funny things to do on a bike

[Steve]

On 6/9/04 7:28 PM, in article CHPxc.6250$wS2.259@okepread03, "Jim West"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
>> administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
>> an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.
>
> Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:
>
> <http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm>
>
> Any comments?

Yea..............
What part, and I am sure this is the part you are referring to, is not
correct??

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary
actions 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.

 

[Hunrobe]

>"G.T." [email protected]

wrote:

>You're scaring me. Really scaring me.
>
>Greg

You scare easily.

 

[Hunrobe]

>Jim West [email protected]

wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
>> administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
>> an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.
>
>Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:
>
><http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm>
>
>Any comments?


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information
available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:


(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful
means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the
United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary
actions 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.


Damn, my high school English teachers would have fits over your implication and
they were *Democrats*! <g>
The form and structure is quite clear and allows for only one correct
interpretation. Read it again and you'll notice two things.
First, the semicolon followed by the word "and" where (1) is separated from (2)
makes it clear that (1) does not rely on (2). All by itself (1) is sufficient
reason for the actions taken as is (2).
Second, (2) describes two separate categories of legitimate targets-
international terrorists and terrorist organizations and entities that aided
the 9/11 attacks in some fashion. Entities in the latter group are, by
definition, members of the former but the reverse is neither implied nor
stated.

People may not agree that US actions in Iraq are justified by any of the above
and that's their right. It is *not* their right though to take one statement
("... persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.") completely out of context,
ignore the basic rules of English grammar, twist it into something other than
it is, and claim it is somehow proof of bad faith. Those that would do that
remind me of the most famous quote of a politician-
"That depends on what "is" is." <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[michael]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.09/index.html

--
michael
"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BCED3AEF.20B10%[email protected]...
>
>
>
> On 6/9/04 7:28 PM, in article CHPxc.6250$wS2.259@okepread03, "Jim West"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey
wrote:
> >>
> >> And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
> >> administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
> >> an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.
> >
> > Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:
> >
> > <http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm>
> >
> > Any comments?
>
> Yea..............
> What part, and I am sure this is the part you are referring to, is not
> correct??
>
> (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is
consistent
> with the United States and other countries continuing to take the
necessary
> actions 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.
>

 

[Tim McNamara]

Steve <[email protected]> writes:

> (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is
> consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to
> take the necessary actions 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.

Acting in self defense is fine. Pre-emptively acting in self-defense
(e.g., killing someone before they can commit a crime) requires
accurate, even unimpeachable, evidence. Engaging in terrorism to
prevent terrorism is just plain nuts. Breaking the law to enforce the
law is always tempting, but ultimately self-defeating. The Bush
Administration, having no rational moral compass and relying instead
on half-understood populist appeals justified by delusions and
paranois, is caught in the quagmire of its errors.

 

[Jim West]

In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey wrote:
> Jim West <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>> And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
>>> administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
>>> an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.
>>
>>Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:
>>
>><http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm>
>>
>>Any comments?
>
> "Consistent with". Nuff said, IMHO.

I thought it would be. The rest of us might wonder why he felt compelled
to mention 9/11 at all if it was not being used as an excuse for war.

In fact, one might wonder why he needed to write a letter to Congress
at all at that time. A cynical person might speculate that maybe certain
members of Congress were begining to realize that the evidence that
Iraq was an immediate threat to the US was extremely weak, and they
needed a reminder that the conventional wisdom at that time was that
failing to support an invasion would be political suicide since the
majority of US citizens still thought that Iraq was directly involved
in 9/11. I'm sure glad I'm not cyncial enough for that to have occurred
to me, though.

 

[Hunrobe]

>Jim West [email protected]

wrote in part:

>
>In fact, one might wonder why he needed to write a letter to Congress
>at all at that time. A cynical person might speculate that ....
<remainder snipped>

Of course, all those speculations are completely pointless since the reason the
letter was sent was to comply with federal laws that *require* the Executive to
formally inform Congress when emergency powers are exercised.
It's interesting how in politics partisanship so often masquerades as
pragmatism or even cynicism. <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt