Investigating the Truth in Iraq - Yes We Should!

[Guest]

I'm not defending Saadam- just stating what is now painfully obvious. The war in Iraq is a criminal entrerprise that put hundreds of thousands of Americans needlessly at risk, and is responsible for the death and maiming of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers.

The Bush Administration is guilty of the deaths of 175,000 Iraqis and the dislocation and homelessness of more than 2 million more. None of which had anything to do with 9/11 or Al Queda. So, should there be investigations of illegal, unconstitutional behavior? Yes Iraq was a signatory to the Geneva Accords, and given the constant shifting of the excuses for invading Iraq, the key adminstration players were not worthy of trust when they falsely stated that "The United States does not employ torture." If such was the case, then they should not be ashamed of their record as it becomes public.

I'm sure many of the apologists for the Bush administration would also defend the massacre at My Lai as necessary to the war effort in Viet Nam, and condemn Daniel Ellsburg for releasing the Pentagon Papers that showed the lies that undergirded our effort to "defend democracy" in Viet Nam.

The Bush Administration put itself into this position by declaring that it had no accountability to Congress or the Courts. If they had been responsible to the tri-partite structure of the Constitution while they were in office, then they wouldn't be under the same level of scrutiny now. For that matter, it's quite possible that the Republicans would still be in power. Unfortunately, for John McCain and others, 80% of Americans understood by Nov. 4th, that their governement had not only lied to them about Iraq, they were doing so most incompetently.

Those people in the Bush Adminstration, who disregarded the advice of their own experts, in their obsession to get the guy who "attacked my daddy," cannot do a mulligan! Their attorneys and sycophants produced opinions of LAW that subordinates were given permission to follow. So who goes to jail? Some buck private for some disgusting photos. If they (top officials) have nothing to be ashamed of, or afraid of, they should welcome an official, non-partisan inquiry as a vindicating process. So why is everyone so terrified that there will be a kangaroo court? Why do the very Republicans who crow about "Personal Responsibility" suddenly crow like cowards when they have to put up or shut up, constitutionally speaking? Because they can't hide behind a flag, or a cross, or blame it all on The Gays, or Intellectuals, or the Media, or the Liberals, or the Communists or the Labor Unions. Did I leave anyone out? Let me check "Mein Kampf."

After all, when Newt Gingrich was pursuing Bill Clinton's impeachment for lieing about extra-marital affairs, was THAT a kangaroo court? Even though Newt was f**king his secretary during those proceedings, was there anything hypocritical about that?

FORGET GENEVA. If the Obama team is currently doing the same or similar things in GTMO or other secret camps, then investigate them for violating our own Code of Military Conduct.

[Guest]

I'm not defending Saadam- just stating what is now painfully obvious. The war in Iraq is a criminal entrerprise that put hundreds of thousands of Americans needlessly at risk, and is responsible for the death and maiming of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers.

The Bush Administration is guilty of the deaths of 175,000 Iraqis and the dislocation and homelessness of more than 2 million more. None of which had anything to do with 9/11 or Al Queda. So, should there be investigations of illegal, unconstitutional behavior? Yes Iraq was a signatory to the Geneva Accords, and given the constant shifting of the excuses for invading Iraq, the key adminstration players were not worthy of trust when they falsely stated that "The United States does not employ torture." If such was the case, then they should not be ashamed of their record as it becomes public.

I'm sure many of the apologists for the Bush administration would also defend the massacre at My Lai as necessary to the war effort in Viet Nam, and condemn Daniel Ellsburg for releasing the Pentagon Papers that showed the lies that undergirded our effort to "defend democracy" in Viet Nam.

The Bush Administration put itself into this position by declaring that it had no accountability to Congress or the Courts. If they had been responsible to the tri-partite structure of the Constitution while they were in office, then they wouldn't be under the same level of scrutiny now. For that matter, it's quite possible that the Republicans would still be in power. Unfortunately, for John McCain and others, 80% of Americans understood by Nov. 4th, that their governement had not only lied to them about Iraq, they were doing so most incompetently.

Those people in the Bush Adminstration, who disregarded the advice of their own experts, in their obsession to get the guy who "attacked my daddy," cannot do a mulligan! Their attorneys and sycophants produced opinions of LAW that subordinates were given permission to follow. So who goes to jail? Some buck private for some disgusting photos. If they (top officials) have nothing to be ashamed of, or afraid of, they should welcome an official, non-partisan inquiry as a vindicating process. So why is everyone so terrified that there will be a kangaroo court? Why do the very Republicans who crow about "Personal Responsibility" suddenly crow like cowards when they have to put up or shut up, constitutionally speaking? Because they can't hide behind a flag, or a cross, or blame it all on The Gays, or Intellectuals, or the Media, or the Liberals, or the Communists or the Labor Unions. Did I leave anyone out? Let me check "Mein Kampf."

After all, when Newt Gingrich was pursuing Bill Clinton's impeachment for lieing about extra-marital affairs, was THAT a kangaroo court? Even though Newt was f**king his secretary during those proceedings, was there anything hypocritical about that?

FORGET GENEVA. If the Obama team is currently doing the same or similar things in GTMO or other secret camps, then investigate them for violating our own Code of Military Conduct.


You are aware that it may have been incorrect, but the intelligence that we had at the time was shared by most of the countries of the world !!!!

As a disciple of President Obama, you are certainly a good one....change we can believe in !!!

[Guest]

Uh... Congress voted to approve the war along with all the UN resolutions that were approved. You're also forgetting the other Nations that joined in. You mentioned Bush but you left out all the Democrats that also voted for the war. Wouldn't that make Congress just as guilty? :ohdear:

Maybe we should go back and investigate the war in Vietnam, Germany and Japan too?

We killed a butt load of terrorists in Iraq and that's good enough for me. My only regret is we didn't kill more.

[Guest]

I'm not defending Saadam- just stating what is now painfully obvious. The war in Iraq is a criminal entrerprise that put hundreds of thousands of Americans needlessly at risk, and is responsible for the death and maiming of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers.

The Bush Administration is guilty of the deaths of 175,000 Iraqis and the dislocation and homelessness of more than 2 million more. None of which had anything to do with 9/11 or Al Queda. So, should there be investigations of illegal, unconstitutional behavior? Yes Iraq was a signatory to the Geneva Accords, and given the constant shifting of the excuses for invading Iraq, the key adminstration players were not worthy of trust when they falsely stated that "The United States does not employ torture." If such was the case, then they should not be ashamed of their record as it becomes public.

I'm sure many of the apologists for the Bush administration would also defend the massacre at My Lai as necessary to the war effort in Viet Nam, and condemn Daniel Ellsburg for releasing the Pentagon Papers that showed the lies that undergirded our effort to "defend democracy" in Viet Nam.

The Bush Administration put itself into this position by declaring that it had no accountability to Congress or the Courts. If they had been responsible to the tri-partite structure of the Constitution while they were in office, then they wouldn't be under the same level of scrutiny now. For that matter, it's quite possible that the Republicans would still be in power. Unfortunately, for John McCain and others, 80% of Americans understood by Nov. 4th, that their governement had not only lied to them about Iraq, they were doing so most incompetently.

Those people in the Bush Adminstration, who disregarded the advice of their own experts, in their obsession to get the guy who "attacked my daddy," cannot do a mulligan! Their attorneys and sycophants produced opinions of LAW that subordinates were given permission to follow. So who goes to jail? Some buck private for some disgusting photos. If they (top officials) have nothing to be ashamed of, or afraid of, they should welcome an official, non-partisan inquiry as a vindicating process. So why is everyone so terrified that there will be a kangaroo court? Why do the very Republicans who crow about "Personal Responsibility" suddenly crow like cowards when they have to put up or shut up, constitutionally speaking? Because they can't hide behind a flag, or a cross, or blame it all on The Gays, or Intellectuals, or the Media, or the Liberals, or the Communists or the Labor Unions. Did I leave anyone out? Let me check "Mein Kampf."

After all, when Newt Gingrich was pursuing Bill Clinton's impeachment for lieing about extra-marital affairs, was THAT a kangaroo court? Even though Newt was f**king his secretary during those proceedings, was there anything hypocritical about that?

FORGET GENEVA. If the Obama team is currently doing the same or similar things in GTMO or other secret camps, then investigate them for violating our own Code of Military Conduct.

My God, why don't you just put a sock in it!!!!! :cus::cus::cus::cus:


Yoda

[Guest]

OMG!!! It's hard to believe somebody that sounds so intelligent can be so gullible and ignorant:confused:

[Guest]

if we investigate one then they all need to be investigated.
Today's society and outlook in America would not have allowed us to do what had to be done to win the past wars.
The media educated are severly limited in their entire outlook of the realities of war or the need to protect our nation......until they become personally involved...hopefully they never have to...like the 911 victims...and all other innocents of all the other wars that did not have the 24/7 media to slow them down!!!!

So let's spend a few more billion and waste the little time our lawmakers spend in Washington doing a partisan witch hunt....it is a good tactic to keep everybody from paying attention to the real problems at hand.

You can't do anything about the view in the rear view mirror!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTK

[Guest]

We wouldn't see this happening if congress was not immune, would we? Liberals barf

Yoda

[Guest]

I'm not defending Saadam- just stating what is now painfully obvious. The war in Iraq is a criminal entrerprise that put hundreds of thousands of Americans needlessly at risk, and is responsible for the death and maiming of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers.

The Bush Administration is guilty of the deaths of 175,000 Iraqis and the dislocation and homelessness of more than 2 million more. None of which had anything to do with 9/11 or Al Queda. So, should there be investigations of illegal, unconstitutional behavior? Yes Iraq was a signatory to the Geneva Accords, and given the constant shifting of the excuses for invading Iraq, the key adminstration players were not worthy of trust when they falsely stated that "The United States does not employ torture." If such was the case, then they should not be ashamed of their record as it becomes public.

I'm sure many of the apologists for the Bush administration would also defend the massacre at My Lai as necessary to the war effort in Viet Nam, and condemn Daniel Ellsburg for releasing the Pentagon Papers that showed the lies that undergirded our effort to "defend democracy" in Viet Nam.

The Bush Administration put itself into this position by declaring that it had no accountability to Congress or the Courts. If they had been responsible to the tri-partite structure of the Constitution while they were in office, then they wouldn't be under the same level of scrutiny now. For that matter, it's quite possible that the Republicans would still be in power. Unfortunately, for John McCain and others, 80% of Americans understood by Nov. 4th, that their governement had not only lied to them about Iraq, they were doing so most incompetently.

Those people in the Bush Adminstration, who disregarded the advice of their own experts, in their obsession to get the guy who "attacked my daddy," cannot do a mulligan! Their attorneys and sycophants produced opinions of LAW that subordinates were given permission to follow. So who goes to jail? Some buck private for some disgusting photos. If they (top officials) have nothing to be ashamed of, or afraid of, they should welcome an official, non-partisan inquiry as a vindicating process. So why is everyone so terrified that there will be a kangaroo court? Why do the very Republicans who crow about "Personal Responsibility" suddenly crow like cowards when they have to put up or shut up, constitutionally speaking? Because they can't hide behind a flag, or a cross, or blame it all on The Gays, or Intellectuals, or the Media, or the Liberals, or the Communists or the Labor Unions. Did I leave anyone out? Let me check "Mein Kampf."

After all, when Newt Gingrich was pursuing Bill Clinton's impeachment for lieing about extra-marital affairs, was THAT a kangaroo court? Even though Newt was f**king his secretary during those proceedings, was there anything hypocritical about that?

FORGET GENEVA. If the Obama team is currently doing the same or similar things in GTMO or other secret camps, then investigate them for violating our own Code of Military Conduct.

I know these comments are likely against TOTV policy, but I could not let the above ignorant vile piece of trash go by without saying something. If you think, for some deluded reason, that you have something sensible to say, please try to do so without the ad hominem attacks on the public officials you seem to hate, as well as on a substantial part of the membership of TOTV. And I know this concept might seem foreign to you, but you might want to consider providing some proof and/or documentation for your more inane accusations.

Other than that, nice post.



`

[Guest]

Hold up,, Time out as the whistle is blowing,, we have a yellow flag on the board, 15 days with out water, flagrant foul. Hitting where it hurts!!!!!!!! How dare you state your opinion here!!!! You must think this is the United States or something..

:bowdown:

Money out

[Guest]

I know these comments are likely against TOTV policy, but I could not let the above ignorant vile piece of trash go by without saying something. If you think, for some deluded reason, that you have something sensible to say, please try to do so without the ad hominem attacks on the public officials you seem to hate, as well as on a substantial part of the membership of TOTV. And I know this concept might seem foreign to you, but you might want to consider providing some proof and/or documentation for your more inane accusations.

Other than that, nice post.



`

You don't like his attacks on public officials whose policies he doesn't agree with , but its okay for you to make personal attacks on poster whose ideas you don't agree with. Hmm.....another friendly Villager.

[Guest]

Blind Bush hatred, blind Obama worship.

Bush can do no right and Obama can do no wrong. I've said this before, 10 years from now people will still be hammering Bush and it doesn't matter what Obama does to screw up our country, it will always and forever be Bush's fault.

Funny how he blames 175,000 deaths on Bush but leaves everything else out. Notice how he didn’t include the 80 + liberals in Congress that voted to approve the war or any of the other countries that participated in the war or their Presidents.

It's intellectually void but very convenient.

[Guest]

As with most situations where military force has been deployed, there is a desire to investigate the why and how with clinical precision. Years later, after the initiation of deployment, much of the emotion of the times, as well as considerably more information not available then now being available, must be considered.

When 9/11 happened, the national mood was one of utter dismay, some fear, a measure of panic, and just plain shock. For weeks, each news broadcast seemed to start with images of the Twin Towers aflame and tumbling, and other images of the resulting devastation for a considerable radius around that NY block. Within the DC area, as commuters drove on Interstate 395 in Arlington, the impact on the Pentagon was a constant and visible reminder of what happened. Add to that the Pennsylvania crash site, and it was beat into the American psyche that bad guys wanted to destroy average Americans just for being average Americans, and nobody knew who was next.

The internal response - creation of an Office of Homeland Security within the White House which evolved into a Department, creation of the Transportation Security Agency and all it has become - was one step to calming the public, but it was only one step. There was still a massive public cry - fueled by the media - to find and destroy Osama bin Laden and all who made these tragedies happen. That included not only the "trigger men," but also everyone who supported logistically the terrorist cause.

Enter Iraq - known as a regional military bully, a human rights cesspool led by a butcher (and equally bad progeny) publicly and notoriously supporting all anti-Western causes with money and military support, and believed by every intelligence source due to the caliber of Iraq's scientific base and international acquisition of the requisite materials to be going nuclear. Iraq already had a stockpile of chemical weapons - also a United Nations no-no - and the recorded proof of no compunction to deploy them, having gassed Iranians and Kurds with devastating results. Iraq's public position was very pro-terrorist (especially Al Qa'ida) and its private position was one of chief logistician.

The American psyche, right or wrong, was not satisfied with simply a defensive response to 9/11. The demand was to "go get them" and much frustration built up when little appeared to be happening to bring the 9/11 slime to justice, or bring justice to them. In the meantime, Iraq continued in it's role as chief logistician (supplying arms, training, and other support) to Al Qa'ida.

As any military strategist knows, if you eliminate the logistic support, the other guy has nothing to fight with, and that's key to ending any war. So, taking Iraq out of the Al Qa'ida support role was a legitimate and necessary action.

So, the USA, with several allies, went into Iraq. The USA had to publicly and notoriously demonstrate in this century, as it had in prior ones, that an attack on the American homeland would result in massive and powerful response on any and/or all who attack the homeland. That's what has kept the number of attacks on US soil to a relative few in the nation's history, and occasionally a new generation of bullies and bums want to test our resolve.

A lot of noise regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as being the ONLY reason for the Iraq war was made. That's bunk! There were several, and WMD was only one of them - but it was the one that got the most press coverage, mainly because "logistics" is rather dull and boring to many.

It is rotten that so many fine Americans have been severely injured or killed in the past years since 9/11 in military action. However, it was also rotten that so many were also injured and killed after Pearl Harbor during WWII, and after the Lusitania sinking during WWI, and after the USS Maine sinking during the Spanish-American War, and so many more were also injured and killed in other military actions which the initiating reasons were blurry to the public.

Hindsight has been classified as being "20:20," but it rarely is. There's a lot of political posturing done with hindsight investigations, and the emotions which aren't part of the historical writings are scantly available.

Those who question why the USA has or has not done something are not wrong or misguided. They force us to insure we don't become what we despise. As long as the goal of any criticism - positive or negative - is a better America, we all win. What must be a concern with a criticism is the goal. If it is for a better America, hooray! If it is simply political posturing, that would be sad.

[Guest]

Brilliant summation Steve.

[Guest]

along the same lines as Steve's summation (great, by the way) is the little publicized action of Saddam in which he led everyone to believe he had a lot more weapons (namely WMD) than he actually did. I have read where he did this to keep Iran at bay, who at the time was a very real threat to Iraq. Of course, this was buried in the pages of the papers where it would be the least read and scarcely mentioned, more or less in passing, on television. It worked as far as Iran was concerned, but ultimately backfired leading to his demise. Have all these people questioning the war forgotten when he repeatedly would not let the UN inspectors in and then all of a sudden invited them in like nothing had ever been amiss? His not letting them in is part of what influenced the decision to invade on the parts of congress and the other countries.

[Guest]

I'm not defending Saadam- just stating what is now painfully obvious. The war in Iraq is a criminal entrerprise that put hundreds of thousands of Americans needlessly at risk, and is responsible for the death and maiming of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers.

The Bush Administration is guilty of the deaths of 175,000 Iraqis and the dislocation and homelessness of more than 2 million more. None of which had anything to do with 9/11 or Al Queda. So, should there be investigations of illegal, unconstitutional behavior? Yes Iraq was a signatory to the Geneva Accords, and given the constant shifting of the excuses for invading Iraq, the key adminstration players were not worthy of trust when they falsely stated that "The United States does not employ torture." If such was the case, then they should not be ashamed of their record as it becomes public.

I'm sure many of the apologists for the Bush administration would also defend the massacre at My Lai as necessary to the war effort in Viet Nam, and condemn Daniel Ellsburg for releasing the Pentagon Papers that showed the lies that undergirded our effort to "defend democracy" in Viet Nam.

The Bush Administration put itself into this position by declaring that it had no accountability to Congress or the Courts. If they had been responsible to the tri-partite structure of the Constitution while they were in office, then they wouldn't be under the same level of scrutiny now. For that matter, it's quite possible that the Republicans would still be in power. Unfortunately, for John McCain and others, 80% of Americans understood by Nov. 4th, that their governement had not only lied to them about Iraq, they were doing so most incompetently.

Those people in the Bush Adminstration, who disregarded the advice of their own experts, in their obsession to get the guy who "attacked my daddy," cannot do a mulligan! Their attorneys and sycophants produced opinions of LAW that subordinates were given permission to follow. So who goes to jail? Some buck private for some disgusting photos. If they (top officials) have nothing to be ashamed of, or afraid of, they should welcome an official, non-partisan inquiry as a vindicating process. So why is everyone so terrified that there will be a kangaroo court? Why do the very Republicans who crow about "Personal Responsibility" suddenly crow like cowards when they have to put up or shut up, constitutionally speaking? Because they can't hide behind a flag, or a cross, or blame it all on The Gays, or Intellectuals, or the Media, or the Liberals, or the Communists or the Labor Unions. Did I leave anyone out? Let me check "Mein Kampf."

After all, when Newt Gingrich was pursuing Bill Clinton's impeachment for lieing about extra-marital affairs, was THAT a kangaroo court? Even though Newt was f**king his secretary during those proceedings, was there anything hypocritical about that?

FORGET GENEVA. If the Obama team is currently doing the same or similar things in GTMO or other secret camps, then investigate them for violating our own Code of Military Conduct.


I categorically disagree with your leftist rant. Perhaps you would feel more at home in a Marxist banana republic where dictators for life try, imprison and punish the opposition every few years when the incumbents are overthrown. I've added leftists and Marxists to your list per your request. Somehow, they seem most appropriate given your "party" line and unoriginal talking points.

I know and served with a lot of patriotic Americans who would take umbrage with your labeling them and other Republicans as "cowards". However, I dismiss it as a product of your partisan anger and ilk.

In true Marxist banana republic style, your remedies and the Obama administration's direction seem to have no problem with establishing ex post facto criteria, contrived de facto bills of attainder, punishment of legal opinions and other unconstitutional devices to "hang" the previous administration while conveniently diverting attention from the real economic disaster they are crafting.

God bless America! Have a nice day.

[Guest]

ptownrob:

you are too funny. I am convinced that you were having an uneventful day and decided to have some fun with this forum. Nothing can set this board off like a posting like yours.:pepper2:

[Guest]

ptownrob

Come back when you graduate .......

Fumar

[Guest]

The attempted Bush Adminstration's Unitary Executive Coup was nothing but one huge, "If the President does it, it's not illegal." Not one word that anyone has written here indicates that they believe any different.

What was it Yoda said? Oh, Yeah...
My God, why don't you just put a sock in it!!!!! :cus::cus::cus::cus:Yoda

Convenient it is very, when the shoe is on the other hand.

and Cabo, " I've added leftists and Marxists to your list per your request. Somehow, they seem most appropriate given your "party" line and unoriginal talking points.

You seem not to recognize the poem of Pastor Martin Niemöller..and if you agree to "add" Marxist and Leftists to my "list" as you call it, can it be taken to mean that you give tacit assent to the entire list?

Here's the poem in its entirety:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

(By the way, he was not very popular with Adolph Hitler.)

Cabo, you also state, In true Marxist banana republic style, your remedies and the Obama administration's direction seem to have no problem with establishing ex post facto criteria, contrived de facto bills of attainder, punishment of legal opinions and other unconstitutional devices to "hang" the previous administration while conveniently diverting attention from the real economic disaster they are crafting.

Does this mean that there is no circumstance, whatsoever, that would justify investigating the circumstances surrounding the Executive-authorized torture that accompanied this war?

My point is quite simple, and not meant to inflame, ad hominem, anyone posting on this board. On the other hand, calling to task those who perpetrated an evil is not ad hominem, it is ad rem, since they are the primary actors in the event. If one simply blames all the ills of the world on some villified group- "THEM" it's not a far reach to the mobs to justify book burnings, teabaggings and the like.

I'm not sure where it came across that Democrats should not be held accountable for their actions (or inactions). If there is illegal activity, including the deliberate misleading of the American people for reasons OTHER THAN National Security, then prosecution of those crimes should be investigated. No one should be afraid of the Light of Justice- She holds a balanced scale and she is blindfolded. I get the impression that several of our members do not have faith in American Justice any longer. If that be the case, perhaps it is not I who should be looking for greener pastures.

I would only caution that, in the past, the cry of "national security" has been used both legitimately and illegally. Sometimes only history can be the jusdge. Certainly Lincoln had just cause for suspending habeus corpus . Posse Comitatus has been violated on numerous occasions, but not necessarily for the wrong reasons.

All three branches of our government have recognized that Japanese internment camps in WWII were an abuse of national security. The Supreme Court, Congress and the Attorney General, Dep. Attorney General and Independent Prosecutor in the Nixon years recognized that Nixon's claim of "Executive Privilege" was not valid. You know who finally said that Nixon had the right to disobey the entire government accusing Nixon of breaking the laws of the United States?

A young lawyer named Robert Bork. I believe he's a poster-child of the false concept of "judicial restraint."


Finally, Steve, I have no disagreement with you whatsoever about the aftermath of 9/11. I do disagree with the outright falsehoods that you state, whicih completely change the sense of your statement concerning Iraq:

Enter Iraq - known as a regional military bully, a human rights cesspool led by a butcher (and equally bad progeny) publicly and 1.)notoriously supporting all anti-Western causes with money and military support, and 2.)believed by every intelligence source due to the caliber of Iraq's scientific base and international acquisition of the requisite materials to be going nuclear. Iraq 3.)already had a stockpile of chemical weapons - also a United Nations no-no - and the recorded proof of no compunction to deploy them, having gassed Iranians and Kurds with devastating results. 4.)Iraq's public position was very pro-terrorist (especially Al Qa'ida) and its private position was one of chief logistician.

I do not, for a minute, deny that Saadam was a brutal, inhuman dictator- along with dozens of other national tyrants, with whom we seemed quite content to countenance. But that was not the justification for the war.

1.) Iraq was a major trading partner with a number of Western nations. In fact, for years, we supported Saadam in his war against Iran.

2. & 3.)The NIE for the U.S. were very ambivalent about Saadam's capabilities, the British were even more wary, and U.N. Weapons inspectors testified that Saadam had destroyed or lost virtually all capabilities since the 1991 war. It was George W. Bush who DELIBERATELY mislead the world concerning Iraq's attempt to get "yellowcake" for nuclear programs.

4.) Saadam was violently oppposed to Al Queda, and the Bush (Cheney-Rumsfeld) smokescreen connecting him with 9/11 was repeatedly shown to be a total fabrication. Saadam feared radical Islam for the same reasons we do- He ran a secular (Muslim) state. He did not want radical Islamists anywhere near Iraq, and was willing to go to war to prevent it.

Your argument about Saadam being allied with Al Queda has been debunked as false propaganda as thoroughly as that of the moon being made of Swiss cheese- not that I have anything against Swiss cheese.

[Guest]

ptownrob... replace Nazis with Obama Marxists in your recent misrepresented version of Niemoller's poem and it makes more sense.

The original, unmanipulated version went like this:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

That thing about "social democrats" is a myth created by ..........

I am sure the targets of George Soros and your leftists friends "revenge" prosecution, or is that persecution, could interpret this classic in another way from their perspective.

Your pedantic ramblings are flawed and unimpressive.

Have a good evening.

[Guest]

,,,,,,

Finally, Steve, I have no disagreement with you whatsoever about the aftermath of 9/11. I do disagree with the outright falsehoods that you state, whicih completely change the sense of your statement concerning Iraq:

Enter Iraq - known as a regional military bully, a human rights cesspool led by a butcher (and equally bad progeny) publicly and 1.)notoriously supporting all anti-Western causes with money and military support, and 2.)believed by every intelligence source due to the caliber of Iraq's scientific base and international acquisition of the requisite materials to be going nuclear. Iraq 3.)already had a stockpile of chemical weapons - also a United Nations no-no - and the recorded proof of no compunction to deploy them, having gassed Iranians and Kurds with devastating results. 4.)Iraq's public position was very pro-terrorist (especially Al Qa'ida) and its private position was one of chief logistician.

I do not, for a minute, deny that Saadam was a brutal, inhuman dictator- along with dozens of other national tyrants, with whom we seemed quite content to countenance. But that was not the justification for the war.

1.) Iraq was a major trading partner with a number of Western nations. In fact, for years, we supported Saadam in his war against Iran.

2. & 3.)The NIE for the U.S. were very ambivalent about Saadam's capabilities, the British were even more wary, and U.N. Weapons inspectors testified that Saadam had destroyed or lost virtually all capabilities since the 1991 war. It was George W. Bush who DELIBERATELY mislead the world concerning Iraq's attempt to get "yellowcake" for nuclear programs.

4.) Saadam was violently oppposed to Al Queda, and the Bush (Cheney-Rumsfeld) smokescreen connecting him with 9/11 was repeatedly shown to be a total fabrication. Saadam feared radical Islam for the same reasons we do- He ran a secular (Muslim) state. He did not want radical Islamists anywhere near Iraq, and was willing to go to war to prevent it.

Your argument about Saadam being allied with Al Queda has been debunked as false propaganda as thoroughly as that of the moon being made of Swiss cheese- not that I have anything against Swiss cheese.
I don't know who the "debunkers" are whom you believe. Methinks they have an agenda, and it is usually the same - America is the villain no matter what happens.

Saadam's regime was playing all sides. Iraqi support to Al Qa'ida was logical under the circumstances - if Al-Qa-ida targeted everyone else (being non-MidEast nations), then Iraq (and others - an an example, the financial book is not closed on Saudi involvement) would be the A-Q quartermaster. The quid pro quo was A-Q not interfering with Saadam's stranglehold. The "war makes strange bedfellows" is true. Stalin-Churchill-Roosevelt epitomized that. The Iran-Iraq feud has been going on for many a century, and was and still is Sunni v. Shia, and has nothing to do with fundamentalism.

And if the Bush administration AND Congress jointly made decisions based on intelligence information not as accurate as desired, blame the Clinton administration. It was Pres. Clinton that gutted the intelligence community budget, closing out collection and monitoring programs that took many years to develop and which kept the evil-doers in check offshore. The more incomplete the intelligence information, the greater the decision risk.

You can choose to disbelieve , but it was what it was,,,

Pres. Obama will be in a better position regarding decisions concerning homeland security, as he is inheriting an intelligence collection and analysis capacity in much better operational shape than his predecessor. It's still not as good as it was prior to 1992, but should continue to improve unless the new administration wants to work in the blind a la the previous Democratic administration. It is what it is....

[Guest]

First, let me correct an incorrect statement that has been fervently repeated by Democrats for years. Bill Clinton was NOT impeached for “…lieing about extra-marital affairs.” This repetition of this lie is done on the operating principles of the Democrats that, “If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people will come to believe that it is the truth.”
The reasons for Clinton’s impeachment are laid out the articles of impeachment:

Article 1: Perjury before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury.
Article 2: Perjury in the Paula Jones civil case.
Article 3: Obstruction of Justice related to the Jones case.
Article 4: Abuse of Power by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.

You can read the entire articles at http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

It was these same crimes that caused the courts, including The United States Supreme Court to have his law license suspended for five years – are these too ‘Kangaroo Courts’?

On one of your other points, Bucco has recently posted a link to a WSJ editorial that discusses this at length. Of particular interest is that Nancy Pelosi was the ranking democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and was thoroughly briefed on all topics, including waterboarding. Should she be investigated and indicted, or is it to be only members of the Bush Administration? According to her Republican counterpart, Porter Goss, her major concern was that the CIA was not doing enough.

Oh, I forgot that she has said, in the immortal words of Hillary Clinton, "I can't recall."

Steve, you were dead on when you pointed out that Bill Clinton had vastly reduced our intelligence capability and President Bush was building it back and as a result, Obama inherited a much stronger intelligence capability than President Bush did. However, the recent ideas of 'after-the-fact' criminal prosecution by the Obama administration will cause continuing CYA activities in the intelligence committee to the detriment of actual intelligence gathering.

[Guest]

How dare I venture back into this arena..... But it is funny how we can hammer one for their opinion. But is interesting to read the included link. Yes it is from MSNBC, so I know there are a few that will say look at the source. Then again those are the Bush Bowers. But here it is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30363738/

Man had opinion,, he stated that.. Like it or not, it is his thought. If you guys dont behave, I will have to throw another yellow flag for a Personal Foul.

Money OOUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

[Guest]

How dare I venture back into this arena..... But it is funny how we can hammer one for their opinion. But is interesting to read the included link. Yes it is from MSNBC, so I know there are a few that will say look at the source. Then again those are the Bush Bowers. But here it is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30363738/

Man had opinion,, he stated that.. Like it or not, it is his thought. If you guys dont behave, I will have to throw another yellow flag for a Personal Foul.

Money OOUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT



Geez...I hate polls, but if you check the same poll numbers used to work that article you linked to show that the DISAPPROVE pct is also the highest since he took office (32.3) !

And have to have a retort for your "Bush bower" comment !!! I suppose because I admantly oppose the current WH policies and beliefs I might be considered a "Bush bower" as you so nicely phrase it (which factually is very very far from true), but I have to tell you since you put it in the context of MSNBC. I very seldom rely on cable news sources but MSNBC at night is the single most hate filled bunch of folks I can recall. They are the anti "move forward" network. They are, and it seems always will, stuck in the Bush presidency forever :)

I honestly never watch them or any of them, but the ads for those shows never fail to mention the last President, not what is happening today !

[Guest]

Opinion is one thing, spewing propaganda is quite another. I think vanilla is the best ice cream in the world. That's my opinion. But when you start twisting facts and even more so leaving out other facts that spin things in a slanted view is quite another. I think we all might be guilty of that from time to time but when you are, getting a spanking by other "opinion" holders shouldn't come as a surprise.

[Guest]

Everybody does it....some is just not malicious. For politicians it is the only way they know how to speak.

BTK

[Guest]

Everybody does it....some is just not malicious. For politicians it is the only way they know how to speak.

BTK


agree agreee agreee