saskslave
Posts: 69
Joined: 10/13/2006 Status: offline
|
This is an attempt to play political games and to continue to divide the US. This is the second time Rangel has sponsored a bill like this, and when the first bill came up for a vote (in October 2004--four weeks before the election), Rangel voted against it. It's just more political posturing from the hard-left of the Democrat Party. And take a gander at this quote from Rangel: quote:
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said. He just insulted the vast majority of Congress--both Republicans and Democrats. And "flimsy" evidence? Yeah, real flimsy. 1) One year away from having an atomic bomb 2) At least 500 WMD found in Iraq after the liberation--WMD that Saddam claimed he didn't have 3) Gave Abdul Rahman Yasmin (one of the Al Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993--and is still at large) housing and put him on a govt salary. 4) Openly sponsored international terrorism, even announcing to the world that he was now going to pay the families of Palestinian Arab homicide bombers $25,000--up from the previous $10,000. 5) Shot at numerous US and UK aircraft--a violation of the ceasefire he signed. 6) Attempted to assassinate a US president--definitely an act of war. But the Adulterer-in-Chief only half-heaertedly lobbed a few bombs at Iraq after this clear act of war. 7) Attacked 4 countries in 11 years; Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. 8) Saddam - and the UN - skimmed billions from the Oil for Food Program, a mega scandal that the Old Media (with the exception of Fox News and the opinion/editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal) ignored. But we are supposed to ignore this because Saddam owed France, Germany, Russia, and China, billions from the chemicals, nuclear reactors, and military equipment he bought from them. Thus the world was supposed to "contain" Saddam forever (Uday and Qusay would've taken over later) so he could pay these countries back and the corrupt UN could continue to skim billions. Perhaps I'm lacking in "nuance" but this doesn't seem right.
|