:: Da' Militant One's Lair ::

:: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 ::

MilitantOne (Guest)

Re: Osama, Osama, whereforth art thou?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there no one out there who will stand up and say very loudly, "Where is Osama and what have you done with him?" to the Bush Administration and the right wing who excoriated Bill Clinton for not doing enough to capture him. Now that Bush has been ineffective the chorus of criticism against Bill clinton has died down. Democrats make the case! The purpose of the incursion into Afghanistan was to seek out Al Quaeda and Bin Laden. There has been a dearth of Al Quaeda body bags and no Osama. To kill a snake you make destroy the head. The Bush Administration fails time and time again:the economy, tariffs, budget deficits, war, Middle East tensions. Yet, only Al Gore has shown the courage to stand up and say that "the emperor has no clothes!" If the democrats do not make gains in the House and Senate this year they have only themselves to blame. Tom and Dick stand up and ask George, "Where is Osama?"

:: DM1 8/27/2002 07:33:00 PM [+] ::
...

Blast From the Past

October 2001 response to some Knucklehead from the Washington Times on "Clinton-Hating".

It is very disgraceful the way you and other "Clinton Haters" can not let it go. My memory is not as short as your integrity. As I remember things, every time Clinton engaged in any retaliation or attack against terrorists or dictators, people like you said that he was trying to divert attention from his scandals. So much for unity and standing behind your president. Let's go back to Kosovo. Here is an excerpt from an article dated 4/29/99:

"WASHINGTON -- In a sharp challenge to President Clinton, the House voted Wednesday to bar the President from sending ground troops to Yugoslavia without Congressional approval and then on a tie vote refused to support NATO air strikes against Serbia.
The votes came during a day of heated and sometimes anguished speeches that showcased deep divisions in Congress over the escalating conflict in the Balkans. The all-day session marked the first formal Congressional debate since NATO began its bombing campaign on March 24 to drive the forces of the Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic, out of Kosovo. The Senate had voted on March 23 to approve the air strikes.

The House voted 249 to 180 to require the President to seek Congressional approval for ground forces. Forty-five Democrats and an independent joined 203 Republicans to support the measure. Sixteen Republicans and 164 Democrats opposed the bill.

But the surprise came when the House finished its deliberations this evening by failing to pass a Democratic resolution intended to give symbolic support to the President's air campaign. The measure failed in a tie vote of 213 to 213 even though Speaker J. Dennis Hastert threw his support behind it. In all, 31 Republicans broke with their party to back the air campaign and 26 Democrats voted against it. "

Wait there's more. How about May 1999:

WASHINGTON (May 2, 1999 5:34 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - President Clinton welcomed Yugoslavia's dramatic release Sunday of three U.S. soldiers, but his administration rebuffed a request for a pause in the airstrikes and for a meeting between Slobodan Milosevic and the president until the Serb leader agrees to all NATO demands.

"This gesture ... of goodwill cannot obliterate or overcome the stench of evil and death that has been inflicted in those killing fields in Kosovo," Defense Secretary William Cohen said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Cohen and other U.S. officials sounded a hardline, suggesting Milosevic had simply engaged in a "PR stunt" in releasing the American prisoners. But the administration was coming under pressure from a variety of sources to seek a diplomatic end to the crisis - from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who arranged the soldiers' release, to two top Republican leaders in Congress.

"As Jesse Jackson would say, 'Give peace a chance here,"' Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said on CNN's "Late Edition." "There seems to be some momentum. There's seems to be an opportunity. We should seize this moment."

House Majority Whip Tom Delay, R-Texas, told "Fox News Sunday" that Clinton should meet Milosevic to negotiate an end to "this failed policy of bombing for diplomacy."

How about this one:


In Washington, some congressmen are calling for an immediate withdrawal of American forces from the Balkans. "The U.S. involvement should end now. We never should have been involved in the first place," a spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) told CNS.

Paul and 17 other Members of Congress – two Democrats and fifteen Republicans – are suing President Clinton in federal court for allegedly violating the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act by ordering air strikes in Yugoslavia.

House Majority Whip Rep. Tom DeLay was also blunt on the bombing, as he addressed the House today.

"I don't think we should be bombing in the Balkans. I don't think the present military presence should be maintained," said DeLay.

DeLay also reiterated his support for a measure introduced by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) calling for the withdrawal of "any U.S. forces presently engaged in the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia."

Here's another one:

WASHINGTON, May 6 (IPS) - Despite six weeks of non-stop NATO bombing operations against Yugoslavia, the US Congress has been unable to form any consensus either for or against Washington's biggest military engagement since the 1991 Gulf War.

For the administration and the Atlantic alliance, the lack of clear Congressional support for the campaign was ominous, given the failure so far to achieve any of their war aims on the ground and the legendary impatience of the US public.

Votes taken in both the Senate and the House of Representatives - as well as ad hoc diplomatic efforts over the past week - exposed deep divisions among both Democrats and Republicans over the war and the way it was being fought.

''Not only can we (Congress) not speak with one voice on Kosovo,'' said one aide to a key Democratic Senator. ''We can't even speak with three or four or five. People are all over the map on this.''

Those divisions, both ideological and partisan, reflected differences between interventionists and anti-interventionists, isolationists and internationalists, and realists and idealists in both parties.

They also reflected frustrations by many Republicans over their failure to dent the popularity of President Bill Clinton.

For example, right-wing Republicans who back the military at any cost - particularly when US troops are engaged in combat - have done the most to undermine support for the NATO campaign, or ''Clinton's War,'' as they refer to it.

Led by Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the driving force behind last year's unsuccessful impeachment effort against Clinton, these forces believed that the Kosovo intervention would end in disaster and seal the president's disgrace.

Their position infuriated both the Democrats and much of the Republican foreign-policy establishment. The lack of support for the war defied the ''rally-'round-the-flag'' impulse which normally sweeps Congress once US troops are committed to action.

The fact, however, that until Wednesday, when two Apache helicopter pilots were killed in a training mission in Albania, no US soldiers had died in the conflict appears to have tempered that reflex.

Congressional incoherence on Kosovo became clear last week when the House cast three key votes on US strategy. The first - which requires Clinton to seek prior Congressional approval before committing ground forces to Kosovo - passed 249-180, with 45 Democrats joining the vast majority of Republicans on the vote.

That result, which affirmed the constitutional role of Congress in war-making, was expected. But then, in a stunning blow to Clinton's policy, the House voted 213-213 to reject a resolution authorising US involvement in the current NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia.

In that vote, 26 Democrats joined some 190 Republicans to defeat the measure, which was virtually identical to one passed by the Republican-led Senate five weeks before. While House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the titular leader of the Republicans, voted for the measure, DeLay led the opposition, actively lobbying members on the floor.

''The extreme right wing of the Republican party remains in control of that party,'' commented an angry and amazed Minority Leader Dick Gephardt after the vote.

But then, having just voted against the air war, the House rejected a third resolution - to withdraw all US military forces from the war within 30 days - 139-209, with a majority of Republicans, however, voting to pull out.

In yet another reversal, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee the following day more than doubled a six- billion-dollar request by Clinton to fund US participation in the air war and humanitarian relief for Kosovar refugees.

That bill, which is now worth 12.9 billion dollars, is expected to pass this week.

''Congress Set to Provide Money, But No Guidance, for Kosovo Mission,'' is the way the authoritative 'Congressional Weekly' headlined the votes, although some editorial writers and many Democrats were considerably harsher in assessing the House's performance.

The incoherence, especially among Republicans, has not been confined to the House. Earlier this week, the leadership of both parties used procedural manoeuvres to prevent a vote on a resolution that would authorise Clinton to use ''all necessary force'' to achieve US and NATO's war aims in Yugoslavia.

The resolution was sponsored by Republican Senator and presidential aspirant John McCain and two prominent foreign-policy Democrats, all of whom had emerged as among the war's foremost defenders since the air campaign began Mar 24.

The idea behind the resolution was to empower Clinton to move towards a ground war in Yugoslavia without having to seek further authority from Congress.

Fearing the resolution's defeat, the administration worked actively to get it off the agenda. But the debate surrounding the resolution highlighted deep ideological and partisan differences within the Senate.

Like his right-wing colleagues in the House, for example, Majority Leader Trent Lott repeatedly referred to the NATO operation as ''Clinton's war.'' And, echoing anti-war Democrats of a previous generation, many Republicans said the proposal amounted to a ''Gulf of Tonkin'' resolution which in 1964 gave President Lyndon Johnson the authority to carry out the disastrous Vietnam War.

In an ironic reversal, many Democrats, including some who participated in the anti-Vietnam War movement, argued that Washington's and NATO's credibility was at stake in Kosovo and withholding military options at this point would only undermine that credibility and encourage Serbia to resist.

That reversal highlighted a trend within both parties which has become increasingly pronounced since the end of the Cold War.

Democrats, the ''doves'' accused of isolationism for their opposition to the Vietnam War, have become interventionist ''hawks'' in the post-Cold War era.

Republicans, the hawks of the Cold War, on the other hand, have become increasingly opposed to Washington's overseas entanglements, even as they support big increases in US military spending. (END/IPS/jl/mk/99)

WASHINGTON, May 6 (IPS) - Despite six weeks of non-stop NATO bombing operations against Yugoslavia, the US Congress has been unable to form any consensus either for or against Washington's biggest military engagement since the 1991 Gulf War.

For the administration and the Atlantic alliance, the lack of clear Congressional support for the campaign was ominous, given the failure so far to achieve any of their war aims on the ground and the legendary impatience of the US public.

Votes taken in both the Senate and the House of Representatives - as well as ad hoc diplomatic efforts over the past week - exposed deep divisions among both Democrats and Republicans over the war and the way it was being fought.

''Not only can we (Congress) not speak with one voice on Kosovo,'' said one aide to a key Democratic Senator. ''We can't even speak with three or four or five. People are all over the map on this.''

Those divisions, both ideological and partisan, reflected differences between interventionists and anti-interventionists, isolationists and internationalists, and realists and idealists in both parties.

They also reflected frustrations by many Republicans over their failure to dent the popularity of President Bill Clinton.

For example, right-wing Republicans who back the military at any cost - particularly when US troops are engaged in combat - have done the most to undermine support for the NATO campaign, or ''Clinton's War,'' as they refer to it.

Led by Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the driving force behind last year's unsuccessful impeachment effort against Clinton, these forces believed that the Kosovo intervention would end in disaster and seal the president's disgrace.

Their position infuriated both the Democrats and much of the Republican foreign-policy establishment. The lack of support for the war defied the ''rally-'round-the-flag'' impulse which normally sweeps Congress once US troops are committed to action.

The fact, however, that until Wednesday, when two Apache helicopter pilots were killed in a training mission in Albania, no US soldiers had died in the conflict appears to have tempered that reflex.

Congressional incoherence on Kosovo became clear last week when the House cast three key votes on US strategy. The first - which requires Clinton to seek prior Congressional approval before committing ground forces to Kosovo - passed 249-180, with 45 Democrats joining the vast majority of Republicans on the vote.

That result, which affirmed the constitutional role of Congress in war-making, was expected. But then, in a stunning blow to Clinton's policy, the House voted 213-213 to reject a resolution authorising US involvement in the current NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia.

In that vote, 26 Democrats joined some 190 Republicans to defeat the measure, which was virtually identical to one passed by the Republican-led Senate five weeks before. While House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the titular leader of the Republicans, voted for the measure, DeLay led the opposition, actively lobbying members on the floor.

''The extreme right wing of the Republican party remains in control of that party,'' commented an angry and amazed Minority Leader Dick Gephardt after the vote.

But then, having just voted against the air war, the House rejected a third resolution - to withdraw all US military forces from the war within 30 days - 139-209, with a majority of Republicans, however, voting to pull out.

In yet another reversal, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee the following day more than doubled a six- billion-dollar request by Clinton to fund US participation in the air war and humanitarian relief for Kosovar refugees.

That bill, which is now worth 12.9 billion dollars, is expected to pass this week.

''Congress Set to Provide Money, But No Guidance, for Kosovo Mission,'' is the way the authoritative 'Congressional Weekly' headlined the votes, although some editorial writers and many Democrats were considerably harsher in assessing the House's performance.

The incoherence, especially among Republicans, has not been confined to the House. Earlier this week, the leadership of both parties used procedural manoeuvres to prevent a vote on a resolution that would authorise Clinton to use ''all necessary force'' to achieve US and NATO's war aims in Yugoslavia.

The resolution was sponsored by Republican Senator and presidential aspirant John McCain and two prominent foreign-policy Democrats, all of whom had emerged as among the war's foremost defenders since the air campaign began Mar 24.

The idea behind the resolution was to empower Clinton to move towards a ground war in Yugoslavia without having to seek further authority from Congress.

Fearing the resolution's defeat, the administration worked actively to get it off the agenda. But the debate surrounding the resolution highlighted deep ideological and partisan differences within the Senate.

Like his right-wing colleagues in the House, for example, Majority Leader Trent Lott repeatedly referred to the NATO operation as ''Clinton's war.'' And, echoing anti-war Democrats of a previous generation, many Republicans said the proposal amounted to a ''Gulf of Tonkin'' resolution which in 1964 gave President Lyndon Johnson the authority to carry out the disastrous Vietnam War.

In an ironic reversal, many Democrats, including some who participated in the anti-Vietnam War movement, argued that Washington's and NATO's credibility was at stake in Kosovo and withholding military options at this point would only undermine that credibility and encourage Serbia to resist.

That reversal highlighted a trend within both parties which has become increasingly pronounced since the end of the Cold War.

Democrats, the ''doves'' accused of isolationism for their opposition to the Vietnam War, have become interventionist ''hawks'' in the post-Cold War era.

Republicans, the hawks of the Cold War, on the other hand, have become increasingly opposed to Washington's overseas entanglements, even as they support big increases in US military spending. (END/IPS/jl/mk/99)

So as you can see Clinton was opposed by the republican congress at almost every turn. The likes of Tom Delay and Trent Lott did as much to further the cause of those who want to destroy America by thwarting Clinton at almost every turn. Don't worry, I will send you more examples concerning Clinton's fight on terrorism. The feckless nature of the republican congress concerning Kosovo is still vivid for me so I used it as my first argument. So don't tell me what Clinton would have done. Instead tell me about the unpatriotic nature of the republican congress in supporting the president when he needed them to rally around him and the country! I understand that this is impossible for people like you. Facts be damned!

:: DM1 8/23/2002 12:25:00 PM [+] ::
...

Memo to Bush/Cheney Supporters:

Dear Sheep,

You are reaping what you sowed. Incompetence, erosion of civil liberties, economic unstability, and on and on. Keep telling yourselves that he is doing a "wonderful" job. I guess only liberals and black folk should be held to some standards. Let's see a black kid trying to get into college must be "qualified" yet you voted for a man who has never had any meaningful accomplishments save for the last name of Bush. Well he is not his father and he is wholly unqualified for the job. "Keep looking for the pony in a room full of sh-t." How many times did Bush supporters acknowledge that Al Gore was smarter. How many times were they dismissve of Gore as a "know-it-all". Was it in April that Bush was seen carrying the book "BIAS" by Bernie Goldberg. For all of his lack of knowledge about everything, he's reading "BIAS" instead of "pick any scholarly subject. Basically, with the elevation of Bush to the presidency, being mediocre, white and conservative with a famous last name, means that you squandered any credibility on what makes anybody qualified for anything. Disgraceful, yes. Surprising, no. I knew that you were frauds all the time.

Da' Militant One

:: DM1 8/17/2002 07:55:00 PM [+] ::
...

Old Memo to Editor - Washington Times Editorial Page:

Subject: Emmett Tyrell's rant on Bill Clinton
(You can pick any of his columns)

Editor,

Talk about nerve! R Emmett Tyrrell has done it again. For a man who knows that he did every thing he could to derail Bill Clinton, Mr. Tyrrell should just sink back into the ooze. "Had he told the truth" he still would have been hounded by the like of R.E.T. At no time did he or anyone in his cabal support President Clinton. At no time did he or his kind rally behind their president. No they just waged a "jihad" for eight years and detracted their readers from what was really important. Imagine if the republican Congress at the time had spent as much time or terrorism as they did on Clinton's sex life. Imagine is they had heeded Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen's Op-ed piece on terrorism and the imminent threat. Imagine if folks like Tyrrell had supported Bill Clinton one-tenth as much as democrats are supporting Bush. Granted we are having a crisis, but we had some crises during the Clinton Administration. Yet, the pages of the Washington Times continued to attack the former president with a zeal that bordered on pathological. Bill Clinton lied about oral sex plain and simple. That fact has caused his problems. He was not cited legally for "Whitewater, Travelgate, and the rest. Now Bill Clinton probably lied to protect his own hide, but he also did not want to give his enemies the satisfaction. In the end, he should have told the truth about the Lewinsky matter regardless of the embarassment.

That Tyrrell and his ilk continue to bash Clinton almost a year after he left office shows me the hatred and bitterness that they have always harbored. Sure Clinton had crooked friends and a lot of them, but as I recall Clinton left office millions of dollars in debt. Yeah, what a smart crook! I have some crooked friends and while I keep my distance I have had an association with them. If I was president, the media would be sure to note the connection whether I had had contact with them yesterday or several years ago. No if Mr. Tyrrell and his kind don't like Clinton for his association with criminals then show some consistency. Both Bush and Cheney have been arrested several times in their lives for various offenses. As a mattern of fact, I believe that their "rap sheets" are longer than either Clinton's or Gore's. I know this because if it was not so the Washington Times would have reported that fact! Should Cheney and Bush be shunned and ridiculed? I don't think so and neither does Tyrrell. If he persists in deriding Bill Clinton then be consistent all the way around. That last request is much to difficult for you because that requires integrity. Why don't you "tell the truth" about the "Arkansas Project". Be an example to Bill Clinton. Show him the way. Let him see a "real" man come clean. This is a tall order and one that I am sure you are not up to!

By the way, I am a republican and I support my president. I think that Bush has grown into the job and is finding his way. I still believe his domestic policy and his unilateralist to foreigh policy is and was wrong, but as an American, I support action against terrorists and those countries that harbor and support them. I believe that one can disagree with either Clinton or Bush without being vicious and nasty, but that's just me. I could be wrong!

:: DM1 8/11/2002 05:18:00 PM [+] ::
...

MEMO to Charles Black - Republican Hack:

Charlie,

I read the CNN Crossfire transcript for August 8th. Paul Begala spoke about two subsidiaries of Haliburton that were doing business with Iraq while Dick Cheney was CEO. You replied as if you knew nothing about this fact. Now I know that you are not a stupid man so I have a suggestion. Why don't you do your homework and then go talk to Cheney and ask him to explain himself. I doubt that you will take me up on my offer because I don't think you want to know the truth. Folks like you love talking about a lack of character when it comes to Bill Clinton. For all of the accusations made about him, even he didn't do business with Iraq. Being a shrill for a morally bankrupt individual is a disgrace and you ought to be ashamed!. Oh yeah I forgot I'm talking about Dick Cheney not Bill Clinton. Character doesn't matter! Lest you think that I am totally bias, I think you would do better supporting true men of character like Chuck Hagel, Dick Lugar, and John McCain. Think about it.

A True Republican,

Da' Militant One

:: DM1 8/11/2002 05:13:00 PM [+] ::
...

MEMO to Congressman Bill Thomas (Cal-R):

Bill,

I must commend you for getting that twerp, Brian Robin fired. Imagine him questioning "YOU". I guess he thought that this was a true democracy and that he could voice his opinion. Yeah, yeah, I know. He sent the email through the Times's internal email system. We all know that a person who uses the company's email for personal use should be fired. I am sure no other employee has ever sent a personal email through the system. Yeah, Bill you really showed him! By the way I am sending this email through a private line, so I don't end up like Brian Robin. What is really pathetic is that I too am a republican, and I spend a great deal of time separating true republican ideology from that of folks like you. I served four years in the Army and was honorably discharged. I did not commit myself for those four year so people like you could have someone fired for expressing their opinion. If anything you confirmed his views. I am a very glad that you do not represent my district or my state!

Sincerely,

Da' Militant One

:: DM1 8/11/2002 05:11:00 PM [+] ::
...