McSame the hypocrite?

[Normy]

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”

So says John McCain, as part of his tough talk about Russia’s attacks on Georgia. In calling for Russia to get out, McCain says he doesn’t think we’ll reignite the Cold War, but that you can’t justify the “extent and degree” of Russia’s intervention in Georgia. The presumptive Republican nominee insists that we need to make sure that in the 21st century, we all have respect for the sovereignty and independence of nations.

Say what? The United States invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq more than 5 years ago. And you, Senator McCain, were all for the idea. You voted for the war, remember? At the time, McCain insisted that the U.S. needed to act before Saddam Hussein could develop more advanced weapons. And since then, McCain has remained steadfast in his support of arguably the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. At one point, McCain said U-S troops could remain in Iraq, a sovereign nation, for 100 years.

When it comes to punishing Russia for its actions, the Arizona Senator says its potential membership in the World Trade Organization should be reviewed along with its membership in the G-8. He believes an international peacekeeping mission should be sent to Georgia and that NATO should re-consider adding Georgia and Ukraine to the alliance.

Here’s my question to you: Is John McCain hypocritical to condemn Russia for invading Georgia when he voted to invade Iraq?

[widebody911]

But... Clinton!

Edwards haircut.

(sorry, I was channeling the NeoCon groupies there for a minute)

[varmint]

it is pure offensive moral blindness to confuse saddam hussein's iraq with a pro western democracy like georgia.

[dipso]

Give the guy a break,he is so senile, he has no idea what he is talking about.

[Superman]

Normy, your confusion is typical. The Honorable Senator John McCain would tell you, as would his mentor, Dubya, that the prohibition against invading sovereign nations applies to OTHER countries. Not theirs.

[lendaddy]

I missed the part where Russia went to the UN for approval. You have to be quite intellectually lazy or stupid to relate these two actions.

[dipso]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

I missed the part where Russia went to the UN for approval. You have to be quite intellectually lazy or stupid to relate these two actions.

This is how Russia is going to defend it's position.
This is from an interview with the deputy Prime Minister.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/default.stm

Sackur: "Russia attacked a sovereign nation. What you did was illegal!"

Ivanov: "No, I disagree, we believe what we did was perfectly legal. We were defending Russian citizens. Our 300 Russian peacekeepers are an internationally recognized force. Saakashvili conducted ethnic cleansing, genocide on the citizens of South Ossetia. Russian citizens and Russian peacekeepers were killed. Those are actionable charges."

Sackur: "Your government is claiming that elderly and children were gunned down, tanks running over civilians, people forced into cellars and burned alive. Those are sensational charges. Can you verify any of that? Are foreign journalists welcome in South Ossetia to verify these claims?"

Ivanov: "Yes, they're WELCOME. My answer to you is WELCOME! Come verify for yourself. Our military prosecutors are already documenting it. We have eyewitnesses, we have video."

Sackur: "You bombed targets all over Georgia, far outside of South Ossetia."

Ivanov: "We struck military targets that were supporting the operations in South Ossetia. Georgia continued to shell the main city and villages from inside of Georgiafrom artillery systems. We struck those targets to save civilian lives."

Sackur: "There are many leaders in the West that are 'gravely concerned' about Russia's actions"

Ivanov: "Why are they gravely concerned? Russia has not attacked any nation or threatened any nation militarily unless we were attacked."

Sackur: "Are you concerned that this will affect WTO status? The US wants a G7 discussion of getting rid of Russia as a G8 member."

Ivanov: "Why should it? What we did was defend Russian citizens, a legitimate right we have. We did not start this, Georgia did. Any civilized nation would have responded the same way we did."

Sackur: "US presidential candidates McCain and Obama are virtually competing on how they would deal with this latest action by Russia against a sovereign nation.

Ivanov: "We did exactly what any civilized nation would do to protect its citizens."

Sackur was stumped cold...but it was an excellent interview. Sergei Ivanov is completely fluent in English and had no problems fielding and returning HardTalk hard-balls from Sackur.

It was very clear Russia is very angry and is not going to back up...even one inch.

There you have it, folks. The Russian Deputy Prime Minister on BBC Hardtalk clearly stating that acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide were perpetrated against South Ossetia and Russian citizens. And US and Israeli troops were involved. You will all learn that soon enough.

[Normy]

Originally Posted by Superman

Normy, your confusion is typical. The Honorable Senator John McCain would tell you, as would his mentor, Dubya, that the prohibition against invading sovereign nations applies to OTHER countries. Not theirs.

Confusion? Confusion? What confusion-

-Did I voice an opinion yet?

N?

[dipso]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

I missed the part where Russia went to the UN for approval. You have to be quite intellectually lazy or stupid to relate these two actions.

I don't know if you need approval to respond, if you are attacked.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by dipso

I don't know if you need approval to respond, if you are attacked.

I think you need a new map.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Normy

...Say what? The United States invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq more than 5 years ago. ...

Yes, it was much more than 5 years ago. It was the "Gulf war," and we never left. Saddam signed an agremment, back in the day, to keep us out of Baghdad... he then thumbed his nose at that agrement for a decade.

It is truely amazing how stupid some are willing to be.

[dipso]

Originally Posted by island911

Yes, it was much more than 5 years ago. It was the "Gulf war," and we never left. Saddam signed an agremment, back in the day, to keep us out of Baghdad... he then thumbed his nose at that agrement for a decade.

It is truely amazing how stupid some are willing to be.

That was not the reason given for invading Iraq.
If breaking agreements or disobeying resolutions is a cause for war we would all be fighting each other.

Every country breaks resolutions, Israel holds the record.

Nice try though.

[Mule]

I didn't even read your drivel. Are you going to run from this one like the last one?

[fintstone]

[QUOTE=dipso;4121124]That was not the reason given for invading Iraq.../QUOTE]
Sure it is. From the joint resolution:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; 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 regarding Iraq.
...

[fintstone]

...SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq...

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Sure it is. From the joint resolution:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...

Check and mate. Well done.
It's amazing how kids like dipsy have no grasp of even recent history.