It's a cautionary tale, for sure.

And the Islamist forces who would like to wipe Israel off th map are very much similar to the Mob who killed Nicky.

Thanks for helping to further emphasize the evil of Islamism.

__________________
But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America. http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060508.php3

OK OK you win. But you have to admit that the title of the thread lends itself to sarcasm. Now we are holding the place together with bailing wire and trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. The dollars are running through Iraq like shit through a goose. Bush's poor diplomatic skills have left us virtually alone. And after the mess he has created he warns the it could be a disaster. Its almost laughable if it weren't so tragic.

Ummmm...

There's an old parchment that gives the authority to the president...With the consent of Congress...which WAS given through House Resolution 114 in October, 2002....

Now if you want to say "the people" indirectly decide because they elected the president and the congress that provided consent, than "sure"...But to say the decision BELONGS to the people?...Nope...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

We have a representative government. Much less messy than a strict Democracy. We elect representatives who are free to do whta they feel best represents our wishes or our best interests.

That is what Bush has done...act in our best long term interests.

And what's more, he got Congressional approval for going into Iraq, so the war is YOUR WAR TOO! (Vomit loving beyotch.)

Now STFU.

You are the kind of guy who would have insisted that FDR reveal his knowledge that we had broken the Japanese secret communications code in WWII.

There are some things you just do not reveal, dummy.

This should be the sign over your avatar.


I read and think, therefore I post.

You just post.

Israel would not have been strategically well advised to announce their intentions to the world, dummy.

You know that real life is quite different that TV, right?

We didn't NEED there to be WMD's to justify invading. Tony Blair suggested GWB go to the UN a second time with the WMD info. If GWB had just taken the bull by the horns after telling the UN we were going to enforce the UN resolutions (and invalidate them before the world if they didn't enforce their own resolutions) and after getting the approval of Congress none of the crap that has gone on since then would have been possible.

Here's something you should know:

He was a bad man who needed to go DOWN!

The following is part paraphrased and partially quoted from the same video comments by Horowitz.

Many Dems and media were upset that GWB would use the word, "Evil" to describe Iraq prior to the invasion even though the regime had murdered more than 300,000 Iraqis and buried them in shallow mass graves, dropped poison gas on the Kurds, had invaded two countries and even though Saddam was in violation of the Gulf War truce.

Al Gore, on Feb. 2, 2002, gave a speech following the President's State of the Union, "Axis of Evil" speech. In it he defended the President's use of the word evil. Here's what he (
Al Gore,) said about whether Iraq posed a threat: "Iraq is a virulent threat in a class by itself." And the US would be justified in going to the limit to take Saddam Hussein down.

The Democrats have betrayed their own war. They've betrayed their own country. They've betrayed their own men and women in the field.

The Cease Fire Truce ending the Gulf War were UN Resolutions 687 & 689 which stated in effect that, 'you will not build, you will not plan to build, you will not have programs to build WMD's. And you will allow UN Inspectors onto Iraqi territory and freedom to go anywhere they want so they can determine that you are not doing it because nobody in their right mind can trust you.'

Saddam systematically violated all of the UN resolutions until in 1998 he threw the UN inspectors out of Iraq.

Hillary Clinton once said that not only did she vote for the war, when she was defending her support for the war, because of the intelligence that the Bush Administration gave her but also because of the intelligence she got from the Clinton Administration.

But if you want to talk about WMD and whether and how the WORLD came to believe Saddam had WMD's you ever heard of the TV News magazine show called 60 (fuckin) Minutes???

You called the part of the story when the Three Little Pigs took shelter in the brick house, convoluted!

__________________
But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America. http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060508.php3

Uh, wrong again.

The election of Conservative leaders in Germany, Italy and France have shown that the world is starting to recognize that the liberal attitudes that had existed in the face of terrorism and Islamist aggression have been absolutely irresponsible and recklessly inviting to the enemy.

And the communication and cooperation between law enforcement agencies in EVERY non-Islamist country has been extremely gratifying.

Frankly, your thinkin is stinkin.

__________________
But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America. http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060508.php3

You're missing the point.
That "old parchment" was created under a SPECIFIC discussion of REASONS WHY the war should be initiated.

And for people to NOW come forward and IGNORE those previous reasons, and insist that there are SECRET reasons for the war instead???

That would be like me asking to investigate somebody's property for one reason, but having ULTERIOR motives for doing so.


I didn't realize I was going to have to quibble over such nuances.
Yes. It's congress who provided that consent.

But to ignore the PEOPLE's correlation to that power takes an incredible sense of "elitism".
After all, Congress answers to the people, and if "the President" had an ulterior motive for going to war that was not relayed to the people, isn't that quite a bit worse than simply lying about a blow-job?

Really?!?!?...

The Constitution says that?...I'd really like you to show me that one...PLEASE tell me where it says anything close to "The president has the authority to go to war, but ONLY for certain reasons...

Bullshit...

You can't name ONE ulterior motive for the war in Iraq...Please leave the conspiracy theories to Oliver Stone...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Yes. Your claim that I said that is Bullshit!
I never said that the constitution said "The president has the authority to go to war, but ONLY for certain reasons..."

Please try to stick to what I AM saying instead of attacking something I never said.


Work on your reading comprehension.
bhkad is talking about a SECRET reason for the war in Iraq.

Repeat that over and over again until you can finally grasp the correlation inbetween that statement, and talks of "ulterior motive".
I can't help those who are unwilling to comprehend simple English...

This is where you loose track. I believe that the whole world has been awakened to the threat of Islamic terrorism. Its not a left right issue. The left understands the threat as well as you (your eyes are rolling).
I have always been a Democrat. I am not liberal. I understand the threat. We just disagree about what to do next. I think we need to change the paradigm in Iraq. And regardless of any candidates pronouncements, events will dictate our actions. Just like they always do.

If you think the only strategy worth pursuing is providing their security and giving them our money and sons and daughters. While we wait for them to get organized. Well, I think we just have differing ideas. Because thats not much of a plan. But never get the idea that we don't all get the threat.

Point is there is no reason to point to the POTUS or his party as examples of warfare leadership or competence.

And his capability to do so effectively is reflected in his abysmal "approval" rating.
His capability to do so effectively is reflected by the fact that our very own intelligence documents show an INCREASE in terrorism because of our actions in Iraq.

He is trying, but he is failing.


Yes. We got Congressional approval.
But "secret" reasons of "we want to stop Israel from attacking Iraq" were NEVER a part of any "congressional approval".
So kindly STFU in trying to reference "Congressional approval" when talking about your self-proclaimed "secret" reasons.


Hopefully you have the intelligence necessary (mostly hoping) to see the difference in revealing REASONS for going to war, versus intelligence on the enemy DURING war.

No. I would not ask FDR to reveal that we had broken Japanese secret communication.
But if FDR had ULTERIOR motives for wanting to go to war, then he better damn reveal those.

The real stupid part of your complaint (and I mean MIND-BOGGLINGLY STUPID) is that the U.S. took its intelligence on Iraq, and PARADED it in front of the U.N. and the American public.
We SHOWED what we thought Iraq was doing with WMDs.
And here you are insisting on secrecy on reasons for going to war?

Kindly STFU and stop looking stupid.


I love how I want to have the FACTS about the REASONS for going to war, and you try to paint me as "ignorant"???
Truly hilarious.


The U.S. "announced our intentions to the world", didn't we?
The U.S. announced its intentions to invade Iraq. We WENT TO THE UN about it, right?
Does that make us "dummy"?
Or just YOU and idiot for bringing up the comparison?

And to think you had the gall to claim you read and think.
I question if either are appropriate.


You want to try to persuade people to think that, but anybody who can remember history knows you're full of sh!t.
When Bush and his administration pressed the case for why we should go to war. WHAT did they say over and over and OVER again?
It was about WMDs!


I laugh at the notion of us "enforcing the UN resolution" when the UN clearly does not support our action.
The number of contradictions you casually gloss over, and the way you try to rewrite history, is amazing!


"and that's why Saddam Hussein was a threat"?
Because of 9/11?
An attack by somebody ELSE that was NOT Saddam Hussein, showed us that Saddam was a threat, probably for his potential for attacking us with WMDs he NEVER HAD.

You guys have your heads so far up your ass it's amazing!


Then why didn't Bush Sr do it?
WHY did Cheney and DOZENS of other Republicans INSIST that NOT taking down "a bad man" at that stage was the way to go?

And can you get it through your head that the U.S. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for taking "bad man" out of office.
If we were, we would have a LONG list of countries we would have to invade then.


You aren't even talking about what I am saying, nor are you defending what you previously said.
You're trying to change the subject, and I'm not interested in letting you weasel out of defending the atrocity you previously discussed.


Did 60 Minutes demand we invade Iraq?
No.

And let's look at that story. One thing GLARES out at me.
Did you see it? Did you mean to quote me FURTHER evidence that the WMDs weren't there?

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

Yeah. Further evidence he never had the WMDs when we invaded...
Thanks for that!


And the prize for meaningless non-sequitur responses, totally ignoring the previous point, goes to.....
BHKAD!!!!



I have asked you before to give a citation for this graphic.
You refused previously.
I'm thinking it's further indication of how you love to make shit up, pretending it's "evidence".

The fact that WMDs are NEVER MENTIONED on the graph is obvious proof the graphic is just plain bullsh!t.