JimSmith - 2/15/2006 12:15 AM
MS Fowler - 2/13/2006 4:53 PM
Your whole argument seems to start with " Bush lied". You have a piece of truth--no WMD were found in Iraq--I will grant that point. But you can't say that there never were any, as almost everyone, including the previous administration maintain that, at some point, there were WMDs. What became of them? I do not know, but can you afford to ignore the possibility?
From that fact you proceed to a series of half truths. You postulate that since no WMDs were found that Bush lied and there never were any. You take one phrase from the Senate;s (?) report about no direct link between Iraq and Al Quaida, adn twist that into, " NO linkage between Iraq and Al Quiada. There were links; Saddam was really training terrorists.
I know these all seem like clear, logical steps to you, but in fact they lead you to unsubstantiated conclusions. Time will tell.
I am not comfortable with any administration's infringing on rights. In fact, one phrase I have recently heard in the debate, is one of "granted Rights. The Rights that we, as Americans enjoy, were not granted by the government. Our Rights are unalienable. The Bill of Rights recognizes those Rights, but did not grant them. The problem I see is that if it becomes accepted that these Rights are granted, then they may be ungranted.
Like I said before, if Bush moves to halt future elections and have himself a[ppointed as Chancellro ( ah President) for life, then I will join you. Until then, I believe that that this rhetoric is simply aimed at crass political ends--the return of the dems to national power. The dems do not have any credibility in promoting restraint of the federal government. I do not trust them. Maybe, if they repudiate the cuurent, has-beens, leading their party, I will give them another look, but any party with Ted Kennedy as its spokesman is not to be taken seriously.
I agree with you that time will tell.
If 9-11 had not happened was there any reason to invade Iraq? The point you seem to ignore is that what Saddam had for WMD in the 1980's, 1990's and even in 2000 was not inspiring anyone to consider invading. Bush lied about the WMD issue to justify invading Iraq, and connected Iraq to the 9-11 hijackers, which was also a blatant lie. The rest of the quagmire that has become Iraq is entirely Mr. Bush's responsibility. The nearly trillion dollars dumped down the drain on this mission to secure those WMD we were told constituted a direct and imminent danger to the United States, that are now being spent doing god knows what (the exact mission has changed a few times and seems to be to bring democracy to Iraq at gunpoint now - hardly something Congress would have authorized back in 2002) is a direct consequence of the Bush lies.
Osamma is still at large. Sending crummy little video tapes to news companies to air and send us into a tizzy now and then. Voicing threats and being entertained by our reactions. And we are mired in Iraq.
I agree, time will tell. I am unwilling to wait until Bush's regime dismantles so much of what this country has stood for that he can declare himself President for Life. A good preemtive strike at the curtailment of our rights as citizens seems a better strategy than the one you are proposing. Once the deed is done, a trouble maker like you getting upset after the fact is an easy problem to eliminate, or solve, depending on your point of view. Jim