the question remains unanswered. I submit that the democrats need this war as much as the republicans do.

I await your clarification.

Thanks,
Roger

`

R Bennet,
There may in fact, be Democrats who 'need' this war. That is sad, but not as sad as the President and the GOP hardliners who have avoided compromise on this and other critical issues. Bush no doubt 'needs' this war, as he has built his entire legacy upon it. It is HIS war. I say that just as Vietnam became "Johnson's War".

I would argue that if Congress does not take the needed action, then they, too, have the blood of Americans on their hands. The bravest in the congress are the ones who did not vote for the war, and have continued to swim upstream. That would include Nebraska's Chuck Hagel as well as many Democrats.

If I were advising Bush, I would tell him to drop the "cowboy" bullsh_t and begin talking to those in the region who have the most to lose with a broken Iraq. Do as Colin Powell said, and bring in military trainers from Muslim countries rather than our non Arabic speaking military. Stop the arrogant, condescending tone toward those who disagree, as they love America too. Focus on the real world and throw politics to the wind---be a Statesman! Why? Because, Mr. President, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Trying to move congress is like pushing a rope. The framers of the Constitution wanted it that way. The President, on the other hand, has command of the military and has the bully pulpit. I say begin to use it as an American and not as a REPUBLICAN. Start allowing non-GOP people in to the President's speeches and appearances. Try to heal with the remaining time in your term. Try to understand what you've done and try to fix it.

R. Bennet, I don't know exactly what your beef is with me, but I hope I've given you plenty of ammo so you can take better aim next time.

`

`

By the way, R. Bennet, I hope you viewed the clip linked in my post above.

`

The invasion-for-oil/Halliburton meme is so stupid.

Bush went into Iraq not because of WMDs (the best sell, he thought, at the UN) or because Saddam tried to kill his father, but because he thought he could create a functional democracy that would serve as a counterweight/alternative to Islamic radicalism. As it turns out, he was mostly wrong: Iraq lacks the civic capital that liberal democracies require. Perhaps a law-and-order democracy might have worked if we had quashed disorder in a more quashing way, or if we had built on Baathist institutional structures. We'll never know.

That's the direction we're turning now with some limited successes, and it may not be too late yet. Or Iraq may just be too screwed up to sustain even the most pragmatic version of Bush's idealistic and arguably utopian vision.

But in its pathological conjuring of a malignant Bush secretly pulling the strings for his oil cronies, this letter is far too representative of the BDS.

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE,

Don't worry, there is no beef. Don't take inquiries as an affront. These are only discussions. We are debating why, with Democrats so against the continuing deaths and costs of the war, they don't do everything in their power to stop it.

I did watch the clip. All of it, as you'd requested. There were valid points made. Please note that it is a commentary, and carries exactly the same weight as any other commentator's. And note that we are commenting now.

To understand what's really happening you have to interpret the news for yourself.

Remember that no political body stands alone. They each rely on the other, and our president can't accomplish his goals without the willing participation of the other branches. I agree that Congress is difficult to steer. But not impossible. But I think they are jockeying for political position more than for the benefit of the soldiers. If the soldiers mattered they would already be home. The officials that refused to fund them would be risking their next election, but the soldiers would be safe.

One party can be accused of wanting blood-for-oil while the other wants blood-for-votes. Why else has the war not been de-funded by now and all of our troops brought home? Why be comfortable with deaths/maimings/psychological problems just so Bush can "stew in his own juice?" How is that not completely political?

Roger

Tom:

If you are limiting the discussion to the 9 member of the Supreme Court, then you are excluding - I dunno - 99-44/100% of the Judges that sit on benches. These other 99-44/100% are are the judges to whom I was referring - because these other 99-44/100% are usually the "activist judges" the discussion focus' upon.

I thought "in all stripes .. some are elected directly by the people, some are appointed, some are there for a limited period, some for life" would have made that distinction obvious. If not, sorry for not being clear.

Brian444:

It's hard to argue that oil wasn't a factor at all. At a minimum, oil is a vital strategic interest to the U.S. It's doubtful that we would be nearly so cozy with Saudi Arabia or as concerned about Iraq and Iran if it weren't for oil.

Kevin Phillips has made a strong case in his recent books, American Dynasty and American Theocracy, that U.S. diplomatic and security policy has had an oil focus. And that that focus has increased as U.S. supplies dry up.

In that respect, Iraq was particularly important because wars, sanctions, and mismanagement over time had meant that most of its reserves were (and are) still in the ground. Also, if Iraq had managed to slip out from under U.N. sanctions, it's very likely that the U.S. would have been cut out of that market.

Phillips probably takes the case too far, making oil "the reason." Clearly there are lots of reasons for the invasion, including Iraq's previous bellicose behavior, Saddam's history of weapons development and deceptions, and his brutal repression of Kurds and Shiites. The question to ask though is whether anyone seriously believes that we be in Iraq right now if it didn't have oil.

One more thing: WHICH news media are you referring to as far as "being universally left liberal?" The Washington Times? Fox News?

How about these .. all from "Christian News and Views", who are "Earnestly Contending For The Faith Using the AUTHORIZED VERSION of the Holy Bible". Surely they have the only correct answer.

NewsMax.com America's News Page
The Cybercast News Service
FOXNews.com
Jane's Information Group
Jewish World Review
The Jerusalem Post
The Sydney Morning Herald

Again .. there are all kinds out there, and the truth is usually near the middle.

Brian:

It may be Bushie went into Iraq "to create a functional democracy " .. but I'v have not read that was innitially "was a counterweight/alternative to Islamic radicalism". Where is your data coming from?

As for the "pathological conjuring .. secretly pulling the strings for .. oil " .. Please tell me what are our "vital interests in the Gulf"

"We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf."

http://newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

"Bush went into Iraq .... because he thought he could create a functional democracy that would serve as a counterweight/alternative to Islamic radicalism."

Brian,

Doesn't that sound like the dumbest reason you've ever heard of for going to war? No wonder he went with WMDs.

... and why didn't he do that in Somolia .. a country begging for direction and without any Brutal Dictator to oust.

Darfur, anyone? Heck they even have oil.
Why not Venezuella .. TWO BIRDS .. make that THREE with one shot - Democracy Now, No More Chavez, and .. OIL.

It's really hard to make this sound like a bright move.

One more thing .. remember Iran is in fact a Functional Democracy.