Several years ago, I had a living will done up. If the worst should happen, I’m never going to have to concern myself that politicians, like leeches, will attach themselves to my case the way they have with poor Terri Schiavo. Screaming hypocrites who consider all life sacred–unless, of course, we’re bombing it into oblivion or consigning it to death row for execution.
Yes, friends, the US government–the one that the GOP claims they want to keep out of people’s lives–just loves mixing into people’s deaths, setting the calendar on life termination and making sure that no one, absolutely no one, dies before the government is ready to send them to their deaths personally.
I strongly suggest to any and all reading this that you decide one way or the other while you still can. If you want to insist your family takes whatever measures possible to continue your life, even if medical science says it’s hopeless, then make that clear in writing. If, like me, you don’t want to burden your family and force them to watch you lie there like a slab of meat, consigning you all to a sort of twilight zone holding pattern for year after year after year, then make that clear as well.
Don’t leave it in the hands of politicians, lawyers, judges, and, God forbid, a Bush.
PAD
• 
Foxnews is carrying a piece from “experts” (I always question when FN quotes experts) about death from starvation. They say there’s actually little pain, almost as though the a body near death shuts down hunger and thirst motivations. In addition to the PVS preventing pain impulses, to a large degree. I think.
Anyway, just an interesting note. At least it seems there’s very little pain and suffering that comes with this form of death. If we can’t euthanize terminal patients, this may not be such a bad option.
Somebody posted this article to another forum I read. I haven’t read it all, but maybe it’ll give some insight to everybody:
http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm
Tim Lynch said:
Several people have said that they “see no hypocrisy” in the actions of this Congress.
These people are more blind than Ray Charles.
And he’s DEAD so that’s pretty dámņëd blind!
It’s amazing how different people’s perspectives on some things can be. So many comments about Terri’s husband violating the sancity of marriage etc by entering into an adulturous relationship with another woman and how that devalues his standing and devotion.
Personally I am astonished by his efforts. He’s put another part of his life on hold in order to keep the standing necessary to do what he obviously believes Terri would want. It seems likely to me he’d want to marry the woman he loves enough to have been with for almost 10 years now, as well as have two children. Instead he is persisting in this marriage till death do they part, despite so many people villifying him by making flimsy claims of abuse and profiteering.
I suppose there are people who think he should have stayed single and chaste through this all but they have higher standards for behavior that I do, I guess. I wonder how many of them would spend 15 years fighting for their wife’s beliefs AND live the life of a monk while doing it.
And goddammit, preview STILL doesn’t work.
“Will you still need me… Will you still feed me, when I’m thirty-four.”
Once Terri’s dead, can we pull the plug on all coma victims? Because by the time the Supremes see this one, Terri will have died of dehydration.
Ok, everyone in the “defend Bush to the last breath” camp line up for this one.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&e=4&u=/krwashbureau/20050322/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_braindamagedwoman_bush_wa_1
Erring on the side of life my left buttock
Howard said: “Once Terri’s dead, can we pull the plug on all coma victims? “
Becasue every single medical case is identical to every other case 100% of the time that “logic” makes great sense.
Besides, Terri’s not in a coma. She’s in a persistant vegitative state. Really, really big difference. Coma victims suffer from Coma an “abnormality of brain function characterized by an unconscious sleep-like state with the eyes closed.” PVS “may be defined loosely as a condition in which there is no awareness of the self or the surroundings though the patient appears at times to be awake.”
(both taken from http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/PVS.html)
Coma patients have a brain, it’s just nor working correctly. PVS patients only have a brain stem…that part of the brain that operates the vegetative or autonomous functions. They may have the remains of a badly damages cerebral coretex, or not, as in Terri’s case.
That web site does mention a 1990 Supreme Court case that ruled that, absent clear and convincing evidence of the patient’s desire to not be sustained by means such as a feeding tube, not even family members could make the decision to remove the tube. With that as the precedent, I’d say that 10 years in Florida state court ruling for the husband equates to clear and convincing evidence.
What should be even more telling about Congress interfering is that not only did the Florida courts strike down the Florida legislature’s attempts to insinuate themselves into the case, the US Supreme Court then declined to look at the case.
That should’ve been the end of it right there.
I have to wonder what Bush’s fascination is with forcing Schiavo to live, when he signed into a law a bill that just “murdered” a child over the wishes of the mother in Texas this past week.
Craig, I think you just hit the head of the nail as to why so many people were calling all of this a moment of political grandstanding. It’s not like this is the first time this kind of event has occurred. It’s been close to 15 years (strangely enough, close to the time Terri suffered her injury) since this issue first hit the court system. Either most of our elected officials are too dumb/lazy to have a clerk do a little legal research, or they saw an opportunity to get some face time on a “vote-winning” issue and grabbed it. Because the “I’m just trying to do what’s right” line? It’s BS, because our legal system already has a precedent for what’s “right” in situations like this.
And people wonder why our court system is overtaxed? It’s not so much that so many people are suing, it’s that the few people that are suing never get out of the system. Losers never accept the fact that they lost, because they keep coming of with new reasons to argue that they shouldn’t have. Terri’s parents have had so many bites of the apple that they would have had to plant the seeds in order to grow new apples to keep biting.
Because the “I’m just trying to do what’s right” line? It’s BS, because our legal system already has a precedent for what’s “right” in situations like this.
I just read one article a few minutes ago through Yahoo that had a comment from a former political speechwriter saying that the Republicans had to take this up or pìšš øff the anti-abortion… er, pro-life crowd.
The article went on to say that some are using this for another rallying point against abortion… and the right to die.
The final quote was from a guy from some pro-life group saying that, to paraphrase, he wants to see he “right to die” taken away altogether.
Jeff In NC: Oh yeah, that evil Bush. He’s the entire problem here, not the “husband” that’s been living with another woman, had 2 children with her, and stands to inherit close to a million dollars from a malpractice settlement when Terri dies. Yes, close to a million dollars. None of this money has been used to care for Terri, that’s being handled by medicare or medicade. Terri didn’t make a choice! Her angel of a husband says she did, but there’s nothing in writing. But, again he has no ulterior motive in wishing Terri dead, does he.
Luigi Novi: Which is precisely why she should
Luigi, I’m in complete agreement with you in regards to those spewing slurs towards a man who they have never met, who they have no conceivable way of knowing his “motivations”, and who they couldn’t even coming close to relating to unless they walking a long-term care facility isle in his shoes. I continue to be as amazed by those who have an opinion of this man as I do of the government’s intervention in a judicial case.
Fred
Please excuse the obvious typos in my previous post. A day spent in the office for far too long has me more incoherent than usual. 😉
Iowa Jim: For example, I believe the death penalty, when fairly applied, is a legitimate method of protecting other innocent life from being killed.
Luigi Novi: Your belief is false. Statistics show that the death penalty is NOT a deterrant. States that have the death penalty have the highest murder rates.
Luigi, you are usually logical to a fault, but I don’t think this argument holds much water. The fact that states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates (I’ll take your word on this) does not mean that the death penalty is not a deterrant. You can’t show cause and effect–maybe it’s because of the high crime rate that the citizens of the state instituted the penalty. And how can you state with any certainty that the crime rate would not be higher had the death penalty not be legalized there?
Logically, I can’t think of any really convincing reason why having the death penalty would INCREASE the murder rate and I should think there would be at least a FEW people who might think twice about murder given the liklihood that they will be executed. So I imagine it may have at least some small positive effect. (I feel the same way about drug laws–they do deter some. Just not enough to justify the tremendous cost).
Overall, though, I don’t think that this is worth the trouble it causes. Plus, I don’t like the State having such power. If one of my loved ones was ever, god forbid, murdered by some scumbag, the death penalty would bring little solace. Killing the perp myself, or, alternately, offering a lifetime supply of cigarettes to the inmate who mails me specific body parts, now that might put a song in my heart.
I took a Sociology course (many years ago) and learned that studies show the death penalty is not a deterrent, it is simply society’s revenge against the murderer. Why? Most inmates are on death row for many years awaiting appeal. No swift hand of justice there. Also, most murders are spur-of-the moment due to high passion, anger or fear. (This discussion is based on those considered sane.) No one reconsiders their actions based on the possibility that they may be put to death while in a highly emotional, less than logical state of mind.
While I don’t understand why the murder is higher in states with the death penalty, I do know that since this administration saw fit to cut many of the law enforcement programs put into effect in the Clinton administration, and cut many of the social safety nets keeping people from desperation, that crime statistics have risen sharply. For info on the statistics:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/MaryPennisi.shtml
Although national security has been tightening and focused on protecting the nation after the World Trade Center bombing, based on the statistics of the past 44 years, it can be predicted that the number of crimes committed in the US will continue to rise as long as the nation’s economy continues to worsen and unemployment increases.
While I don’t understand why the murder is higher in states with the death penalty
I certainly don’t have any inside info here, but one reason I’ve seen suggested is that convicted criminals are a lot more likely to kill their victims and leave no witnesses if a conviction would lead to death. For a prison term, they’ll take the chance, but if it’s kill-or-be-killed, they kill.
I’m not saying this is absolutely the reason by any means, but it’s food for thought.
TWL
Tim, that’s one argument and I wouldn’t be surprised if it had some effect, as I can see criminals deciding to kill if they think they have nothing (further) to lose by doing so.
However, I agree with Karen that the death penalty is society punishing/getting revenge on criminals for their crimes. If you accept that viewpoint, then it can be eaily argued that the death penalty is a raction to a higher murder-rate instead of a cause of it. BYW, this should not be taken as an indicator that I’m for the death penalty. I’m not an advocate of revenge which, as I stated, I believe the death penalty to be.
Tim and David,
Both logical points. I’m willing to bet that both contribute to the high murder rate. Along with the economy and cuts to social programs. If we take away hope, whether it’s decent medical care or a living wage or a good education, then where are we as a society? The prisons are overflowing, but instead of prevention all we seem to want to do is lock people up. We need a new plan. I’m not sure any of the entrenched politicans are up to the task; liberal, conservative, Democrat, or Republican. They are too interested in where the next campaign donation is coming from. All I know is that the Clinton policies were making a dent. Of course this administration would never admit that, or put those policies back in place.
Small Victory for all you Bush haters tonight. Terri will die soon enough. Then you can go party.
Luigi Novi has stated “the question isn’t whether Bush is “evil”, it’s whether it is the business of politicians like him to attach themselves to a private citizen’s case and make decisions like this for them.”
This train of thought seems to be one of the core arguments/issues for many here, who feel the GOP, which normally abhors government intervention, has taken the lead in this case and is therefore being hypocritical.
But truth is, those in the GOP are acting on their deepest pro-life convictions – that life is to be treasured in whatever form it takes.
I realize many disagree with those positions, but none can deny that from abortion to stem cell research, that is the GOP position. And it has also been part of this doctrine that war and the death penalty are viewed differently, although there are obviously some in the party who object to both based on their pro-life views.
But THIS CASE is consistent with GOP views. The starkest inconsistencies are on the other side, on the part of liberals who ordinarily support the federalization of everything, but can’t bear the thought of a federal judge reviewing the schiavo case to determine whether or not she should be starved to death.
If we concede that the facts of the schiavo case are in dispute (and they really are) – whether she is in a persistent vegetative state, whether she can improve, whether she had previously expressed a desire to die in these circumstances. Then, let’s taly the inconsistencies.
FEDERAL HABEAS REVIEW – Death-row inmates, as a matter of course, appeal their cases in the federal courts, even after they have been in the state courts (like the Schiavo case) for years.
Liberals have traditionally defended this federal habeas review, even when it drags on endlessly. In the ’90s, when Republicans passed a law (signed by President Clinton) limiting death-row inmates to one federal appeal, Rep. John Conyers attacked the bill as “inconsistent with our democratic system of laws.” Conyers was one of 53 House Democrats – half of all Democrats voting – to oppose giving Schiavo essentialy the same right (to have her case reviewed by a federal judge) that he supports for convicted killers.
[An aside, a majority of the Congressional Black Caucus voted FOR giving Schiavo this right. So, despite what many believe, many obviouslu were voting based on their convictions.)
CIVIL RIGHTS – Under the Schiavo bill, a federal judge will review whether any of her federal civil rights have been violated. Since when do Democrats oppose federal scrutiny of potential civil-rights violations? They have consistently used the 14th Amendment to make what had previously been local matters – from voting rights to housing – the jurisdiction of the federal government on civil rights grounds. They supported federal intervention in 2000 to investigate traffic stops on the New jersey turnpike that allegedly violated motorists’ rights. Traffic stops! But federal judicial review of whether Schiavo should live or die is out of bounds?
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – In the early 1990s, Democrats championed legislation to create federal penalties for gender-related violence. In other words, every time some abusive husband slaps his wife, it is a federal matter. But when a husband – with motivations questioned by his wife’s family – wants to starve his wife, suddenly some Democrats want to become George Wallace-like opponents of federal power.
THE DEATH PENALTY – Whenever life-related issue arise, liberals ask: How can conservatives favor preserving life when they support executing people? But I have a question for the other side: How can you oppose death sentences for killers, but support one, in effect, for Schiavo, whose only crime is not being capable of feeding herself?
Fred,
“Luigi, I am complete agreement with you in regards to those spewing slurs towards a man who they have never met, who (i.e. when) they have no conceivable way of knowing his ‘motivatons'”
There really is no need to put quotes around motivations, you know. Whether heartfelt or cold-blooded, he obviously is motvated to do what he is doing, for whatever reason.
And please, “spewing slurs toward a man they have never met”? This is done all the time. I don’t know anyne on this board who has met Bush (I have, briefly). But that hasn’t stopped them from questioning his motivations for everything from tax cuts to the Iraq War to trying to reform Social Security.
Here is an example, from Karen, on this very thread,
“Now try and tell me that he really cares if this woman lives or dies. Or maybe they are just jumping on this to distract us again. From Delay’s ethics problems, or something worse this time.”
Or maybe it’s a…vaaaaast riiiighht-wing conspiiiiiracy.
So if you’re amazed at people who would have an opinion of a man they’ve never met, you’re pretty easily amazed.
As for “the government’s ntervention in a judicial case”, please see my response to Luigi above.
“Although national security has been tightening and focused on protecting the nation after the World Trade Center bombing, based on the statistics of the past 44 years, it can be predicted that the number of crimes committed in the US will continue to rise as long as the nation’s economy continues to worsen and unemployment increases.”
Then I guess we can expect the number to go down since the jobs situation is improving…one reason you don’t hear about it so much anymore.
Small Victory for all you Bush haters tonight. Terri will die soon enough. Then you can go party.
Cheap shot–what possible evidence do you have that anyone here will derive any pleasure from the poor woman’s death? There’s no happy ending for anyone here.
I certainly don’t have any inside info here, but one reason I’ve seen suggested is that convicted criminals are a lot more likely to kill their victims and leave no witnesses if a conviction would lead to death.
That’s a good point, Tim, though it would make no sense unless the criminal had already killed once. Again, I’m no death penalty fan, but I don’t think it would be easy to show a definitive cause and effect. One can certainly make a case either way but the evidence would be suspect–if one could show that murder rates in the 1920s, when the death penalty was commonplace, were less than today what would that prove? It was a different time and the reasons for the disparity may have nothing to do with the punishment.
The death penalty is primarily a tool of vengeance. Which does not instantly invalidate it in my book, vengeance being highly underrated by most people, in my opinion, but if the proponents are going to argue for it they should probably admit to this.
(At the very least–the very least–there should be some independent government panel that goes over every death penalty case in painful detail and rescinds it if there are any legit questions. It’s impossible to ensure that only the guilty are convicted but it’s not too much to ask that anyone about to be executed be guilty beyond a level of doubt way beyond reasonable. In other words, Scott Peterson, (and I agree with the jury that he did it) would not be eligible. The guy who shot the people on camera in the courtroom would be.)
Forming an opinion doesn’t automatically mean one has dismissed one side of the equation as worthless. If God forbid I ever found myself in that situation as a parent, I certainly allow for the possibility that I might well be doing the exact same thing the parents are doing here. I hope I never have to find out.
Taking a side, forming an opinion, doesn’t mean that I automatically see it as a black and white issue. It just means I’ve sided with a particular shade of gray.
Those are words of reason. Too many people on both sides are being quick to lable the others when, depending on circumstances, any of us could be facing a situation that could make us see things in a completely different light.
Look, I know this is an emotional case, and different people can have lots of different views on what should or shouldn’t be done in Terri’s situation. For those who recognize the difficulty and simply fall elsewhere on the spectrum than I do
“Posted by Sowhat at March 23, 2005 02:57 AM
Small Victory for all you Bush haters tonight. Terri will die soon enough. Then you can go party.”
I will assume your talking about some kind of wake, otherwise your juat a big áššhølë.
JAC
And score points for the Federal Appeals court in Atlanta…
“In a 2-1 ruling, a federal appeals court panel in Atlanta has refused to order Florida doctors to reconnect the feeding tube that had been keeping her alive. A lower court judge issued a similar ruling Tuesday despite extraordinary action by Congress over the weekend to transfer the case to the federal courts. Florida state courts authorized its removal last Friday.”
Ok, let’s see now, that makes it 22 or 23 different judges/courts who have said that the husband is in the right…. Isn’t it time to just allow things to go as they’re going to go?
And by the way, to all of those who have mentioned the “million dollars” Michael Schiavo is going to “inherit”: Not true. Any and all money received in the settlement has gone to her care. There’s no money to inherit. Her parents have seen to that in dragging this out in court ad infinitum and keeping her “alive”.
Oh, and that was reiterated by Barbara Walters on Monday morning when she was interviewing Michael Schiavo that there’s no money for him to inherit. Check out the facts before throwing that bit out there….
The only thing he has to gain in this is keeping a promise to his wife. No money and this kind of fame we can all do without.
Except for the one dissenting judge. Maybe he’s just making a statement to appease the supporters of the parents, but by saying “there’d be no harm in allowing this to go to trial….AGAIN,” he’s basically ignoring the standards for granting a TRO. Which is just what *I* want in my appeals judges…those that will disregard years and years of legal precedent because someone cries on national TV.
Check out the facts before throwing that bit out there….
Why check the facts when it’s so much easier to demonize Michael Schiavo?
Hëll, with the latest BS being thrown out by the parents that removing the tube now violates Terri’s religious beliefs (excuse me while I laugh), I’m surprised nobody’s trying to claim Michael Schiavo is the anti-Christ or something.
PAD wrote:
Our bombs have killed innocent men, women and children in Iraq at a clip that Saddam could only dream about, in a war that was NOT dedicated to putting an end to tyranny and terror, but to finding weapons that never existed.
I seem to recall your candidate, John Kerry, saying that George W. Bush has 23 different rationales for the war (although Kerry apparently meant this in a bad way, as though offering 23 supporting arguments means that you’re changing your rationale with each argument you put forth, instead of bolstering your stance. Silly man.)
But don’t take my word for it. Read for yourself the President’s rationale for war, taken from a 10/7/02 speech in Cincinnati. See how many different reasons you can find, and how far off-base your your “one reason, one war” attitude is. Yes, Peter, this will require you to read the President’s own words, not some inaccurate (or as the President would say, “in-AK-ur-it”) leftist distillation of his words.
It’s quite a detailed argument for war, right down to Saddam’s “failure to account for missing Gulf War personnel”. Anyway, read on, Peter, and learn:
Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is: How can we best achieve it?
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: About the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action—why be concerned now?; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we’ve discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussion with you.
First, some ask why is different from other countries and regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone—because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations withou warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility towards the United States.
By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, ”The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.’
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world, The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today—and we do—does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq’s military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.
We know that the regime gas produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, inlcuding mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles — far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations — in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren’t required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.
Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.
Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer — the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there’s a reason. We’ve experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, “Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world,” he said, “where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril.”
Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.
Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.
The world has also tried economic sanctions — and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.
The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities — only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.
The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people — and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.
After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country — and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein’s terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.
The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself — or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein’s regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that’s why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.
And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.
By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that’s why two administrations — mine and President Clinton’s — have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation. ”
As for the main topic (Terri’s “right-to-die”), thanks for reminding me that Congress hates gays. I will accept that in lieu of an actual argument.
-Dave O’Connell
PAD wrote:
Our bombs have killed innocent men, women and children in Iraq at a clip that Saddam could only dream about, in a war that was NOT dedicated to putting an end to tyranny and terror, but to finding weapons that never existed.
I seem to recall your candidate, John Kerry, saying that George W. Bush has 23 different rationales for the war (although Kerry apparently meant this in a bad way, as though offering 23 supporting arguments means that you’re changing your rationale with each argument you put forth, instead of bolstering your stance. Silly man.)
But don’t take my word for it. Read for yourself the President’s rationale for war, taken from a 10/7/02 speech in Cincinnati. See how many different reasons you can find, and how far off-base your your “one reason, one war” attitude is. Yes, Peter, this will require you to read the President’s own words, not some inaccurate (or as the President would say, “in-AK-ur-it”) leftist distillation of his words.
It’s quite a detailed argument for war, right down to Saddam’s “failure to account for missing Gulf War personnel”. Anyway, read on, Peter, and learn:
Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is: How can we best achieve it?
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: About the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action—why be concerned now?; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we’ve discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussion with you.
First, some ask why is different from other countries and regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone—because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations withou warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility towards the United States.
By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, ”The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.’
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world, The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today—and we do—does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq’s military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.
We know that the regime gas produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, inlcuding mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles — far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations — in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren’t required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.
Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.
Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer — the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there’s a reason. We’ve experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, “Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world,” he said, “where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril.”
Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.
Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.
The world has also tried economic sanctions — and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.
The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities — only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.
The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people — and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.
After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country — and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein’s terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.
The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself — or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein’s regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that’s why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.
And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.
By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that’s why two administrations — mine and President Clinton’s — have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation. ”
As for the main topic (Terri’s “right-to-die”), thanks for reminding me that Congress hates gays. I will accept that in lieu of an actual argument.
-Dave O’Connell
Read for yourself the President’s rationale for war, taken from a 10/7/02 speech in Cincinnati
And then when they couldn’t find WMD, read for yourself in other speeches how Bush change the “rationale” for the war.
And then changed it again, and again, and again.
I realize many disagree with those positions, but none can deny that from abortion to stem cell research, that is the GOP position
Actually, I can most assuredly deny it.
In abortion, the GOP position is that fetal rights trump women’s rights. Both are alive, so “life is to be treasured in whatever form it takes” is a rather bilgeworthy claim.
Concerning stem cell research, the GOP position is that fetal rights trump cures for disease. Thus, the unborn’s lives are more important than the people already here.
Saying “life is to be treasured in whatever form” is a nice way to put lipstick on that particular pig, but the GOP position is not that it’s the Party of Life — it’s that it’s the Party of Fetuses Who Can Go Fly A Kite Once Born.
Happy to clarify.
TWL
Tim, your forgot to add “Until They Try to Die On Their Own Terms.”
Some of you may have already seen this piece from last Sunday’s Miami Herald:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/11183185.htm
————————————————–
Posted on Sun, Mar. 20, 2005
/In My Opinion
For one mom, the personal isn’t political
The Friday lunch crowd at Jimmy’s Eastside Diner was starting to dwindle. Jerita Collins, a waitress everyone calls Shorty, was carrying several plates when she noticed the television behind the counter airing a Washington, D.C., news conference featuring House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
”It is now 1 o’clock on the East Coast, the time preordained by a Florida state judge to allow for denial of food and water to Terri Schiavo,” the Texas Republican declared. “That act of barbarism can be and must be prevented.”
Across the bottom of the screen CNN noted a judge temporarily stopped Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube from being removed because Congress had issued subpoenas for the brain-damaged woman to appear in Washington.
As DeLay spoke, Shorty stared at the TV and shook her head. ”This is wrong,” she said. “This is incredibly wrong. How can they interfere like this?”
Shorty, 57, a waitress at the Biscayne Boulevard diner for 35 years, should know.
”Two years ago,” she said, “I had to make the same decision for my son. It was the hardest thing I ever did. You don’t plan on your children dying before you do. You don’t even want to think about it.
”But if you love your child,” she continued, tears welling up in her eyes, “sometimes you have to let them go.”
Shorty’s son, Jerry, was 36 when he died in 2003 from pancreatic cancer. He wasn’t married. He had one child who was a minor, so the decisions fell to her.
”Toward the end, he didn’t want to be kept alive,” she said. “But I wanted him to live. I didn’t want him to go. The hospital, they had to tie his hands down so that he couldn’t pull his own tubes out.
‘After a while, I realized he was ready. I told him how much I loved him and I didn’t want him to continue to suffer because of me. He couldn’t talk anymore, so he wrote me a note. It said, `Forgive me.’ And I looked at it and I said, ‘For what? For dying?’ And he shook his head yes.”
He died a few days later, on Dec. 29, from a heart attack. By then, Shorty had signed directives for her son’s care, including instructions not to resuscitate him if his heart stopped.
On the TV, another politician talked about saving Schiavo.
”These politicians,” Shorty hissed, her hands trembling with emotion. “They’re just playing a game. It’s not about her anymore, it’s about them getting what they want. It’s about them wanting to look good in front of the people who are pro-life. I’m against abortion, too, but I believe each person has their own right to decide. You know in your heart what is right for you and you have to live with any decision you make.”
Shorty paused as CNN showed a clip of Schiavo.
”This is a very personal thing,” Shorty said. “They can get up there and play politics and say that removing the tube is killing her. But the young lady is already gone. Let her go in peace.
“She’s growing old without living. I’m sure her soul is crying to be let loose.”
Around the diner, other customers spoke about Schiavo.
Thanks to Republican efforts, this case is quickly becoming one of the most polarizing and divisive issues in the country.
And yet it’s important to remember there is nothing extraordinary about Schiavo. Every day, feeding tubes are removed. And every day people like Shorty make gut-wrenching decisions about the fate of their loved ones.
By mid-afternoon Friday, Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed. ”Hopefully now it will be over,” Shorty said.
Unfortunately not.
Ignoring that in the past seven years, this case has already been reviewed by more than three dozen judges and justices on both the state and federal level, congressional leaders proudly announced Saturday that they would pass a law moving Schiavo’s case to federal court and effectively requiring that her feeding tube be reinserted while a new round of appeals begins.
————————————————–
What I’ve been reflecting on continuously over the past few case regarding this case is, if Terri Schiavo’s parents & siblings “win”, and Terri continues on in the state that she’s been in for the past 15 years, what are their actual expectations? I know that before the cameras, the family has expressed continuously that that clinging to however many thin shreads of hope exist that she’ll come out of her vegetative state is what Terri would really want, but I wonder if they’ve truly, honestly thought about if when the outcome should be their favor, when they no longer have to focus on the battle, what their roles will be? Will they continue to actively seek out physicians who’ll tell them what they want to hear, that therapy methods exist that, with time and patience, just may offer a small chance of Terri’s recovery; or will they just continue to visit her regularly, taking each eye blink or head movement as sign that Terri’s still in there, fighting to get out? Will their hopes eventually wane, with their visits becoming less and less frequent, to the point where visiting her becomes a chore that they have to struggle to remember to do? Or will they patiently leave it to God’s will, believe that it’s ultimately in his hands when she should die?
To me, the statement “sanctity of life” is a platitude that many rattle off without really believing it whole-heartedly; to them, some lives are sacred, others are not. A more important statement to me is “quality of life” and the fulfillment that one derives, or is able to derive, from one’s life. It doesn’t mean I’d recommend suicide to anyone who can’t get their fulfillment, especially when they still have the conscious choice of how to direct their life. But in the case of Terri, unless she’d expressly stated otherwise before her trauma, I can’t see how anyone would see it as a benefit to her to prolong her life other than for their own personal desires, selfish or not.
I’m getting my living will together now. I’ve no desire to become someone’s potted plant.
And then when they couldn’t find WMD, read for yourself in other speeches how Bush change the “rationale” for the war.
And then changed it again, and again, and again.
My point was that the pre-war argument was a multi-faceted one (note Saddam’s ties to terrorists, Saddam firing on U.S. planes in the no-fly zones he agreed to, plans to acquire even greater weapons, that sort of stuff) and if they “changed” their argument, it was to something they were arguing before the war anyway. The only historical revisionism going on is by people like Peter, who insist Bush’s argument was “Saddam has WMD” and nothing else. I believe Peter has been throwing around a word that aptly describes this sort of “thinking”—one that begins with “B” and ends with “T”.
Oh yes, and something else I’d like to add in response to PAD’s quote:
Our bombs have killed innocent men, women and children in Iraq…
And also very guilty insurgents, perhaps in even greater numbers. (There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the numbers, I’ve noticed. Reuters says one thing, Michael Moore another.) The pertinent question is: Are we operating under a scorched-earth policy or are the innocent dead the inevitable byproduct of the effort to root out the terrorists? In Terri’s case (returning to the main topic), her husband is starving her so that she will die of starvation. (That she wished to die is arguable; what seems very unlikely is that she specifically wished to die in an excruciatingly slow manner.) I seriously doubt that our military, as a general rule, is killing innocent people so that innocent people will be dead. But feel free to “support our troops” with your implied assertion that only innocent Iraqis are dying (and only by our hands, and not from, say, Iraqi suicide bombers) if you feel that is a fair way to go about it.
-Dave O’Connell
And then when they couldn’t find WMD, read for yourself in other speeches how Bush change the “rationale” for the war.
And then changed it again, and again, and again.
My point was that the pre-war argument was a multi-faceted one (note Saddam’s ties to terrorists, Saddam firing on U.S. planes in the no-fly zones he agreed to, plans to acquire even greater weapons, that sort of stuff) and if they “changed” their argument, it was to something they were arguing before the war anyway. The only historical revisionism going on is by people like Peter, who insist Bush’s argument was “Saddam has WMD” and nothing else. I believe Peter has been throwing around a word that aptly describes this sort of “thinking”—one that begins with “B” and ends with “T”.
Oh yes, and something else I’d like to add in response to PAD’s quote:
Our bombs have killed innocent men, women and children in Iraq…
And also very guilty insurgents, perhaps in even greater numbers. (There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the numbers, I’ve noticed. Reuters says one thing, Michael Moore another.) The pertinent question is: Are we operating under a scorched-earth policy or are the innocent dead the inevitable byproduct of the effort to root out the terrorists? In Terri’s case (returning to the main topic), her husband is starving her so that she will die of starvation. (That she wished to die is arguable; what seems very unlikely is that she specifically wished to die in an excruciatingly slow manner.) I seriously doubt that our military, as a general rule, is killing innocent people so that innocent people will be dead. But feel free to “support our troops” with your implied assertion that only innocent Iraqis are dying (and only by our hands, and not from, say, Iraqi suicide bombers) if you feel that is a fair way to go about it.
-Dave O’Connell
David, I’d just ask this about your statement “The pertinent question is: Are we operating under a scorched-earth policy or are the innocent dead the inevitable byproduct of the effort to root out the terrorists?”
What terrorists are we rooting out in Iraq? We’re killing insurgents, people that, for one reason or another, don’t want the US there, and don’t want a US backed government ruling what is, essentially, their country. By most accounts, remnants of Saddam’s army. Any ties Saddam and his Iraq had to terrorists are inquiries for assistance on the terrorists part, and a rejection on Saddam’s part.
So, if we’re there to root out terrorists, where are they? And if we’re there to kill terrorists, but the only people that are dying are insurgents and other Iraqi nationals, what good does that do in rooting out terrorists?
So, for the record: No WMDs, very little capabilty to use them, even if they had them, no connection to terrorists, no terrorists. Shooting at our planes in no-fly zones that Saddam agreed to? You mean had imposed on him? So it’s ok to attack someone because they try to take actions to defend themselves?
Every single one of Bush’s reasons, stated then or now, has such a false ring to it we may as well as call this the Casio war.
And also very guilty insurgents, perhaps in even greater numbers.
Ahh, yes.
This goes back to the innocent being nothing more than “collateral”.
Who cares how many innocents die as long as we *think* we killed a few insurgents?
Never mind that we have no idea how many of those insurgents are actually terrorists, and how many are just defending their country, legitimately, against an invading and occupying force.
But we just don’t give a dámņ.
TENS OF THOUSANDS have been killed.
Apparently that figure means nothing… unless you’re naive enough to think that the majority of those killed were actually our enemies.
When was the last war where the majority of casualties were the fighters, and not the innocents?
re: killing of innocents in Iraq:
Prior to the invasion Rumsfeld boasted of all the super-precise & high-tech weaponery we have at our disposal. When the time came for the invasion, did we use these weapons so that we would only take out military & strategic targets so as to minimize ‘collaterial damage’? No. We went in with “shock & awe” dropping record numbers of bombs for a couple of days. Result? Tens of thousands dead, mostly innocent civilians.
**********************
Yes, bush cited several reasons for the invasion, but his primary claim, the one he repeated over & over in every speech, was WMD’s. The WMD’s were an “Imminent threat” & if we didn’t act right away, the proof of this would be “a mushroom cloud”.
*******************
As for Al-Queda people being in Iraq before 9-11, Al-Queda were also in the U.S. prior to 9-11. Does this mean they met with representatives of the U.S. government? I hope they didn’t.
“As for Al-Queda people being in Iraq before 9-11, Al-Queda were also in the U.S. prior to 9-11. Does this mean they met with representatives of the U.S. government? I hope they didn’t. “
I hope not, but then again, was the fact that Bush was visiting that school instead of in the White House the morning of 9-11-01 known to the general public in advance? Did the terrorists know he wasn’t home and hi-jacked the planes anyway?
gee, Dave O’Connell, go off topic much? On topic, never mind the demonizing the husband, the polital circus, and the parents who can’t let go. If Terri dies the terrorists have already won, or if Terri lives the terrorists have already won. In fact screw it, no matter what happenes to any one any where the terrorists have already won. As Bush pointed out during the campaign only he can protect us from forest fire…terrorists, which means in 1398 days I suppose it will be a terroist free for all. Hoody-ho, don’t forget to bring the suds!
Sigh
To quote Xena: warrior princess, “WE’RE ALL GOIN’ TO HÊLL! BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAH!”
JAC
Thanks to Republican efforts, this case is quickly becoming one of the most polarizing and divisive issues in the country.
Except the opposite is happening. Most people agree she should be let go. This issue is back-firing on the GOP bigtime.
Karen, just to be sure, I just sent comments off to both my state’s senators to make sure they know my opposition to the Federal interferance here. I know there are a very small number of people speaking out in support of Terri’s parents, but they are speaking very loudly. I’d encourage everyone here to make your opinion, whatever that may be, known directly to your elected officials. We can (and often do) talk about the issue on PAD’s dime till we’re blue in the face, and then bìŧçh about it when our government acts in a way we disagree with. But it’s easier than ever to express your wishes to your elected officials these days. We should do so, so the next time congress gets the urge to act on a very public issue, maybe they’ll have a better idea of what the “public” wants, and not just what the media is reporting.
Believe me, Bobb, my Congresspeople are sick of hearing from me> 🙂 By the way, what happened to Kingbobb? Were you dethroned? Did you abdicate?
And another appeal has been shot down.
But now Jed Bush has pulled a New York City sewer rat out of his ášš in claiming that there is new information that Terri was “misdiagnosed”.
Maybe Michael needs to sue Jeb for Medical Malpractice and practicing medicine without a license…
I saw on MSNBC’s Abrams report that they are trying to now claim their was suspicion of abuse so they want to put Terri in Protective custody.The kicker the “evidence ” of “abuse” was like 5- 10 years ago.Huh???Why if this was taking place was it not mentioned sooner?Also is the abuse from accounts given by a nurse that Media Matters.org shoots down the credibility of???
If the type of protection that Florida provides is anything like the protection for children in their foster care programs ,the Schindlers and Schiavo’s will have much bigger problems.
This may be a strange question, but why is would it take 1-2 weeks for Terri to pass away without food or water? I’d always heard that a person could only go 1-2 days without water before dying of dehydration.
In most cases like this, person’s fluid and electrolyte levels are maintained via IV, so dehydration won’t be a concern, unless they stop all of her drips as well.
-Rex Hondo-
And does the idea of a GOP “talking points memo” on this case disgust anyone as much as it does me?
“>http://dcinsidescoop.blogspot.com/2005/03/exclusive-gops-schiavo-talking-points.html
I had assumed that the “GOP talking points memo” that ABC and others had reported was genuine…when will I ever learn? Not that it will make any difference to the folks who STILL think that the CBS National Guard story was “fake but accurate, so it’s ok” but the more one looks into this aspect of the story the more it looks like either an out and out hoax or just somthing that some lobby group slapped together and sent to some senators (parts of it are copied word for word from one such group’s website). But that isn’t the story that ABC wanted…
Now ABC is saying that they reported nothing more than that a memo was written and distributed to some senators…they never implied it was written by anyone in congress. Funny how just about everyone who read the story came to that conclusion…