Bush Supporters: Misinformed or Ignoring the Truth?

[franznietzsche]

it's this sort of ignorant evil of the masses that really makes me give up hope on democracy- should the human race be allowed to walk stupidly into extinction just becasue they feel they need to have a voice in government? when important decisions have to be made- you ask the experts- not the uniformed masses- we need a technocracy but no one would accept that- it's going to be dicey whether we make it or not-

if the human race dies- it will be becasue we were too gracious with our respect of the primitive and ignorant

Of course not, the average human is too stupid to be a member of a technocracy, by definition they would be relegatedto second-class status. Result: Slave revolt against technocracy...so much for that idea...

 

[Smurf]

Of course not, the average human is too stupid to be a member of a technocracy, by definition they would be relegatedto second-class status. Result: Slave revolt against technocracy...so much for that idea...

I have seen several very convincing descriptions of plausible technocracies, but perhaps we should start a new thread hmm?

 

[tumor]

The magic on how seemingly intelligent people can be feed and believe in such a idioticy about Iraq connection to Al-Qaida,WMD and other things is - CUTTING TAXES ->
Those two words have to be present in news clip or article on war on Iraq or in the next following bit of news and Americans are mesmerized by it, and nothing else matters.Any war then is good as long as we get to pay less taxess.
This is the formula which works very well for White House .

 

[SOS2008]

Dare we have hope?

First, I must commend sites such as this, and Bush supporters participating in dialogue—though dinning on crumbs when quibbling over connections between 9-11 and Iraq and WMD. Unfortunately, as was initially stated, most Bush supporters seem to avoid such engagement, and more importantly refuse to accept facts. I’m not livid so much as I’m worried.

I live in a so-called "Red" state and have been conducting informal polls. There are two major Bush groups: the religious constituency, and the uninformed constituency (for lack of a better term). The issues of gay marriage and abortion were over-riding issues for the religious group—even for the few who believe we were led to war with lies. The second group, who have high school educations or less are indeed uninformed. After pain-staking explanation of the difference between the Islamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia, and a power-obsessed dictator in Iraq (i.e., with two different political agendas), and whether our foreign policy should be one of removing all the dictators of the world, and/or invading all non-democratic countries of the world, it comes down to this perception: All Arabic/Islamic people/countries are bad, and that’s good enough reason for the war. There is a third group who voted for Bush simply because they felt we must finish what was started.

Bush supporters tell me to quit whining about the election. Aside from the disturbing divisions Bush has created in our country and world, and fear for the first time in my life to openly acknowledge my political views, this is only more of the same kind of rhetoric endured since 9-11.

Beginning with the questionable election in 2000 (votes not counted in Florida where Jeb is Governor), the religious special interests don’t see any problem with those who proselyte for a candidate from the pulpit (60 religious organizations were under investigation by the IRS last I heard), and “block voting,” and those would like to remove all separation of church and state (to emulate the very counties they despise, and to become the Christian Republic of America?), not to mention the suspicious nature of propositions for gay marriage being placed on the ballot just before the election in areas where the propositions obviously would never be passed. Aside from the incredible propaganda as never seen before, no—we don’t have problems with OUR election process.

The uninformed don’t understand the need for a meaningful foreign policy, or that the way to stop terrorism is to address the root of the problem, which is to address the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. As for the remainder, apparently they still haven’t figured out that because of the invasion, now there ARE terrorists in Iraq.

Well perhaps the religious special interests will someday realize that an imposition on another’s civil liberties opens the door for imposition on their civil liberties, and that block voting would really suck if it were used to elect a candidate that isn’t of their choice. In the meantime, how many body bags will it take, or perhaps another terrorist attack, or at the minimum a deficit driven higher and higher to fund the war and to try to rebuild the country destroyed by it, before these people will admit that the invasion was a bad idea? Not to mention the distraction from real issues like health care, the environment, the economy, etc. caused by the war and moral self-righteousness.

As you can see, I don’t have any legitimate concerns – I’m just being a sore loser.

As for how to fix our election process and technocracies, I wonder what the outcome of the election would have been if voters had to identity Iraq on a map first. I thought the Electoral College was designed with technocracy in mind – If anyone has already researched this, please share.

“Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. Pigs can’t sing, and it will only annoy the pig.” -- Unknown

 

[ray b]

the BuSh2 fans may not be so uninformed
as they are misinformed
as they KNOW SO MUCH THAT JUST AIN'T TRUE

THE BIG LIE HAS WORKED AGAIN

 

[SOS2008]

So do something about it...

Yes, the uninformed are misinformed, because it is easy to misinform the uniformed.

The "uniformed" people detest intellectuals, which are associated with liberal--a pejorative word to Bush supporters (though the word means “progressive”). They identify with Bush, who also is uniformed. Per a New York Times.com Article - In the Magazine: Without a Doubt, dated October 17, 2004 by RON SUSKIND:

In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace… The discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peace keeping forces in the region… One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

And like Bush, who “…dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' these people don’t want to be bothered with facts either. And thus we have entered an age of unreasoning.

Liberals were surprised that Bush won the election by as many votes as he did. One reason is that Democrats did not realize the extent of the misinformation, as shown in the findings of the study conducted by The Program on International Policy Attitudes above. Kerry supporters were also surprised by the exit polls in which “values” were mentioned as the main reason for voting for Bush (“values” meaning amendments to ban gay marriage and abortion). Bush probably isn’t astute enough to understand this either, but people in his administration like Karl Rove do.

If Democrats want to win the election in 2008, they need to understand what they are up against. First are the uninformed. In part, it is a result of poor education in this country, in particular the geocentric nature of it. Aside from not traveling abroad (who can with only two-weeks vacation?), America is a nation that consumes junk, not only food, but also media.

Then there is the problem of religious fundamentalists, some of who are fighting to be able to endorse from the pulpit without losing tax-exempt status (and until then organize votes VERY quietly). The most worrisome trend is the fundamentalists who also are a part of the uninformed segment of the population!

If you want to make a difference, write to our Democratic Congressmen. A directory can be found at www.congress.org. A platform and candidate that are clear is a must. The top issues:

1) Global Warming – Incentive Programs for Reduction of, and Alternatives to Fossil Fuel
2) Health Care – Including Incentive Programs for U.S. Inoculation Supply & R&D
3) Economy – Most specifically Incentive Programs for U.S. Production & Employment of Americans, including High-Tech/Scientific, Medical, Legal, Financial, etc., and Increase Minimum Wage for less-skilled Americans
4) Foreign Policy/Terrorism – Peace in the Middle East, most specifically addressing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict & Tighten U.S. Borders/Illegal Immigration and Proof of Citizenship Requirements for U.S. ID such as Driver’s License, etc.
5) Values – Incentives for Informative/Balanced Television Programming, Better Education (Global History, Geography, Cultural, etc.) and Preparation for High-Paying Fields (High-Tech/Scientific, Medical, etc.)

Oh yes, and boycott “Time” magazine.

 

[kat]

Yes, the uninformed are misinformed, because it is easy to misinform the uniformed.

The "uniformed" people detest intellectuals, which are associated with liberal--a pejorative word to Bush supporters (though the word means “progressive”). They identify with Bush, who also is uniformed. Per a New York Times.com Article - In the Magazine: Without a Doubt, dated October 17, 2004 by RON SUSKIND:

QUOTE]
You forgot to also post The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and The Jayson Blair Reader.

 

[SOS2008]

Yes, balanced and factual reporting is tough to come by these days, not forgetting the “Swifties” version of Kerry’s military background, or Dan Rather’s interview gone awry (though the Boston Globe had done a separate article substantiating the information). Does one unethical journalist like Jayson Blair mean everything printed by the NY Times is a lie? As for the article by Ron Suskind, I’d prefer that this description of the leader of the free world was a lie.

As for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, perhaps going to any website about the “Rapture” would be more insightful.

 

[SOS2008]

...The Bush administration and FOX News don't even claim these things anymore. They have been forced to acknowledge the truth...

Apparently not. In recent interviews of Bush, most notably the interview aired on CNN, Bush spoke of al Qaeda AND Saddam in speaking about terrorism. Furthermore, he claims a desire to understand why stock piles of WMD were not found, and how our human intelligence needs to be improved. Improvement in intelligence may well be needed. The spin of bewilderment is not.

What really is needed is an investigation as to whether the intelligence was faulty or falsified. All who were involved should be removed from office. How many lives have been lost in the war with Iraq, and will be by the end of the war? Surely this is more serious than Watergate, Iran-gate, or impeachment procedures because of a lie about extra-marital sex.

Where are our representatives in Congress when we need them?

 

[the number 42]

the BuSh2 fans may not be so uninformed
as they are misinformed
as they KNOW SO MUCH THAT JUST AIN'T TRUE

THE BIG LIE HAS WORKED AGAIN

I don't know if you can get BBC2, but for the next two nights 11.20 - 12.20 GMT there is a pretty good documentary on misinforming the US re enemies called The Power of Nightmares. Part one was on last night.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

 

[Angst]

Funny how people on a Physics Forum are more concerned about Bush or Republicans or Democrats than simply examining information to come to a truthful conclusion. The only people I see blatantly lying are the ones who (in the face of contrary evidence) insist WMD were never found in Iraq.

The fact is WMD were found in Iraq. One example being 500 warheads filled in binary format with sarin and mustard gas. Sarin gas in binary format does not easily degrade without chemical contituents or 2000+ degree heat.

WASHINGTON (DOD) June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal ( A pinprick sized droplet will kill an adult)

A couple other things to mull over. I could go on for hours on this... "I assure you, this operation (911) was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam. And I‘m going to keep assuring the world this is what happened."(Sabah Khodada former captain of the Iraqi army under Saddam) who worked at the training camp known as Salman Pak.) (PBS) (Intelmessages Org)

Sabah Khodada captain of the Iraqi army, Georges Sada Retired Iraqi General and General Al-Tikriti, a former commander for Saddam, all confirmed WMD were moved to Syria. in an interview with author Ryan Mauro in May 2006, that arrangements were made between Baghdad and Damascus for Iraqi WMD’s to be stored in Syria under Russian oversight prior to the invasion by Coalition forces.
US Department of Defense Website http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

On the National Ground Intelligence Report http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/2006_h/060629-weldon.pdfth

For those who claim these weapons are not the weapons of mass destruction that the United States went to war over, I would like to refer them to the 17 United Nations Security Council Resolutions that Saddam Hussein violated – and in particular, the 14 that specifically addressed WMD. The very first one after the Operation Desert Storm – UNSCR 687 – directed the destruction of Iraq’s stockpiles of chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein violated this resolution and others like it, and the verified existence of such chemical weapons proves that. In part because of such violations, we voted to authorize the use
of military force in Iraq.

 

[kach22i]

...or burying their heads in the sand?

Good idea, I'll bring the shovel.

 

[seycyrus]

What I find amazing is the disconnect that the scientists on this forum are willing to make between reality and their fantasy based on their political views.

You work in a lab with chemicals? You have to PROVE compliance to OSHA.

You work with radioactive materials? You have to PROVE compliance to the Nuclear Regulatory Committee.

You're a piece of **** dictator who has SIGNED on to comply with UN mandates? You have to PROVE compliance.

 

[BobG]

What I find amazing is the disconnect that the scientists on this forum are willing to make between reality and their fantasy based on their political views.

You work in a lab with chemicals? You have to PROVE compliance to OSHA.

You work with radioactive materials? You have to PROVE compliance to the Nuclear Regulatory Committee.

You're a piece of **** dictator who has SIGNED on to comply with UN mandates? You have to PROVE compliance.

What's the penalty for non-compliance in the first two?

 

[K.J.Healey]

What's the penalty for non-compliance in the first two?

OSHA/NRC brings their own scientists into do the job for you, and slowly steals your chemicals and radioactive materials for themselves.


EDIT: Oh and by the way, Angst, good work at using the search feature to find a thread to argue over that's almost 4 years old...

 

[hotcommodity]

It's not just Bush supporters that are delusional, it's most of the voting popualtion. People rarely find time to research global issues or listen to alternative perspectives, and thus have an extremely crude idea about the world around them. The majority of American voters are dangerously gullible, which is one reason why we have the Bush administration to contend with in the first place.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The report is two years old with no supporting evidence and the second link doesn't work.

 

[hotcommodity]

The report is two years old with no supporting evidence and the second link doesn't work.

That's unfortunate. However, I did read an article on yahoo news the other day basically stating that two journalism organizations found that the Bush administration released hundreds upon hundreds of false statements about the war in Iraq.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-22-study_N.htm?csp=34

It's pretty strange how public opinion has changed over the past eight years or so. At first people were "insane" to criticize the decisions made regarding the war on terror. And now it's just common knowledge that proponents of the war have been lying through their teeth, and getting caught in criminal activity.

 

[BobG]

EDIT: Oh and by the way, Angst, good work at using the search feature to find a thread to argue over that's almost 4 years old...

The report is two years old with no supporting evidence and the second link doesn't work.

Geez, the report is younger than the thread. What more can you ask?

In fact, I wonder just how often a referenced link/article is younger than the thread it's used in?

 

[Astronuc]

US Department of Defense Website http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

From the citation

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

The munitions were degraded, and the UNSCOM inspectors already knew about those. Nothing new!

The argument of the Bush administration was 'on-going' program with new weapons (new munitions), which were not found because there weren't any.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Heh, yeah I skipped right over that.

I knew this couldn't be right or Bush would have been waving it like a flag.

It is also a fact that no credible connection has ever been made between Saddam and 911.

 

[Amp1]

I've been reading a book written by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies Titled “Why People Hate America”, it’s excellent! The explanations it offers are totally valid and to the point. The factually evidence that is verily, common knowledge astounds and awes in the simplicity and sense that it makes. I’m an American who is observing a reaction taking place because of the governmental and corporate disenfranchisements, of people that constitute the populace of the country. Hopefully this reaction will build, be sustained, and effective in bringing back a government of the people, for the people, by the people with elected officials in good conscience and positive inspiration will do the will of the people in the ways that create sustainable bio-ecological, regenerative, conservation minded, sustainable – growth for our country, hemisphere and cooperatively with the world. Perhaps some way could be found to reflect into realization these higher values and moral ideals.

 

[BobG]

What I find amazing is the disconnect that the scientists on this forum are willing to make between reality and their fantasy based on their political views.

You work in a lab with chemicals? You have to PROVE compliance to OSHA.

You work with radioactive materials? You have to PROVE compliance to the Nuclear Regulatory Committee.

You're a piece of **** dictator who has SIGNED on to comply with UN mandates? You have to PROVE compliance.

What's the penalty for non-compliance in the first two?

OSHA/NRC brings their own scientists into do the job for you, and slowly steals your chemicals and radioactive materials for themselves.


EDIT: Oh and by the way, Angst, good work at using the search feature to find a thread to argue over that's almost 4 years old...

If somebody's jeopardizing my health with radioactive emissions from a nuclear power plant in my back yard, then I think a more appropriate penalty would be to bomb them.

Same thing if a plant's letting chemicals leak into the water supply. Bomb them!

 

[chemisttree]

Text of the "http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html" "

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 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" (Public Law 105-235);

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 possesses 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 resolutions 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 American 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 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 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, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) 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 Resolutions 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 (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 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,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

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

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) 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.

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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

 

[Evo]

If somebody's jeopardizing my health with radioactive emissions from a nuclear power plant in my back yard, then I think a more appropriate penalty would be to bomb them.

Do you think it would be wise to bomb a nuclear plant that's in your back yard?

 

[seycyrus]

What's the penalty for non-compliance in the first two?

They fine you an immense amount of money, tell you to comply again. If you fail the second time, they shut down your operation.

Try working in a nuclear reactor and not complying with the NRC.

 

[daveb]

What the NRC does in response to a violation of the regulations or license commitments is dependent on the Severity Level of the violation. Sometimes they impose a civil penalty (which can be appealed) and sometimes they just issue the initial NOV.

 

[seycyrus]

The severity of the violation is of no consequence whatsoever if the violating body does not attemp to appease the NRC and prove compliance and or attempts at compliance. Shutdown will occur.

 

[BadDog]

False Pretenses

False Pretenses

The Center for Public Integrity searchable database.
942 statements false knowingly or unknowingly.

 

[Evo]

Sorry, but we don't allow links to sites that claim absolute truth that are in fact mostly unproven opinions. Opinion pieces are allowable as long as they clearly state that they are opinions.

Please be sure you've read The P&WA guidelines

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

 

[BadDog]

Sorry, but we don't allow links to sites that claim absolute truth that are in fact mostly unproven opinions. Opinion pieces are allowable as long as they clearly state that they are opinions.

Please be sure you've read The P&WA guidelines

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

Sorry, I missed the post where hotcommodity linked indirectly with a USA Today link; I'll try to be more indirect.
And I'll remember when an organization makes a claim like this "The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit organization dedicated to producing original, responsible investigative journalism on issues of public concern. The Center is non-partisan and non-advocacy. We are committed to transparent and comprehensive reporting both in the United States and around the world." they are claiming to be God.