Grandpa and others - please get out the baseball bat and hit me repeatedly about the head and shoulders. I must be insane to get into this discussion again, but like a moth to the flame, I rise to the bait.

I am fervently against what our President is doing. He knew full well that the cost (approx. $150 Billion to date) would be immense. Yet, he still pushed through a tax cut thus leaving it to our kids and grandkids to pay the bill. And that does not begin to talk about the absolute lack of a coherent policy towards Iraq.

I have pasted an article here that addresses some of the issues brought up in this thread. It's important to note that the author of this piece supported our actions in Iraq - I believe this lends credibility to his arguement.

Mission Creep
Bush's perversion of the "war on terror."
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, September 8, 2003, at 1:54 PM PT



A $87 billion misrepresentation

For more than a year, President Bush has framed Iraq as part of the "war on terror." And for more than a year, he has produced no evidence for that claim. No evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11. No evidence of an affinity between Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and the fundamentalists of al-Qaida. No evidence of a terrorist presence in Iraq greater than in other Arab or Muslim countries. No evidence that Iraq offered weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

In his address to the nation Sunday night, Bush offered two new arguments for declaring Iraq "the central front" in the war on terror. If you buy those arguments, he's right. But before you buy them, stop and think about how far afield they would take us from the war we embarked on two years ago.


Bush wants us to support his postwar Iraq policy as reflexively as we supported the war on al-Qaida in Afghanistan. That's why he delivered this speech just before the anniversary of 9/11. "Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism," he recalled in his opening remarks. "America and a broad coalition acted first in Afghanistan … and we acted in Iraq."

How was our action in Iraq part of the campaign against terrorism? The old argument, which Bush repeated Sunday, was that Saddam "sponsored terrorism." But again, Bush offered no evidence that Saddam had done so in a way different from Iran, Syria, or even Saudi Arabia. Instead, Bush argued that regardless of whether terrorists in Iraq were at war with us two years ago, they are today. As Bush put it,

Five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos. … Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. … The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world. In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken. ... We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror.

Second, Bush argued that ousting Arab tyrants is inherently necessary to the war on terror:

The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror and turn to the pursuits of peace.

Think for a minute about what these two arguments entail. The first justifies any war in which, as a result of our actions, terrorists attack our troops. Imagine an invasion of Cuba, whose dictator has long rankled Bush and would be easier to topple than Saddam was. No doubt al-Qaida and other terrorist groups would send agents to try to kill the occupying troops. Bush could then defend the occupation as part of the "war on terror."

The second argument is equally fraught with implications. Yes, tyranny breeds terrorism. But if the "war on terror" requires us to overthrow tyrants just because they're tyrants, we'll be at war for the rest of your life.

If you opposed the Iraq war because you saw no connection to 9/11 or because you didn't trust Bush, his creepy redefinition of the "war on terror" vindicates your suspicions. But if, like me, you supported the Iraq war for other reasons, Bush's linguistic revisionism still matters. I supported the Iraq war because Saddam repeatedly violated the disarmament and inspection agreements that constituted his probation after the Persian Gulf War, and because the U.N. Security Council showed no willingness, even at the brink of a U.S. invasion, to embrace a serious timetable for enforcing those agreements. We did what had to be done. But it didn't have to be done to protect the United States from an imminent threat. It had to be done to preserve the credibility of international law enforcement, such as it is.

An invasion undertaken for that reason entails a postwar policy very different from the one Bush has pursued. Having done the part of the job others refused to do—ousting Saddam—we should return the rest of the job to the Security Council. That means surrendering authority as well as responsibility, which Bush has refused to do. Instead, he drags his heels on relinquishing to our allies the influence they demand in exchange for sending troops and other resources. In their absence, the burden falls to us, in the form of more dead soldiers and Bush's request for another $87 billion in deficit spending.

To justify this burden, Bush tells us it's still about 9/11. He tells us terrorists are trying to "inflict harm on Americans" to make us "run from a challenge" in Iraq. He tells us we must be "resolute in our own defense." He tells us we must "spend what is necessary to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror." He conflates enemies. He spins circular logic. He appeals to our pride. He continues to misrepresent the terrorist connections on the basis of which he justified the Iraq invasion, and he expands the definition of the "war on terror" so that Iraq can be crammed into it anyway, along with dozens of other countries. Two years after 9/11, he has so thoroughly twisted the meaning of what happened that day that, in effect, he has forgotten what it was.

That's exactly what the Bush Admin wants...they don't want you to think for yourself. They want you to believe whatever they say. If it makes you feel better to just believe in the almighty Dubya, then good.

One things for sure, Haliburton/Cheney and Bush have a nose for oil...but that's not what this is about... LOL!!!

Saudi Arabia. What's your point?

Curtis, I think it's fabulous that someone your age is interested in politics and takes notice of the geo-political scene. However, it's disconcernting that you sound so neoconservitive before you're even old enough to vote.

Stlhead made a good point. You need to have some kind of reference when making a statement that goes against what's already been reported. I have pages and pages of documentation dispelling the link between Saddam and al Queda.

And who's opinion would be in that documentation...

Piper, the documentation comes from various news sources around the world. So it's no one's single opinion, but most of the information is derived from the CIA, FBI, and State Department. Even the Pentagon has begrudgingly admitted that fact now.

That's what I thought... and we all know how biased the media is...

So Piper, which way is the media biased? To the left or to the right? There are arguements on both sides of that question.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think the newspapers are as biased as they used to be. Of course if a person only reads the opinion page and lives by what the liberal or conservative pundits write then, yes, that person will probably end up with the same opinion.

However, I read a lot from the Associated Press, Knight Ridders, and Rueters from Asia, Russia, England, Germany, as well as the US.

When I read the opinion page I take most of it with a grain of salt and can usually tell when they're just whining to hear themselves.

you are probably right go harley it isn't as bad as it used to be.

But still no matter what is published there is always the bias of the author(s) to be taken into consideration... I question if anything has ever been published that hasn't in some way been biased one way or another just by the fact that it is "people" doing the publishing and "people" are biased by nature...

the liberal media preaches to the left and the left believe its true

the conservative media preaches to the right and the right believes its true...

even the middle of the road guys are biased one way or another depending on there views...

This issue will be argued and argued and argued and I doubt anyone will change their views... that is the nature of arguing politics... kinda fun isn't it??

Anyway I'm just funnin with you guys...

Piper, I think you have analyzed the situation correctly.

Anyone want to discuss religion?

Make Em STOP DAddy!!! Make Em Stop!!!!!

Eddie..that's your kids calling you...........Not POLITICS AGAIN Daddy!!!!! NOooooooooo

Here's a piece that's very interesting written by a credible source. You'll notice the facts noted are referenced.
War on Terrorism Bogus

It's lengthy, but taking the time to read something is what separates the informed from the ignorant.

I've read about the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) on several different occasions. It's kind of scary, and surreal, how everything is neatly fitting together; almost like a Clancy book.

The spoiled people of America beleive what they want to hear.I believe that what you want to hear has to do alot with how you were raised.Fortunatly for our spoiled sorry arses you can find just about anything you want to hear.Very little to do with the facts.kind of like the science used to controll..explain mother nature.

Dang BBVD-

Sometimes I forget your in High School! I'll bet you kick butt and take names in civics! You're holding your own here!

Keep it up.

It's a cheap price to pay to see that our children/grandchildren don't have to deal with it later. Take care of busisness and keep taking care of busisness!

Isnt the ol U S of A great!!!
freedom of speach!
Try that in Hussien land!


You bleeding heart liberals are all the same..Clinton let our own navy ship get bombed and all he did was drop a bomb in the middle of the dessesrt to retaliate..Why dont you look into who gave campaign money to the clinton family!!!!!


H2O- before you start talking about what Jesus would do you better read the bible..He told many to go to war!!

I believe in what we are doing by kickin there arss 100%..
we need to rid the world of terrorists and we just nipped a big chunk of change that supported them..

I read that article that I believe goharley linked me to. Besides the few grammar errors in the document itself, I found a few fictionous statements as well.

Here's what some basic surfing pulled up...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20021006.htm

You can actually download the report right here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

So what you have is a report written to a non profit organization, who really nobody paid attention to...

Well anyways, that article just didnt do much for me. I've only been in high school journalism for one year, and even I can see it was poorly written and completely one sided.

All it did was what the rest of you guys are doing, bringing up small tidbits of information to be anti-bush.

Stlhd, or whatever your moniker is... You have a strange way of defining the word "terrorist".

\Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.] One who governs by terrorism or intimidation. --Burke.

I'd say that sums up Houssein rather nicely.

Curtis

gooooooooooo BVvD!!!!!!!!!