And some other GOPper thinks the spill was a plan cooked up between Obama and BP.

And righties wonder why they are falling in the polls.

it was EXTORTION ..

the vp came in according to reports and told bp that if they didnt give the 20Billion that the OBAMA govt would take it...extortion in any commonsense definition..

and lets call it what it is..
the 2012 OBAMA re election SLUSH fund....

it was extortion commandered by the CHICAGO 'confiscation admininstration"

AND dingle talks shit about haywards 'compensation package'..

hey fuckface...dont recall you worried about the 'compensation package' of frankyn rich when he took out over a 100 million from either mae or mac and left it to begin the economic disastor that YOUR side is only making worse..
you hypocriticl fartfaced WAShed up excuse for a representaive of the people.

and mister dingle...how many democrat and obama CRONIES will have a multi million dollar 'compensation package' when the OBAMA pay czar starts giving out money...

what a bunch of fucks.

Note to Self:

Forgive the Babbler, as he knows not what he says.

wow...cant believe Im about to say this to god...:)

bite me asshole...LOL

seriously...I am not wrong on anything posted above

AND LEts talk about the rhetoric here

yesterday on cnn...bart stupak..the FUCKIN LIAR...told dana bash...( a real cutey pie) that they were going to "take the hide off' of hayward and they were also going to 'slice and dice' him..

OH NO...that and obama talking about 'assaults and' battleplans'

Remember when words LESS violent than that were said to be TREATENING when palin said it..

hypocritical fuckers.

The $20 billion "shakedown" is the best thing Obama's accomplished in this whole mess. The stupid liability cap was bull shit from the beginning. This republican can go suck on a car exhaust.

afkabl2,

Most psychotic type meds are to be taken EVERYDAY. You can't just skip a day anytime you want. You end up sounding like someone who is irrational.

hey fresno.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh sorry...let me go take a handfull..

I dont know what pisses me off more...assholes like dingle or the people who believe him.

live...BUT the cap was still there when this all occured...I dont disagree with you but is it good policy for all of us for the govt to just change things like that???
I guess of course if the act that is keeping foreign ships from our waters can be dismissed then why not this???

hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm interesting..YES thats me thinking and YES every now and then

i'd be curious as to how much barton receives from BP

good question ...
HOWEVER...dont forget...

while you are looking it up...make sure and stop in the B's on list of people receiving money.

SHIT>>>..I meant O's of course...

have GOT to start looking at the edit...

I have inside info that Barton is running for Phony Tony's CEO job.

This is Barton's way of showing GOP concern for all of the "small people".

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, $27,350

from BP

Other prominent politicians still in office and their BP money since 1990 include:

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, $41,400

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., $31,000

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., $28,200

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, $27,350

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., $22,300

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky; $22,000

Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, $20,950

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, $19,500

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, $19,200

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, $16,000

House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, $15,200

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., $14,000

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.,$14,000

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., $12,500

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., $11,000

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, $10,500

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; $10,050

Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., $9,500

Sen. John Kerry, R-Mass., $9,500

Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, $9,000

I love you BP! (dabs eyes) - Joe Barton

This is Barton's way of showing GOP concern for all of the "small people".

#13 | Posted by GOD at 2010

small people...listen to all of the people jumpin his ass over this..

notice that first time he said it he was talking about comments from obama..and we KNOW WITHOUT A shadow of a doubt that obama UNDENIABLY thinks of much of america as 'small people''....who lean on "GOD AND GUNS..
I believe obama said it in the meeting...

27K since 1990....and he is in the tank for bp...

oh please..

AND OH MY GOD>...A TEXAN TAKING money from an oil company..HOLY shit.,.who wouldathunk that..

HEY think maybe he used some of that money for the longhorn horns on the front of his cadilac.....

so truth,....there was nothing found under OBama.,.,.or was it just an accident that it was left out..

one of the top recipients of BP oil money

he backs them against something most americans want BP to do

sounds like a paid off bitch to me.

sorry I am not your bitch you do your own work.

AH BUT LOOK AT THAT>...mister dingle takes more than most others..

now he is even more of a fuckn hypocrite than even I thought.......

Just in case nobody's bothered to point it out today, let me be the first:

Babble-boy, yer a fucking idiot.

.

sorry I am not your bitch you do your own work.

#21 | Posted by truthhurts

ahhhhhhhhhh thanks....:)

and again....OBAMA????????????????
??????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????
????????????????

took NO money???????????

AFLAC

Barton saying he's 'ashamed' of OUR response, is un-American.

BP should have had that well surrounded by supertankers within days of the explosion sucking up oil. They should have actually been able to implement the 'recovery plan' they evidently just Xeroxed and submitted with the well lease application as fact.

Bachmann takes the cake too.

You really have to be an assclown to call this a shakedown.

$20 billion is a small fraction of the damage they've done.

Babble-boy, yer a fucking idiot.

.

#23 | Posted by Dave at 2010

and you are a know nothing waste of time........

everything I have posted is right on ..right on...you are just too biased and duped up to know it.

"everything I have posted is right on ..right on..."

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha haha!!!!!

.

BP should have had that well surrounded by supertankers within days of the explosion sucking up oil. They should have actually been able to implement the 'recovery plan' they evidently just Xeroxed and submitted with the well lease application as fact.

Bachmann takes the cake too.

#25 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-06-17 11:47 AM | Repl

come on bro...you are smarter and more informed than this...

"we have been in charge since day one'
barak obama....

but we now know on day three when dutch told him they could help take care of it OUT THERE...
obama said NO

why"

easy

'never let a crisis go to waste"

"I'm s s s s s sorry BP America is being m m m m m mean to you, BP" (sniff sniff) - Joe Barton

"At the risk of sounding as moronic as Sarah Palin, I want to be a to you apologizer, BP" - Michelle Bachmann

Deregulate industries like financial and oil, get meltdowns, blame the government, then decry corporate penalties as, "shakedowns".

Stir, repeat.

dave,,,,the lying asshole in the white house is purposely letting this happen OR he is incompetent....OR its just as we say...govt cant DO ANYTHING but build the interstate hiways and wage war..

tell me which one it is......

27K since 1990....and he is in the tank for bp...

The real number to focus on is the $1.4 million taken from the industry in the last 20 years as posted by Truthhurs. It's not like anybody in the industry knew they would need Barton's shilling for this.....but they bought his support anyway.

Barton is full of shit. This was not a "shakedown". It was a bribe. IMO, BP willingly and graciously offered up $20 billion and Obama agreed to throw in our tax dollars to make up most of the difference. BP might pony up more at some point but my guess is that they have cut their losses with this "gesture".

And it worked.....see??? all of the libtards are creaming in their jeans over it.

but we won't know the real significance of this deal (and what we really agree to) for at least 5 years.

you know....like most of the legislation passed by this administration....first we pass it and then open it up and read it.

"allow crisis to go on and on'
find someone else to blame and pay"

GOVT TAKES IT OVER"

fuck the taxpayer and repeat.......

This was not a "shakedown". It was a bribe

report even on cnn...SO IT HAS TO BE TRUE

the VP came in and told bp that if they didnt offer the money the OBAMA govt would take it

thats extortion...

"the VP came in and told bp that if they didnt offer the money the OBAMA govt would take it"

Link?

Or just another fuckin' lie from the fuckin' liar?

"fuck the taxpayer and repeat......."

#34 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-06-17 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag: spent entire career fucking up the kids of the taxpayers of Bumfuck, Texas

Let me get this straight... Markey referred to it as not being a shakedown, did Barton say anything actually about the $20bil fund being a shakedown or was he merely disappointed that O'bama only allocated 20min to the meeting of the minds?

Then again, Barton is from TX...

“It is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a $20 billion shakedown,” Barton said.

Yup, he said it twice...

Or just another fuckin' lie from the fuckin' liar?

#36 | Posted by Danforth

new york daily news...

spent entire career fucking up the kids of the taxpayers of Bumfuck, Texas

#37 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-06-17 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

nice contribution...when you are TOLD what to think by george soros associates...get back to us

Yup, he said it twice...

#40 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD

he was being polite...people who have learned anything from this administration know that it was extortion...shakedown is the least he could call it.

slush fund for obama re election campaign is a more accurate description STARTING with the LIE by obama from speech

"Independant third party" my rosy fat white ass.........

Republican apologizes to bp for 20B shakedown?

The republicans should apologize for having another blithering idiot in their ranks.

NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE

NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE

he was being polite...people who have learned anything from this administration know that it was extortion...shakedown is the least he could call it.

AFLAC

Wow! You took a whole handful of crazy pills this morning. Careful now

In case Rush didn't report it, Exxon kept Valdez victims in court for over 20 years. Most got about $15,000 for losing their livelihoods.

not enough is it??

and wasnt this the same as valdez every 3rd day or something like that..if you are trying to say that I dont care about those people, you are going wrong direction..BP should pay for the damage done...but this is extortion and a dangerous precident.......

BUT the moritorium could be just as bad

HOUSTON CHRONICLE BUSINESS section

revised estimate of job lossed because of deep water shutdown

TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND now when combined...

and when that 100 million runs out....WHO will pay them...
you and me of course

AND as valerie jarrett said a week or so ago..
"that oil will be there in 6 months'

and what if the RIGS arE gone bitch??????/

who pays then? where will those jobs be?>

OUTSOURCED and OUTSOURCED BY barak obama

40 posts

TIME FOR A TIME OUT

Tony Hayward's feet are blistering from the fire.

Joe Barton's a Mary Magdalene soothing Hayward's feet with his tears.

In an effort to prop up his surreal premise that the 20 billion is an Obama campaign slush fund, and that Obama is using the spill to gain support; BL2 links an article that focuses on people who no longer support the President!!?!

It is as if a liberal has hacked into BL2's account and is posting drivel to make him look stupid. Or BL2 is a liberal (like jackass is really a Republican) and is just posting nonsense as a way to discredit conservatives.

Otherwise, I have no rational explanation as to how someone could truly be as stupid as BL2 yet manage to live this long without forgetting to breathe.

nonsense...

his comments in no way...much like mine..mean that he doesnt think bp should pay for this shit...but this govt taking over even more is scary and too important to our future to let these fucks get away with merely bashing bp...

As I said on the nooner about waxman jumping his ass about some of the equipment...thats good and proper..but some of the bloviatiing from these hypocritical assholes is pure theater. and fishing for votes.
NOt by the way limited to the dems.

Well, I don't have a sister and my mother is 82.

She might need it as badly as yourself.

I wish you luck.

okayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

lets not play it then...

so what is the purpose of this hearing anyway? score points with voters..or REALLY get answers on what happened...isnt it too early to really know..until its stopped...
why now?
ratings perhaps...not of tv but of obama and dems????

The funniest part is that if BP were truely held accountable for what it has done, it would be bankrupted and some execs may even end up in jail.

Obama is basically coming to these guys and saying "Look, you guys know I'm as big a corporate whore as anyone, but you really fucked up in as obvious and stupid a way possible so we're going to have to pretend to hold you accountable. BP isn't going to have pay for all the damage it has done but we need you to pay part of it because the public is really pissed at you guys right now. So let's throw out a big sounding number. How's $20 billion? A drop in the bucket compared to how you guys have fucked the Gulf coast but it will shut up the people who aren't directly affected....."

The $20 billion is a smoke screen to distract you away from the fact that BP is getting away with what they've done.

Apparently, this Barton guy just wants to make sure his masters understand that he's still a big time corporate stooge in his own right.

or want to get back to the subject

By all means please return to your subject. I couldn't possiably do more damage to your faulty 'ideas' than you do yourself.

To prove you wrong all anyone needs to do is let you speak long enough.

Carry on....

Otherwise, I have no rational explanation as to how someone could truly be as stupid as BL2 yet manage to live this long without forgetting to breathe.
#52 | Posted by BluSky

He owes it all to an innate ability to wriggle his sphincter in such a way as to allow the vuvuzela that's shoved up his ass to take in sufficient air to maintain him in a state of awareness two clicks better than a turnip's.

so what about post 57...why now?

and dont forget..going into it the dems announced they were going to 'slice and dice' him and 'take his hide off'...

so how does that help anything?

#58

dead on Sully.

it would be bankrupted and some execs may even end up in jail.

Ya, punishing BP is a two edged sword. We have to make sure they are solvent enough to pay for their mess. I will guess that much of BP's assets are actually debt; the tankers, platforms, refineries are all financed up the Yazoo. If they don't keep a substantial cash flow they'll start defaulting, their falling stock price will nose dive, and there will be nothing left for coastal communities once the lawyers and creditors get through.

so as I heard last nite...NO..not heard the word NO over and over but on one of the business shows...some gal said something about thier capital ledger not being as deep as many think...that they didnt have near 20 billion on hand...is it a matter of them getting some from the other corps involved or like some kind of major leaugue loan they are going to get?

AND the really stupid part is all of the boycotts of bp gas stations..there are none around here but when we called for boycott of citgo because of CHAVEZ connection we were called stupid trailor park hicks and now libs are driving by stations shouting shit at them and thier INDEPENDENT business is way off..

well whats the difference?

"If they don't keep a substantial cash flow they'll start defaulting, their falling stock price will nose dive, and there will be nothing left for coastal communities once the lawyers and creditors get through."

You raise a good point.

But I have a hard time believing that if you allow BP to continue to operate, they are truely going to pay people back anyway.

So part of me thinks they would better serve the country as a cautionary tale about corporate accountability. If guilt can be established, jail people for criminally negligent homocide. Seize the companies assets and the stock goes to zero. (screw the shareholders, if you gamble on amoral idiots you deserve to lose)

Seeing a few "important people" in handcuffs would do wonders for the morality of their peers. Seeing all those shareholders lose everything they put into BP would make other investors more cautious about investing in companies run by truely dangerous jackasses.

"Too big to fail" has proven to just encourage more bad behavior. I honestly believe that we need to see some big companies held accountable for their own behavior whether it be running their own industry into the ground or ruining the environment.

But I have a hard time believing that if you allow BP to continue to operate, they are truely going to pay people back anyway.

Exxon Valdez: 20 years in court. Average payout for a ruined life: $15,000

AFKABL2 I'd offer you a few Valium if I could do it via this blog - please get help.

So part of me thinks they would better serve the country as a cautionary tale about corporate accountability. If guilt can be established, jail people for criminally negligent homocide. Seize the companies assets and the stock goes to zero. (screw the shareholders, if you gamble on amoral idiots you deserve to lose)

Well said.

It is going to be a tricky game. Like torturing someone to death while keeping them on life support to prolong the pain.

I don't have any hope that we will be able to seize BP in a way that keeps her profitable enough to pay the billions required over the next 2/3 decades. "asset management" and sister companies are being set up as we speak to shield future liability and create unrecoverable debts. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out BP's worth has been over estimated with cooked books.

wow.. the party of personal responsibility showing their true colors. Be responsible only if you are a democrat.

what amazes me is that an american would support a foreign coporation over american citizens.

The money is to go to people and small business effected by BP's negligence.

it is to me administered by the guy who administered the 9/11 fund. I dont remember any major complaints about that fund

Exxon Valdez shows what happens to americans when it is left to the corporations to reimburse the citizens.

and some righties are apologizing to BP.

good luck getting reelected

everything I have posted is right on ..right on...you are just too biased and duped up to know it.

#27 | POSTED BY AFKABL2

You are one crazy son of a bitch.

If this was a hundred years ago you would be living in the hills all alone with no visitors ever nutcase.

oh yeah by the way oil is still gushing into the carribean

Barton's a fucking asshole. He sets foot in California we send his ass home in a box.

Ya, punishing BP is a two edged sword. We have to make sure they are solvent enough to pay for their mess. I will guess that much of BP's assets are actually debt; the tankers, platforms, refineries are all financed up the Yazoo. If they don't keep a substantial cash flow they'll start defaulting, their falling stock price will nose dive, and there will be nothing left for coastal communities once the lawyers and creditors get through.

#63 | Posted by BluSky

We have to make sure they are solvent enough to pay for their mess.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Translation-Higher Prices at the pumps.

Welcome to "free market" capitalism dumbfucks.

..............................
| POSTED BY AFKABL2

You guys got it wrong. Rusty Tromboner (AKA: AFKABL2) is not crazy or stupid, what he is is a human who is totally programed by cable TV, talk radio and all other modern American mainstream media. He picked his side of the fight and finished at that. He lets the others in the programming departments feed him a constant stream of misinformation and false facts and talking points that he just soaks up like a sponge and then pretends that he has a opinion based on any reality.
He's like most Americans unfortunately.

He sets foot in California we send his ass home in a box.
#71 | Posted by LetUsPrey

What is wrong with you?

it is to me administered by the guy who administered the 9/11 fund. I dont remember any major complaints about that fund

apples and oranges.

in any case, the money wasn't deposited by OBL.

BARTON NOT ALONE

Barton is not alone among Republicans holding this view.

Georgia Republican Representative Tom Price, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House members, issued a statement arguing the same point.

He said the White House does not have the legal authority to compel a private company to set up and fund an escrow account. The White House has dismissed such criticism.

Price said BP's willingness to go along with the White House's new fund suggests that the Obama administration is "hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics."

"These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this administration's drive for greater power and control," Price said.

And former Texas Republican Representative Dick Armey, who was House majority leader and is a leading voice in the conservative Tea Party movement, told a Christian Science Monitor breakfast this week that Obama lacks the constitutional authority to set up such a fund.

"The Constitution doesn't give that authority to the executive branch.... There are courts for this purpose," Armey said, according to the Dallas Morning News.

In addition, conservative Republican Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota was quoted as telling the Heritage Foundation think tank on Tuesday that the escrow account was a "redistribution-of-wealth fund."

Barton is the biggest recipient of oil and gas industry campaign contributions in the House of Representatives, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

In addition, conservative Republican Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota was quoted as telling the Heritage Foundation think tank on Tuesday that the escrow account was a "redistribution-of-wealth fund."

Yeah, I heard Bachmann last night on John King saying she feared BP might "get fleeced." Well, if you want to know about getting fleeced, I guess you should ask a sheep. That whole "redistribution-of-wealth " thing is teabagger talk.

Barton just said that if anyone "misconstrued my misconstruction" this morning, I apologize.

lmhao.... laughing my holy ass off...

Barton is not alone among Republicans holding this view.

QUICK ANOTHER TAX CUT FOR THE OIL COMPANIES!

hmmm tax cut to industry giving dividends

hmmmm wealth redistribution

hmmmm socialism

The republicans should apologize for having another blithering idiot in their ranks.

Which blithering GOP idiot would apologize for all the other blithering GOP idiots? Randy Paul?

Joe, the former Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that gutted regulation and was the primary source for the GOP's "Energy Policy Act of 2005" that brought us this disaster said what?

"Barton is one of Big Oil's biggest boosters. And he has taken $1.4 million in campaign contributions from the industry since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

Talk about a "shakedown."

More like a buy-out on that one danni....

GOP=pussies

that's all you need to say.

Ok, remind me. Congress critters are supposed to represent American people or foreign corporations? I forget.

translation: the democrats got paid, so why not us too?

I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out BP's worth has been over estimated with cooked books.

#66 | Posted by BluSky

The fine for this should be about 20 billion too.

If you or I as individuals caused a toxic spill even a minor fraction of this size we would end up bankrupt.

Leave it to a rightwing Republican to apologize to BP in the aftermath of oil spill. Unbelievable. I hope every voter along the Gulf Coast is made aware of this GOP attitude. It speaks volumes as to rightwing political contempt for ordinary hard-working tax paying Americans.

Barton should have known better than to speak the truth in a room full of political demagogues in high dudgeon...

Barton should have known better than to speak the truth in a room full of political demagogues in high dudgeon...

YulB: I hate to break it to you, but Barton was clearly the biggest demagogue in the room. How else to explain his taking the cause of Corporate Titan BP over the well being of the ordinary Americans living all along the Gulf Coast. Only a true hardcore rightwing partisan hack could fail to see it.

Is he related to the guy Cheney shot in the face?

How else to explain his taking the cause of Corporate Titan BP over the well being of the ordinary Americans living all along the Gulf Coast.

The zip codes for ^^High Dudgeon^^ start at 20001, but since you and the rest of the progressive base have taken up permanent residence there, they're running out of numbers.

The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign research organization, shows BP has given $6.212 million to nearly 1,OOO candidates for federal office over the past 20 years.

In a bit of political irony, the company, whose oil spill has made President Obama's life miserable over the past month, has given more to the president than anyone else.

Hmmmm. Obama's #1, NOT Barton. Whoda thunkit?

"Hmmmm. Obama's #1, NOT Barton. Whoda thunkit?"

Gee, and one is apologizing to BP, and the other is holding their feet to the fire.

Don't look now, but you just undermined your own point: you've proven -- in this case -- the Republican can be bought off, but the Democrat can't.

Excellent post Danforth. You nailed it on the head. Whereas Obama is going after BP IN SPITE of being a beneficiary of donations, the GOP/rightwing apologists are seeking to defend and apologize to BP.

Sen. John Kerry, R-Mass., $9,500
Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, $9,000
#15 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2010-06-17 11:38 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

'schuss me. -- Kerry is an 'R'?!?!?!!

When did that happen?

Don't look now, but you just undermined your own point: you've proven -- in this case -- the Republican can be bought off, but the Democrat can't.

lol! All it proves is that once elected, the Democrat openly reaches into your pocket and TAKES what he wants.

Obama just reached into BP's and stole $20b. Those actually suffering damages in the Gulf won't see 1/10th of that.

How are things in Jersey City?

"All it proves is that once elected, the Democrat openly reaches into your pocket and TAKES what he wants."

Nice try, but Obama got the donations from BP before he was elected. You're not very good at this whole debate thingy, are you?

Again, the Democrat who got money from BP held them responsible, and the Republican who got BP money apologized to them.

He's since apologized for the apology.

Joe Barton's apologizing for a lot. Check this out!

Joe, the former Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that gutted regulation and was the primary source for the GOP's "Energy Policy Act of 2005" that brought us this disaster said what?
#81 | Posted by YAV

For a change let's have a little honesty and less undocumented innuendo

Uh, Joe Barton was the sponsor and wrote key sections, such as the section on incentives for deep offshore drilling and natural gas, as alluded to in your last paragraph. I have no idea where you're getting your 'little honesty and less undocumented innuendo' bullshit.

Wow, given all the crap they've given to Obama, they (republicans) are ready to eat their own...

re: #s 2,3,4,6,9,11,etc, posted by afkababbler: diagnosis - terminal tertiary syphilis.

Joe Lobbyist!

Obviously Rep.Joe Barton got some Ca$h from BP too!

These arguments are simply mind-blowing. You folks would allow the federal government to bypass law and usurp power so long as it conforms to your agenda. BP should be held accountable through LEGAL process. This is not the mob, and it is not the wild west. What possible objections do you have to holding BP accountable under the law? You weep for constitutional rights of non-citizens and terrorists, yet would turn a blind eye to the legal system in this situation?! Hypocrisy in its finest form.

Barton apologized?

To BP?

The same guys who's lies, greasy lobbyists, failed equipment and lack of a serious worst case contingency plan have led to the greatest enviromental disaster in US history which is still ongoing?

THOSE guys?

Man, someone call up Dick Cheney and tell him we found him another perfect hunting partner.

Be Well.

A leading House Republican...

Actually, Barton is more than that.

He's the ranking Republican on the House Energy Committee with one of the safest safe seats in Texas who's been making asinine statement like this for a long while. A bought and sold tool of the Energy lobby who's been an enemy of the environment and a friend of corporate polluters since forever.

If a Republican like Barton was in the WH right now he might very well have actually paid BP 20 Billion to clean up the mess they made.

Do not want.

Be Well.

"The Constitution doesn't give that authority to the executive branch.... There are courts for this purpose,"

That is precisely the point and what makes the $20B fund so important. As evidenced by the Exxon Valdez debacle, big corporations use the legal system to minimize/eliminate accepting responsibility for their bad behavior. This action has the potential of providing some relief for the injured parties substantially sooner.

The reason Barton and his ilk are so bent out of shape is that it sets a precedent for how future corporate bad behavior can be handled; be it oil related or not. In the future, if a settlement goes against them, corporations may be embrassed into posting a bond, establishing a trust fund, etc. Since you can't lock up the corporation, lock up the money. Locking up the money would incentivize the corporation resolve disputes quicker.

Nice try, but Obama got the donations from BP before he was elected. You're not very good at this whole debate thingy, are you?

What's the zip code for the region of Upper High Dudgeon you live in? Just wanted to know if the oxgen is so thin that the body has to cut off supplies to brain cells in order to survive. It sure sounds like that's whats happenin to those that think Obama's extorted $20b political payoff slush fund will actually benefit the Gulf region. All it will do is turn another 100,000 hard working men/women into government welfare queens and pad the Swiss bank accounts of the Chicago Rezko Group.

Oh, that's right, thats how Democrats typically "help" regions... by redistributing cash from those that actually earn it to those that can't.

section on incentives for deep offshore drilling and natural gas
#105 | Posted by YAV
Most important point is that the vote for this bill was very bypartisian so

60% of House Democrats thought it was OK
73% of Senate Democrat thought it was OK.

Also this is left out

Bill Clinton that signed the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act.

In 1995, both houses of Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (S.395), which granted a royalty "holiday" to oil and gas companies drilling in government-owned deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico for leases sold between 1996 and 2000.

Look I'm not saying Republicans and Joe Barton in specific don't have finger prints on this but to hang this whole thing on them is too much for me to let you get away with.

I read the idiotic BP shills here and just hope that their sentiments become one of the issues which Republicans will run on in November. Apologize to BP over and over, pretend the President "shook down" BP, whine that the 20 Billion is a slush fund.....Please!
Joe Barton has given Democrats a gift which will keep on giving, Michelle Bachman has a copartner in crazy now. Surely Sarah Palin will join them in their defense of poor little BP.

#114 | Posted by paneocon

Hmmm. I wonder who was in charge of Congress, wrote, and passed that legislation while engaged in a witch hunt of Bill Clinton?

Dear BP,

Send cash immediately, preferably in unmarked Franklins.

Yours Truly,

Joey Barton

P.S. I'll vote to stick the taxpayers for your crimes.

1 outta every 4 dollars Barton has raised since being elected has come from Big Oil.

Over 1.3 million dollars to date.

He's the poster boy for corporate corruption of government.

Be Well.

Hmmm. I wonder who was in charge of Congress, wrote, and passed that legislation while engaged in a witch hunt of Bill Clinton?
#116 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

So you saying that Slick Willy Clinton was not doing the peoples business when he was defending his cigar abuse issues?

Dear BP,

Send cash immediately, preferably in campaign contributions for 2012.

I know I got the $77,051.00 during the campaign, but you stepped in it big time and I'm going to need more $$$ to cover your collective butts on this one.

Yours Truly,

Barry Obama, leader of the almost free world

P.S. I'll keep Waxman on a leash.

So you saying that Slick Willy Clinton was not doing the peoples business when he was defending his cigar abuse issues?

Nope, just that the GOP's well funded political witch hunt of Clinton distracted him unnecessarily around the same time he was trying to concentrate on Al Qaeda emerging as a real threat to US security.

Spud is pretty sure Bin Laden is still grateful for THAT.

K?

Be Well.

"So you saying that Slick Willy Clinton was not doing the peoples business when he was defending his cigar abuse issues?"

The one thing we do know is that the Republicans in Congress back then were more interested in investigating Clinton to the tune of 70 Million Dollars than they were in doing the public's business. Those stalwart, upstanding Congressmen discovered a blow job and righteously asked the president about it while under oath never bothering to mention the affairs they themselves were having at the exact same time.
Hypocrit = Republican

So you saying that Slick Willy Clinton was not doing the peoples business when he was defending his cigar abuse issues?

#119 | Posted by paneocon

Reading comprehension is a MUST.

Congress wrote and passed the bill in question while they were on a witch hunt.

So you saying that Slick Willy Clinton was not doing the peoples business when he was defending his cigar abuse issues?

#119 | Posted by paneocon

Reading comprehension is a MUST.

Congress wrote and passed the bill in question while they were on a witch hunt.

It's simple. NEVER vote for a Republican. Not EVER

Nope, just that the GOP's well funded political witch hunt of Clinton distracted him unnecessarily around the same time he was trying to concentrate on Al Qaeda emerging as a real threat to US security.
Spud is pretty sure Bin Laden is still grateful for THAT.

That is absolutely true... there were serious international issues pending and Ken Starr wanted to talk about a presidential blow job... but then conservatroids think with their dick... are notoriously focused on fucking up something... 24-7-365.25

Nope, just that the GOP's well funded political witch hunt of Clinton distracted him unnecessarily around the same time he was trying to concentrate on Al Qaeda emerging as a real threat to US security.

Spud is pretty sure Bin Laden is still grateful for THAT.

I'm surprised that a leftie would concede that Bill Clinton and the dems dropped the ball regarding national security.

you are giving him an excuse (pretty fucking lame one) but you are still admitting that Clinton could have protected this country better but couldn't because of the distractions........that had to do with his choices of what to do with his dick and choices he made afterward to coverup what he did with his dick. They were distractions though...agreed.

I agree the investigation was unnecesary anbd for partisan reasons only.

But you have conceded that Bill Clinton failed in his role as POTUS in the area of national security that directly led to 9-11.

How big of a distraction was that whole thing? pretty big? I don't know. You have to compare it to the normal job a POTUS has to endure and all the "distractions" that come with the job.

wow. didn't think you had it in you Spud.

That is absolutely true... there were serious international issues pending and Ken Starr wanted to talk about a presidential blow job

I agree that there certainly were much more important issues related to national security than Starr's investigation. A total failure IMO.

Again, I am just shocked to see lefties admit that the failure started BEFORE GWB took office.

I know I know....it's still the republicans fault. LOL

But we made some progress here.

Somehow it feels oddly contradictory that, on one hand some people complain not enough is being done for people being hurt by this disaster, and then complaining a compensation fund is a "shakedown".

He said he was feeling ashamed?

HA!

He ain't seen nothing.

The shame he felt when he made that comment ain't nothing to what he's going to go feel now.

Now he's REALLY got something to feel ashamed about.

It was blackmail, BP is liable only to its stockholders. Yeah, they'll pay up to clean up what they can but then it will be time for hardball. Delay, file endless appeals, and let those people and companies die off.

We need oil, that is the plain simple truth and anyone who drives a car, flies, or takes a boat should realize that they are as guilty as BP.

I LOVE IT!

I LOVE IT!

I LOVE IT!

Obama gets the job done (AGAIN) and the rightards lose their fucking minds!

The Dems only need run on a platform of "Joe Barton would be in charge of this committee if the right takes the house".

Thanks JOE!

Hey Lisa Murkowski (R) from Alaska wanted to set a ceiling of 750 million that the oil companies would be liable for. This is the woman whose family made part of their fortunes off the Exxon Valdez clean up efforts.

Dang.... Obama only got 25X that amount... but he doesn't know what he is doing... shows no leadership... and goddamnit... he gave a bad speech.

Again, I am just shocked to see lefties admit that the failure started BEFORE GWB took office.

there is failure at something in every office... but 20 years of some Bush-hole (counting Bush-hole sr. tenure in this too) in office represents catastrophic failure...for the nation... annnnnnnnnd even though Clinton was addressing the bin Laden issue... early in his presidency the FBI didn't think at the time there was enough evidence to hold bin Laden even if we had captured him... and when there was enough evidence to prosecute him Clinton ordered a cruise missle attack on an al Queda camp... but conservatrons wanted to talk about a blow job....in fact his efforts were largely ignored by the press because Ken Starr... and Rove... wanted to keep the blow job in the White House at the forefront of people's attention... and they did to their own peril... the Conservatron golden boy Newt Gingrich got eaten in the process and had to resign his position in disgrace... and in fact looked like a bigger asshole than Clinton... and in fact was offering Hillary Clinton sympathetic support during the heat of the public scrutiny of her husband... and then republicans started dropping like flies for their wiley ways and extramarital sex and homosexual encounters.... furthermore the republiconfabulators did this all on the taxpayers dollar.

What it boils down to is... when Bill Clinton went after bin Laden... it was the republicons that accused him of "wagging the dog"... the republicons have done ... either on purpose or because they are inherently stupid... let bin Laden escape time and time again...... so basically what I am saying is fuck you... it is on the republican's head that over 3000 people died on 9/11... and it goes back further than Bush-hole jr. ignoring a warning because he was playing golf.

In the end Bill Clinton still came out ahead... remained and remains popular... whereas GWB is called a failure... internationally and domestically... so... when you add it all up... Clinton suffered through a gaffe... but not a failure... so in the end he got to keep both the success of a presidency and a history of getting blow jobs.

Clinton ordered a cruise missle attack on an al Queda camp... but conservatrons wanted to talk about a blow job....
#133 | Posted by RightisTrite

1993 WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMBING
CLINTON RESPONSE: President Clinton didn't even visit New York City nor address the nation the day of this terrorist attack.

1993 SOMALIA BLACKHAWK DOWN
just 4 months into his presidency, Bill Clinton declared “Mission Accomplished” in a speech declaring: “On behalf of all the American people, I say to you, General, and to all whom you brought with you: Welcome home, and thank you for a job very, very well done.” Shortly thereafter, with no U.S. deterrent, Somalia's warlords began fighting again and initiated a series of bloody attacks on U.N. peacekeepers.
October 3, 4 1993: President Clinton launched a new mission and sent in a force of Rangers and Special Forces units to capture the brutal warlord Mohammad Farrah Aidid and restore order. On October 3 on a mission to pick up Aidid, two Black Hawks were unexpectedly shot down. Eighteen American soldiers are attacked and killed in Mogadishu, Somalia. A U.S. indictment later charged bin Laden and his followers with training the attackers. This is the incident described in the movie Black Hawk Down.

CLINTON RESPONSE: President Clinton aborted the mission. The U.S. released the criminals it had captured that same day at such great cost, and the U.N., lacking U.S. support, was powerless to keep order.

1995 RIYADH U.S. MILITARY HEADQUARTERS BOMBING
November 13, 1995: Five US soldiers and two Indian nationals are killed and more than 60 people wounded when a car bomb explodes in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

CLINTON RESPONSE: NONE!! He gave this 2 sentence remark later that afternoon after hearing of the attacks.

1996 KHOBAR TOWER BOMBING
June 25, 1996: Nineteen killed and 386 wounded when a truck bomb explodes at the US military base of Khobar near the town of Dhahran in Saudi Arabia.
The prosecution and criminal indictment for these murders had to wait for a new administration. In February 2001, working with exactly the same evidence but with a talented new prosecutor, James B. Comey Jr. (now U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York), Attorney General John Ashcroft's personal intervention, and White House support, the case was presented to a grand jury. On June 21, 2001, only four days before some of the terrorist charges would have become barred by the five-year statute of limitations, the grand jury indicted 13 Hezbollah terrorists for the Khobar attack and identified Iran as the sponsor.

2 U.S. Embassies in Africa Bombed
August 7, 1998: 224 people killed and over 5000 injured, mostly Africans, when US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam in east Africa are bombed.
CLINTON RESPONSE: The comparatively restrained response of the Clinton Administration, at the time embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal, was twofold: militarily and economically. To retaliate on an economic level, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13099 on August 20, 1998 that prohibited transactions with terrorists who threatened to disrupt the Middle East peace process.
President Clinton ordered Operation Infinite Reach, a series of cruise missile strikes on terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan on August 20, 1998, announcing the planned strike in a primetime address on American television. Within days of Operation Infinite Reach, Western engineers who had visited or been associated with the plant, as well as Sudanese officials, doctors, lawyers and plant employees insisted that Al Shifa was a working pharmaceutical plant and not a terrorist operational site.
NOTE: I guess President Clinton decided to kill Al Qaeda terrorists with massive migraine headaches since he bombed an Aspirin Factory!

The fact is in 1993 till 1996 the FBI felt bin Laden was only implicated and didn't have enough evidence to bring him here... and the Sudanese government never offered to hand him over.

From fact check:
What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.

At which point the republicans were more concerned with who was sucking Clinton's dick than him going after or missing a target based on faulty intelligence... or encouraging him to pursue the matter till he got it right. Nope ya wanted to read the Starr report.

So you are saying that Clinton should shown enough leadership to have engaged in a protracted war like Bush-hole? He should have pounded his chest and said smoke him out dead or alive and three months later said he didn't even think about him... he was going after the guy that tried to kill his father...because that after all... is effective leadership?

and if I am reading you right... you believe that using restraint in international policy is somehow inferior to spending trillion dollars bombing a lot of aspirin factories... and baby formula factories...and hospitals... and wedding parties not to mention alienating nations around the world... and still not catch the guy you are going after?

Clinton's hands were tied... by rule of international law... Bush-hole disregarded the law and went ahead and illegally invaded a country anyways... only to net the same result.

One president left the country with a surplus... one left us on the brink of financial ruin

I bet you're stupid enough to have supported the 75 million dollar ceiling on oil companies liability if they fucked up.

"Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden."
#135 | Posted by RightisTrite

Fact check
Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory
The Al-Shifa (الشفاء, Arabic for "healing") pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum North, Sudan was constructed between 1992 and 1996 with components imported from the United States, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, India, and Thailand.

The factory was destroyed in 1998 by a missile attack launched by the United States government, killing one employee and wounding eleven. Critics of the attack have estimated that up to tens of thousands of Sudanese civilians died throughout Sudan as the supply of necessary drugs was cut off[1][2]. The US government stated several reasons for its attack:

At which point the republicans were more concerned with who was sucking Clinton's dick than him going after or missing a target based on faulty intelligence... or encouraging him to pursue the matter till he got it right. Nope ya wanted to read the Starr report.
#135 | Posted by RightisTrite

Who cares, Clinton was in charge. If he had just admitted he was getting some strange and taken his medicine I and the rest of the world would not have cared, We just would have laughed.

Clinton's hands were tied... by rule of international law...
#135 | Posted by RightisTrite

Prove it!

Bush-hole disregarded the law and went ahead and illegally invaded a country anyways... only to net the same result.
#135 | Posted by RightisTrite

I'm not a fan of our entry into Afghanistan so I will not defend Bush on this. As A student of history, armies from 600BC have been getting their ass kicked there and I don't see why we will be any different. Was Bush and NATO operating within the law? Yes as far as I'm concerned but operating within the law and doing the right thing are two different things. I don't believe in nation building but I have no problem with "The Bush doctrine" of preemption.

One president left the country with a surplus... one left us on the brink of financial ruin
#135 | Posted by RightisTrite

This has been beat into the ground and both have their mistakes to account for.

I bet you're stupid enough to have supported the 75 million dollar ceiling on oil companies liability if they fucked up.
#135 | Posted by RightisTrite

No I don't but I also believe in "the rule of law"

"I have no problem with "The Bush doctrine" of preemption."

Would you if China employed it?

#137 | Posted by paneocon

We had the world behind us and Obama in our sights.

A moron President decided to let him go an invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, blow the world's good will, and blow a few trillion on his corporate buddies while he was at it.

We had the world behind us and Osama in our sights.

The Illegal Bush Doctrine has PERMANENTLY fucked us forever as long as America stands. Congradulations Bushites You have fucked us all.

Larry

The Illegal Bush Doctrine has PERMANENTLY fucked us forever as long as America stands. Congradulations Bushites You have fucked us all.
#141 | Posted by LarryMohr

Curious Larry, but how do you justify your views with Obama's predator drone attacks in Pakistan?

A moron President decided to let him go an invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, blow the world's good will, and blow a few trillion on his corporate buddies while he was at it.
#139 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

I assume you are talking about Iraq?

"I have no problem with "The Bush doctrine" of preemption."
Would you if China employed it?
#138 | Posted by Danforth

Maybe and defiantly if it involved the US or US allies.

If IRAN is confirmed to be making nuclear weapons is a preemptive strike in the best interest of most of the world?

Curious Larry, but how do you justify your views with Obama's predator drone attacks in Pakistan?

Posted by paneocon at 2010-06-19 11:52 PM | Reply

The Taliban/Al Queda moving from Afghanistan to Pakistan (ones who officially at least attacked us on 9-11-01) with Pakistan not doing their part to remove said actors. Seems a clear cut case of defensive attacks. Unlike Iraq who might I add never attacked the United States nor was in cahoots with the Taliban/ Al Qaeda. Big difference.

Larry

If IRAN is confirmed to be making nuclear weapons is a preemptive strike in the best interest of most of the world?

#144 | Posted by paneocon at 2010-06-19 11:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

At some point we will have to accept that Iran will have Nukes. The United States just doesn't want another Country joining in to their "Little Nuke Club"

Larry

"Maybe and defiantly if it involved the US or US allies. "

Oh, so you DO have a problem with the Bush Doctrine. Got it.

The Taliban/Al Queda moving from Afghanistan to Pakistan (ones who officially at least attacked us on 9-11-01) with Pakistan not doing their part to remove said actors. Seems a clear cut case of defensive attacks.
#145 | Posted by LarryMohr

The reason I ask is not to pick a fight but is is an interesting bit of international law.

Oh, so you DO have a problem with the Bush Doctrine. Got it.
#147 | Posted by Danforth

Sort of, if we make the preemptive strike I'm OK but if someone maks a preemptive strike on us I'm not so happy.

Ummmmmmmm what does Afghanistan have anything to do with Dubya's illegal invasion of Iraq?? Please help Me out Paneocon??????

Larry

Sort of, if we make the preemptive strike I'm OK but if someone maks a preemptive strike on us I'm not so happy.

Posted by paneocon at 2010-06-20 12:34 AM | Reply

Hey if You are happy with the United States Preemptively striking another Country then You should be also happy when another Country Preemptively sttacks the United States. After all they learned from the best and just following the Leader.

Larry

At some point we will have to accept that Iran will have Nukes. The United States just doesn't want another Country joining in to their "Little Nuke Club"
#146 | Posted by LarryMohr

"Little Nuke Club"
China
Russia
France
Pakistan
United Kingdom
India
North Korea
Israel

IMO most of these countries understand the ramifications of nuclear war and most love their children. This would not be the case in IRAN.
I have lost sleep over Pakistan and India and I still think that North Korea is "the gang that can't shoot straight"

IMO most of these countries understand the ramifications of nuclear war and most love their children. This would not be the case in IRAN.
I have lost sleep over Pakistan and India and I still think that North Korea is "the gang that can't shoot straight"

Posted by paneocon at 2010-06-20 12:42 AM | Reply

You are afraid of Iran obtaining Nukes?? Seriously?? I am not worried about if or when Iran will obtain Nukes. I don't lose sleep over the possibility of Iran posessing Nukes. Last time I checked Kansas was in Central AMerica(United States of America) Not in Central Iran. I worry about what My Country does or doesn't do.

Larry

"Sort of, if we make the preemptive strike I'm OK but if someone maks a preemptive strike on us I'm not so happy."

IOW, you DO have a problem with the Bush Doctrine.

Ummmmmmmm what does Afghanistan have anything to do with Dubya's illegal invasion of Iraq?? Please help Me out Paneocon??????
#150 | Posted by LarryMohr

The international rule that allowed Bush to enter Afghanistan would be simular if not the same that would allow Obama to use predator drone attacks in Pakistan? I don't know the laws on this but maybe someone else who does.

As for the invasion of Iraq that's a different situation.
H. J. Res. 114: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Senate Vote #237
Yea: 77 (77%) D-29 R-48 0
Nay: 23 (23%) D-21 R- 1
House Vote #455
Yea: 296 (69%) D-81 R-213 2
Nay: 133 (31%) D-126 R-6

154 | Posted by Danforth

You're "speaking Danforth" and I'm not playing tonight

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Senate Vote #237
Yea: 77 (77%) D-29 R-48 0
Nay: 23 (23%) D-21 R- 1
House Vote #455
Yea: 296 (69%) D-81 R-213 2
Nay: 133 (31%) D-126 R-6

#155 | Posted by paneocon at 2010-06-20 12:55 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

show Me the Money Honey. Show Me the UN Resolution that specifically sanctioned the Iraq war and You win. That is all You've gotta do. Show Me which UN Resolution sanctioned the events on March 19 2003. I dare You. I double dare You.

Larry

Larry,

Our government can no longer be bothered with the pesky process of Congress formally declaring war. So much easier to engage the exact-same activity and do so with a congressional-resolution "authorizing the use of force."

"You're "speaking Danforth" and I'm not playing tonight"

It's quite simple: if you have a problem with other countries invoking the Bush Doctrine, you have a problem with the Bush Doctrine. Anything less is jingoism.

The international rule that allowed Bush to enter Afghanistan would be simular if not the same that would allow Obama to use predator drone attacks in Pakistan? I don't know the laws on this but maybe someone else who does.

#155 | Posted by paneocon at 2010-06-20 12:55 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

This one is very easy. It would draw upon the UN Charters article 51 powers. Namely

Our government can no longer be bothered with the pesky process of Congress formally declaring war. So much easier to engage the exact-same activity and do so with a congressional-resolution "authorizing the use of force."

#158 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-06-20 12:59 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

So where is the Iraq War Legal JeffJ?? Yes Yes Yes Jefgf. I know we have been over this now how many Years?? I know we have agreed SEVERAL times over the past 5 Years on this. We are like Oil and Water over this one.

Larry

#157 | Posted by LarryMohr

I didn't know this was a competition?
First we didn't need a UN Resolution as H. J. Res. 114: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was good enought.

But will this do for a back up?
S/RES/1441 (2002)

Yes we most certainly did need the UN Security COuncils authorization for the Use of Military Force. We agreed to it when we signed onto all of those relevant UN Resolutions. Please do try again.

Larry

#159 | Posted by Danforth

One last time, If we had warning that the Japanese were about the attack Pearl Harbor would you have a problem with a preemptive attack on the Japanese?

UN Resolution 1441. Articles 12 through 14

12.Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

“13.Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

“14.Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

The UN Security Council as a whole was the one who had retained juridsdiction over Iraq. NOT any member State.

Yes we most certainly did need the UN Security COuncils authorization for the Use of Military Force.
#163 | Posted by LarryMohr

Says Who?

We agreed to it when we signed onto all of those relevant UN Resolutions. Please do try again.
#163 | Posted by LarryMohr

I don't need to try again I gave you the Congress's H. J. Res. 114: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

And the UN's UN Resolution S/RES/1441 (2002)

You have both

Larry,

I was actually agreeing with you (Shocking; I know).

These "police actions" and "authorizations of military force" are bullshit.

We are either at war or we are not.

I am reminded of Yoda - "No. Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."

Damn straight!

Don't half-ass it - follow the constitution. Period.

I don't need to try again I gave you the Congress's H. J. Res. 114: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

And the UN's UN Resolution S/RES/1441 (2002)

You have both

#166 | Posted by paneocon at 2010-06-20 01:14 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

NEITHER one sanctioned the Iraq War. Do You not understand this??

Larry

#168 ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm

ON the subject of Afghanistan. I have said on may occasions that I was not in favor of this action.

ON the subject of Iraq. I have said on several occasions that what I want is a declaration of war. We have proven that America has no stomach for war and if it's going to get into one we need to clearly declared as it WWII

NEITHER one sanctioned the Iraq War. Do You not understand this??
#169 | Posted by LarryMohr

This is your opinion and one shared by many on the left but I differ on this so we respectfully disagree.

This is your opinion and one shared by many on the left but I differ on this so we respectfully disagree.

Posted by paneocon at 2010-06-20 01:23 AM | Reply

It isn't the first time

#171 | Posted by paneocon

Yes.

We are either at war or we are not.

"If we had warning that the Japanese were about the attack Pearl Harbor would you have a problem with a preemptive attack on the Japanese?"

That's not an accurate description of the Bush Doctrine. Maybe you should educate yourself.

It isn't the first time
#173 | Posted by LarryMohr

:-) I'm still going to hunt around on the law that allows predator drone attacks in Pakistan. Since we are predator drone crazy now we are likely to flying these suckers all over the world in the future.

"One last time"

Huh? When were any of the other times?

I'm still going to hunt around on the law that allows predator drone attacks in Pakistan. Since we are predator drone crazy now we are likely to flying these suckers all over the world in the future.

Posted by paneocon at 2010-06-20 01:33 AM | Reply

It's no different than a F14 flying over an area where attackers of the United States or Her alllies are at. It's just an airplane without on board pilot. It's something even I could learn to fly.

Larry

Oh and the Law that You are looking for is in the UN Charter. That would be Article 51 to be exact.

It's quite simple: if you have a problem with other countries invoking the Bush Doctrine, you have a problem with the Bush Doctrine.

Except I don't have a problem with the Bush Doctrine.

But I do have a problem with certain other countries invoking the Bush Doctrine.

Anyone who conflates that paradox with "jingoism" is confusing moral relativism with intellect.

It's no different than a F14 flying over an area where attackers of the United States
178 | Posted by LarryMohr

Last time I checked we were at war against the Taliban/Al Qaeda. If they go into Pakistan and Pakistan doesn't deal with them. It's no different than aiding and abetting a fugative from justice. Article 51 powers come into play then

Larry

the Law that You are looking for is in the UN Charter. That would be Article 51 to be exact.
#179 | Posted by LarryMohr

Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

This allows predator drone attacks in Pakistan?

This allows predator drone attacks in Pakistan?

Posted by paneocon at 2010-06-20 01:51 AM | Reply

I blow Your neighbors away tonight. I come back to Kansas what is the difference if You use a manned say F14 to blow Me away or a Predator Drone?? EXACTLY whats the difference?? As long as I attack first it's Self Defense to blow Me away. The weapon used makes no difference.

Larry

One last time, If we had warning that the Japanese were about the attack Pearl Harbor would you have a problem with a preemptive attack on the Japanese?

#164 | Posted by paneocon at 2010-06-20 01:10 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)

Yes. If we had advance notice of an attack. I would build up the defenses and wait for the attack. If we attack first--we are the aggressor. If we attack first---we started the war. America shouldn't start wars---America should finish them. Until Bush--that was our philosophy.

The intel about them attacking us could be false. The attack on Iraq is a case in point.

I've been lectured tonight on the lack of legal standing Bush and the US had for going into Afghanistan and Iraq but your rational for using predator drone or F14's in some other countries sovereign air space if it's self defense it's OK? My father use to say to me "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" :-) I'm kind of a rule of law guy, when it benefits me and when it doesn't benefit me, it's still the law.

I've been lectured tonight on the lack of legal standing Bush and the US had for going into Afghanistan and Iraq but your rational for using predator drone or F14's in some other countries sovereign air space if it's self defense it's OK? My father use to say to me "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" :-) I'm kind of a rule of law guy, when it benefits me and when it doesn't benefit me, it's still the law.

#186 | Posted by paneocon at 2010-06-20 02:04 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Are You trolling Paneocon or are You serious?? Do You not understand that if Pakistan doesn't hand over or deal with those that attacked us on 9-11-01 that they are just as guilty as those that attacked the United States?? Do You not comprehend this??

Larry

#185 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I can respect your view but I have conflict with this. Had Roosevelt been proven to have knowledge of the Japanese attack and had he waited for the attack do you think the American people would have reelected him two more times or would he have been ridden out of Washington on a rail?

"Except I don't have a problem with the Bush Doctrine. But I do have a problem with certain other countries invoking the Bush Doctrine."

That's like saying you don't want space weaponized by anyone, but it's okay with you if America weaponizes space.

"Anyone who conflates that paradox with "jingoism" is confusing moral relativism with intellect."

Oh, I fully understand it's better to be the only one with a gun in a world of knives. But it's hypocritical to believe we should be able to do whatever we want to protect ourselves, and no one else should be able to do the same to protect themselves.

"Had Roosevelt been proven to have knowledge of the Japanese attack..."

The Bush Doctrine does not require an imminent attack, or even belief in an imminent attack.

Are You trolling
#187 | Posted by LarryMohr

I don't troll. You do know that Pakistan may not share your views on what is acceptable in their sovereign space. I'm sure that there is a deal in place on the present predator drone attacks. My interest is purely academic in wanting to know if there is law for this and is so what is it.
I've been watching a tivo of the Grand Am race today and it's over so I need to get my sleep so I'm out of here.

It doesn't matter what Pakistan thinks if they are harboring the Taliban/Al Qaeda. Pure and Simple like.

Let's go ahead and leave the angry talk at the door friend.

It's time to clean up the grid.

Because a happy grid is a clean grid!!

#192 | Posted by paneocon

Hmmm.

Iraq had 'sovereign space'. They didn't attack us.

The right wing called anyone against invading a 'terrorist lover' and worse.

Where is the who is this mook flag?

Danforth- Bet you it's some FAR right winger disgruntled with the moderation policy.

ie

Rex

Hey people, be nice to the MohrOn. Stress him too much and he may just stroke out before getting a chance to "kick Paneocon's ass".

And that is something I'd dearly love to see... a throwdown between Jabba the Hutt and some idiotic pencil-necked pussy.