The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Prometheus]

continued

The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance.
'Democracy' had prevailed.

But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in
1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries.
Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

...

The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.

What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days ? conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'.
Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally ? a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this?
Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing.
Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.

The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading ? as a last resort ? all other justifications having failed to justify themselves ? as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.

How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.

Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank.
They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,'
said the American general Tommy Franks.

....
Remarkable speech - it's entirety here:

http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html

Reaction here:
Passionate Pinter's devastating assault on US foreign policy Shades of Beckett as ailing playwright delivers powerful Nobel lecture

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1661911,00.html

edit: to add the continued at the top

[Charity Case]

I will continue to ask Shades to address my post...

Some other unanswered questions...

For Charity Case: Jack Murtha has 37 years of honorable military service, including Korea and Vietnam, visits Iraq, and regularly speaks to military leaders and Iraqi veterans.? Can you tell me what "clue" you have that he doesnt?

Booker, I have answered this.  He is wrong IMO.  I have stated my opinion regarding this.  it is in contract to this guys opinion.  therefore, it is my belief that he is wrong on this issue.  I am not trying to avoid your questions.  I just didn't visit this thread for a coupel days.  It is digressing too far IMO.

[pilferk]

I will continue to ask Shades to address my post...

Some other unanswered questions...

For Charity Case: Jack Murtha has 37 years of honorable military service, including Korea and Vietnam, visits Iraq, and regularly speaks to military leaders and Iraqi veterans.? Can you tell me what "clue" you have that he doesnt?

Booker, I have answered this.? He is wrong IMO.? I have stated my opinion regarding this.? it is in contract to this guys opinion.? therefore, it is my belief that he is wrong on this issue.? I am not trying to avoid your questions.? I just didn't visit this thread for a coupel days.? It is digressing too far IMO.

Which, of course, DOESN'T actually ANSWER the question.

[sandman]

I will continue to ask Shades to address my post...

Some other unanswered questions...

For Charity Case: Jack Murtha has 37 years of honorable military service, including Korea and Vietnam, visits Iraq, and regularly speaks to military leaders and Iraqi veterans.? Can you tell me what "clue" you have that he doesnt?

Booker, I have answered this.? He is wrong IMO.? I have stated my opinion regarding this.? it is in contract to this guys opinion.? therefore, it is my belief that he is wrong on this issue.? I am not trying to avoid your questions.? I just didn't visit this thread for a coupel days.? It is digressing too far IMO.

Which, of course, DOESN'T actually ANSWER the question.

i can answer that question. murtha is a politician, therefore you cannot totally trust what he is saying. he follows polls and his opinions may be influenced by those polls. the entire democratic party is shaping their beliefs in an attempt to win the house and or the senate next year.

in addition, murtha represents Johnstown, PA, which has the highest percentage of soldiers in iraq out of any town in america. it also has the highest percentage of deaths in iraq. the war has hit this town hard. everyone in this town knows someone that has spent time over there. and most know someone who has died.

murtha represents these people and they are looking for a leader to step to the plate and speak for them.

[Booker Floyd]

To Charity Case:

1. Id like to see the post in which you "already" answered it.

2. You didnt answer the question...Perhaps I bolded the wrong part...

Jack Murtha has 37 years of honorable military service, including Korea and Vietnam, visits Iraq, and regularly speaks to military leaders and Iraqi veterans.  Can you tell me what "clue" you have that he doesnt?

murtha is a politician, therefore you cannot totally trust what he is saying. he follows polls and his opinions may be influenced by those polls. the entire democratic party is shaping their beliefs in an attempt to win the house and or the senate next year.

Oh...I see.  Of course you have absolutely no evidence for this, but Ill engage.

First, Ill just quickly point out the irony of a fervent Bush supporter saying "murtha is a politician, therefore you cannot totally trust what he is saying."

1. Do you have anything, anything at all, to suggest that Murtha is making these decisions on polls?  From there, well extrapolate...

2. For what purpose would Murtha use these polls?  Hes been a representative for 1974, do you think hes worried about reelection?  Hes 73 years old and has a reputation for avoiding the spotlight - do you think hes really interested in a presidential run?  Not only is your point betrayed by a lack of evidence, but also by a lack of logic.

3. On what poll do you imagine Murtha based his decision on?  The fact is, Murthas position isnt overwhelmingly popular now (although Id say its gaining traction), but it certainly wasnt popular before he came out with it.

4. If hes "following polls," like the rest of the Democratic party, then why is the rest of the party not adopting his position?  After all, if it was popular enough in the polls for Murtha to adopt it, why would it not be popular enough for other Democrats?

in addition, murtha represents Johnstown, PA, which has the highest percentage of soldiers in iraq out of any town in america. it also has the highest percentage of deaths in iraq. the war has hit this town hard. everyone in this town knows someone that has spent time over there. and most know someone who has died.

murtha represents these people and they are looking for a leader to step to the plate and speak for them.

 

Well that totally contradicts your "poll" theory doesnt it?

But ultimately, that doesnt answer my question.  What clue do you have that Murtha doesnt?  He has 37 years of military service, no political ambition, visited Iraq, is a proven military hawk ans is intimate with military leaders and veterans.  So what clue do you have that he does not?

[sandman]

To Charity Case:

1. Id like to see the post in which you "already" answered it.

2. You didnt answer the question...Perhaps I bolded the wrong part...

Jack Murtha has 37 years of honorable military service, including Korea and Vietnam, visits Iraq, and regularly speaks to military leaders and Iraqi veterans.? Can you tell me what "clue" you have that he doesnt?

murtha is a politician, therefore you cannot totally trust what he is saying. he follows polls and his opinions may be influenced by those polls. the entire democratic party is shaping their beliefs in an attempt to win the house and or the senate next year.

Oh...I see.? Of course you have absolutely no evidence for this, but Ill engage.

First, Ill just quickly point out the irony of a fervent Bush supporter saying "murtha is a politician, therefore you cannot totally trust what he is saying."

1. Do you have anything, anything at all, to suggest that Murtha is making these decisions on polls?? From there, well extrapolate...

2. For what purpose would Murtha use these polls?? Hes been a representative for 1974, do you think hes worried about reelection?? Hes 73 years old and has a reputation for avoiding the spotlight - do you think hes really interested in a presidential run?? Not only is your point betrayed by a lack of evidence, but also by a lack of logic.

3. On what poll do you imagine Murtha based his decision on?? The fact is, Murthas position isnt overwhelmingly popular now (although Id say its gaining traction), but it certainly wasnt popular before he came out with it.

4. If hes "following polls," like the rest of the Democratic party, then why is the rest of the party not adopting his position?? After all, if it was popular enough in the polls for Murtha to adopt it, why would it not be popular enough for other Democrats?

in addition, murtha represents Johnstown, PA, which has the highest percentage of soldiers in iraq out of any town in america. it also has the highest percentage of deaths in iraq. the war has hit this town hard. everyone in this town knows someone that has spent time over there. and most know someone who has died.

murtha represents these people and they are looking for a leader to step to the plate and speak for them.

 

Well that totally contradicts your "poll" theory doesnt it?

But ultimately, that doesnt answer my question.? What clue do you have that Murtha doesnt?? He has 37 years of military service, no political ambition, visited Iraq, is a proven military hawk ans is intimate with military leaders and veterans.? So what clue do you have that he does not?

obviously, you missed my point. so i'll state it more clearly....

you cannot fully trust anything politicans say. you have to take their statements with a grain of salt.

[Booker Floyd]

obviously, you missed my point. so i'll state it more clearly....

you cannot fully trust anything politicans say. you have to take their statements with a grain of salt.

Obviously, I invalidated your point...and you still cant answer the question.

[D]

I am joinin this a little late but I want someone Booker/SLC anyone to refute this statement Im gonna make.


If you blame Bush for 9/11 then you cannot blame him for the War on Iraq.


Bush got intelligence am i correct that said Al Qeada planned an attack with planes. Bush and company disreguarded it, we got hit by planes.

So that being said when Bush gets intelligence that Sadaam has WMD, he had no choice but to invade Iraq because they made a huge mistake once and couldnt afford to do that again.

Once the WMD's werent found, should Bush have simply put Sadaam back into power and apologized?

I just dont like how Bush supposedly withheld intelligence*Which if were true he'd be goin through impeachement hearings*and I just think he went into this with the best intentions at hand.

Sure the intelligence was wrong but after 9/11, he had no choice.

So someone refute this and explain to me why I am wrong.

i will read the posts without prejudice, Im not tryin to get into any kind of pissing contest, ive just been asking this question for months and no one can give me any kind of rebuttal.

[Booker Floyd]

If you blame Bush for 9/11 then you cannot blame him for the War on Iraq.

Bush got intelligence am i correct that said Al Qeada planned an attack with planes. Bush and company disreguarded it, we got hit by planes.

Im not quite sure to even respond to such a simple-minded, desperate argument.? Its really not worth responding to in great detail (and trust me, thats not a cop-out)...Ill simply say theyre two very different things and unlike the run-up to Iraq, I dont believe the administration ever received intelligence contradicting Bin Ladens intentions, and obviously one called for greater homeland security and not a hostile foreign invasion; theyre not really comparable.? Simply put, addressing our own security doesnt put the lives of our soldiers or citizens in danger.? Its not the same as staging a war. ?

And as I posted in this thread, four years after 9/11, the 9/11 Commission has given the administration and Congress failing grades in improving homeland security. Care to hold Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress accountable for that?

I just dont like how Bush supposedly withheld intelligence

I dont either, but he did.? Ive posted quite a few links throughtout the thread addressing German concerns over Iraqi informant information, the fact that Congress did not have access to PDBs, and a memo the president received 10 days after 9/11 stating that there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq (a link that was perpetuated afterward).? ?Not to mention intelligence suggesting that Iraqs threat was not imminent, which didnt stop Bush from driving that point and politicizing the vote by not waiting until after elections to hold it.  Investigations into what else mightve been withheld have been stifled by Congressional Republicans, which leads to the next point...

*Which if were true he'd be goin through impeachement hearings*and I just think he went into this with the best intentions at hand.

No, he wouldnt have gone into impeachment hearings because those likely to call for such measures arent in power.? And investigations are difficult to continue and/or launch because, once again, the party likely to do so is not in power.

[Booker Floyd]

Another facet of this debate is the White Houses insistence that despite our current knowledge, it would have not done anything differently.? They use the secondary rationale as a crutch and downplay the fact that WMD was the de facto reason we invaded (odd since Bush claimed to oppose using U.S. troops for nation-building endeavors).? At least one architect of this war has changed his tune, or is finally being more honest about it:

?If somebody could have given you a Lloyd?s of London guarantee that weapons of mass destruction would not possibly be used, one would have contemplated much more support for internal Iraqi opposition and not having the United States take the job on the way we did.?

?It was a sense that the greatest danger in taking this man on would be that he would use them,? said Wolfowitz of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. ?If you could have given us a guarantee that they wouldn?t have been used, there would have been policy options available probably.?

[D]

See this is your problem and most of the left's problem.  It isnt about the war on terror, I know that Iraq and Afghanistan are two seperate things, I know Sadaam had no ties with Bin Laden or 9/11.

This isnt even the argument, but since you have no argument swing it back to the only argument you do have.

Its a very simple minded thing because it is a very simple thing here.

You get Intelligence that you are gonna be attacked by Planes, guess what? If we invade Afghanistan we dont find evidence that 9/11 is gonna happen so would that have been a mistake?

So anyway back to this, we get intelligence about 9/11, do nothing we get attacked.


As soon as Bush gets intelligence that Sadaam has WMD's, and then Sadaam refuses to let UN inspectors in, thats the double whammy.

You have the intelligence, you have Sadaam refusing to comply, now I ask you, what does that look like?

What happens if Bush ignores this and a nuke goes off in front of the white house or Time square or somewhere?

After 9/11 all intelligence had to be looked upon with a lot more seriousness and throw in Sadaam unwilling to comply and Bush had no choice.

Facts are these, the democrats voted YES.

Now they are tryin to spin it like hell to cover their ass and to hang Bush out to dry but facts are and will remain they voted for it.

So obviously they had concerns as well.

the war is goin horrible, the Dems have jumped ship and are tryin to save face by blaming it all on Bush and these conspiracy theories.

If Al Gore is president and gets the same intelligence Bush got, trust me, we'd be in Iraq.  Would the war be goin better? Maybe but facts are we would be in Iraq regardless.

[SLCPUNK]

As soon as Bush gets intelligence that Sadaam has WMD's, and then Sadaam refuses to let UN inspectors in, thats the double whammy.

See, this is where your argument falls short. This is not what happened. Saddam allowed them back in and it was BUSH who told them to get out.

" The United States informs UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei that it would not be ?prudent? for UN and IAEA staff to remain in Iraq any longer." AP

1) This has been said before, and 2) it makes the rest of your analogy irrelevant because not only did bush have a choice, but he made the choice.

the war is goin horrible, the Dems have jumped ship and are tryin to save face by blaming it all on Bush and these conspiracy theories.

Claim the Democrats voted for war all you want. Not one of the people being cited as "voting for the war" was ever asked to actually vote to send Americans to invade Iraq. Go read the record. No one's opinion on Iraq and Saddam counted as much as Bush's, and Bush and his group of thugs was busy selling the idea that America was threatened by Saddam. The vote was not to send Americans to Iraq to depose Saddam. The vote was to authorize the President to take military action as a last resort, which was ultimately allowed to be defined by his judgment and then presented later should that danger be imminent, to protect America from the threat of WMD in Saddam's possession and by claimed association, possibly in the hands of terrorists like Al-Qaeda.

I'm sure you will "forget" all this in another week or so too.

[Booker Floyd]

Id hate to appear to be evading Ds muddled post, but I think I addressed it in the first post: Responding to Bin Laden PDB by addressing homeland security and responding to questionable, cherry-picked intelligence by invading Iraq - not the same.

Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied to Coercion Claim

By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: December 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.

The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.

The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that Mr. Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libi contended that his statements had been coerced.

A government official said that some intelligence provided by Mr. Libi about Al Qaeda had been accurate, and that Mr. Libi's claims that he had been treated harshly in Egyptian custody had not been corroborated.

A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report issued in February 2002 that expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility on questions related to Iraq and Al Qaeda was based in part on the knowledge that he was no longer in American custody when he made the detailed statements, and that he might have been subjected to harsh treatment, the officials said. They said the C.I.A.'s decision to withdraw the intelligence based on Mr. Libi's claims had been made because of his later assertions, beginning in January 2004, that he had fabricated them to obtain better treatment from his captors.

At the time of his capture in Pakistan in late 2001, Mr. Libi, a Libyan, was the highest-ranking Qaeda leader in American custody. A Nov. 6 report in The New York Times, citing the Defense Intelligence Agency document, said he had made the assertions about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons while in American custody.

Mr. Libi was indeed initially held by the United States military in Afghanistan, and was debriefed there by C.I.A. officers, according to the new account provided by the current and former government officials. But despite his high rank, he was transferred to Egypt for further interrogation in January 2002 because the White House had not yet provided detailed authorization for the C.I.A. to hold him.

While he made some statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda when in American custody, the officials said, it was not until after he was handed over to Egypt that he made the most specific assertions, which were later used by the Bush administration as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons.

Beginning in March 2002, with the capture of a Qaeda operative named Abu Zubaydah, the C.I.A. adopted a practice of maintaining custody itself of the highest-ranking captives, a practice that became the main focus of recent controversy related to detention of suspected terrorists.

The agency currently holds between two and three dozen high-ranking terrorist suspects in secret prisons around the world. Reports that the prisons have included locations in Eastern Europe have stirred intense discomfort on the continent and have dogged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit there this week.

Mr. Libi was returned to American custody in February 2003, when he was transferred to the American detention center in Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, according to the current and former government officials. He withdrew his claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda in January 2004, and his current location is not known. A C.I.A. spokesman refused Thursday to comment on Mr. Libi's case. The current and former government officials who agreed to discuss the case were granted anonymity because most details surrounding Mr. Libi's case remain classified.

[Booker Floyd]

During his time in Egyptian custody, Mr. Libi was among a group of what American officials have described as about 150 prisoners sent by the United States from one foreign country to another since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks for the purposes of interrogation. American officials including Ms. Rice have defended the practice, saying it draws on language and cultural expertise of American allies, particularly in the Middle East, and provides an important tool for interrogation. They have said that the United States carries out the renditions only after obtaining explicit assurances from the receiving countries that the prisoners will not be tortured.
 
Nabil Fahmy, the Egyptian ambassador to the United States, said in a telephone interview on Thursday that he had no specific knowledge of Mr. Libi's case. Mr. Fahmy acknowledged that some prisoners had been sent to Egypt by mutual agreement between the United States and Egypt. "We do interrogations based on our understanding of the culture," Mr. Fahmy said. "We're not in the business of torturing anyone."

In statements before the war, and without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, and other officials repeatedly cited the information provided by Mr. Libi as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons. Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases."

The question of why the administration relied so heavily on the statements by Mr. Libi has long been a subject of contention. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, made public last month unclassified passages from the February 2002 document, which said it was probable that Mr. Libi "was intentionally misleading the debriefers."

The document showed that the Defense Intelligence Agency had identified Mr. Libi as a probable fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons.

Mr. Levin has since asked the agency to declassify four other intelligence reports, three of them from February 2002, to see if they also expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility. On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. Levin said he could not comment on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Libi's detention because the matter was classified.

[sandman]

obviously, you missed my point. so i'll state it more clearly....

you cannot fully trust anything politicans say. you have to take their statements with a grain of salt.

Obviously, I invalidated your point...and you still cant answer the question.

you invalidated my point???

so are you saying we should always trust statements made by politicians?? 

that's a good one.

[pilferk]

you invalidated my point???

so are you saying we should always trust statements made by politicians???

that's a good one.

No, I think what he said was you have no proof of the assertion you're making.

And even if you did, what does that say about the TOP politician in the country?

Oh, right...we should believe them when YOU agree with them, but not when YOU disagree with them.

Right....

[sandman]

you invalidated my point???

so are you saying we should always trust statements made by politicians???

that's a good one.

No, I think what he said was you have no proof of the assertion you're making.

And even if you did, what does that say about the TOP politician in the country?

Oh, right...we should believe them when YOU agree with them, but not when YOU disagree with them.

Right....

never said that, my friend.

and i guess i'm alone here, but i don't fully trust any politicans. but hey, like you said, i have no proof that they lie, so i guess they're all honest people.

[shades]

you're far from alone sandman, and far from wrong.
Every liberal on this board would be all over Bushs ass if he wouldnt have acted on the intelligence AND an attack on America
would have been traced back to that intelligence.
Bush cant win with these people, nor does he or should we, give a shit.
Thats what sets him apart and in my book becomes the greatest president of my time.
he acted, acted boldly and put the countrys security ahead of his political agenda.

the liberals argument sways with the wind.
First it was "all about the oil". Dont hear that much anymore.
Fact is the liberals supported the war before they didnt support it.
Sound familiar?
In my book, good.
Because their blind anti conservative stance will make them... well losers for years to come.
We just got two SCJ put in who will be around for a long long time.
Best thing on the liberal radar screen at the moment is Hillary Clinton.
I think that says it all.

[jarmo]

Bush cant win with these people, nor does he or should we, give a shit.
Thats what sets him apart and in my book becomes the greatest president of my time.
he acted, acted boldly and put the countrys security ahead of his political agenda.

How easy it is to forget. Remember the war in Afghanistan? Nobody was against that....

Do you know why? Because we knew that was the war on terror...



/jarmo

[shades]

You thought chasing a bunch of barefoot Taliban around the mountains would stop a system sophisticated enough to finance 9/11, or the bombing of the Cole. They kept their money somewhere.
Where do you think they all ran to? your guess would be as good as mine by the way.
We dont know, we couldnt know. BUT
when the intelligence steered us toward Iraq, would it not be logical to at least ask them to live up to countless resolutions they had already agreed to years before after the invaded a neighboring country.

And wouldnt it be logical to assume he was hiding something when he kept tossing inspectors out saying it was sacred grounds they were searching?

lets be reasonable.