I just want to make it clear that PMartian is not the only person here that servied his country.

Pmartin, you have email.

Don't worry, it's not loaded.

Absolutely amazing. One liar can't keep up with what the other is lieing.

Cheney
Rumsfeld

It is damnably insulting that the administration holds the American people in such contempt.

Here's another bombshell:

Saudi/Hamas link

We're fighting the wrong people.

Sky, check your mail..

Alright boys and girls - straight from the horse's mouth (or maybe the tail end ):

NOW what reason do the local neocons have for invading? No weapons, no threat, no connection...

GoHarley, What is interesting is what that sentence doesn't say which is how the f**k did most Americans get that idea? Well, we know that it was the Administration in the buildup to war. What also surprises me is that none of the folks who argue the other side quite vigorously (PMartin and BBVD immediately come to mind - but there are others) have chosen to respond to my post from yesterday. I'm pretty certain that it is not the case that I made my arguement so convincing that everyone now agrees with me I do however think the underlying question is very valid. And that question is: Is removing a head of state as the only reason for going to war a valid use of a Nation's Armed Forces? The ramifications of such a policy are huge and with this admission today and the slim possibility of WMD's being found, I think this is the only reason left. What am I missing?

Guys, the rest of the report most likely reads like the one I read, which speaks of the admins. adherence to the belief that Saddam has direct ties to Al Quaeda (i.e., funding their activities, I presume), but no direct responsiblity for the 9/11 attacks themselves.

I find that distinction a little weak (purposely understated), but it's apparently enough rationalization for them to feel like they're off the hook.

goharley, how could you possibly call 9/11 collateral damage? You said yourself, Bin Ladin declared war on Westerners. He targets American specifically. He killed 3000 Americans.

Bush targeted Saddam Houssein specifically, not Iraq.

Eddie - your posts have hurt the liberals side of this arguement so much you might as well just not post anymore; you are only bringing ridicule to yourself and your allies.
Hey look, I just made a stupid, completely unbased and unsupported remark! Now I can be one of the guys, eh? And I used big words to sound educated... wow.

You may want to read the whole article... the actual facts for your arguments. Here\'s what President Bush was saying.

Curtis

P.S. Looking forward to the response to this one.

I think so many people believe that Iraq was involved because of the superb speech writers in the Bush cabal. I don't remember exactly who, but a noted psychologist pointed out that the words Iraq and 9/11 were used in the same sentences and paragraphs enough times to lead one to believe the context meant they were related. The Bush propoganda machine would make even Joseph Goebbles proud.

After that, I believe what Hermann Goerring said about scaring people into believing they were in danger, and vilifying anyone anti-war comes into play.

As far as using the Armed Forces to remove the head of state, I believe what Bush did was criminal. I believe he should be impeached, and if found guilty he should resign.

Why did we go in the first place? I read the Project for the New American Century and believe the answers are in there. It's more than just coincedence that the authors of that paper are now imployed in the Whitehouse and Pentagon.

I believe the goal is to dominate and colonize the Middle East by first conquering the easiest and most vulnerable country with oil - Iraq. From there it's easy to force our influence on the rest of the Arab countries.

Well, I kind of mis-spoke. I personally don't see it as collateral damage, but bin Laden does. He isn't attacking Americans, per se; he is attacking Americanism and Western ideology. That's why he chose the targets he did. If it was simply a matter of American body count he could have chosen far worse targets. Disney World at spring break for instance.

His targets were political. He was making a statement and 3000 people died in the process. In his mind that's simply collateral damage.

In your referenced article, that part about Cheney on "Meet the Press" describes where the administration believes the connection between Iraq and al Queda exists. You'll notice it also says that most in the intelligence community doubt that belief.

From everything I've read is that bin Laden hates Saddam because of his secular ways. Bin Laden is an extreme fundamentalist and Saddam only invokes religion when it benefits his cause.

If Bush was truly concerned with attacking those responsible for providing aid to terrorists we would be invading Saudi Arabia right now. We already have documentation of the Saudi royal family giving money to bin Laden, and today we learn they're supporting Hamas as well.

Curtis, if you believe that Pres. Bush "targeted Saddam Houssein specifically, not Iraq", can you see the dilemna that presents? I can not think of any war the US has been involved with that had that basis. And that is my problem with what this represents. If the US can go after the head of a sovereign state with no threat of danger from that sovereign state and no evidence of acts of war from that sovereign state against us, can't you see how we have legitimized that action for any other country - possibly against the US itself? The old saw that all is fair in love and war is not true. The leaders have always protected themselves personally against the ravages of war. What would stop N. Korea from saying that Bush is a devil and try to assasinate him with their military? This, I think, was the root of the United Nations reluctance to support the President's actions. There are rules in war - assasination by military falls outside the rules.

In regards to the President's statement today, so there is a connection between Sadaam and Al Quaeda but no Iraq involvement in 9/11? Now there's a surprise. Osama Bin Laden's family, being one of the biggest Construction Companies in the Middle East. I expect that we could find a connection betwwen Al Quaeda and:

Saudi Arabian leaders
Pakistani leaders
Iranian leaders
Syrian leaders
Yemeni leaders
German leaders
Spanish leaders
and even the United States leaders

What in the world does a "connection between Sadaam and Al Quaeda" mean? What was the quality of that connection, where are the facts of the depth of the connection? When will we get these answers? Personally, I have serious doubts about the credibility of this President and his Administration. I've seen lots of Presidents lie, this is not news. I have never seen a President's lies have the kind of costs that this one has incurred.

Earlier in this thread the question of one's patriotism came up. I recently ran across this and thought it relevant:

hehe

I read that quote in 9th grade and I do love it. Theodore Roosevelt was a REAL mountain man!

Curtis

P.S. Hitting the touttle this saturday, any recent reports?

Yeah, he was. Probably one of the best presidents we ever had from a sportsman's point of view.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

Interesting reading.

That is some very interesting reading. I read something very similar recently that drew the same conclusions.

Sounds like a Clancy novel, doesn't it? Damn scary that it's all factual and true.

The Guardian is not above telling un-truths so take some of it with a grain of salt. BTW, they are British and very left-wing. But if you slant that way it my be gospel. As i can see the choir is in their proper chairs. Just havin fun.

The Guardian is all truth and fact???? Come on boys...

If the Bush administration was more forthcomign about their strategy in the middle east, sources like the Guardian wouldn't need to be sniffing around and writing stuff that sounds like an Oliver Stone movie...

What intrigues me is a long term presence in Iraq and the advantages that it may have for the US. You could certainly argue that the polices of the past hasn't exactly worked and fed the situation that we are facing today. Uh oh, I'm starting to sound like a neocons...

I say we sell the oil!

Take the lump sum for the cost of the war and give the rest to the iraq people to rebuild...Better yet we can use all the money found from husseins hidings and use it first..