Meaninglis: The most important person.

December 28, 2006

What a bunch of crap Time magazine is propagating now. Time’s person of the year is… “YOU”. Is this a practical joke or is Time just too lame to put any thinking into their magazine?

Seriously, my intelligence is insulted to think that the everyday common person that works at Walmart is considered “Person of the Year”.

Maybe Bono could get a little cred for not being a normal selfish entertainer. Bono has brought the worlds attention on Aids stricken Africa. How about Michael Jackson, ok that’s a joke. How about the evangelical church, that’s restored people in financial, emotional, and spiritual need. What about the US military? Oh that’s been done before… big deal. They’re still tops in the security business. How about President Bush? Like him or hate him he’s had to deal with two disasters on US soil (9/11 and Katrina) wars in two countries yet our economy has remained strong with low employment and record stock highs.

Time could look too Michael A. Monsoor as person of the year.

Meaninglis “the most important person”? That’s an insult to 99% of the rest of the world population.

December 28, 2006 | Filed Under Politics

Comments

27 Responses to “Meaninglis: The most important person.”

  1. Erik on January 10th, 2007 11:31 am

    Dubya as man of the year? He was President during Katrina and 9/11….that’s why you’d vote him? Katrina was an absolute mess. Dubya even admitted it. He’s the one who said: “no one could have anticipated the breach of the levees.” And then a video is leaked before Katrina hit and Brownie is telling him that the levees may not hold. Do you know people in New Orleans, well, I do, and they say it’s still in shambles. As for 9/11, we still haven’t caught Bin Laden…remember, the guy? Dubya is the one who said he doesn’t even think of Bin Laden! In addition, he used 9/11 as a way to start an illegal war. Every reason he used with Iraq turned out to be wrong, and on top of that, it appears they knew it was false intelligence from the very beginning. We’re losing in Iraq, we’re losing in Afghanistan…..ya, man of the year! As for the economy….the only reason our economy has remained like it has, is b/c of the spending on this war….that’s it.

    It amazes me when people continue to support a man who clearly has endangered American’s lives, and has clearly broken the law. Wake up….you call yourself a religious man? I’m sure Jesus really supported wars, war-profiteering and ditching social programs. Serious question: Would Jesus support Dubya’s policies? Another question: “What should we do about the Iraq war? Do you support more troops?

    I’d love to see a post about the buildup of troops? Do you go along with Bush on every turn, or do you actually have your own opinion? Or do you have to wait and watch FOX news tonight to post your thoughts? This may sound harsh, but young men and women of our military are coming back in body bags or without limbs, or seriously burned. In addition, we are killing countless innocent Iraqi civilians….you know they are also human beings…if you’re for human life, they should count as well. There is human life at stake….it’s about time you actually practice what you preach. You can’t be a follower of Jesus and support war and the killing of innocent lives……u can’t have it both ways.

  2. Lis on January 10th, 2007 12:00 pm

    Erik, Thanks for posting to Meaninglis. I hope to see you around the site more often.

    My position on Bush has changed from supporter to non-supporter but not for reasons you have stated. I do agree with Bush’s position on Iraq but that wasn’t the point of this post.

    The point was that by Time saying “you” are the person of the year slaps the face of every American in service to this country, every individual who sacrifices for a noble cause.

    I don’t have a readily formulated opinion on the war. I do know the price of freedom is blood. And that blood should be spilled by those that enjoy the gained freedom. I’ll think through the issue and post on it later this month.

    Regarding Fox, I find it funny how they are such an easy target for liberals. I do watch Fox from time to time including… oh no big bad Bill O’Reilly. Fox is hardly my source of information though.

  3. Erik on January 10th, 2007 2:08 pm

    So why are you no longer a supporter of the President?

  4. Lis on January 10th, 2007 4:54 pm

    When Clinton took office the nation debt was 3 trillion. Using the White Houses own statistics the Bush administration never balanced the budget, Exceed government income 10% annually and the national debt more then doubled to 8+ trillion. In the end Clinton taxed the US heavy and slightly spent more on government programs. Bush taxed less but PRINTED more money and spent MORE on government programs.

    Don’t get me wrong I’m not Bush hater or a Clinton supporter. But George W. Bush is not the fiscal conservative republican we think he is. I give him props for handling a difficult presidency with 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

    The increase of the national debt is not the total reason either. As I learned the national debt is somewhat relative in comparison to the debt-to-income ratio. http://www.meaninglis.com/national-debt.htm

    A lion’s share of my frustration is his inability to control spending and inability to balance the budget. Even though congress does both the President still needs to lead with fiscal responsibility. Especially a President elected on “conservative values”.

  5. J-Dub on January 10th, 2007 11:36 pm

    Erik, what makes the war illegal? I don’t understand this argument. Congress authorized the war. Period.

    If you disagree with the conduct of the war, I think those arguments have merit. We went in with way too few troops on intelligence that was cherry-picked. In addition, we did not have a plan in place to secure the country. These are all valid arguments that I would agree with. But let’s be reasonable…Notice I used the word “cherry-picked” as opposed to fabricated intelligence. I don’t hear many Democratic members of Congress even saying the President fabricated intelligence. It only comes from hate filled conspiracy theorists.

    But the conduct of the war has been a travesty and as a result, Bush had lost my support on the war until I heard the speech tonight. While 20,000 troops does nothing to impact the situation on the ground in my opinion (I think we need 50,000 or more additional troops), I did notice this evening that Bush apparently gave the Iraqi government an ultimatum to step up reconciliation and militia disbanding or face the withdrawal of US troops. This is a step in the right direction. Therefore, I support giving the President one last shot to get it right because an immediate withdrawal from Iraq will probably bring about a government aligned with Iran and terrorist organizitions hostile to U.S. interests. In the long run, we need to expedite alternative fuels and get the hell out of that region altogether (easier said than done).

    On most other fronts, I think Bush has proven to be far too political and ideological. He panders to the religious right for political gain. As Lis also mentions, he has not used his presidential veto power to check the less-than-fiscal conservative republicans as a true fiscal conservative would.

    Finally, as a concession to Lis, I would like to start the trend of targeting that liberal, pompous, bastard Keith Olbermann. Does anyone actually take this guy seriously when he speaks about politics? He is just an angry, sarcastic, far left, liberal hack masquerading as a journalist.

  6. Sleeper on January 11th, 2007 11:18 am

    A couple thoughts. First, I find it strange that Lis would mention Bush as Person of the Year and later say he’s a non-supporter. Flip-flopper! ;) Being the sitting President during two disasters shouldn’t qualify you as Person of the Year (not to mention neither on of those things happened last year) it should be your response to those problems that should qualify you and Bush’s responses were good turning to terrible after 9/11 and just plain awful after Katrina.

    And as for the economy, you’d be doing real well too if you were running up debt on your credit cards. And forget Titan’s mortgage analogy. With a mortgage you promise to pay back the principle. Bush can’t even get the deficit down let alone pay back the principle. When are we going to pay back the principle especially when the Republicans want to choke off the Federal government by making the tax cuts permanent? And I find it very interesting how all of a sudden Bush is talking about limiting earmarks after the Dems decided to make it priority. Where was he the last 6 years when Congress (both Rep. and Dem.) was throwing away our money.

    Second, if you swap the words liberal with conservative, left with right and Keith Olbermann with Bill O’Reilly in J-Dub’s final paragraph, that would work too! :D Personally I think it’s good that there is finally someone out there to counter punch all of the crap coming out of O’Reilly’s mouth and Fox News in general. Of course he’s angry. Most of America is and you saw that bear out in the election.

  7. Erik on January 11th, 2007 11:54 am

    Why was it illegal? Do you realize why the UN was created? If you do not, then you should go read some history. I’m not going to sit here and give you a lesson. You should go learn about the League of Nations, and why it was created after WW1.

    This is what the The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. It was was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

    Most experts in the international law of war deem both preventive wars and preemptive strikes to be euphemistic subcategories of outlawed wars of aggression.

    Go read the authorization that Congress gave the President to use force. Specifically, go read Section 3, paragraph B. Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited. Do you still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

    Gentlemen, Iraq was not a threat to us. We know that the State Dept and the CIA used an old NIE of Iraq to justify the so-called Iraq threat. Once again, I beg you both to go back and read what people were saying before this invasion began. The weapon’s inspectors on the ground were saying he had no weapons, we know from the Downing Street memos that Bush and Blair were going to start this war no matter what. I do know from reading this blog that both of you supported this invasion. We know that Powell’s speech to the UN was filled with lies based on the intelligence of Curveball, who the CIA had already listed as being a known liar. They knew it was a bunch of BS, but they still used the intelligence anyways…..
    We know that the Pentagon started it’s own Intelligence gathering department, which gave the President most of his intelligence. It’s funny how you think I’m filled with hate. I’m filled with aggravation b/c there are people out there who don’t do their own reading, don’t gather sources from multiple people. There are people who supported this war and occupation and have done nothing to sacrifice for this so-called cause. What have you guys done? Do you know anyone over there? Do you know anyone who has died? This Administration is ruining our military by stretching it so thin to the point that it’s almost broken. This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of Colin Powell, and the Pentagon itself:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-24-army-study_x.htm

    How many “shots” are you going to give this President? How many more “surges” does he think he needs to get the job done? You know this isn’t the first time he’s done this? Remember Operation Forward Together of the summer of ‘06? There have been countless “new plans” to “win” this conflict.

    What happened to “Stay the Course”? What happened to “I listen to my Generals on the ground? You know what happens when they disagree with Bush? They’re let go, or reassigned? Go read about what General Eric Shinsek said before the invasion. Go read what Gen. John P. Abizaid said recently about a troop surge. After learning about what Abizaid said, you’ll find it interesting that he’s no longer in charge.

    You two need to dig a little deeper and figure out how we got into this mess. I know you have given this President a blank check on pretty much everything….most Republicans have. All you have to do is look at the Congress from the last few years to see this.

    As for your Olbermann shot. Can you please give some examples of why he’s “angry, sarcastic, far left, liberal hack”? I’m sure if you watched his show, which obviously you do not, you’d realize he’s mostly all facts and some of his own opinion.

    I’d be real interested to know where you two get your news and information from. Some sources would be much appreciated in understanding you and your viewpoints. You may think I’m hate-filledand angry…..but I’m not. I think we’re more alike then you know. We want the same things….happiness and stability for our families, a roof over our heads, a good job…..the basics. We need to come together and talk about what is going on. This administration uses Divide and Conquer tactics that get us off the subjects that we should be talking about. They are ruining our military and draining our treasury. We are so far in debt that our kid’s kids will be paying for this mess. I want to leave a world behind to my kids that is in better shape that the world we inherited…..it’s not looking very good at this point.

  8. J-Dub on January 12th, 2007 12:59 am

    Erik, it’s a good thing you decided not to give me a lesson….But I will try to address all your comments.

    The UN is a joke…a failed bureaucracy. Since you challenged me on the UN, I decided to spend a little time this evening reading parts of the UN charter. Granted, it is long and quite vague, with a lot of smoke-filled B.S. about international cooporation, promotion of social justice, and economic and social advancement. In fact, Chapter 1 specifically says “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.” That would lead me to believe that all wars would be considered illegal according to the United Nations. Do we live in Neverland? Regarding Kofi Annan’s position, of course he would be against a war that didn’t have a UN blessing! It’s just politics as usual! Why would he support an act that did not have the blessing of the organization he ran? All politicians operate the same way (By the way, that’s why I hate politicians and our political system. I can spend more time discussing that in another post)

    Regarding the authorization from Congress, I hope you are blasting your Democratic lawmakers just as bad as you are blasting Bush. These guys gave Bush the blank check, not me. They should’ve done more digging before voting for the resolution. The resolution does state that Bush needed to provide the evidence you speak of within 48 hours of initiating the conflict. But do you know that this evidence wasn’t provided? It may have been incorrect evidence, but was there no evidence provided? Because if you expect intelligence to be 100% accurate all the time, you are naive. Criminal cases are filled with circumstantial and other questionable evidence. Even in the US system, people are convicted an faulty evidence. Heck, fingerprint evidence is not 100% and requires interpretation but that has been used in convictions. What about DNA evidence? That’s as close as you get to 100% accurate but there are still some slight inaccuracies. You can say the intelligence was wrong. You can say it was cherry-picked. But I’m not so sure you can say it was outright fabricated. Why don’t you ask your Dems why they do not require the President to ask the Senate to Declare a State of War as empowered by the Constitution?

    Regarding your sarcastic comment about 9/11, I never believed Iraq was involved. To be honest, I never really even heard Bush indicate Iraq was involved in 9/11. Cheney did say there may be a connection with Iraq and Al-Qaida, but did he specifically say Iraq planned 9/11? I didn’t hear it. But maybe Bush did make the connection and I was just on vacation for the six months prior to the war. Or maybe I am smarter than I give myself credit for and didn’t make the connection when Cheney discussed it on Meet The Press and other news shows. Either way, I saw Iraq as a completely separate problem from 9/11. In fact, I wanted Clinton to take out Saddam in the late 90’s.

    To answer your question if I know anyone in Iraq, I do have one old college buddy that has served in Iraq. I have not heard from him since the beginning of the war. I hope he is doing well. I also know two Marines that have served in Iraq. I wouldn’t consider them friends, just acquaintances. Anyway, when I spoke to them, they seemed to be in complete support of this war. Maybe they just need to believe in what they are risking their lives for. But they did feel they were doing some good work over there and making progress, albeit much slower than anticipated. I hope they are right.

    Now, I don’t know how you got the idea that I am giving Bush a blank check. I am totally exhausted with his administration as well as our Senators and Congressmen. I was probably one of the first Bush supporters that started questioning him. As I stated in my previous post, the war was mishandled from day one. The debt is a result of Bush not using his veto to strike down pork filled legislation. Katrina was a mess. Gay marriage ammendment was political posturing. I can continue explaining my problems with Bush but I won’t. And when it comes to Iraq, I want us to succeed in setting up a stable country because I think anything less is just too scary. The way I figure it, we have two options: Stay and Fight, or pull out. I respect both opinions but I don’t see how Iraq will become a stable country free of Iranian and terrorist influence if we don’t stay and fight. Of course we need to do a much better job of establishing a unified political system.

    Regarding where I get my news. I get most of my news from the mainstream media, Yahoo and MSN, etc. I also watch a lot of MSNBC. Unfortunately, I watch Countdown with Olbermann about 3 times a week so I know what I am talking about when I say he is a sarcastic, liberal hack. He was a jag off at ESPN and he is still one today. But I watch him because I like to get different viewpoints. I also watch Hardball about 3 times per week as well. Chris Mathews is certainly left leaning but I appreciate his show as he tends to more balanced in his questioning. O’Reilly get’s my time maybe once a week. Bill drives me crazy as does Sean Hannity. I feel like Hannity tries to trap people he interviews and I don’t think that’s fair. Overall, very little of my news comes from the conservative media channels. I don’t know how that will help you understand my views better. It appears to me, you have already firmly planted yourself in a position of intolerance.

  9. kaya on January 15th, 2007 10:03 am

    It seems as though you really don’t address or answer any of my points or questions, you just gloss over them as rhetoric. If you read my posts, I ask very specific questions….none of which were answered. I enjoy the debate, but you have to directly answer my points if this is to continue…if not, then there’s really no point, is there? There are other blogs out there in which the moderator(s) will at least attempt to answer me.

    Lets start with the UN:

    You say the UN is a joke. The UN was created to try and be the last step before war. Maybe we differ on if we want war, or believe that war accomplishes something. Of course, any bureaucratic institution is going to have its share of disappointments, but that doesn’t mean that it has failed, and we should rip them apart. Do you believe in warfare? Did you think, and do you think the Iraq War could have only been solved through the use of war? The UN was trying to thwart the war effort, of course, you can argue they didn’t have enough power to prevent the country who pretty much funds their institution from starting a conflict. But a failure? You had President Bush appoint John Bolton as the Ambassador to the UN, who once said of th UN: “The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference” How does an institution succeed, if the people who fund it already want it to fail?

    Bush never gave the UN a chance to finish their job. He didn’t allow the weapon’s inspectors to do their jobs. Remember, the threat was imminent. We couldn’t wait for them to finish their inspections. Jdub, in hindsight, do you think this war was a good idea? Would you support Bush again if you know then, what you know now?

  10. J-Dub on January 15th, 2007 7:04 pm

    I’m confused…Are Kaya and Erik one in the same? First, You should know I am not the moderator of the blog. I am just a visitor like yourself. I thought I answered your questions perfectly. Let me review your post and pull out all your questions.

    “Do you realize why the UN was created?” - I answered that pretty specifically. The UN Charter says exactly why it was created and I mentioned it in my post, along with my view that it is a failed bureaucracy. I probably should have mentioned that I do think the UN can serve a purpose with major reform.

    “Do you still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11?” - Never did and still don’t. Read my post.

    “There are people who supported this war and occupation and have done nothing to sacrifice for this so-called cause. What have you guys done? Do you know anyone over there? Do you know anyone who has died?” - I thought I answered this my post. I would also be interested to know your sacrifice. Or do only the supporters of the war need to sacrifice for the troops?

    “How many “shots” are you going to give this President? How many more “surges” does he think he needs to get the job done?” - I’m pretty sure I answered this earlier as well….One last shot to get this mess right because an unstable Iraq IS a THREAT to the U.S, regardless of whether or not you saw it as a threat before the invasion. I am not living in the past anymore. I am looking to the future. And this is a different plan. Bush said he will hold the Iraqi government to benchmarks. That is something he has never said before. If the Iraqi government does not hold up their end of the bargain, we should replace them or leave the country. If it would make you feel better to have Senate oversight, fine. Have the Senate review the Iraqi government progress in 3 months, 6 months, etc….

    “What happened to “Stay the Course”? What happened to “I listen to my Generals on the ground? You know what happens when they disagree with Bush? They’re let go, or reassigned?” - I never answered this because I don’t believe you were actually asking me this question. But if you were, let me state it this way. Bush is the boss. If you disagree with your boss, do you expect your boss to always take your point of view? No, sometimes they disagree and it’s up to the top dog to make the final decision. Bush is the Commander-in-Chief…Not the generals, not Congress, not the Defense Secretary, etc. They are all advisors.

    “Can you please give some examples of why he’s )Olbermann) “angry, sarcastic, far left, liberal hack”?” - I mentioned how I watch him a few times a week so I can name a ton of examples…You can go on his blog to find the sarcasm. I particularly like the shot he took at Bush several months ago about rebuilding the area around WTC. If you never heard it, you can find it online. You probably thought it was an eloquent speech. If you don’t see the sarcasm and hostility in Olbermann, you are not an independent thinker. I see it in Bill O’Reilly, and I see it in Olbermann. At least I’m an equal opportunity critic of political pundits/anchors.

    “I’d be real interested to know where you two get your news and information from. Some sources would be much appreciated in understanding you and your viewpoints.” - I answered this.

    The way I see it, I answered all your questions with quite a bit of specificity. Regarding your last post, you say, “How does an institution succeed, if the people who fund it already want it to fail?” I don’t believe this administration wants the UN to fail. I think they have serious concerns about the current state of the UN and think it needs reform. Look at some of the countries on the Human Rights Council. Look at the oil for food scam. Look at the unfair bias against Israel in the UN. I can also use the same argument against you in the context of the war. How can the war succeed, if the people who fund it already want it to fail? Do you want this war to fail? I think there are a lot of disgruntled Democrats who would like the war to fail because of their disdain for Bush. By the way, you never answered my comment that you should be just as hard on your Democratic leaders for giving Bush a blank check as you are on the Republicans and Bush. The Dems never said “wait a minute…let’s review this in a little more detail.”

    Finally, I do not live in hindsight. But I will answer your questions. I think the war would have been a good idea if we went in with a larger force and never had Bremer run the show. From the military analysts I have heard, the problems we face now are a direct result of 1) Too few troops on the ground to secure the country immediately after toppling Saddam, 2) De-Baathification, 3) Slow reconstruction (partially a result of not securing the country quickly enough). If we had a larger contingency on the front end, maybe we could have eliminated Saddam and established a peaceful democracy in Iraq…Who knows. But if I knew the war would be handled the way that it has been, I do not think I would have supported it. I will even admit that due to this botched war, we have made the region LESS SAFE. But that is the past. I do not see anyway forward except establishing a legitimate, moderate government in Iraq. I do not wish we fail in Iraq just to blame Bush….Actually, I pray every night that we succeed in Iraq so my kids will grow up in a world that is not filled with extremism and war.

    Finally, I would like to ask you what your plan is? I have not heard an alternative plan that stands a chance of leaving a stable, moderate government in Iraq. Do you really think the U.S. presence is the problem? The U.S. isn’t the cause for Al-Sadr’s militia. The U.S. presence isn’t the cause for ethnic cleansing. Iraqi’s are mostly fighting Iraqi’s and would continue to do so in the absence of US troops. Now, let’s say we pull out and all out civil war takes over Iraq. The Shi’ites will be backed by Iran while the Sunnis will be backed by our allies (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc). So now these countries are fighting a proxy war against one another in Iraq. That would have consequences to U.S. interests in the region (oil cannot be discounted). Maybe that doesn’t happen but maybe extremist Shi’ite populations in these Sunni dominated countries take a lesson from Iraq and decided to rise against their governments. What if a few governments are toppled by extremist elements and we have several countries aligned with a nuclear Iran? Lebanon is of particular concern. As we try to boost the moderate government, you can only expect Shi’ite success in Iraq to embolden Hamas (with Iranian links) even more. You cannot dismiss the fact that no matter how we got into this war, there are grave consequences for leaving an unstable Iraq to fight a civil war on its own. We cannot bury our head in the sand and hope everything fixes itself in that region. So what is your plan and explain how it will succeed in not further compromising U.S. interests?

    One last note, you are speaking to me as though I’m a right-wing, brain dead, idealogue without a though of my own. You should know that I was predicting and hoping for the Democrats to take over the House and Senate last fall because I was so fed up with the Republican lawmakers. Over the last couple years, I have blasted Bush and the Republican Party far more than I have the Dems (see other posts in this blog for some examples). But apparently when I actually have an independent view that would agree with Bush, I am giving him a “blank check”. It’s interesting how many Democratic Senators were open to a troop surge just a month ago and now they are adamently opposed to it, even talking about putting forth a resolution. Politics at the expense of our soldiers is a disgrace! But I guess I blasted the Republican party when they held the majority and now I get to blast the Dems now that they are the majority.

  11. TitansAFC on January 15th, 2007 9:13 pm

    Sigh.

    I suppose I could get into the big debate on why I support the troop presence in Iraq; but instead I just find myself asking why everybody who criticizes the invasion or the President haS to lie to get their points across.

    The Bush administration never said Iraq or Saddam posed an imminent threat; in fact, they spent a great deal of time saying exactly the opposite: that we needed to stop him BEFORE there was an imminent threat:

    Bush State of the Union, for example:
    “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”

    And yes, the war was legal (excepting for the uninforced past resolutions attempting to make all wars illegal):

    As much as people may hate the idea, but yes the war is legal under Article 1441, Acting under Chapter VII (articles 41 & 42)of the Charter of the United Nations.

    Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

    Article 42
    Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

    These are the two articles that the United States and Britain used to enforce the existing cease fire agreement. I used the term “cease fire” because no actual peace treaty signed, and hostilities could resume at anytime.

    Saddam was in open violation of the terms of the original cease fire that he signed to end hostilities from the first Gulf War; a violation of a cease fire agreement is in and of itself a resumption of hostilities (war). Add to that the express addendums on which all of the U.N. security council agreed with 1441 where they unanimously agreed was the use of military force.

    Legally, what happened was two parts:

    One - Saddam violated the terms of his cease fire, including firing missiles at U.S. planes over the No-Fly Zone. This is legal justification for the War.

    Two - 1441 was violated AS STATED the very words of the inspectors themselves, such as the famed Muhhamed al-Barradai. This gives legal grounds for the military disarmamment of Iraq.

    Just because after the U.S. decided to invade, a bunch of countries got mad that we enforced the resolution doesn’t make it illegal.

    I could go on and on about the problems with the U.N., but there isn’t enough room in cyberspace.

    Finally: The administration gave 27 separate reasons for the invasion of Iraq; some were given higher profiles, some lower. Only one of them - ONE (WMDs) has even been called into question.

    And I still think it’s silly to suggest Iraq never had any WMDs - for one thing, we’ve found many. The problem here is the threshold - war opposers seem to have converted WMDs to mean, specifically, nuclear weapons. Of which they have only found an active nuclear program and enriched materials and warheads, as opposed to much sexier, already assembled ICBM’s with “Chicago or Bust” painted on the side of them.

    I use this anectdote:

    Your sixteen year-old son regularly locks himself in his room, and openly defies your attemps to inspect his room for drugs. Mom has said she smells marijuana smoke regularly coming from the room; the neighbors report having seen him smoking drugs. Every reliable source you know is telling you that, without a doubt, your son is smoking pot. So you tell your son that you think he’s smoking pot, and that you’re going to punish him if you catch him using it. Sixteen months from now, you’re going to inspect his room to find the drugs you know he’s keeping.

    Then the day comes, sixteen months later. You break his lock and search the room - no marijuana.

    The Conservative approach: What did he do with the drugs?

    The Liberal approach: Mom is a LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He was innocent and everyone was wrong about him!

    Same with the WMDs. Everyone - EVERYONE - knew he had them and put their reputations on the line saying so. Every intelligence source, every world leader, every Iraqi defector. The, after sixteen months we invade and find smaller amounts of WMDs (read by Liberals: “none at all”) than reported. Somehow the logical conclusion to this is that Bush lied and Saddam never had any? Seriously?!?!?

    Nope. The correct question is: what did Saddam do with the WMDs that everybody KNOWS he had?

    For example:
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827

    Anyhow, I don’t visit enough to do many follow-ups these days. If I miss it, I apologize ahead of time.

    As far as Olbermann goes, when is going to report who repaired the Diebolt machines that he has been claiming for years were fixed to elect Republicans? Ever since last November, he’s been unusually silent on the Diebolt conspiracy front…..LOL……Of course, this is the man who demanded John Kerry sue for a recount of the entire state of Ohio in 2004. I’ve watched his show a number of times for kicks. As of yet, I am unable to actually cite any FACTS I’ve learned from Keith Olbermann. Just because he shares your opinions, doesn’t make your opinions (or his) facts.

  12. Erik on January 16th, 2007 10:00 am

    You are going to believe whatever is told to you by the right. I mean, you have TitansAFC saying that the administration never connected 9/11 to Iraq. Do you not watch Meet the Press? Cheney has been on multiple times claiming a connection. Look at the polls before the invasion…..something like 80% of Americans believed there was a connection. Do you think that is coincidence? What a shock that polls taken of FOX viewers says that a good portion still believe in the connection.

    J-Dub, you need to be able to look into the past and figure out what mistakes were made so they don’t happen again. This is another BS argument from the right. “We want to look forward”. You all didn’t want to look forward when Clinton had his little fling, did you? You all didn’t want to look forward with Somalia? It’s just another way not to hold this administration accountable. Torture…move forward. No WMD’s….move forward. No connection with 9/11…move forward. Downing Street Memos….move forward. This was the big issue I had with Ford pardoning Nixon….we needed hearings to make sure a President didn’t trump the Constitution when he decided it was in his best interest. You know, like wiretapping Americans, and holding people without due process. I think the main difference between us is that I think our leaders should be accountable for our actions….and you do not. I don’t subscribe to move on……I want to make sure this doesn’t happen again. No sitting President should have this much power. Power corrupts….if you look back at history, this is a common theme. That’s why our government has oversight committees…to make sure this doesn’t happen.

    As for an alternative plan to Iraq. There have been countless Dems who have proposed plans. The President disregards them b/c he doesn’t agree with them. Murtha has proposed a redeployment, to name just one of them.

    The fact remains is that this Administration has gotten everything wrong from the beginning:

    1. Imminent threat to the US
    2. Ties between 9/11 and Iraq
    3. Amount of troops to send in to secure Iraq
    4. The countless elections they said would move Iraq forward and curb the violence.
    5. When they caught Saddam, they said this was a turning point for the Iraqi people.
    6. When they caught Zarqawi, it was a turning point. Do you know that the Pentagon says that it’s only 2-3% of insurgents are Al Qaeda?
    7. They only protected the oil fields after the invasion…not the museums, or government buildings
    8. They fired all the Baathists…..

    On and on and on…….they have messed up at every turn. And people still support them…..why is that? This is why I question you news sources……it’s unbelievable to me that other people don’t see this.

    As for my sources of info, I hit the following websites on a daily basis:

    1. NYTimes
    2. Washington Post
    3. WSJ
    4. CNN
    5. The New Republic
    6. The Atlantic
    7. Harpers
    8. Foreign Affairs
    9. HuffPost
    10. Tom Paine
    11. Crooks and Liars
    12. Sun Times
    13. The Trib

    J-Dub…we are to blame for all the mess in Iraq. There were people telling the Bush Administration that all this would happen if we took out Saddam…….this is why Bush 41 didn’t go after him in the early 90’s…he knew what kind of quagmire this would create. We are to blame for everything that is happening over there……..there has to be accountability for what we’ve done. And that starts with the people at the top.

  13. Sleeper on January 16th, 2007 10:57 am

    The Bush Administration’s approach to Titan’s anecdote would be to break the lock to the room, shoot the son dead and then upon not finding any marijuana say it was never about the marijuana, it was about ridding the world of a pot-smoking evil-doer.

  14. TitansAFC on January 16th, 2007 5:55 pm

    —”The Bush Administration’s approach to Titan’s anecdote would be to break the lock to the room, shoot the son dead and then upon not finding any marijuana say it was never about the marijuana, it was about ridding the world of a pot-smoking evil-doer.”—

    Clever, but not even in the ballpark. Iraq was not invaded immediately, and when captured Saddam was not shot on site. Plus, only you folks in the opposition remember the entire invasion as justified only by WMDs and WMDs alone.

    Of course, the more liberal approach to your version of my anectdote would be to immediately strip dad and mom of their parental rights, and imprison them to be tried for crimes against children in the near future.

    As far as Erik, it’s getting very hard to argue with someone who “just knows he heard” things that were never said.

    1. Imminent threat to the US - Administration, as I demonstarted in the previous link, repeatedly said the opposite. This is a lie about them.

    2. Ties between 9/11 and Iraq - Big fat lie. The administration did NOT make any such claim. People who lie about Bush regularly try to pretend he did, but it never happened. In fact, they unequivocably denied any such link repeatedly: In Cheney’s very first press conferenece before the Iraq War, he was asked the direct question - Was there any evidence than Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9/11. Cheney’s answer? A direct “No. None that we’re aware of.”

    If you have some actual quote from the administration where they claimed Saddam Hussein was directly behind the 9/11 attacks, you’d better post it or stop lying.

    3. Amount of troops to send in to secure Iraq - maybe they needed more, maybe less. But the number of troops was ALWAYS based on the requests and recommendations of the generals in charge, and rightly so. How could a President, ANY President, know the correct number of troops to send except by the request of the top generals?

    4. The countless elections they said would move Iraq forward and curb the violence. - It did move forward, and has. People vote, and almost all of the insurgents are now foreigners - that’s progress.

    5. When they caught Saddam, they said this was a turning point for the Iraqi people. - This is just a stupid criticism. You’re to honestly argue that catching the genocidal dictator who massacred many of his own citizens wasn’t a turning point? Did you see the celebrations?

    6. When they caught Zarqawi, it was a turning point. Do you know that the Pentagon says that it’s only 2-3% of insurgents are Al Qaeda? - Irrelevant, as Al Queda is not the only terrorist group in existence. Also, please provide a link showing the 2-3% Pentagon quote; it seems that Al-Zarqawi forming a hierachry of leadership in Iraq for an intensely small group would make little sense.

    7. They only protected the oil fields after the invasion…not the museums, or government buildings - Prove it. Name one item missing from a museum. Of course, that seems a strange priority…..museums? “We’ve captured the city! Quick, guard the dinosaur bones!” There was a bunch of hubub about a museum getting looted - and as I recall all of the pieces were recovered. Also, name a few government buildings currently in rubble.

    8. They fired all the Baathists…..
    - This is ridiculous. That’s like saying they fired all the virgins - how could they possibly, really know every Baathist? Who would ever claim to know such a thing?

    —”On and on and on…….they have messed up at every turn. And people still support them…..why is that? This is why I question you news sources……it’s unbelievable to me that other people don’t see this. “—

    They took the country in weeks, deposed the dictator, and imposed a fledgling Democracy. The Iraq army is now an ally of the U.S., as is the police force, not to mention the government. I wish the U.S. would “mess up” every war this well. I mean wow - insurgents want to do harm to everybody - how we’ve failed! They said the same thing after WWII when we occupied Germany - the insurgents then were called “Werewolves.” Somehow, having insurgents doesn’t seem to suggest complete and utter failure to me.

    There were predictions made by the opposition, too, that haven’t come literally true, or true at all. There has been no refugee exodus, for example, of the kind they promised. No humanitarian meltdown, either. And the Iraqi army hardly put their lives on the line to defend the Baathist leadership.

    —”As for an alternative plan to Iraq. There have been countless Dems who have proposed plans. The President disregards them b/c he doesn’t agree with them. Murtha has proposed a redeployment, to name just one of them.”—

    Except for unconditional surrender to insurgent forces (”redeployment”), what alternative has any Democrat suggested recently? Name one alternative that doesn’t involve leaving our new ally hanging out to dry. Because from my perspective, you don’t leave your allies high and dry.

  15. Lis on January 16th, 2007 9:58 pm

    I’m the moderator and I didn’t find any reasons to step in. So far no one has resorted to name calling although I’d like to :)

    I actually took a break from politics because I found myself getting more angry at EVERYTHING. I realize the blog has become more entertainment and less political in nature.

    I will continue to visit politics from time to time but can we all just agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 911?

    Goodness if I knew the mere mentioning of Bush in my orginal post would have sparked this much debate on the war, I would have done more research to find someone else to be called person of the year. Time magazine is soooo lame.

    Can we all agree that Erik, J-Dub, Sleeper, Titan, Lis, Kaya, and the rest of us are NOT the person of the year nor are we deserving????

    All this being said my post tomorrow is political in nature. I’m curious what will be said if anything at all.

  16. Erik on January 17th, 2007 2:42 pm

    Hey Titan, obviously you don’t follow this stuff, or you get your news from one place…hmmm, I wonder what source that could be?? Since you don’t follow this stuff…..here’s a quick run down of some of the quotes by the President and Vice President, along with links to where you can read them yourself. I do expect a post after this telling the rest of us that the Administration did try and tie Iraq to 9/11. If not, then there’s really no reason to continue this. B/c you’d be one of those crazy righties who will go down with the ship to the very end. In that case…bon voyage.

    In addition, you all must think I’m a crazy Dem…but let me set the record straight. I actually consider myself a Democrat. This 2 party system is not working that well, and I don’t want to be associated with either one of them. If you give any party or person too much power, they will abuse it. If you are a student of history, you know this to be fact. There’s a reason our founders established checks and balances. I think if the Dems got too much power, they’d be as corrupt as the Repubs have been. But it seems to me that you all live by this motto: “Party before Country.” If this wasn’t the case, you’d be questioning everything this President does instead of giving him a blank check.

    Here are the quotes you asked for:

    George W. Bush

    2002

    “The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.” - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

    “We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

    “I think they’re both equally important, and they’re both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We’ve got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm.” - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

    “This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He’s a threat.” - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

    “He’s a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.” - President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) - BushOnIraq.gov

    “He’s had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates.” - Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

    2003

    “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own.” - President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

    “Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” - President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

    “Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” - President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

    Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” - President’s Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

    “He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.” - President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

    “The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003) -BushOnIraq.com

    “The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.” - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

    “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.” - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

    Dick Cheney

    2002

    “In Afghanistan we found confirmation that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network were seriously interested in nuclear and radiological weapons, and in biological and chemical agents. We are especially concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction.” - Vice President Delivers Remarks to the National Academy of Home Builders, White House (6/6/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

    “His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists.” - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

    “There is also a grave danger that al Qaeda or other terrorists will join with outlaw regimes that have these weapons to attack their common enemy, the United States of America. That is why confronting the threat posed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror.” - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

    2003

    “His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.” - Vice President’s Remarks at 30th Political Action Conference, White House (1/30/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

    “And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. . . We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization.” - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

    “I have argued in the past, and would again, if we had been able to pre-empt the attacks of 9/11 would we have done it? And I think absolutely. We have to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that’s being contemplated with respect to Iraq in order to ensure that we don’t get hit with a devastating attack when the terrorists’ organization gets married up with a rogue state that’s willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years.” - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

    “If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

    “(Since September 11) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.” - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

    “And the reason we had to do Iraq, if you hark back and think about that link between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was the place where we were most fearful that that was most likely to occur, because in Iraq we’ve had a government — not only was it one of the worst dictatorships in modern times, but had oftentimes hosted terrorists in the past . . . but also an established relationship with the al Qaeda organization . . . .” - Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

    “(I)f we had not paid any attention to the fact that al Qaeda was being hosted in Northeastern Iraq, part of poisons network producing ricin and cyanide that was intended to be used in attacks both in Europe, as well as in North Africa and ignored it, we would have been derelict in our duties and responsibilities.” - Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

    “He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He also had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs.” - Remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney at the Heritage Foundation, White House (10/10/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

    “Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. He cultivated ties to terror — hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, and making payments to the families of suicide bombers. He also had an established relationship with Al Qaida — providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction.” - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

    2004

    “We’ll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions.” - Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

    “We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of ‘01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been — we’ve never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11.” - Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

    “Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction.” - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, White House (1/14/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

    “Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction.” - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to Veterans at the Arizona Wing Museum, White House (1/15/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

    “I continue to believe. I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We’ve discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in ‘93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That’s public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I’m very confident that there was an established relationship there.” - Dick Cheney, Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

    From the White House website, Bush’s comments about Saddam Hussein
    (Campaign speeches only. For period of October 10 - November 04.)

    OCT 28 Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome
    “This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda.”

    OCT 28 Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
    “He’s got connections with al Qaeda.”

    OCT 31 Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome
    “This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks.”

    NOV 01 Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome
    “We know he’s got ties with al Qaeda.”

    NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
    “We know that he’s had connections with al Qaeda.”

    NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
    “He’s had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda.”

    NOV 02 Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
    “We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda.”

    NOV 03 Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
    “This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda.”

    NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome
    “This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections.”

    NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome
    “He’s had contacts with al Qaeda.”

    NOV 04 Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome
    “This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda.”

    Plus this speculation:

    OCT 14 Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
    “… we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind.”

    NOV 03 Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome
    “And, not only that, he is — would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn’t be able to see his fingerprints on his action. ”

    NOV 03 Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome
    “He is a man who would likely — he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind. “

  17. Sleeper on January 17th, 2007 3:30 pm

    -“Clever, but not even in the ballpark.”-

    Just as your anecdote isn’t in the ballpark either. You forgot to mention that you’re the one who sold your son the marijuana in the first place, that you went into his room years before and beat the crap out of him, crippling him, so he was little threat to anyone anymore and you made it impossible for him to get any more marijuana. Your son turned out to be a self-important lunatic who’s bark was worse than his bite. Certainly not worth beating the crap out of again.

    You also forgot to mention that your other two sons, part of the “Sons of Evil” had marijuana in their rooms too yet you didn’t feel the need to bust into their rooms.

    -“Plus, only you folks in the opposition remember the entire invasion as justified only by WMDs and WMDs alone.”-

    That’s because we never would have gone in there for any of those other reasons. If Bush had tried to sell an invasion of Iraq because they violated the no fly zone Americans would have laughed in his face. For years we put up with all of those other reasons because they weren’t worth going to war for. No, the administration sold this by scaring the American people into thinking that Saddam was going to give his WMD’s to terrorists. That, and only that, is the reason this country allowed the Bush Administration to go to war. All that other stuff is just window dressing for those who want to justify this mess.

  18. Erik on January 17th, 2007 4:33 pm

    Point by point Titan…here you go. You should really do some research, I’m not sure where you get your info…but if you think fiction is fact, I guess I know why it took the American public so long to get on board what a lot of people have been saying since before the invasion. I won’t bring up point 2 since I’ve already proved to you that the administration tried to paint an Iraq/9.11 connection.

    1. As for imminent threat, maybe you don’t remember these quotes, but Google does:

    “There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.”

    - White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

    “We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”

    - President Bush, 7/17/03

    Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.”

    - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

    “Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”

    - President Bush, 7/2/03

    “Absolutely.”

    - White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03

    “We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended.”

    - President Bush 4/24/03

    “The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”

    - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

    “It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended.”

    - Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

    “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”

    - President Bush, 3/19/03

    “The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”

    - President Bush, 3/16/03

    “This is about imminent threat.”

    - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

    Iraq is “a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies.”

    - Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

    Iraq poses “terrible threats to the civilized world.”

    - Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

    Iraq “threatens the United States of America.”

    - Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

    “Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

    - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

    “Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It’s a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It’s a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.”

    - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

    “The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction…That’s why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat.”

    - President Bush, 1/3/03

    “The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.”

    - President Bush, 11/23/02

    “I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month…So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?”

    - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

    “Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.”

    - President Bush, 11/3/02

    “I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.”

    - President Bush, 11/1/02

    “There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.”

    - President Bush, 10/28/02

    “The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.”

    - President Bush, 10/16/02

    “There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.”

    - President Bush, 10/7/02

    “The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”

    - President Bush, 10/2/02

    “There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”

    - President Bush, 10/2/02

    “This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”

    - President Bush, 9/26/02

    “No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”

    - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

    “Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”

    - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

    “Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness.”

    - Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

    3. BTW…Gen. John Abizaid and General Casey have opposed the troop surge and b/c of this, Abizaid was replaced…ya, that’s really listening to your generals on the ground. Go google General Eric Shinseki, and you’ll see what he told Bush and company before the war, then go read what happened to him when he did tell them what they needed.

    “Almost all insurgents are foreigners”. You do realize what a civil war is, don’t you? If not, go look it up in a dictionary.

    4, & 5. My point about “turning points”, is that there have been countless “turning points”….but no real progress. Why do you think we’ve sent in more troops?? B/c the situation is getting better? Use some common sense.

    6. As for Al Qaeda in Iraq, go google: “PSYOP Zarqawi Program”. Go look at the propaganda campaign that the White House initiated.

    7. When you make a joke about a people’s culture, it shows your true ignorance. It was important to protect not just Iraq’s culture, but it’s weapon depots, which we didn’t, and those weapons have now been used on our soldiers. It was important to protect their water treatment facilities, which we didn’t. It was also important to protect their electrical buildings…but we didn’t. Go look up how much electricity an average Iraqi gets per day in Baghdad.

    8. Once again, your Baathish comments shows your true lack of knowledge in Iraq. To get a job in Iraq under Saddam, you had to belong to the Baathist party. When Paul Bremer took over the CPA, he issued a sweeping ban of the Baath Party. All former party members were to be barred from holding government jobs. Bremer also issued a decree dissolving the regime’s 400,000-strong army.

    In a November 2004 article in the New Yorker, Jon Lee Anderson reported: “An American special-forces officer stationed in Baghdad at the time told me that he was stunned by Bremer’s twin decrees.” After the army’s dissolution, he told Anderson, “I had my guys coming up to me and saying, ‘Does Bremer realise that there are four hundred thousand of these guys out there and they all have guns?’ … The problem with the blanket ban is that you get rid of the infrastructure; I mean, after all, these guys ran the country, and you polarise them. So did these decisions contribute to the insurgency? Unequivocally, yes.”

    And on your alternate plan comments….just b/c you don’t agree with it, doesn’t make it NOT an alternate plan. This has been one of the major problems with this administration….anything they don’t agree with, they just dismiss it. This mentality has gotten us to where we are…….

  19. TitansAFC on January 17th, 2007 7:48 pm

    Sigh….

    Fine, Brian, I’ll play nicey-nice after this.

    Erik - thanks for making my point about the administration never saying Saddam was behind 9/11. The whole nonsense about pretending that there was never a connection between Saddam and terrorists or Al Queda is a nice try. Even the highly, highly critical 9/11 report acknowledged ties between Saddam and Al Queda going back over a decade.

    There is a difference:
    Saddam connected to terrorists and Al Queda - yes.
    Saddam directly behind 9/11 attacks - no.

    Many of your other responses are conjecture or anonymous sources as reported by Liberals opposed to the war. Sending me to super-conspiracy “Bush’s propaganda” sites filled with much of the same is unconvincing.

    Is it your contention that it is possible to identify every citizen as a Baathist or non-Baathist? Seriously?
    Is it also your contention that Iraq was devoid of terrorists until we invaded?

    Also, you keep hurling insults while not even researching you own fallacies:

    Among your many, many, many out-of context sources
    Point One:
    You cited as an “imminent threat” quote:

    “This is about imminent threat.”
    - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

    Here is the actual transcript from your cited source and quote:

    QUESTION: What about NATO’s role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?

    MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it’s important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.

    —White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

    You see, the real problem isn’t my echo chamber, it’s yours, where you constantly source quotes taken directly out of context in a DESPERATE attempt to prove the administration went out shouting that Saddam was an imminent threat.

    You’re trying to prove that the administration was out there claiming that the threat was “imminent,” when in fact they said the opposite. By trying to imply that they automatically meant imminent by suggesting that he was at all a threat is ridiculous. Of course they suggested he was a threat! You guys are the ones trying to revise in into them saying Saddam had nuclear bombs at our door. They never did!

    I went down about 9-10 of your conjectured nonsense and found stuff like this over and over. Get out of the echo chamber, dude!!

    And once again, except for unconditional surrender to insurgent forces (”redeployment”), what alternative has any Democrat suggested recently? Name one alternative that doesn’t involve leaving our new ally hanging out to dry?

    “The administration was criticized before the war for not making a case that Iraq was an imminent threat, denied at that time that war was based on the supposition of an imminent threat, and was criticized after the war for having lied that Iraq was an imminent threat.” - Stefan Sharkansky

    Probably the best, most accurate quote I have ever seen about the imminent threat nonsense.

    Al Gore September 23, 2002:

    President Bush now asserts that we will take preemptive action even if the threat we perceive is not imminent.

    House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi October 3, 2002:

    “As the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I have seen no evidence or intelligence that suggests that Iraq indeed poses an imminent threat to our nation. If the Administration has that information, they have not shared it with the Congress.
    (It’s fair to assume that if the administration did not share such information with the House Intelligence Committee, it is because the administration was not trying to tell Congress that Iraq posed an imminent threat)

    Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz December 6, 2002:

    Some people said [during the Cuban Missile Crisis] that Kennedy should have waited until the threat was imminent. We hear that again today. But we cannot wait to act until the threat is imminent. The notion that we can do so assumes that we will know when the threat is imminent. That wasn’t true even when the United States was presented with the very obvious threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba. As President Kennedy said 40 years ago, “We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation’s security to constitute maximum peril.” If that was true in 1962, facing a threat that was comparatively easy to see, how much more true is it today against threats developed by terrorists who use the freedom of democratic societies to plot and plan in our midst in secret.

    Stop and think for a moment. Just when did the attacks of September 11 become imminent? Certainly they were imminent on September 10, although we didn’t know it. In fact, the September 11 terrorists established themselves in the United States long before that date - many months or even a couple of years earlier. Anyone who believes that we can wait until we have certain knowledge that attacks are imminent has failed to connect the dots that took us to September 11.

    President George W Bush, State of the Union speech January 28, 2003:
    Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
    Senator Edward Kennedy January 28, 2003 [in reaction to the State of the Union speech]
    [The President] did not make a persuasive case that the threat is imminent and that war is the only alternative

    New York Times on the State of the Union, January 29, 2003 [archive only]:

    The heart of Mr. Bush’s argument, however, is that America and the world cannot afford to wait until it is clear that Iraq will attack America, or its allies.

    ”Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent,” he said, a clear reference to European nations that argue that Mr. Hussein is contained.

    San Francisco Chronicle February 6, 2003:

    For all the damning evidence of Hussein’s tyranny and evil ambitions — neither of which has been in doubt since the Persian Gulf War — Powell did not show that Iraq amounted to an imminent threat to the United States

    Can we all agree that Erik, J-Dub, Sleeper, Titan, Lis, Kaya, and the rest of us are NOT the person of the year nor are we deserving????

    Yes, Time copped out. They’ve done so before - remember when the one editor refused to make Ken Starr man-of-the-year when the votes came in, so they compromised and made him co-man-of-the-year with Bill Clinton? LOL Then they stopped outside voting completely. So typical……..

  20. J-Dub on January 17th, 2007 9:39 pm

    Ok, now I certainly feel like a moderate after reading the posts of Titans and Erik. So there really is not any reason for me to post on this topic anymore. I will however just make a few replies to Erik.

    1. Imminent threat to the US - If you really read your quotes closely, Bush made several comments that he wanted to take pre-emptive action BEFORE Iraq became an imminent threat. Bush did claim Iraq was a threat however. I’ll give you that. Erik, are you arguing that Saddam was not at all a threat to our interests at home or in that part of the region? Given more time, that threat would have only grown as he continued to disregard past resolutions and test UN resolve.

    2. Ties between 9/11 and Iraq - I think your quotes also prove no claim by Bush that Saddam was tied to 9/11. Of all your quotes, only a few even mention 9/11. Those that do mention it use it in the context of Saddam knowing terrorists who would like to inflict the KIND OF DAMAGE of 9/11. That’s quite a big difference. All your quotes claim Saddam had ties to terrorist, some even claim ties to Al-Qaida. None of your quotes claim Saddam took part in 9/11.

    3. Amount of troops to send in to secure Iraq - I definitely agree that was mishandled. Most military advisors I heard before the war said we needed more troops. Of course we would have had more troops had Turkey allowed us a northern front. The administration totally blew this.

    4. The countless elections they said would move Iraq forward and curb the violence - I remember Bush specifically saying that the violence would likely continue regardless of the elections. These exchanges are too exhausting for me to research specific quotes to that effect. However, we did deploy more troops to Iraq in response to an expected increase in violence during both elections.

    5 & 6 - No point in re-hashing this as you and Titans have had plenty to say about it.

    7. They only protected the oil fields after the invasion…not the museums, or government buildings - Another blown opportunity due to a lack of troops. But I do believe strategically, the oil fields were probably the most important resource to protect with a limited number of troops. Without an adequate troop presence, choices had to be made. Like it or not, oil is a strategic resource to the United States.

    8. They fired all the Baathists…- Another absolutely huge mistake in my opinion. I disagree with Titans on this issue. Most registered members of the Baath party were so because they needed to be in order to get jobs under Saddam. De-Baathification and disbanding the Iraqi Army (along with a lack of troops) are the biggest reasons we are in the predicament we are now.

    So, as you can see, I have plenty negative to say about the handling of the war. But I still don’t see anything we can do except establish a moderate government in Iraq. Erik, you never answered my question as to how withdrawing troops will help establish a moderate government in Iraq. Will Iraq be less of a threat to U.S. NOW with or without U.S. troops? That is the fundamental question now.

    Now I will disengage myself from this debate of Pro-Bush/Anti-Bush. The real debate should be how we move forward in Iraq. If looking to past mistakes (i.e. de-baathification, disbanding the Iraqi Army, too few troops) is relevant to develop a strategy for the future, I will be happy to discuss it. But to throw around propaganda, either in support or opposition of Bush, does nothing to help our troops succeed on the battlefield.

  21. Lis on January 18th, 2007 8:19 am

    btw Eric & Kaya do write from the same computer but have different emails. It’s possible they are two different people who live together.

    Regardless they do have a nice political blog at http://www.nevadathunder.com/.

  22. Sleeper on January 18th, 2007 10:01 am

    -“Ties between 9/11 and Iraq - I think your quotes also prove no claim by Bush that Saddam was tied to 9/11. Of all your quotes, only a few even mention 9/11. Those that do mention it use it in the context of Saddam knowing terrorists who would like to inflict the KIND OF DAMAGE of 9/11. That’s quite a big difference. All your quotes claim Saddam had ties to terrorist, some even claim ties to Al-Qaida. None of your quotes claim Saddam took part in 9/11.”-

    This administration may be inept when it comes to running a country, but they are geniuses when it comes to manipulating the public for their political ends. The problem here is that they didn’t have to directly link Saddam to 9/11. By continually mentioning him with Al-Qaida or terrorist they were able to infer a connection between the two. Al-Qaida was responsible for 9/11, Saddam had ties to Al-Qaida… They were hoping the public would simply connect the dots and they did, which explains why a majority of Americans thought there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 before the invasion. To say that the administration didn’t directly tie Saddam to 9/11 would be correct. To say they didn’t purposely infer a connection is simply naive.

    I will agree that the Time’s Person-of-the-Year was a cop out. I understand what they were going for. I for one think its pretty cool that we can express our political views in a forum such as this and that blogs and YouTube are beginning to change the way we communicate and how we get our information. But it’s not worthy of Person-of-the-Year.

  23. J-Dub on January 18th, 2007 10:55 am

    Sleeper, I think your argument is invalid. I never made the connection of Iraq to 9/11 and I was following the administration’s push for war in all the major media. I watched Meet the Press when Cheney made the many arguments for taking out Saddam. Maybe I am that much smarter than 80% of the population but I do not subscribe to that theory either. I think those with a disdain for Bush and this war are bringing up these old quote, taking them somewhat out of context for political gain.

    Lis, Erik or Kaya’s blog is visually appealing. But read his posts and you’ll find that most if it is attacking President Bush. What ever happened to having an honest disagreement without that sort of disdain and hatred? This is what is wrong with U.S. politics, particularly the two party system.

    Since I am trying to turn my focus to the future solution in Iraq, here is Erik’s plan as it is quoted from his blog.

    “Well, here you go. Confirmation that the Sunnis believe they are fighting for their existence as well as power in Iraq. We are in for a long, bloody conflict. I just hope Congress has the guts to try and force bushie to get our troops out of there…….at least re-deploy them to some friendly nations in the region. And hope that the Sunnis and Shias can come to some agreement and end the bloodshed.”

    Withdraw our troops from Iraq and “hope that the Sunnis and Shias can come to some agreement and end the bloodshed”? I don’t see “hope” as being a viable plan for a solution in Iraq. Without a troop presence and financial backing for Iraq, what bargaining chip does the U.S. have in forcing the Shiite government to moderate? The same argument can be made against dealing with Iran or Syria to help curb violence in Iraq. Other than allowing Iranian nuclear activities to continue or selling Iran spare parts for military equipment, both of which are completely contrary to U.S. interests, what do we have to offer these countries? Let’s not oversimplify diplomacy.

    A quote recently by Condoleeza Rice best explains the art of diplomacy:

    “There’s a tendency to think about diplomacy as something that is done untethered to the conditions underlying it or the balance underlying it. That’s not the way that it works. You aren’t going to be successful as a diplomat if you don’t understand the strategic context in which you are actually negotiating. It is not dealmaking.”

  24. Sleeper on January 18th, 2007 12:39 pm

    Invalid? Why? Because you alone didn’t make the connection? Do you think that 80% (give or take) was just by accident? Why did they think that way? Do you think they made that connection all on their own?

    I think what is most important is to figure out how we ended up where we are now so we don’t make the same mistake again. And the first question you have to ask is why did we go to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? How were we convinced that a country we kicked the crap out of years earlier and was pretty much left for dead by the international community was suddenly this huge threat to our national security?

    FEAR. Just as previous administrations took us into Korean and Vietnam based on the fear of Communism, the current administration took us into Iraq based on the fear of terrorism. And that fear was still very fresh in our minds then. The administration skillfully tied Saddam and Al-Qaida together to tap into people’s fear of 9/11.

    “Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill published documents proving that the president “ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before” Sept. 11 — an account corroborated by another White House aide.”

    “CBS News reported on Sept. 4, 2002, that “barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.””

    http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/04/20/woodward_clarke/index.html

    They had their minds made up, it was just a matter of selling it to the American people, and they did it perfectly. You may choose not to see the administration’s manipulation, and that’s fine. Hopefully those who do recognize it will see to it that it doesn’t happen again.

  25. J-Dub on January 18th, 2007 2:10 pm

    By the way, I’d like to see the poll that says 80% of the population believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11. I never saw that poll either. I was just using Erik’s numbers. If one of you guys have that poll, please let me know so I can do some research.

    Sleeper, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Erik. If you are against the Bush plan of beefing up troop levels and holding Maliki accountable to benchmarks, what plan do you subscribe to, explain how it will succeed, and define the metrics by which you measure success? I’ve already explained the reasoning for supporting Bush’s new plan, but I have yet to hear anyone put forth another plan and explain how it will succeed.

    If I cannot get an answer from Erik or Sleeper, I see no point in continuing this debate.

  26. Sleeper on January 19th, 2007 10:37 am

    I too was just using his numbers but here is the first thing that showed up on google.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

    I think the administration should take the commission’s recommendation and start talking with Iran and Syria. I know that Bush pegged Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil” and to start talking with them now would make him a flip-flopper, but it’s time he checked his ego at the door and started doing what’s right for the troops and this country instead of what’s right for his legacy.

    I can’t say for sure how it would succeed. I didn’t read the commission’s report so I can’t say why they felt that would be a good way forward, but we all have a stake in what goes on in the region so some common ground must be found.

    Victory would be to get the Iraqis to stop killing each other. The Shiites and the Sunnis have been pissed at each other for thousands of years. Why do we think bringing democracy to their country would suddenly change all that?

    I’m not as opposed to the troop increase as some are, but I think it’s more of the same and same ain’t workin’.

  27. J-Dub on January 19th, 2007 12:42 pm

    Thanks for the poll reference. I’ve got to admit I am surprised but that poll seems legit.

Leave a Reply




Polls

# of games Bears win this year.

  • 5-8 (33%)
  • 9-12 (33%)
  • 13-16 (33%)
  • 0-4 (0%)

Poll Ends: August 20, 2008 @ 3:59 pm

Loading ... Loading ...