CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON NOW! - Urge impeachment if Bush ignores the UN

Right on the money! Goddess! we live in scary times!

This is your handy-dandy number for the Congresspeople switchboard! Make those calls!
1-800-839-5276

So, are you saying that the wishes of the UN should trump US sovereignty, our Constitution, and our laws?
How about our national security?
The UN risks nothing if their approach is wrong, but the US risks national security, the lives of our citizens, and political stability.
Why should we risk everything and hand the UN the reins to our destiny? What have they done to make our situation better?
Seems to me they just want to use us when we can meet their security, economic, and political needs. But when we ask for their support in return for something that is vitally important to us, they just want to oppose us. They only want what will transfer our wealth and power to other member countries.
The UN has just tapped Libya as the lead nation on the UN Security Council, for crying out loud! This is the same Libya that supported and protected the bombers of the PanAm flight that eventually hit the ground in Lockerbie, Scotland in a million pieces. That's like putting David Westerfield in charge of the Day Care Center.
Toad out

Better yet, you and a few dozen of your closest freinds can each put up $1000 in campaign donations and invite your Congressperson to visit. Along with the donation, you can present your perspective on the issues that concern you. We at AIPAC hold hundreds of such meetings every year. So go ahead and call you Muslim-loving pigs, it won't do any good without the green stuff!!!!

>>The UN Charter was signed by the USA and is, therefore, United States law according to the Constitution.

The UN Charter does not trump the US Constitution. What a laugh!! If that were the case, whenever a conflict between the UN and our Constitution came up, we'd have to bow to the UN. What a bunch of horse-hockey.

Screw the UN! The UN is a lot of talk with no way of backing up their resolutions. Countries like France and Germany see the UN as the great equalizer, a place where they can dictate to the US what we should and shouldn't do. No way we should surrender our Constitutional rights to a World body. And we won't. The UN can kiss our a**.

The UN is a Joke and always has been. It is set up to drain American tax dollars to fund deadbeat dictators.

Only in the US of A, land of Limbaugh, are there dickless wonders like these freaking out about the UN. Give me a break.

Dickless said: "Countries like France and Germany see the UN as the great equalizer, a place where they can dictate to the US what we should and shouldn't do." Arrogant nazi-style nationalism. Gee, I'm so scared of the French! They're out to get us! Please . . .

Another freak: "So, are you saying that the wishes of the UN should trump US sovereignty, our Constitution, and our laws?" I thought this was what NAFTA, the WTO, and the other corporate orgs the rightwingers and other corporate bitches have such are hard on over were for. I thought the rightwing in the US was set up to thwart our soverignty, Constitution, and laws. That's what the Bush Administration is all about.

Another penisless moron said: "It is set up to drain American tax dollars to fund deadbeat dictators." I thought that was what the CIA was for. Who needs the UN?

Message to rightwingers: Get some viagra or a penis extension and leave the rest of the world alone.

First of all, screw the French.

>I THOUGHT this was what NAFTA, the WTO, and the other corporate orgs the rightwingers and other corporate bitches have such are hard on over were for. I THOUGHT the rightwing in the US was set up to thwart our soverignty, Constitution, and laws. That's what the Bush Administration is all about.<

Who gave you permission to think? See what happens when you think without Mommy to hold your hand? You come away with not understanding anything accurately. And you want to be left alone? Left alone you'll foolishly run out into traffic and get yourself killed. Mommy's just gonna have to hold your hand till your old enough to think on your own, if you ever reach that age.

"First of all, screw the French."

I sort of doubt any of them will have you, given your small-mindedness, among other small things.

You're already a five (5) time LOSER. Wanna go for six (6)??

To hear Democratic senators carping about President Bush's Iraq policy, you'd almost think space aliens from France had taken over their brains. "I think it would be a huge mistake if the president went forward without the support of our allies and the United Nations," the Associated Press quotes Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle as saying. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California is unhappy that America is massing troops in the Persian Gulf region, because it suggests that "regardless of the findings of the U.N. inspectors, the president may well intend to use military force to bring about regime change. . . . This is deeply disturbing."

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/023/nation/In_speech_Kerry_to_call_Bush_policy_dangerous_+.shtml

The Boston Globe reports Massachusetts' Sen. John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, plans to deliver a speech at Georgetown University today in which he blasts American "unilateralism" as "belligerent," and "myopic." (An odd combination of adjectives; aren't guys in glasses usually on the RECEIVING end of belligerence?) "I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country," reads an advance copy of the speech provided by Kerry's office. "In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world."

Delaware's Sen. Joe Biden, meanwhile, "said he was urging fellow Democrats to take the position that 'absent some compelling evidence, we should let the inspectors run out their string,' " the AP reports. Biden recites the mantra that Bush hasn't made the case for war and says: "There is no informed consent at this point."

It's no surprise that some Democrats are peaceniks; when the Senate voted last October to declare war on Iraq, after all, 21 Democrats cast "no" votes. But wait a second. Among the 29 Democrats voting "yes" were Biden, Daschle, Feinstein and Kerry. They are now in the position of opposing a war that they voted for.

Why are they taking such a position? No one seriously argues that the Iraqis have been fulfilling their obligations under the U.N. Security Council resolutions, which, under the terms of the war resolution, it would have to do in order to avoid war. Complaints about "unilateralism" are a dodge, for two reasons: First, there was never any doubt that the war resolution authorized unilateral military action if necessary; second, the action in Iraq is certain to be multilateral, with some allies on board, even if the Security Council shrugs.

Those who oppose war in Iraq offer no alternative; by default, they favor the status quo, or the status quo ante 1998 (when Saddam Hussein tossed out the inspectors). That status quo amounts to a quagmire: The U.S. and U.N. spend enormous resources to keep Saddam in check; the Iraqi people suffer the oppression of a brutal dictator and the deprivation caused by U.N. sanctions; and the political culture of the Arab and Muslim worlds--source of Sept. 11 and suicide bombings--remains static.

No one can defend this state of affairs as desirable, so the antiwar argument amounts to saying that war would be worse. I disagree; war may be hell, but the status quo is even more hellish. Yet to oppose war on this ground is intellectually defensible. It's very hard, however, to square with a vote in favor of the same war. And so far as I know, neither Biden, Daschle, Feinstein nor Kerry has repudiated his pro-war vote.

So what might have brought about this change of heart? Well, look at it through a cynically political lens, and things begin to seem explicable. After all, one thing has changed since Oct. 11, when the Senate voted for war: America has held an election, which the Democrats lost.

Some Democrats on both sides--Joe Lieberman, Paul Wellstone--no doubt cast votes of conscience in October. But many others seem to have made a political calculation. The lesson the Democrats learned from 1992 is that economic anxiety trumps foreign-policy success, so if the economy is in the dumps (or appears to be), voters will oppose the party in power regardless of its successes on the battlefield. Thus, these Democrats reasoned, their best bet was to support Bush on the war, so as to get that issue out of the way, then campaign on the economy.

Result: Max Cleland and Jean Carnahan, who voted for the war, now hold the esteemed title of private citizen. A pro-war vote probably saved Sen. Tim Johnson's seat, and maybe Mary Landrieu's too--but what really matters is that the Democrats are now the minority party. The Dems have now realized that 2002 (and 2004) is not 1992; after Sept. 11, foreign policy is a powerful political issue.

The Democrats have become the party of quagmire because quagmire now suits their political interests. If they are able to drum up enough opposition to war that the president backs down--a long shot, I'll admit, but in the short term, what have they got to lose?--Bush becomes much easier to defeat a year from November. One can imagine John Kerry as his party's standard-bearer, saying: "Saddam Hussein is still in power because President Bush alienated our allies and made it impossible to liberate Iraq."

Let's hope it doesn't come to that. All indications are that the president has the resolve to win this war, no matter how much heartburn it causes in Paris, in Berlin and on Capitol Hill. If he does not, he will deserve to lose in 2004. So let the liberation begin.

Do you kiss YOUR mother with that mouth?
Some people don't make much sense, so they have to stoop to name-calling and attempts at belittling the opposition.
Truth is, the war is going to happen. Germany and France will eventually see it our way. It's in their best interests, too. Bush is going to take care of Saddam. We will leave with our alliances intact, and the Iraqi people will be much better off with a friendlier and much less oppressive government. Freedom always has a cost associated with it. Unfortunately, there will certainly be some loss of life. Better a thousand in this action than millions because we didn't do it at all.
It's really easy to sit back with your quite limited information and similarly limited reasoning ability and second-guess Bush. Bottom line is that he HAS to get it right. You have the luxury of getting it wrong. He does not. There are a lot of people much smarter and better informed than you and I calling the shots in DC. At this point, the leftists and anarchists just have to sit back and hope the conservatives were right.
Toad

Bush has already done plenty. He ought to be impeached regardless of whether he ignores the UN. For those who are information challenged, try these. This list was complied by John Kaminski (skylax [at] comcast.net) who is a writer and lives on the coast of Florida waiting for the water to start rising or the Gestapo to kick in his door.

Military desertion? See http://www.awolbush.com/ or http://www.wearepower.org/pipermail/natlpower/2002-October/000556.html
Cocaine smuggling? See http://www.umsl.edu/~skthoma/offline9.htm
Conspiracy to destroy landmarks and commit mass murder? How about http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm to pick the best of many
stories like this.
Treason: http://bush-treason.blogspot.com/
Accessory to the theft of billions of dollars in the savings and loan debacle: See http://www.thetip.org/art_146_icle.html and
http://www.campaignwatch.org/more1.htm
Enriching his friends: http://www.bushnews.com/bushmoney.htm, http://www.bushwatch.net/bushmillions.html and
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/other_more.asp
Obstruction of justice: http://members.tripod.com/~RedRobin2/index-93.html
Illegal jailings: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/pows-m31.shtml and
http://www.newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bin2/thoughts/comment020128.asp
Computerized election vote fraud: http://www.talion.com/vote-rigging.html
Assassinating a political rival: http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5351.html and
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/well-o29.shtml