Clinton: Bush should raise taxes to pay for recovery

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by dissention

I would think by now that the talking points could be freshened up just a little bit.

Funny, I was thinking just the same about the liberal talking point.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Funny, I was thinking just the same about the liberal talking point.

Oh, honey, I know how upset you are about our country waking up to the incompetence that is the Republican party, but you knew it would happen sooner or later. Keep fighting the good fight, even if the facts aren't there to support you.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by dissention

I would think by now that the talking points could be freshened up just a little bit.

Since the FACTS are:

People who provided the intelligence about the WMDs knew that it wasn't credible but used it anyway. To fix the info around the policy to go to war with Iraq (ala Downing Street).

Saddam did not have a relationship with Al Quada.

Most of the terrorists from 9/11 were Saudis, none were Iraqis.

No other countries, aside from UK, supported this war because war is a LAST RESORT.

There are more terrorist cells in Iraq now than anywhere due to the lawlessness there.

I could go on but I'm probably wasting my energy.

[Sugar]

Do people really still think bin Laden and Hussein were working together?

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by Sugar

Do people really still think bin Laden and Hussein were working together?

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

The fact of if they were or weren't working together is irrelevant. I mean what was the worst case scenario with the war? A corrupt leader who gases his own people gets either killed or taken from power? Ohhh...The heart-ache.

Although, I will be the first to admit that the republicans were slow to respond back before WW2. But once Pearl Harbor was hit and we waged war with Hitler, you didn't hear the republicans "hounding" FDR with...

"Why are we going after Hitler? He didn't attack us? Why are we doing this?"

I mean you can't imagine such a scenario because it would have been insane back then. But now we have just gotten so used to the liberal complaining about "unjust" wars, that we don't think any differently.

[Sugar]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

The fact of if they were or weren't working together is irrelevant. I mean what was the worst case scenario with the war? A corrupt leader who gases his own people gets either killed or taken from power? Ohhh...The heart-ache.

Although, I will be the first to admit that the republicans were slow to respond back before WW2. But once Pearl Harbor was hit and we waged war with Hitler, you didn't hear the republicans "hounding" FDR with...

"Why are we going after Hitler? He didn't attack us? Why are we doing this?"

I mean you can't imagine such a scenario because it would have been insane back then. But now we have just gotten so used to the liberal complaining about "unjust" wars, that we don't think any differently.

So you agree that there is really no evidence they were working together.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by Sugar

So you agree that there is really no evidence they were working together.

No, but what I am saying is that it is irrelevant, either way.

[Sugar]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

No, but what I am saying is that it is irrelevant, either way.

No it's not. It was one of the reasons given as to why we invaded. There was none of this "getting rid of an evil leader" before the WMD thing and the link between Bin Laden and Hussein fell apart. It's not the reason we went to war. It became the justification after the reasons fell apart.

So you think they were working together?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

The fact of if they were or weren't working together is irrelevant.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Although, I will be the first to admit that the republicans were slow to respond back before WW2. But once Pearl Harbor was hit and we waged war with Hitler, you didn't hear the republicans "hounding" FDR with...

Your point? This is not the forties.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

"Why are we going after Hitler? He didn't attack us? Why are we doing this?"

Surely you aren't comparing the collaboration between Hirohito and Hitler with the nonexistent one betwwen Hussein and Bin Laden.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

I mean you can't imagine such a scenario because it would have been insane back then. But now we have just gotten so used to the liberal complaining about "unjust" wars, that we don't think any differently.

Oy, your panty lines are showing.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

The fact of if they were or weren't working together is irrelevant. I mean what was the worst case scenario with the war? A corrupt leader who gases his own people gets either killed or taken from power? Ohhh...The heart-ache.

Although, I will be the first to admit that the republicans were slow to respond back before WW2. But once Pearl Harbor was hit and we waged war with Hitler, you didn't hear the republicans "hounding" FDR with...

"Why are we going after Hitler? He didn't attack us? Why are we doing this?"

I mean you can't imagine such a scenario because it would have been insane back then. But now we have just gotten so used to the liberal complaining about "unjust" wars, that we don't think any differently.

Honey, wake up! The worst case is 2,000 dead Americans and countless dead, innocent Iraqis. Saddam had no power due to sanctions. He was a monster to his people, yes but that isn't why we went in there. The talking point changed to that when there were no WMDs. I mean, how can you keep justifying this?

If you're trying to equate 9/11 with the war in Iraq, which is what Bush continually tries to do, then how can you say the non-relationship is irrelevant? That's like if I say I smacked around a woman because she told her friend to stab me. Instead of going after the person who stabbed me I go after someone else? What sense does that make? And then, when I find out that she never said it I say "well that's irrelevent because she was a bad person and deserved a beating".

The backpedaling is getting old and Americans are finally waking up to it. Thank God.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

. . . "Why are we going after Hitler? He didn't attack us? Why are we doing this?" . . . .

The US declared war only on Japan on December 8, 1941. Then, on December 11, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the USA. Only after that did the US declare war on Germany and Italy. Thus, your analogy of "Why are we going after Hitler? He didn't attack us? Why are we doing this?" is unsupported by facts. They declared war on us first.

Here is the US' Declaration of War on Germany and Italy:

December 11, 1941

The President's Message
To the Congress of the United States:

On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States.

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt


The War Resolution
Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Honey, wake up! The worst case is 2,000 dead Americans and countless dead, innocent Iraqis. Saddam had no power due to sanctions. He was a monster to his people, yes but that isn't why we went in there. The talking point changed to that when there were no WMDs. I mean, how can you keep justifying this?

If you're trying to equate 9/11 with the war in Iraq, which is what Bush continually tries to do, then how can you say the non-relationship is irrelevant? That's like if I say I smacked around a woman because she told her friend to stab me. Instead of going after the person who stabbed me I go after someone else? What sense does that make? And then, when I find out that she never said it I say "well that's irrelevent because she was a bad person and deserved a beating".

The backpedaling is getting old and Americans are finally waking up to it. Thank God.

You know before 9/11 I would have not been for sending Americans into harms way just so we could create "Ohio" in different parts of the world. But after 9/11, I really think that this is an area that we need to clean out. There is going to have to be an exit strategy at some point in time, because eventually this will become the Iraqi's war, to maintain the peace in their own country. But there are good things that have happened since the liberation of Iraq...and yes there is blood shed almost every day...but war isn't pretty and the fact is people are going to die! But we have to keep in mind the good that has happened that we consistently DON'T see on the evening news. Most of the areas in Iraq are virtually stable and safe; it is only a few choice places that are being consistently attacked by terrorist, unfortunately one being the capitol. The point is, liberating and obtaining freedom for a country that virtually has no idea or concept of what those words mean isn't easy and it is a long journey, which now must be made regardless.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Honey, wake up! The worst case is 2,000 dead Americans and countless dead, innocent Iraqis. Saddam had no power due to sanctions. He was a monster to his people, yes but that isn't why we went in there. The talking point changed to that when there were no WMDs. I mean, how can you keep justifying this?

If you're trying to equate 9/11 with the war in Iraq, which is what Bush continually tries to do, then how can you say the non-relationship is irrelevant? That's like if I say I smacked around a woman because she told her friend to stab me. Instead of going after the person who stabbed me I go after someone else? What sense does that make? And then, when I find out that she never said it I say "well that's irrelevent because she was a bad person and deserved a beating".

The backpedaling is getting old and Americans are finally waking up to it. Thank God.

The argument rests with the conclusion that all Middle Easterners should be killed because they are all the same as OBL because they look like him. It is the same as people saying all black people steal, all gay men have AIDS, all women are idiots, blah, blah, blah. I often hope to have more faith in mankind to think outside of these generalizations, but it is hard to do.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Thank God.

Hey, watch it..."dust particles".

Silly rabbit!

[Sugar]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

You know before 9/11 I would have not been for sending Americans into harms way just so we could create "Ohio" in different parts of the world. But after 9/11, I really think that this is an area that we need to clean out.

Why? They had nothing to do with it. Or do you have more information available to you than the 911 Commission? Why not invade Saudi Arabia? There was a more direct link there.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

There is going to have to be an exit strategy at some point in time, because eventually this will become the Iraqi's war, to maintain the peace in their own country. But there are good things that have happened since the liberation of Iraq...and yes there is blood shed almost every day...but war isn't pretty and the fact is people are going to die! But we have to keep in mind the good that has happened that we consistently DON'T see on the evening news. Most of the areas in Iraq are virtually stable and safe; it is only a few choice places that are being consistently attacked by terrorist, unfortunately one being the capitol. The point is, liberating and obtaining freedom for a country that virtually has no idea or concept of what those words mean isn't easy and it is a long journey, which now must be made regardless.

Most of this is true, but it doesn't change the fact that the reasons given for going in the first place have all but fallen apart. The war is unjust because it was started on false pretenses. The fact that we attacked someone evil doesn't change that.