Constitutional Rights are God given to ALL MANKIND

[Ban Hammer 14,295]

well which is it? either he was involved or not.

It would seem not.

i'm certain you've read all the classified papers to offer such a resounding no

[Alex+R 0]

I still haven't seen anyone propose any alternatives. Before we went into Iraq the dems all went up to the mic and said we had to take out Sadam. They did it because the polls said it was what the people wanted. Congress authorized the action. You can't claim that "Bush lied" because the dems were saying that Sadam had to go before Bush was elected. But when the dems saw a chance to make political points by criticizing Bush and the war it was though the got amnesia. It was though they never got up to the podium and said that we needed to take Sadam out. Now Bush bashing seems to be the order of the day. No proposals of their own. No effort to help him out. Just pure political trashing designed to regain their power. They are completely without any political morals.

There is a difference between "amnesia" and "assimilating new information into opinions."

Why are you so fixated on partisan politics? Who cares? I'm not a Democrat. Neither, I suspect, is Erekose or anyone else you feel is "Bush bashing."

And alternatives to what we're doing? Please don't take it for granted that nobody here thinks we should pull out of Iraq immediately. I certainly do. We're not going to "fix" the problem we created, and Iraqis want us out. Let's at least try to give them some of their dignity back, if we can't do anything else.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You implied my criticism was unpatriotic, which is a view you (and others) have expressed before.

Whether you think Iraq has anything to do with 9/11 or not is besides the point.

Is it? I think it is very much the point - because it calls into question the entire policy of the so-called war on terror. As I said, is it about fighting terrorism, or has 9/11 simply become a golden ticket - a means of justifying military action and aggressive foreign policies that would previously been considered 'distasteful'.

If Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was in fact ideologically opposed to fundamentalist religious extremists (after Moqtada Al Sadr only rose to power after Saddam killed his father) and his regime kept those elements very much under control, the question becomes why did we remove him? A brutal dictator to be sure, but hardly a major cog in the machinery of Al Qaeda or equivalent groups, which we are supposed to be fighting.

So here it is - I'm not entirely sure what is mean't by the war on terror - which seems to me to be curiously vague and purposefully undefined. If Iraq fits that description, and Bush has claimed that it forms part of the War on Terror - what are the limits and goals of this policy? Seems far from clear to me - but clearly as we have seen - a war can be justified on the basis of the slimmest of justifications by claiming that anyone who opposes it, is either unpatriotic or a terrorist sympathiser. Doesn't make sense to me. How about you?

Similarly why is the response for any criticisms of the president to turn on the failings of the 'other side'? This is, IMO symptomatic of how stale political debate in this country has become - that people still think there two sides, rather than broad political elite who, aside from superficial cosmetic differences are much the same and are governed by (and represent) much the same interests.

I still haven't seen anyone propose any alternatives. Before we went into Iraq the dems all went up to the mic and said we had to take out Sadam. They did it because the polls said it was what the people wanted. Congress authorized the action. You can't claim that "Bush lied" because the dems were saying that Sadam had to go before Bush was elected. But when the dems saw a chance to make political points by criticizing Bush and the war it was though the got amnesia. It was though they never got up to the podium and said that we needed to take Sadam out. Now Bush bashing seems to be the order of the day. No proposals of their own. No effort to help him out. Just pure political trashing designed to regain their power. They are completely without any political morals.

As I said, what makes you think that the Dems are significantly different from the folks in power? These days at least the distinction appears to be rather slim - and its perhaps a reason why political debate in this country is so polarised and sensationalist - to somehow make up for the mediocrity of the candidates. None of them have any scruples, IMO.

Just look at the handling of the Terri Schiavo case - perhaps the worst piece of party political grandstanding I have ever seen.

I just wonder why you think that Bush shouldn't accept the responsibility (and yes blame) that comes with his position?

Incidentally what do you see as the objectives of The War on Terror? Where and when do you see it ending? 5 years? 10 years? 15? 20? 100!?

i'm certain you've read all the classified papers to offer such a resounding no

"It would seem" is hardly synonymous with "resounding"

Bush is on public record linking the war in Iraq to the War On Terror. The information released into the public domain is sufficient to call that into doubt and raise serious questions that have not yet been answered.

[GaryC 7]

There is a difference between "amnesia" and "assimilating new information into opinions."

Why are you so fixated on partisan politics? Who cares? I'm not a Democrat. Neither, I suspect, is Erekose or anyone else you feel is "Bush bashing."

And alternatives to what we're doing? Please don't take it for granted that nobody here thinks we should pull out of Iraq immediately. I certainly do. We're not going to "fix" the problem we created, and Iraqis want us out. Let's at least try to give them some of their dignity back, if we can't do anything else.

So you think it would be best to just pull out and let Iran and Al quida take the place over? That is pretty heartless. I am not "fixated" on partisan politics but the dems sure are. That is the point of this discussion. It is laughable if you don't think that Bush bashing isn't going on, thats all this is! You can't get away from the fact that the war in Iraq was authorized by congress. Both Republicans and Democrats alike. Once it was started we were committed. The fact remains that everything that Bush is doing was with either the consent of congress or was historically done in the past by other presidents. And the Dems are using it for their own political gains. To see it any other way is just lying to yourself.

[Alex+R 0]

I am not "fixated" on partisan politics but the dems sure are.

[GaryC 7]

As I said, what makes you think that the Dems are significantly different from the folks in power? These days at least the distinction appears to be rather slim - and its perhaps a reason why political debate in this country is so polarised and sensationalist - to somehow make up for the mediocrity of the candidates. None of them have any scruples, IMO.

Just look at the handling of the Terri Schiavo case - perhaps the worst piece of party political grandstanding I have ever seen.

I just wonder why you think that Bush shouldn't accept the responsibility (and yes blame) that comes with his position?

Incidentally what do you see as the objectives of The War on Terror? Where and when do you see it ending? 5 years? 10 years? 15? 20? 100!?

So what would you do? If you don't think the way things are being done now is right how would you do it differently? I am asking your own opinion here. How should we protect ourselves from an enemy that has publicly stated that they want to take over the western world? What would you do to fight an enemy that has declaired war on us? I really want to know.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Ban Hammer 14,295]

Bush is on public record linking the war in Iraq to the War On Terror. The information released into the public domain is sufficient to call that into doubt and raise serious questions that have not yet been answered.

sure keep that in mind for about 20-50 years when such is declassified, then you'll know if you are right or not

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bush is on public record linking the war in Iraq to the War On Terror. The information released into the public domain is sufficient to call that into doubt and raise serious questions that have not yet been answered.

sure keep that in mind for about 20-50 years when such is declassified, then you'll know if you are right or not

All I will say is that the questions are right to ask, and its equally right to be suspicious of someone who claims that those questions are disloyal or unpatriotic.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They did it because the polls said it was what the people wanted.

The polls also showed that the majority of the people believed that Saddam has had involvement with the 9/11 attack on our country. Which, of course, he did not. But why did people think he did? Because that's what they were told day in and day out. All the while, the President was sitting on intelligence reports refuting the very testimony that he used to make the ficticious connection. It wasn't Congress withholding the facts, it was the President.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So what would you do? If you don't think the way things are being done now is right how would you do it differently? I am asking your own opinion here. How should we protect ourselves from an enemy that has publicly stated that they want to take over the western world? What would you do to fight an enemy that has declaired war on us? I really want to know.

Quite simply, how are the 'enemy' (which is still remains shadowy and undefined) going to go about taking over the western world?

The whole situation is laughable - listening to some people talk you'd think we were at war with the Illuminati or something. These days I'm having a hard time imagining Bin Laden without a large persian cat on his knee

BTW - please show me the historical precedent whereby an act of terrorism has brought down a democratic government?

Edited September 5, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 14,295]

BTW - please show me the historical precedent whereby an act of terrorism has brought down a democratic government?

nice phrasing.....but i take it Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria don't count?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BTW - please show me the historical precedent whereby an act of terrorism has brought down a democratic government?

nice phrasing.....but i take it Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria don't count?

Sure - if you discount a lot of other contributing factors.

Austro-Hungaria wasn't a democracy though, at least not according to my understanding.

[GaryC 7]

They did it because the polls said it was what the people wanted.

The polls also showed that the majority of the people believed that Saddam has had involvement with the 9/11 attack on our country. Which, of course, he did not. But why did people think he did? Because that's what they were told day in and day out. All the while, the President was sitting on intelligence reports refuting the very testimony that he used to make the ficticious connection. It wasn't Congress withholding the facts, it was the President.

Oh really?

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

I got to go now. Time for bed. It's been fun.

[Ban Hammer 14,295]

BTW - please show me the historical precedent whereby an act of terrorism has brought down a democratic government?

nice phrasing.....but i take it Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria don't count?

Sure - if you discount a lot of other contributing factors.

Austro-Hungaria wasn't a democracy though, at least not according to my understanding.

hence the comment on phrasing

the terrorist act did end that government though

[rclouse 0]

I'm late to the party, and so if this has been adequately retorted I apologize for the redundancy.

As far as the Patriot act goes, I think it should be strengthend not repealed. It only affects those that want to harm us. It does not infringe on ANY rights given to us under the Constitution.

One of the first uses of the Patriot Act was in Nevada. Were terrorists plotting to blow up a casino? No. Ashcroft went after pornographers with the new powers he got in the "Patriot" Act.

Remember: when a government gets power, it uses it. That's why the laws have to be written very explicitly so there aren't any unintended consequences. The "Patriot" Act was passed very quickly after 9/11. How was that possible? This legislation is supposed to prevent terrorism, right? So how could they write a piece of legislation so quickly to address this "new" problem (that the Bush administration ignored up until 11 Sept 2001)? Because they already had it written, they just needed an excuse to get it passed. They wanted these powers regardless of 9/11. 9/11 gave them the excuse.

The "Patriot" Act is for anything but patriots. It subverts what this country and the Constitution stand for.

Remember the words of your Leader, Inibig: "The Constitution is just a piece of paper."