Quote:
|
Dustin Acuff wrote:
First I'd like to say that this is NOT intended as an attack on you.
You cannot cut and paste things out of chronological order (legitimately) because you lose credibility and cannot blame the past on the future. It makes no sense!
|
Sorry you feel that way. Since you're the only one who seems to: I am taking your critique with a grain of salt.
I cut n paste the way I did to document
when and
how Bush lied, when he said that he "has no timetable" to attack, and that he's "doing everything he can" to avoid war, when in actuality he had plans to invade almost as soon as he was elected.
Quote:
|
If I recall correctly, the major basis for the WMD chaos was the the UN weapons inspectors DID find an empty delivery device (only one mind you) for a biological or chemical agent.
On the WMD I cannot say if they are now, or were ever in Iraq. But I can say that Saddam giving the UN inspectors the run around for years (Clinton, W) about when and where they could inspect does add weight to the idea that he might have something.
|
Sorry, but not in my book. Hussein played the same bluffing-game as Kruschev during the Cold War. The US thought Kruschev had many more nuc's because of his belligerent stance.
Hussein probably hoped to do the same thing--stave off a US invasion, because everyone knows that the US only invades non-nuclear countries (thus, no N.Korea, your apologies notwithstanding).
Quote:
|
Would you rather act with the information you had in the intrest of protecting your home and be wrong, or not act on information you did have because you feared you might be wrong and then lose your life because you did not act?
|
Now that all depends upon my decided course of action, doesn't it? If, say: I were convinced that my neighbor is a psychopathic mass-murderer and I decide to take the law into my own hands: then I would sorely regret my choice later, if my actions resulted in an innocent person's death.
Quote:
|
back you if you say that Bush needs to come foward, admit he made an oops, apoligize, and rectify the situation. But just attacking Bush day in and day out seems useless.
|
Not if he's a criminal who has not received due justice.
Quote:
|
the matter is that the majority of Americans (not by much) voted for Bush over Kerry.
|
If you think that Bush was elected over Kerry because American's support the war: then I have some bridges to sell you.
American's voted Bush over Kerry because Kerry offered nothing that Bush wasn't also offering. Both candidates were pro-war, and both favored continuance of the occupation.
Quote:
|
if I woke up after election day and Kerry was going to be the next president, I would back him 100%, and I voted for Bush.
|
How nice for you. I wouldn't: and I did not vote for either Bush, or Kerry.
Quote:
|
Neil I would like to see you present some real possible solutions taking into account the current situation rather than ranting about how it got to be this way. What paths do you see out of this mess?
|
OK, you want my solution? Here it is:
1. US out of Iraq. Yesterday.
2. Complete transparency in US gov't. Turn over all relevant records to an independent commission, whose chief investigator will decide which US leaders are subject to citement for violations in US and int'l law.
3. Turn over all reparations owed to Iraq.
4. Complete repudiation of the current US foreign policy (as stated in 2002).
Sorry you feel that this is nothing but Bush-bashing, Justin: but so long as an international criminal is allowed to continue on with his crimes, then I will continue to protest, to rail, and to call for change. If you want to talk "patriotism:" then it's
my patriotic duty to protest; and to be simply compliant is betraying the freedoms granted in the Constitution. Bad things happen, when good people do nothing.
But back to the main point of the thread:
The memo documents how BushCo actively planned a military option as far back as July, 2002. Weapons inspections, as far as BushCo was concerned: were irrelevant. Even intel showing that he had no wmd, was irrelevant.
This is a big violation of international law, which means that soldiers fighting in Iraq can justifiably disobey orders, or they themselves may someday find themselves on charges, where, to put it in W's words: "'just following orders' will not be an adequate defence."
Curiously, BushCo has been silent over this whole memo, and the so-called "Left-biased" media echo-chamber has given this very little airplay. Now, gosh: I wonder why?
Could it be that the gov't's actions such as those taken on Newsweek have had a chilling effect? You decide.