Larry Grant on “In God We Trust”
Posted by Adam Graham in : Idaho Conservative, TheI was challenged by Bubbleheads to find where Larry Grant had ever said anything against “under God” being in the pledge. Well, here it is:
One of the most precious rights we have in America is freedom of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution ensures it by saying:, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
A true strict constructionist would read that and say it means exactly what it says, no laws promoting religion. But, of course, Congress has passed laws that do express a religious preference. We do have “In God We Trust” on our money and we do say “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Given the plain language of the Constitution, how did that happen?
So understand it’s Mr. Grant’s opinion that the use of “In God We Trust” on our money and “Under God” in the pledge are unconstitutional on their face. How much out of the mainstream does that put Mr. Grant?
According at a Fox News/Opinion Dymanics Poll taken in November of last year, 90% of the American people support “Under God” in the pledge and 93% favor “Under God” on the currency.
Thanks for the question, Bubblehead!
Update: Idaho Values Alliance has picked up the story.
How extreme does Larry Grant’s stance against “Under God” in the pledge make him? In 2002, the Democrat-Controlled Senate voted on a bill re-affirming “Under God” in the Pledge and it was passed 99-0. Larry Grant is to the left of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, and all the Democrats who were in the Senate in 2002.
Mainstream Idaho values indeed.
Linked to the Random Yak, Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck on Stupid, Third World County, Bullwinkle Blog, Pursuing Holiness, The Clash of Civilizations, Jo’s Cafe
UPDATE II
Clayton Cramer has posted his thoughts.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
Tyranny of the majority over the minority.
I’m so glad you’re still fighting those commies with the Under God phrase in the pledge.
I am more upset that it was bastardized for such a cheap reason. Maybe it’s just a convenient excuse to people like you.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
That’s not tyranny of the Majority, that’s the majority rules. If you don’t want to say it, you don’t have to. No one forces anyone to say it or to say it with under god in it.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
My point is that it isn’t the Pledge, it’s a bastardized version created to “stop the red tide”.
And those that want to keep it? Pathetic hyper-religious fools.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Interesting way to describe 90% of your fellow citizens.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
No, I have the feeling that if people actually understood the situation, understood the constitution, the numbers would be very different.
The only people putting up a strong defense against changing the pledge are those that are hyper-religious and fools. The rest of the citizenry just doesn’t care that much.
Comment by claytoncramer [Member]
That’s an odd claim, since even (as Adam points out above) Senators on the left end of the Democratic Party know better than to take your position. If few people cared, those Democratic Senators wouldn’t feel the need to vote against removal.
The simple fact is that the First Amendment was never intended for the purpose that the ACLU imagines. The First Congress demonstrated repeatedly that the appropriate role of the federal government relative to religion was not “separation of church and state” but no special treatment or benefit to any particular Christian denomination.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
I couldn’t have said it better. Welcome, Clayton, appreciate the comment.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
Under God is a special treatment, Clayton. Those that were polled (the 90% you guys love to claim) wern’t even aware that the pledge was changed to combat the “red tide”.
How many, if they were properly educated to the history of the pledge, would have answered the same?
Any religion or any God, the government should all be based upon law and law only. References to a God make individual decisions and crimes a matter of etherial judgement and so no man can determine intent. No crimes can be committed because it could be “God’s intent” or “God’s plan”.
So get God out of government entirely, thats the intention and it benefits everyone, not just the secular portion of society.
Comment by Bubblehead [Member]
I still fail to see how expressing an opinion on a Constitutional issue equals a desire to support a law changing an established precedent. I still don’t see anywhere where Larry Grant has said he would sponsor a bill that would remove God from money or the Pledge. The fact is that Larry Grant freely answers questions about his opinions at GFG, and Mr. Sali doesn’t offer any forum for similar discussion. He’s the one with something to hide.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Would Larry Grant vote the same way that Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton did. That’s the question. His answer and his interpretation of the Constitution put in the same school of thought as Binky Boy and Ted Kennedy.
Binky Boy as for your absurd claims on religion. The fact is that Congress had chaplains from it’s inception. Christian Chaplains.
Your view of the law and God is utterly contrary to reality of the way this country works and has worked throughout its history.
Comment by Julie in Boise [Member]
Since Adam selectively chose two paragraphs, I will post here the full text of Larry Grant’s essay on the matter, from the Idaho Press-Tribune last December:
“Leaders intended to ensure freedom
By Larry Grant
One of the most precious rights we have in America is freedom of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution ensures it by saying:, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
A true strict constructionist would read that and say it means exactly what it says, no laws promoting religion. But, of course, Congress has passed laws that do express a religious preference. We do have “In God We Trust” on our money and we do say “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Given the plain language of the Constitution, how did that happen?
Some people say that these things were within the intent of the framers of the Constitution at the time it was written. However, “In God We Trust” did not appear on any federal coin until 1864 and was not on paper money until 1957. As for the pledge, I was in grade school when they added “under God” in 1954, and I remember how hard it was to learn to put those words in when we recited the pledge every morning.
So, no, these things were not part of our Constitution when it was written in 1787, nor for a long time after that.
So who were the framers of the Constitution, and what were they thinking? They were, by and large, religious men, Christian men. Most of them would have described themselves as God-fearing men. Yet, they clearly understood that they were writing a blueprint for civil government, not a religious charter.
By adopting the First Amendment they included what they believed to be basic: that the new government derived no power from any church and that no church derived any power from the government. In other words, this country was founded not on religion, but on religious freedom.
Should we be judged by the words on our money or in our pledge? No. We should be judged by whether we have fed the hungry, clothed the needy and sheltered the homeless. We should be judged by whether we have found jobs for those who want to work, educated our children and provided doctors for those who are sick.
Of course, being free to practice our religion means that we can, in fact, wish people a merry Christmas if we want to.
Merry Christmas.”
Comment by Bubblehead [Member]
So help me out here, Adam; apparently, based on Larry’s essay, you’re saying that he’s a “strict constructionist” (although he never says he is). Isn’t it true that a strict constructionist would also agree that there’s no “right to privacy” in the 14th Amendment, which is what Roe v. Wade is based on? In that case, since you claim that Larry (and other Dems) are on the side of strict constructionists, wouldn’t they also opposed Roe v. Wade?
I think you’re making quite a leap in logic here. Nowhere does Larry claim he supports removing God from money and the Pledge. And even if he did, there’s no way such a bill would ever pass, so it’s a moot point.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Julie, I don’t quote the entire text, because:
Julie, It really doesn’t change what he said about the pledge and “In God We Trust”. I linked to the full text of the statement and readers are free to read it.
It’s a radical view that is far apart from the entire Democratic Delegation to the US Senate.
What I have yet to hear from Mr. Grant in response to this is that he supports keeping “Under God” in the pledge or “In God We Trust” on our currency.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Mr. Grant says, a “real strict constructionist” suggesting indeed that conservative jurists who are the type who would overturn Roe are not real. So, what Mr. Grant means by that is really up to him.
The question he was asked was, “How should the Constitution be interpreted on the the pledge, in God we Trust, etc?” Now, I fully would expect in answer to such a question that a candidate would explain how he interpretes the Constitution not just go ahead and for the heck of it indicate what a “true Constructionist” would do.
As to the impossibility of a move to remove “under God” from the pledge, there are a few things.
1) After September 11th, one member of Congress opposed going to war in Afghanistan, Ellen Lee (D-Ca.) She didn’t stop the war, but I sure wouldn’t want that type of embarassing thing in Congress.
A few year back, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wa.) used his own interpretation of the Constitution when reciting the pledge to edit out “Under God.”
2) There are issues that are less clear and on which Congress is more divided o than the pledge. You ask the Majority of Idahoans and you’ll find strong support for something like a moment of allowing a moment of silence.
What Larry Grant’s showing here is a radical view of Seperation of Church and State that goes beyond current law and interpretation. As such, I think many people would be alarmed by the idea of sending him to congress.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
Radical to you isn’t radical to most people, Adam. You seem to think you’re mainstream, which is the biggest joke and it’s all on you.
Grant is quite a bit closer on all of his stances than you are, and his understanding of Constitutional law and precident far exceeds your meager grasp of it.
Comment by rongrant [Member]
Nowhere in this essay does my father say he’d vote to remove “under God” from the pledge of allegiance or our currency.
If the founding fathers supported putting “under God” on currency, they would have done it.
My Dad’s essay is about how as a child in the 50’s he had to relearn the pledge because it was only during his lifetime have the words been added.
It’s funny how the party of personal responsibility cannot seem to do anything but blame others, even at the point of creating false statements. I thought God instructed us “not to bear false witness.”
But it is good for readers to see what’s more important to the supporters of Candidate Sali, changes made to the pledge of allegiance and our currency in the 1950s.
At a time where 100 US troops are dying in Iraq, an administration full of chicken hawks lies to justify starting a pre-emptive war, the Republican party protect pedophile legislators, a 9 trillion dollar debt, the most mal-distributed tax system since the beginning of the US Tax system, and unfunded Federal mandates such as “no child left behind,” it’s good to know that Candidate Sali’s supporters find “under God” to be the most important issue here on Earth right now. How that makes this, or the next life better, is beyond me. After all, it was Jesus who said, in response to a question about the icon of Caesar on a Roman coin, render unto Cesar what is Cesars. If Jesus instructed you to do the same, what behavior are you showing here that demonstrates that.
What I want to know is this, does Candidate Sali believe Mormons are Christians? http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2006/10/21/faith-based/
Comment by Cameron [Member]
US News has an interesting article about the role of religion and government according to the Founding Fathers:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/040628/28faith.htm
Comment by claytoncramer [Member]
Go back and read what I wrote. The intention behind the First Amendment’s establishment clause was to see that no particular church received special benefit or advantage, as they demonstrated with their actions repeatedly. The notion that atheists or even Muslims would have deserved equal treatment would have been incomprehensible to the Framers.
So?
Push-polling, I think it’s called. “Do you think my opponent, Mr. Jones, should be elected after receiving the endorsement of the National Pedophiles Union?”
Comment by claytoncramer [Member]
Ron Grant writes:
But he does seem to be saying that it is contrary to the First Amendment. It at least shows a rather severe ignorance of the history involved.
And we are not to conclude that, having made this point, and claimed that “under God” in the Pledge is unconstitutional, that this says something about his beliefs?
How is quoting your father “creating false statments”? Now, if you want to argue that the quote is out of context, and therefore misleading, that might be a valid argument, but it isn’t like there isn’t a link to see what the statement in full says.
If the two paragraphs quoted are altering the significance of what your father intended, I can’t see it.
By the way: what prevents your father from directly stating his position on whether “under God” in the Pledge is contrary to the Constitution or not? There’s a lot of excuses and circumlocution going on, and not much actual response.
Bubblehead wants me to believe that your father would be considered a Republican in California. I was prepared to believe that at first. But I look at his statement–his full statement, not just the two paragraphs–and I sense a person trying his best to make the atheists happy (all 5% of them in Idaho) without too directly offending the believers. This might be smart politics, but I would rather have someone tell me directly what he thinks.
Comment by claytoncramer [Member]
Ron Grant writes:
I have been assuming that your father was part of the adult supervision wing of the Democratic Party. I still don’t know, but you clearly are not.
Argue if you want that the Bush Administration was wrong about WMDs in Iraq (a mistake that every other major power’s intelligence service also made), but to claim that they intentionally lied is simply false. Even many of Hussein’s generals believed that their government had WMDs–although always assigned to a brigade next to theirs.
We now know, from the Final Report of the Iraqi Survey Group, that Hussein’s top officials believed that Hussein had worked to create the impression that the WMDs existed to keep Iraq’s neighbors afraid.
There is also this little problem that one of Hussein’s air force generals, Georges Sada, now says that at least 58 Iraqi Airlines flights to Syria just before the war were flown to move chemical weapons out of Iraq. Oddly enough, the Israeli government at the time noted the unusual level of air traffic from Iraq to Syria. There was also an attempt by al-Qaeda forces in Jordan to launch a chemical weapons attack on the capital of Amman using about 15 tons of chemical weapons–that were brought in by truck from Syria.
Comment by claytoncramer [Member]
Ron Grant writes:
Huh? Over here you can see a table showing what happened to the share of income and Social Security taxes paid by the Top .1%, Top 5%, Top 20%, and Bottom 20% of income earners in 1979, 1999, and 2003. Yes, the Bush tax cuts made it less progressive than it was in 1999–but still far more progressive than it was in 1979. The Top 20% (my group) paid 58.28% of the tax burden in 1979, 68.17% in 1999, and 67.47% in 2003.
One of the principal authors of which was that well-known conservative Republican, Teddy Kennedy.
Comment by claytoncramer [Member]
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/04/wsj_on_distribu.html is the link that was supposed to be in the last comment.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
Wow, Clayton, you’re still towing the party line, huh? “Every major country’s intelligence” blah blah blah. Thats a load of bullshit that you’ve been passing around every blog you can comment on. It’s also a blatent lie. Our own intelligence questioned the authenticity of the claims of “Curveball” and the existance of WMD was greatly denied by the UN weapons team that basically showed that they would have uncovered at least minimal proof that they existed in the time they were in the country.
Lie #1) “We know right where the WMD’s are, they are north, south, east and west of Tikrit.”
Lie #2) Mobile weapon labs.
I could go on and on and on. The next thing you’ll do is make the claim that WMD’s wern’t the only reason we went into Iraq, we can argue about that for awhile, then you’ll call me a terrorist sympathizer or accuse me of being a Saddam lover.
You’re a broken record, Clayton.
The pledge changed for Christians, Clayton. It changed because of the non-Christian Russian red scare that was used to push through the change, and it directly implies a Christian God, and a Christian God only. It violates the Constitution, and only through machinations of the Supreme Court Judges that lean to the right has it avoided being removed.
Comment by claytoncramer [Member]
Thank you, i’ll just quote John Kerry about this, from his 2002 Senate floor speech (http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html):
Comment by claytoncramer [Member]
It’s better to repeat something that is accurate and true, instead of the continually changing, continually revised past that the left relies upon.
This is so typically inaccurate of you. It wasn’t because the “Russians” (actually the Soviets) were “non-Christian” but specifically atheists. There was nothing specifically Christian about adding “under God.” There’s nothing about that phrase that excluded Jews or Muslims.
Would you care to defend that position? I’ve already pointed out that the ACLU’s claim on what the establishment clause meant to the Framers is utterly wrong–as they demonstrated by the actions of the First Congress, and actions that subsequent Congressional for decades took without lawsuits or apparent disapproval.
You can keep screaming “it’s unconstitutional” but at some point, you will need some evidence–not just your broken record ranting about it.
Comment by rongrant [Member]
Hi Clayton, good to engage in Dialog.
I’m not sure what a San Francisco Democrat is, but if you have a survey, I’ll take a look.
I’m waiting for blowing holes in my following claims:
100 US Troops Dead in Iraq each month.
An administration full of chicken hawks
The Republican party protect pedophile legislators,
A 9 trillion dollar debt,
Candidate Sali’s supporters find “under God” to be the most important issue here on Earth right now.
How that makes this, or the next life better, is beyond me.
After all, it was Jesus who said, in response to a question about the icon of Caesar on a Roman coin, render unto Cesar what is Cesars.
If Jesus instructed you to do the same, what behavior are you showing here that demonstrates that.
As for other Intelligence agencies falling for the WMD line: Germany and France didn’t. Remember “Old-Europe” brought to you by Donald Rumsfeld. Germany and France’s intelligence was better than the Bush administration.
The term “mal-distributed tax system” comes from the NTU’s own position paper.
Since you ask, “In God We Trust” is fine on currency and in the pledge. Do I think it’s unconsitutional, no.
The false statement is this, my dad does not say “In God We Trust” or “Under God” is unconstitutional. You put those words in his mouth. To that extent, you are bearing false witness.
Odd you don’t recognize that as even you have to argue “And we are not to conclude that, having made this point, and claimed that “under God” in the Pledge is unconstitutional, that this says something about his beliefs?” My Dad asks how given the plain language of the Constitution we ended up with “God” on our currency and in our pledge.
So how you can claim to know my Dad said that such language is unconstitutional is beyond any honest persons comprehension. You make an inference and then go on to refer to it as fact. Nice tactic, but transparent.
I don’t know Bill Sali, but I do know the Idaho Press-Tribune does.
Here is what they say about Candidate Sali.
http://www.idahopress.com/articles/2006/10/29/opinion/editorials/editorials1.txt
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
On top of it all, none of the decisions at this time have been unanimous, many have cited the Constitutional separation and the designation of monotheism as reasonings behind their dissent.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
And I absolutely enjoy how you guys can back a man that can be so absolutely stone cold callous as to say this:
Comment by claytoncramer [Member]
BinkyBoy, citing a 9th Circuit decision as evidence, or even a Supreme Court decision as evidence, shows that you just don’t understand what “evidence” means.
The lawyers that sit on the courts are political creatures. They decide what results they want, then send their clerks out to find ways to justify their positions.
Evidence: you know, like what did the people in Congress who passed the First Amendment seem to think it meant? What did the state conventions that ratified it think it meant? How many decades was it before anyone took the ACLU’s position that the First Amendment required neutrality between religion and irreligion?
Comment by claytoncramer [Member]
Ron Grant whines that I didn’t bother to respond each and every claim that he made, with the assumption that I can’t. In some cases, I may not want to argue the point, because I may not be in disagreement.
But sometimes, you Democrats demonstrate that you are the most dishonest and immoral scum this country produces, such as,
“The Republican party protect pedophile legislators,”
At this point, there is NO evidence that I have seen that the leadership knew about Foley’s sexually explicit emails. They knew that he been a little too friendly–last year. We know now that the other gay Republican Congresscritter (Kolbe) warned Foley several years ago–but it isn’t clear that Kolbe ever said anything to the leadership about it.
In any case, if the leadership had told Foley last year that he needed to resign, you would be whining about “homophobia.” Democrats are in no position to whine about sexually explicit emails. Have you forgotten Democrat Gerry Studds having sex with a 17 year old boy, and Democrats applauding his decision to show contempt when he was censured about it?
Have you forgotten Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-IL) little problem with child porn and a 16 year old girl? You should remember him. The Pardons for Cash President, Bill Clinton, pardoned him.
Unless your father disavows your steaming hypocrisy and dishonesty, I am going to assume that the rotten apple didn’t fall far from the tree.
The fact that you post at DailyKos says quite a bit about you.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Yes, Mr. Grant has been dutifully following posts about his father, even getting a Free Republic account and a Red State Account to post the Nampa Tribune story and its link. Indeed, I shall say that no one has ever taken such effort to promote the Idaho Press-Tribune around the world, but this does not change the issue. Ron is wanting us to focus on what some newspaper said rather than what his father actually wrote.
The subterfuge will not stand.
Comment by claytoncramer [Member]
Poor BinkyBoy (who is obviously Chris at LiberalIdaho.org–no one else sounds so emotionally disturbed as Chris): now even the New York Times is toeing the party line about Iraq and WMDs. The article appearing in tomorrow’s New York Times attacks Bush for putting captured Iraqi documents up online–including documents from their nuclear weapons program so accurate that the New York Times claims that they could have helped the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Attack Bush for having screwed up the occupation. There’s no question about that. Attack Bush for too much optimism about the post-invasion prospects for democracy in Iraq. But you can stop claiming that “Bush lied,” because even the New York Times is now admitting that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, perhaps a year away from building a bomb, and with information sufficiently advanced that its documents would be useful to Iranian nuclear ambitions.
BinkyBoy (or Chris, whichever name you want to call yourself): this constant need to call names and claim that “Bush lied” may make you feel morally superior but it is demonstrably wrong. Of course, the alternative to smug self-righteousness might be a constructive set of suggestions on what to do in Iraq, and how to do it. But that would require Democrats like BinkyBoy and Ron Grant to seek the good of the United States and democracy in Iraq, not partisan advantage.
Joe Lieberman is a liberal, and there are far more areas where I disagree with him than agree with him. But he at least knows that we are engaged in a fight for civilization as we know it, against people that make the most extreme dreams of social conservatives seem like ACLU liberalism by comparison. (When you yammer on about theocracy–because of a block of stone in Julia Davis Park–think about a society where apotasy is a capital crime–and even “moderates” are reluctant to argue that this is a bad idea.)
In George Bush’s America, Jews like Joe Lieberman can be U.S. Senators. In the America that BinkyBoy and Ron Grant seem likely to bring about, because their hatred of George Bush exceeds their concern about Islamofascism, the only thing that Joe Lieberman will be is a mound of ash.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Chris at Liberal Idaho is not Binky Boy. They’re two different people with different user names here. Similar, but different. Bink is diarist on 43rd State Blues.
As for priorities, I think that you’re exactly right. The fact is that liberals are more concerned about the Baptist at their front door than they are the Islamofascist at the back, preparing to explode a bomb.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
Adam and Clayton: In America you are more likely to die at a Christian’s hands than an “Islamofascist”. Simple mathmatics and simple murder. And as the theocratic voices of America realize they are losing their grasp, the violence will increase, again.
And yes, Clayton, there are proofs of a possible nuclear weapons program, because the scientists in Iraq were active, not quiet, however the equipment to build such a device were either buried in Rose Gardens, or they were locked behind UN lock and key, those same locks and keys that were broken by American military orders and left for looters later.
Come on, Clayton, answer to the above lies. The pictures of mobile weapons labs? A joke and a blatent lie. Rummy and his “we know right where the WMD’s are” statement? Another blatent lie. Uranium from Niger? Oh, wait, our intelligence people debunked that one long before it got into the State of the Union speech, making Bush a liar.
Bush lies, and you just deny. It’s good that he has apologists like you to run around defending him all the time, instead of holding him responsible for the crimes that he’s committed.
Comment by claytoncramer [Member]
BinkyBoy claims:
Huh? I wasn’t aware that much murder in the U.S. was motivated by Christian religious beliefs. What, a dozen or so cases a year? Let’s see, I remember an incident several years ago in which about 3000 people died at the hands of Islamofascists.
So you are admitting that Iraq was working on a WMD program. So Bush wasn’t lying. But you knew about the program, and still insisted that he was lying about WMDs. I guess that makes you the liar.
The mobile weapons labs were certainly erroneous, but to demonstrate that they were a “blatant lie” you would have to demonstrate that the people who initially thought this KNEW that it was false. There are a lot of dual use items out there, and I can see how someone might have misinterpreted equipment used for producing hydrogen for weather balloons as poison gas generators. (You do know
how hydrogen for weather balloons is produced, right?) To claim that Rumsfeld’s overconfidence in knowing where the WMDs was is a “lie” means that he intentionally deceived, as opposed to being mistaken. Proving a lie is really, really hard.
You’ve just acknowledged that you know that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, and the New York Times article indicates that it was about a year from production. You have therefore admitted that you know that Bush’s claim about Iraq’s WMD program was at least partly accurate–and therefore your claim that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq is a lie.
It amazes me how many people there are like you and Chris who are so angry that you are prepared to admit that you are liars.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
If they could have gotten the equipment, it might have taken them a year to build a nuclear weapon. So can any other country with nuclear engineers. It may or not be functional (see North Korea) but yes, they could possibly build a weapon.
But being able to build a weapon isn’t the same as “seeking weapons” or “having weapons”. Both were claimed by the Bush administration and Bush himself at length, even after the INEA and Hans Blix corrected them. And the mobile weapons labs? The evidence for those was laughed at by anyone that understood how weaponized gases were made. Yes, I do know how hydrogen is made, and no, it has nothing to do with how Ricin or mustard gas is made. They were mobile BIOLOGICAL labs according to Powell and others that made the claim for Bush.
Did Saddam have scientists that had the knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon or how to create and store biological weapons? Hell yes, he did. There is nothing that could have been done about that. Was he actively seeking an active program to build such a weapon? Not likely and no evidence exists to support such a claim.
However, the Downing Street memos and other assorted evidence does show that Bush lied about his intentions for war, that he lied about when he made his decisions for war, that he lied to Congress, he lied to the American people.
Comment by claytoncramer [Member]
BinkyBoy writes:
And as one of Bush’s speeches pointed out, the first clear proof might be a nuclear detonation. The Final Report of the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the nuclear program scientists had been kept together with the intention of resuming work once sanctions were removed (as all good little progressives in the West kept insisting had to be done).
Of course, it isn’t like Hussein had a bad history of making and using WMDs in the past…
Does it ever bother you that you are so intent on calling Bush a liar that you have to make up these false claims about what Bush said? I guess not. Because then you might have to acknowledge that Bush isn’t the Devil.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
I’m not sure where you come up with this little gem, but it goes right to the heart of your delusion about liberals/progressives and their desires.
What are my false claims? I can find the quotes from Bush, from Rummy, from Powell at a moments notice. The Downing Street memo, just by itself, proves that Bush lied. How much more evidence does a pathetic Bush excuser need?
You’re a self delusional man, you may have a decent grasp on history, but your Conservative slant has made you impervious to the flaws and to the destruction wrought at the hands of a moronic President. You seem to owe more allegience to your vote than to your country.
Buyer beware, though. You bought it, you own it, and if it breaks things, you should be the one to fix them. Yet you’ll sit in your comfy desert home, blissfully eatting your cheetos and typing with your toes.
Comment by rongrant [Member]
“Ron is wanting us to focus on what some newspaper said rather than what his father actually wrote.”
And I’m still waiting to read where my dad wrote “having the word God on currency or in the pledge is Unconsititutional.”
This issue is important to you. So I’ll offer you this. Write up why it is, or come meet me and my father on Tuesday down at the Owyhee, and we can listen to you and tell you that taking God of coin or currency isn’t even something to be considered.
See, in a democracy, how you treat your fellow citizens is a sign of how much you respect the democratic process.
So Clayton, I sent you an email to debate me on my blog, so you wouldn’t be debating an empty chair.
You declined, so no further emails, especially 3 more, are not necessary.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
I actually have quite a bit on my plate for Tuesday, Ron like making sure your father has plenty of time to visit grandkids.
He said that the words were against the Spirit of the Constitution. If he feels that’s not the case, he can speak up on his own blog about it.
Secondly, Binky if Larry Grant’s a True Conservative, I’m a ballerina. A true Conservative wouldn’t propose raising taxes to save a system that’s demographically unsustainable.
—