Iraq results

[Oscar54]

You're being blinded by the D vs. R politics. Every administration does the same thing, over and over. You cannot deny it.

Oh really? Can you give me an example? Tell me when any administration did anything close to what the Bush/Cheney Adminstration did?

I think your apparent hatred of your government is blinding you to the good things and benefits that a Democratic Republic form of government provides.

 

[wrightme43]

I hear you and understand what you are saying.

On the flip side of the equation, can you provide a example where a soldier acting under orders from the US government has, WITHOUT, cause denied anyone their constitional rights?

As far as I know no military action has been taken against any churches, news organzations, nothing against any peaceful protests that had not turned into riots, and on.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II



A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III



No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V



No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI



In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII



In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII



Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Show me where the US military acting under orders from our government has violated these rights, and I will be glad to find soldiers who stood up against it.

Just because you dont like something, and hey I agree with you about the infringement of our rights by our government, they are twisting them way around, but just because its not liked does not mean the military is enforcing it.

Now the POLICE, FBI, CIA, BATF, and those dudes. Hell yeah, I can find where they abuse the hell out of these rights.

The US military, well not so much.

 

[Oscar54]

It says the message I entered is to short but its really not.

I love it when defenders of Bush/Cheney call others who disagree with them deranged!:rof:

Oh, and how is your 401K/IRA doing?

 

[wrightme43]

Yes thats it, Bush and Cheney are actually personally responsible for all the problems the US has. Not only that they planned this for years, and thier only goal was to loot the treasury, invade iraq, and make haliburton money.

Yep that it by God.

Do you have any idea just how goofy that is?

Seriously man.

My personal 401k was cashed out in 2005 to start my business. Everything I had saved went into it. So that is a moot point for me.

BDS is pretty common. He is a chimp, a idiot from TX, but he is also a crimanal mastermind who controls the world thru magic backroom mind control. Seriously man it makes people with it look like they have no sense what so ever.

 

[wrightme43]

I love it when defenders of Bush/Cheney call others who disagree with them deranged!:rof:

Oh, and how is your 401K/IRA doing?

Also on that note do you have any response to the answers to the questions you asked, or incorrect items presented as facts in your post I responded to?

That or is the only answer how is my 401k? I answered that as well.

 

[abraxas]

You folks in the states are fond of your constitution, and rightly so. :thumbup:

However, since we're dealing in international matters, may i suggest that an international platform be agreed to?

Namely the Magna Carta ... from which much of your constitution was drawn, namely that of basic human rights, like no prolonged unlawful detention, no torture, habeus corpus rights etc. Which your govt, led by bush, flagrantly ignored.

The magna carta, and habeus corpus rights, are considered by many to be the first sign of a citizen based society, or civilisation, if you will. The abandonment of such basic tenets of our shared "western culture and value system" cannot be an advancement of any sort, and the legalistic squabbling of terms such as water boarding and such, which the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES, strikes me as juvenile, and very dangerous for us all.

Similarly, the Nuremburg trials, and sebsequent Geneva convention, which are all modern, internationally accepted constructs, which the US, UK, Isreal and several others seem intent on ignoring. In the case of the US, who was the major contributor TO the geneva convention, it seems almost impossible to understand why they are working so hard to avoid following the guidelines? The term "enemy combatant" was created to subvert the geneva conventions specifically.

Perhaps you can explain to me .... Why is any international answer military? Not only the states, but western "culture". Surely isreal would have had better results in gaza if the dropped medical supplies? and schoolbooks?

And why is cheney such a cruel bastard? We know about all the money he has made off this war, but he seems to enjoy all the collateral. Stuff happens.

I HAVE to stress i have nothing but pity for any war vets, since they are usually as badly screwed over as their victims, they just get neater gear.

Oscar: Every single US administration since Wilson has had at least 1 major external conflict. Very often very far away, like korea, vietnam, the phillipines, etc. If anyone wants evidence let me know.

FZSex: Maybe one day we'll help out the Earth and the fellow human race like the shining star that is South Africa.

I'd like you to expand if you would?

mstewar1: that sir, is the most diplomatic answer i have seen for a very long time :rockon:

 

[wrightme43]

No no no.

The term enemy combatant was quite simply a lable for a man that shows up for war with out a uniform. You have the rules of war all messed up and backwards.

Uniforms protect noncombatents. The man that makes a target of himself by dressing in a uniform is a known soldier and free game in war.

If you hide among the citizens, and use churchs, schools and children as cover you are not a soldier and not intitled to any geneva convention rights. It really is very simple and you have it very wrong.

The whole base for your argument is is moot because of that point.

I am not being diplomatic about this. I am not being diplomatic about it on purpose. All view points are not equal, there is a right and wrong.


FZSex: Maybe one day we'll help out the Earth and the fellow human race like the shining star that is South Africa. WHAT??????

You can suggest any international platform and agreement you want. So long as only our side follows it right??????????? The rest of the world is exempt.....

I can go on, but your thought process is so far off of reasonable its not really worth it.

GAZA?????

We shoot thousands of rockets into your cities so we should air drop food and medical supplies so you stop??????? WTF man???????? The logical disconnet here is mind numbing.

 

[abraxas]

I read your post, and am quite numb with disbelief.

We are both educated white males from the western society.

We share many things, despite the distance between us (starting with da FIZZER)

How then, can we view the same things, so utterly differently.

If you write off my arguments so quickly, i implore you to reconsider. I could respond to each and every point you make, but feel that silly, since we are very far apart here.

I agree with you entirely, that there is a right, and a wrong.

I will assert that you are wrong, and you the same for me, i guess we read different news reports.

And frankly, if you believe HONESTLY, that the full might of the US army being thrown at a bunch of peasants is acceptable, then perhaps any discussion is futile?

PS ... why is it you understand war so well, and not peace?

 

[madmanmaigret]

The magna carta, and habeus corpus rights, are considered by many to be the first sign of a citizen based society, or civilisation, if you will.

Perhaps you can explain to me .... Why is any international answer military? Not only the states, but western "culture". Surely isreal would have had better results in gaza if the dropped medical supplies? and schoolbooks?

I would like to hear of any "civilisation" that did not war with another or themselves even. Throughout all time.

Why is the answer military? Because it is brought up in our ancestors from the beginning of time. This is not a "western" thing. Look at Kim Jong Il (sp) he is as not western as you can get but is he not a war monger? Is he not killing his own people to satisfy his own needs? All wars in some way shape or form (from the begining of history) are due to religion and/or power (now money is considered power). Period. Why would they drop medical supplies? So their own people could die of their wounds due to lack of medical supplies?


Let me ask you this. If your neighbors were making and selling a deadly (legal or illegal) drug that your children (or neighbors children, friends, family, anyone) could get a hold of, would you try to stop them? Why? What if asking them nicely to stop didn't work? Would you go further? To what extent? Would you just give up and let your kids become zombies because some scumbag was a scumbag?

every administration has positives and negatives (Bush is the first and only president to bring about any nuclear disarmament) it is ying and yang, that is just how it goes.

 

[Oscar54]

Also on that note do you have any response to the answers to the questions you asked, or incorrect items presented as facts in your post I responded to?

That or is the only answer how is my 401k? I answered that as well.

Ok here we go! (Excuse my crude cut and paste) This is your response in blue to my post and my counter in red

Originally Posted by Oscar54 View Post
Without getting off on a bunch of tangents, here is my take.

The Iraq war was predicated on lies.

1) Hussein was a secular leader not a theocratic one, and therefore was the enemy of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. He is a proven supporter of terrorist bombers, and sent checks to the widows, and famlies of sucidide bombers. Fact. (This misses the point. Bush did not say that we need to take out Saddam because of his support of terrorist bombers, he said it was because he was supporting Al Qaeda and was part of 9-11. Both are not true. Cheney even admitted that if they did not make the connection between Saddam and 9-11 that Americans would not have found their arguments persuasive enough to go to war./COLOR]

2) Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. But the Saudi's probably did. Saudi Government or People of Saudi decent? People of Saudi decent yes. Government No. Bin Laden is a wealthy Saudi and is probably living there now though I cannot prove it. (But I doubt he is living in a cave with his apparent health conditions.) I said nothing about the average Saudi. I was referring to their Royal Family and their radical Wahhabi form of Islam.

3) Hussein did not have WMD. Hans Blix said so before the war and it turn out to be true. We have found mobile bio labs, shells with mustard gas, and several tons of yellowcake uranium. He had purchased the supplies to build centrifuges. So yes he did.All that is old news from Gulf War I (and the mobile biolab was BS) and had nothing to do with an Active WMD or nuclear program that was the justification to start the current occupation. Yes Saddam had yellowcake from back before 1991 Gulf War I found out after researching your statement. I believe I read 500 Metric Tons. That only proves he had no reason to be trying to buy any more from Niger. The lie Bush put out there to support the lie Saddam had an active nuclear program.

4) There was no yellow cake for Hussein's nuke program, and a CIA agent was outed as revenge in an act of treason. The CIA agent was not outed as a act of treason. The CIA agent was not outed as you say. The only conviction was for obstruction and that only is a case of scemantics. I.E. There was not a conviction. So unless you personally were there and heard it, and then were refused the ability to testify in court, you are using congection, and have zero proof of your statement. None!
Again yes there was yellowcake and we have removed tons of it.You got me there, I misstated the point. The point was there was not credible attempt by Saddam to acquire more yellowcake to build nukes since he already had apparently 500 tons. So when Wilson basically said that there was no evidence, the Bush Administration outed Plame. You can go on a fantasy tour that Bush and Cheney had nothing to do with it but Novak would not have known it if he wasn't told by them. Outing a covert CIA Agent is a Treasonous Act. And the trial was thwarted with "National Security and Executive Privilege" by Bush so that only Scooter could be convicted of making false statements.

5) Hussein was not attacked to free his people from oppression. That was thrown out there after the occupation started and the previous arguments to justify the attack were proven false. Bush campaigned on not engaging in nation building (bashing Clinton for Bosnia) but fell back on it when his lies were exposed. Nope he was attacked for consistent violation of UN inspection deadlines, and intentional willfull obstruction of those inspection.No he was attacked because he was supposedly part of Al Queda's plan to attack the Twin Towers and therefore part of the worst direct attack on American Soil, which is not true. He was also supposedly going to build a nuke in a couple of years and become a global threat, also not true. He was contained had no credible nuke program as Blix said, and was nothing but a paper tiger.

The bottom line is that the Iraq occupation was based on lies, resulted in thousands of American service personnel being killed and injured. Killed and displaced God knows how many innocent Iraqis. The lies were used to justify the shredding of our constitutional freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights and made America a torture nation just like the enemy we are supposedly fighting against. And to top it off, American Corporations made billions of dollars off of misery and death, and helped bankrupt the treasury in the process to the tune of a trillion dollars. This makes my brain hurt for you. I guess it would trying to defend a bunch of liars who have took your faith in them and used it against you!

Bush and Cheney are lying war criminals and unfortunately they will probably get away with it and enjoy the rest of their despicable lives, while millions of innocents suffer or died because of them. This is called Bush Derangement Syndrome and I believe you may be suffering from it.So now you are going to psychoanalyze me? And when exactly was BDS established? I think I have been very rational and restrained from getting personal.

Thank God their retched administration is gone. All hail the ObamaMessiah On the contrary I don't worship anyone. Actually I think he is being to timid in his actions to correct the wreckage that Bush and the Republican and DLC Democrats have created with their Ultra-Free Market Liberalism.

And by the way, I believe your name is Steve, I do enjoy discussing our differing points of view. Really, I do.

 

[Cuba]

So you're saying we should have let Saddam rule Iraq with an iron fist, raping, torturing, gassing, beating, mutilating, and ethinicly cleansing, and just plain old fashioned murdering people by the hundreds of thousands per year? Because you were lied to??? I got news for you smart guy, Bush/Cheney weren't special in that department.

 

[Oscar54]

So you're saying we should have let Saddam rule Iraq with an iron fist, raping, torturing, gassing, beating, mutilating, and ethinicly cleansing, and just plain old fashioned murdering people by the hundreds of thousands per year? Because you were lied to??? I got news for you smart guy, Bush/Cheney weren't special in that department.

This is way off the mark. If what you say above should be the policy of the USA, then why are we not at war with N. Korea, China, Russia, Burma (or what ever they call it now) and all the other hell hole 3rd world countries with brutal dictators? We would be engaging in a world war again.

Saddam was contained, and it would have been much easier to get rid of him diplomatically over time then going to war and killing our service personnel and innocent Iraqis.

I am not a pacifist but I don't think our military personnel should be used if not abused by two coward chicken hawks like Bush and Chaney. They said we needed to take Saddam out because he was a threat to us, not because he was a threat to his people, because he was in bed with Al Queda and part of 9-11 and had an active nuclear program. All were lies.

Some how Bushes defenders ignore those facts.

 

[wrightme43]

Senate approves Iraq war resolution

Administration applauds vote

Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)

ON CNN TV
Watch SHOWDOWN: IRAQ anchored by CNN's Wolf Blitzer weekdays at noon (ET) for in-depth coverage of the conflict with the latest news and debate from around the world.

FACT BOX• "The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

• The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.

• The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.



Check out the very last paragraph. No matter what is stated today about using the war to steal oil, or that it was in retaliation for 9-11 here is what the resolution that was passed on the days before we went to war with Iraq.

 

[Cuba]

This is way off the mark. If what you say above should be the policy of the USA, then why are we not at war with N. Korea, China, Russia, Burma (or what ever they call it now) and all the other hell hole 3rd world countries with brutal dictators? We would be engaging in a world war again.

Saddam was contained, and it would have been much easier to get rid of him diplomatically over time then going to war and killing our service personnel and innocent Iraqis.

I am not a pacifist but I don't think our military personnel should be used if not abused by two coward chicken hawks like Bush and Chaney. They said we needed to take Saddam out because he was a threat to us, not because he was a threat to his people, because he was in bed with Al Queda and part of 9-11 and had an active nuclear program. All were lies.

Some how Bushes defenders ignore those facts.

Actually YOU are way off the mark. While Russians and Chinese certainly have their share of human rights abuses they do not engage in the use of WMDs against their own people. They do not have sick and twisted public displays of torture, sexual assault, and murder. They don't have a policy of torturing their Olympic atheletes to death for failure to win medals, for instance. What they DO have are enough nukes to wipe out the human race which is a buzz kill in terms of invading someone. While I too watched the new Rambo movie Myanmar is not a threat to the Untied States, does not sponser suicide bombers to attack the United States, does not have massive illegal stock piles of nuclear fission material, does not have stock piles of checmical weapons, and as far as I am aware that was a movie. In reality Myanmar is a socialist country controlled by the military. You should research their history because it actually sounds similar to the direction we are headed in terms of economic mismanagement, single party rule, and forced "volunteerism" as our president is now proposing. It is a case study in what happens when government becomes to powerful. In the case of North Korea they DO have nuclear weapons. It is virtually impossible to depose a military dictatorship armed with nuclear weapons. North Korean government is evil, just plain evil, and their people are literally prisoners in their own country forced to work for a crazy little man with a god complex. This is in fact the very reason we attacked Iraq. Now Saddam is gone, his weapons programs and stock piles of WMDs and WMD materials have been removed, and UN weapons inspectors will be able to provide oversight in ensuring that illegal weapons programs are not resumed- which is by the way what we asked for in an ultimatum. Everyone forgets that. It was Saddam's decision to be invaded in the first place, rather than allow UN weapons inspectors in as he was legally bound to do as a stipulation of the CEASE FIRE agreement we made with him after the first gulf war. The United States had technically been in a state of war (with a cease fire agreement) with Iraq since the first war began, no one likes to point that out either for some reason. Was the war mismanaged? Maybe, the exit strategy could have used a little more work. But the US did remove a truly evil person and saved a lot of lives by doing so. We stood up against evil and won, we made sacrifices to do the right thing. Opponents of this war, and they have a right to their opinion, never seem to think that something bad would have happenned if Saddam had successfully proven that he could do whatever he pleased, continuing his policies of destroying peoples' lives for his own amusement, invading neighboring countries, and yes, running illegal weapons programs designed to make it so costly to invade that no one would do it. The US did the right thing here, it cost money, lives, and a lot of bad press, but did it anyway because it was the right thing to do. IMO :thumbup:

 

[Oscar54]

Senate approves Iraq war resolution

Administration applauds vote

Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)

ON CNN TV
Watch SHOWDOWN: IRAQ anchored by CNN's Wolf Blitzer weekdays at noon (ET) for in-depth coverage of the conflict with the latest news and debate from around the world.

FACT BOX• "The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

• The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.

• The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.



Check out the very last paragraph. No matter what is stated today about using the war to steal oil, or that it was in retaliation for 9-11 here is what the resolution that was passed on the days before we went to war with Iraq.

All moot points since they were base on lies and misrepresentations and omissions of fact to Congress before the resolution.

How about this quote from Heir Goerring at Nuremburg:

"Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

You have been punked and refuse to realize it.

 

[Oscar54]

Actually YOU are way off the mark. While Russians and Chinese certainly have their share of human rights abuses they do not engage in the use of WMDs against their own people. They do not have sick and twisted public displays of torture, sexual assault, and murder. They don't have a policy of torturing their Olympic atheletes to death for failure to win medals, for instance. What they DO have are enough nukes to wipe out the human race which is a buzz kill in terms of invading someone. While I too watched the new Rambo movie Myanmar is not a threat to the Untied States, does not sponser suicide bombers to attack the United States, does not have massive illegal stock piles of nuclear fission material, does not have stock piles of checmical weapons, and as far as I am aware that was a movie. In reality Myanmar is a socialist country controlled by the military. You should research their history because it actually sounds similar to the direction we are headed in terms of economic mismanagement, single party rule, and forced "volunteerism" as our president is now proposing. It is a case study in what happens when government becomes to powerful. In the case of North Korea they DO have nuclear weapons. It is virtually impossible to depose a military dictatorship armed with nuclear weapons. North Korean government is evil, just plain evil, and their people are literally prisoners in their own country forced to work for a crazy little man with a god complex. This is in fact the very reason we attacked Iraq. Now Saddam is gone, his weapons programs and stock piles of WMDs and WMD materials have been removed, and UN weapons inspectors will be able to provide oversight in ensuring that illegal weapons programs are not resumed- which is by the way what we asked for in an ultimatum. Everyone forgets that. It was Saddam's decision to be invaded in the first place, rather than allow UN weapons inspectors in as he was legally bound to do as a stipulation of the CEASE FIRE agreement we made with him after the first gulf war. The United States had technically been in a state of war (with a cease fire agreement) with Iraq since the first war began, no one likes to point that out either for some reason. Was the war mismanaged? Maybe, the exit strategy could have used a little more work. But the US did remove a truly evil person and saved a lot of lives by doing so. We stood up against evil and won, we made sacrifices to do the right thing. Opponents of this war, and they have a right to their opinion, never seem to think that something bad would have happenned if Saddam had successfully proven that he could do whatever he pleased, continuing his policies of destroying peoples' lives for his own amusement, invading neighboring countries, and yes, running illegal weapons programs designed to make it so costly to invade that no one would do it. The US did the right thing here, it cost money, lives, and a lot of bad press, but did it anyway because it was the right thing to do. IMO :thumbup:

I am not defending Saddam Hussein or anyone like him. However, I expect my leaders to be truthful to me and the rest of America about REAL threats to our national security.

If it is OK with you that Bush and Cheney lied, something that you continue to ignore or refuse to believe or address, to get us into an unnecessary conflict that resulted in much more death and destruction than you cite as justifications than that is your choice.

 

[madmanmaigret]

Oscar, I am glad we can keep this debate moderately peaceful :thumbup:

Do you really expect your politicians to be truthful? I think that is a fantasy if I have ever heard one. No politician local, state, or federal is truly honest. They all have alterior motives and sometimes have to lie to get what is best for their jurisdiction (or what they think is best) some things are too much for a large part of the population to accept. If that person is the elected official than their desicions are what we must deal with like it or not. I don't think ther ever has been (or ever will be) an elected leader that is wholehartedly supported by all of the population on all of their views. But that is one downside of having a melting pot of cultures that we have here.

 

[Cuba]

I am not defending Saddam Hussein or anyone like him. However, I expect my leaders to be truthful to me and the rest of America about REAL threats to our national security.

If it is OK with you that Bush and Cheney lied, something that you continue to ignore or refuse to believe or address, to get us into an unnecessary conflict that resulted in much more death and destruction than you cite as justifications than that is your choice.

I clearly stated that they lied. If you think that the president of the United States, ANY president of the United States, is going to tell you the truth about these matters, then you are not really capable of political debate. That is elementary and the basis for discussion, that's kind of the point. We don't live in an infantile fantasy world of easily understood, clean cut, honest answers to extremely complex world issues delivered directly to your living room by someone wih no vested interest in swaying your opinion to either garner support for himself or his policies. Ignorance is bliss. I think they had conflicting data and made their decisions based on that data, then exagerrated or surpressed certain information that a) would have been fodder to further delay the decision that they strongly viewed as the correct course of action, and b) would have been twisted and turned against an young administration in crisis. Do I agree with those actions? No I do not. Do I think that they are any different than any other administration every to serve this country? Absolutely not. Do I think it was wrong to remove Saddam? No I do not. Politics can be summed up as the ends justifying (in the minds of the politician) the dirty dishonest means used to produce results. Look at the circus happening in front of us right now with our current administration, the blatant lies, deciept, false outrage, staged crisises, and distraction, all to rush through and pass a political adgena of one man that will do or say anything to get it in place. "Every hour that this bill isn't passed is costing thousands of jobs in America." Then he takes a three day vacation before signing it. He lied. He lied to get what he wanted, a bill passed without being read. Where the f*ck is your outrage over that?

 

[dako81]

.... a bill passed without being read. Where the f*ck is your outrage over that?

When is the last time a bill was passed that was fully read? These bills can be hundreds of pages, and they get very little time with them before the vote.

 

[Cuba]

When is the last time a bill was passed that was fully read? These bills can be hundreds of pages, and they get very little time with them before the vote.

Oh I totally agree. But 8 hours to review the largest spending bill in the history of the planet seems a bit much, even for the government.