http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/14/congress.tribunals/index.html

Colin Powell speaking out about GW attempting to get Congress to reinterpret Article III is imo a strong statement against what GW is arguing for. Colin Powell is generally a well respected man from both parties. This could drop GW's approval ratingss more, and yeah I understand that Bush doesn't care about those ratings. At some point he needs to stand in the face of the American public that voted him into office and pay the piper so to speak.

Colin Powell again being against the administration will further the questions that the average American is asking about our current administration. Obviously it won't affect GW's staunchest supporters, and I fully expect them to try and tarnish Powell's name as has been the habit of anyone that doesn't fully agree with the administration.

But McCain, a former Vietnam POW, and Powell -- along with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee -- oppose any changes to the U.S. interpretation of Article III, arguing that it could adversely affect enemies' treatment of captured U.S. service members harshly.

This is the best argument against the use of torture against terrorists without getting into discussions whether the terrorists are enemy combatants, whether we are in a war, etc. Simply put, this policy will again come back to bite us in the ass.

That would be sad, if they did. Powell is a good man.

I agree Sixee, I respect Colin Powell deeply.

I like Powell also, but if you are going to fling shit.. be prepared to recieve it.. Let us not forget... Armitage did not shit unless he got permission from Powell.. I am guessing that Powell knew exactly who leaked Plame... but yet he did not step up.

How about you discuss something relavant to the issue instead of flinging shit about something else? This is exactly what I was talking about in the second paragraph of my post. Powell is not part of the administration anymore because he's not a yes man.

This tired old line from Bush that if he doesn't get what he wants it endangers Americans is really growing stale. He is showing exactly the behaviors many of us have been pointing out the last couple years when he threatens Congress with refusing to sign off on any legislation that does not support what he wants. He is blatantly claiming sovereignty of the executive branch over the other two branches, and wanting to use it to further damage U.S. image on the global stage.

Powell has shown some real class by stepping forth with his position on this issue, as have Warner and Graham. McCain has always been out front in maintaining the honor of not only the office that Bush holds but that of those fighting the conflict overseas. Too bad Bush has no grasp of that concept.


Counting the months until he is out of office,

McCain-Lieberman in 2008

27

I like Powell also, but if you are going to fling shit.. be prepared to recieve it.. Let us not forget... Armitage did not shit unless he got permission from Powell.. I am guessing that Powell knew exactly who leaked Plame... but yet he did not step up.

What does that have to do with Powell trying to protect US troops in the field?

Are you so blind as to not see that, here's the kicker, POWELL IS AN EXPERIENCED INFANTRY OFFICER WITH COMBAT EXPERIENCE AND HE UNDERSTANDS THAT EVEN THOUGH WE ARE DEALING WITH SHIT HEAD INSURGENTS IN IRAQ THAT DON"T GO BY THE GENEVA CONVENTION THERE IS A GRAVE DANGER TO OUR TROOPS MISSION(S) NOW AND FUTURE IF WE DON'T ABIDE BY SOME CODE OF DECENCY.

Things that made me proud of my service are quickly being thrown aside by the Bush administration and their ranks, ranks filled with neo-con imbiciles that never had the decency or honor to wear a military uniform yet are quick to deploy those who do in order to prove some idiotic point they feel the need to get across.

So far these neo-con retards have not been right one single time in their assesment of a situation, and this has resulted in the deaths, woundings and mutilation of tens of thousands of American men and women for NO GOOD REASON.

What will it take for you to see this? How many mistakes can one administration make before they are held accountable and ruled incompetent for their actions?

This fight will not and cannot be won on the battlefield alone, it must be fought and won in the homes and streets of Iraq, if we don't get the population on our side in Iraq, Afghanistan or any where we go...we lose...plain and simple.

This fight will not and cannot be won on the battlefield alone, it must be fought and won in the homes and streets of Iraq, if we don't get the population on our side in Iraq, Afghanistan or any where we go...we lose...plain and simple.

While using dogs, sexually degrading behavior, acts contrary to religious belief and so on have given short term victories here and there, using degrading and/or torutrous treatment has NEVER resulted in long term victory. Those that have used these methods have never survived in the long run once the people injured by such treatment have made their case in the court of world opinion.

And, you will never win the support of the people of a country when they know that you are using such treatment on their fellow countrymen.

Tal..


You hinted that the adminstration would tarnish his name.. so I showed you how they can..


Rover..

Once again you make a reference that drives me up the fucking wall..


Things that made me proud of my service are quickly being thrown aside by the Bush administration and their ranks, ranks filled with neo-con imbiciles that never had the decency or honor to wear a military uniform yet are quick to deploy those who do in order to prove some idiotic point they feel the need to get across.




Yes.. I can sit back now and recall the MASSIVE military experience of the last adminstration. I am sure that they had decency and honor as you put it. You are so spiteful that you are blind to the past sometimes. Was it not the liberals who were so up in arms that the new director of the CIA is a MILITARY OFFICER???? I believe the arguement was that since he was military he would bow down to Rumsfeld.. whatever...

It is fun to sit back over these last few months and watch as you are getting more and more slanted. Initially it was all about how you hated Bush.. now you are using LL's favorite term.. Neo-con. I smell a full fledged liberal here folks... Making general statements like this...


So far these neo-con retards have not been right one single time in their assesment of a situation, and this has resulted in the deaths, woundings and mutilation of tens of thousands of American men and women for NO GOOD REASON.



Priceless... keep spewing the hate... I am glad to see you are not biased and are able to see both the positives and negatives from this conflict.... I am sure the Afgani women who can vote and drive now feel the same as you..

On a side note.. the partyline for liberals has been Tora Bora.. but now you have Pelosi coming out saying that the capture of OB will not a big deal when it finally happens.. How long will it be before she gets bitched-slapped by her party??

I didn't say the administration would try to tarnish Powell, I said that Bush's staunchest supporters would (and yes I consider you one of those supporters). You prooved my point exactly.

Guilty as charged... at least it is no secret, nor do I try to convice people otherwise...

By..


While using dogs, sexually degrading behavior, acts contrary to religious belief and so on have given short term victories here and there, using degrading and/or torutrous treatment has NEVER resulted in long term victory. Those that have used these methods have never survived in the long run once the people injured by such treatment have made their case in the court of world opinion.

And, you will never win the support of the people of a country when they know that you are using such treatment on their fellow countrymen.


I see your point, but on the flip side we are facing a new type of warfare, and we are handicapping ourselves to a point that we are never going to win... It is like you fighting Chuck Lindell , and you can only use a whiffleball bat because we do not want to appear too vicious to his supporters... Now, you then challenge all his friends using that wiffleball bat, and what do you think thier response will be? Better pack a lunch my friend...

In the foreseeable future, anytime I see an american soldier taken captive.. I am going to guess that the only time I will see them set free is posthumusly without a head or having signs of a painful death... And that is not because we changed the wording of the Convention....

but now you have Pelosi coming out saying that the capture of OB will not a big deal when it finally happens.. How long will it be before she gets bitched-slapped by her party??
Well let's see, Bush has stated that he doesn't think about him much, there is Tora Bora, and there is the disbanding of the unit focused on capturing OBL. Bush compares Bin Laden to Hitler (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5318204.stm), but his capture clearly isn't much of a priority. I await his bitch-slapping.

Of course, she didn't say it wouldn't "be a big deal," only that the damage from OBL has already been done and that his capture wouldn't make us any safer. I don't know that I agree with that -- there's at least an incremental increase in the safety factor with him out of the way, as well as saving of face -- but she clearly wasn't writing off OBL as unimportant in the way the President has. Bush is more interested in quoting Bin Laden than catching him.

But I see a difference here Thor..


For starters, Bush and most Conservatives have been saying that this war is not about Bin Ladin, but against the terrorists as a whole.. it has been the Liberals who seem to think that once OB is out of the way that the world will be at peace again and everything will be alright in the middle east...

If you want to focus on her statement, then technically she is right, and OB should not be a focal point of this war. OB has done nothing since 9/11 personally and we should continue to focus on the organization as a whole..

Bin ladin is just a piece of a much larger pie...

If you want to focus on her statement, then technically she is right...
Wait, then why should the Dems bitch-slap her again? You've basically restated her position, and while I don't know any "Liberals" (or anyone at all, for that matter) who "think that once OB is out of the way that the world will be at peace again and everything will be alright in the middle east," it is a common Dem position that the loss of interest in him from the administration is a poor move.

I strongly suspect that the administration's downplaying of OBL is less a result of his diminished role in terrorism and more due to the administration's failure to capture/kill him. No doubt had OBL been taken out at Tora Bora or elsewhere the event would be trumpeted as a major victory in the "war on terror."

The dems will bitch slap her because every one of them uses the fact that OB is still loose as a point to try to show voters how the current adminstration is inept. If Pelosi is now saying that even if he is caught it will mean nothing, then what leverage does it give the above arguement. If it is not a big deal to catch hinm.. then why should we focus on him.. Or is it she is trying to set the stage for the chance that he will be caught sometime before 08, and she is trying to downplay it now...

The dems will bitch slap her because every one of them uses the fact that OB is still loose as a point to try to show voters how the current adminstration is inept.
Probably because it does show that the current administration is inept. Had he been captured or killed, it would be used to show that the current administration was not inept and would, again, be trumpeted as a "major victory in the war on terror."
If Pelosi is now saying that even if he is caught it will mean nothing, then what leverage does it give the above arguement.
Hey, you're the one that brought her comment up as something she should be attacked over (and, indeed, the right has criticized her) and then stated that she was right.

Clearly, the only ones downplaying OBL are in the administration, likely for the reason I noted above. Dems have attached more importance to his capture than Bush, but even they (if we use Pelosi as our representative sample) recognize that in the big picture it doesn't mean that much, as you pointed out.

So let's compare: On the one hand we have Bush who likens OBL to Hitler but isn't concerned with capturing him. On the other hand we have Pelosi/the Dems, who say that capturing OBL is important despite the fact that doing so won't make us that much safer (especially given the vast increase in terrorist recruiting following the Iraq invasion). The latter view seems much more grounded in reality than the former.

Tal..


You hinted that the adminstration would tarnish his name.. so I showed you how they can..

Rover..

Once again you make a reference that drives me up the fucking wall..

Yes.. I can sit back now and recall the MASSIVE military experience of the last adminstration. I am sure that they had decency and honor as you put it. You are so spiteful that you are blind to the past sometimes. Was it not the liberals who were so up in arms that the new director of the CIA is a MILITARY OFFICER???? I believe the arguement was that since he was military he would bow down to Rumsfeld.. whatever...

It is fun to sit back over these last few months and watch as you are getting more and more slanted. Initially it was all about how you hated Bush.. now you are using LL's favorite term.. Neo-con. I smell a full fledged liberal here folks... Making general statements like this...


Priceless... keep spewing the hate... I am glad to see you are not biased and are able to see both the positives and negatives from this conflict.... I am sure the Afgani women who can vote and drive now feel the same as you..

On a side note.. the partyline for liberals has been Tora Bora.. but now you have Pelosi coming out saying that the capture of OB will not a big deal when it finally happens.. How long will it be before she gets bitched-slapped by her party??

Shanno,

Why do you play the "But Clinton" game? What does this have to do with Clinton?

So Clinton was never in the military...Al Gore was...and with that information it has as much to do with this that Harry Truman was an artillery officer in WW I and John Kennedy commanded a PT Boat...all of the above have nothing to do with this...except maybe the fact that all of the above saw the value in abiding by the geneva convention. But still they have nothing to do with the poor conduct and thoughtless actions of the Bush administration.

LL's favorite term Neo-Con...guess what....thats what they call themselves.

So Afghani women can vote and drive...Is that why we fight there? Iraq is in complete dissaray, Afghanistan is pumping out more opium than addicts can inject....but hey...the women can drive....well that makes every soldiers death all worth it now....lets tell their mothers that.

So in your simple mind the whole reason was so women could vote and drive? If that is the case we should have simply gone in, taken the women and brought them here so they could vote and drive.

We should have been in Afghanistan and we should still be there...it's too bad that the Bush administration pulled back there as it is now heating up to levels rivaling Iraq. This is the result of mis-management it is not the fault of our forces on the ground, they are the unfortunate ones who have to deal with the mistakes.

Al Gore was...and with that information it has as much to do with this that Harry Truman was an artillery officer in WW I and John Kennedy commanded a PT Boat...all of the above have nothing to do with this...except maybe the fact that all of the above saw the value in abiding by the geneva convention. But still they have nothing to do with the poor conduct and thoughtless actions of the Bush administration.Wow projection at its best.

I do wonder what Truman, JFK, Eisenhower, Roosevelt... would be doing in GWB's shoes concerning terrorists. I suspect you'd be gravely disappointed Rover.

except maybe the fact that all of the above saw the value in abiding by the geneva convention. But still they have nothing to do with the poor conduct and thoughtless actions of the Bush administration.


Remind me again what adminstration started the Rendition program??


So Clinton was never in the military...Al Gore was...and with that information it has as much to do with this that Harry Truman was an artillery officer in WW I and John Kennedy commanded a PT Boat...all of the above have nothing to do with this...except maybe the fact that all of the above saw the value in abiding by the geneva convention. But still they have nothing to do with the poor conduct and thoughtless actions of the Bush administration.




Gore was in for 2 whole years.. YES>> that qualifies him as a military expert that knows how to run a war... sheesh. And what did Truman do when he was president? BOOOM! Imagine if that was today and his name was Bush.. could you even imagine how outraged you liberals would be at the thought of the bomb being dropped.. let alone twice..


LL's favorite term Neo-Con...guess what....thats what they call themselves


Wrong.. At one time the term was used by those individuals, but now it is almost used as slander. It does not mean what it was originally intended. For example, many of the people you think are so-called Neo-con's have been lifelong conservatives.. not "newly converted liberals to conservative thinking".



So Afghani women can vote and drive...Is that why we fight there? Iraq is in complete dissaray, Afghanistan is pumping out more opium than addicts can inject....but hey...the women can drive....well that makes every soldiers death all worth it now....lets tell their mothers that.


Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. No Rover.. I do not think this whole war is about women getting the right to vote.. but it is part of the whole picture. Something that occurs to me is how miopic of a view you have about this whole war. We are fighting not just against terrorists, but against the future of human freedom. Say whatever you want, but for the last couple centuries, there has been a movement that has been ignored for the most part. Muslims are slowly taking control of the world, and if you are to ignorant to see it, step back and look. Look at the violence in France, the riots. Look at movie makers getting killed over something that offends the islamic culture. My god man.. people got killed over CARTOONS!!! If you do not wake to fuck up and realize there is a problem on the horizon and we need to act now, then please never vote again.

Many times we have argued about seperation of church and state.. well the islamic culture preaches that state is run by church. People are trying to say that is it Allah's way that they can beat thier philipeno (sp) maids, treat them like sex slaves and truely think there is nothing wrong with that. Some branches of that faith use terror to enforce thier will, others use time and the rights they get from just being American citizens.



We should have been in Afghanistan and we should still be there...it's too bad that the Bush administration pulled back there as it is now heating up to levels rivaling Iraq. This is the result of mis-management it is not the fault of our forces on the ground, they are the unfortunate ones who have to deal with the mistakes


Yes.. there has been mistakes. There are mistakes in every conflict, they were just never magnified by the media and opposing politicians the way it is now. On one had you have Murtha saying get the hell out of Iraq, but yet you have other Democrats saying we should have had more troops over there. Which is it? Now let me ask.. If Bush came out tommorrow and said that he was sending 60,000 more troops over.. what do you think the outcry would be? Bravo? I doubt it....

Like I have said before.. ok. mistakes made, lets pull out like Murtha and crew wants.... NOW WHAT??? Lead us on.... Never has anyone on this board offered a suggestion, so you all better wait and critize after the fact...

/salutes all the armchair generals

Yeah your right Shanno, I concede to you. After all it was worth how many dead and wounded US troops so we could all finally see peace between two middle east countries...

We can tell all of the mothers..."your sons didn't die in vain...they died for this"

http://www.diguardi.com/friends.jpg

Murtha proposed a plan...it was not just to get out of Iraq, it was thought out, intelligent and might have actually worked.

Gore was drafted...two years was how long a draftee served...but his service was in Vietnam...and unlike Cheney, Gore served his country. Apparently it made him more of an expert in this than Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld....Gore basically foretold the outcome and was against the invasion of Iraq.

Thanks for pointing out that neo-cons called themselves neo-cons.

Apparently shanno's "plan" is to kill off the world's billion+ Muslims then.

He seems to have been very effectively terrorized. Score 1 for OBL & Co.

Yeah your right Shanno, I concede to you. After all it was worth how many dead and wounded US troops so we could all finally see peace between two middle east countries...




Nice try, how about we debate every war or conflict that has taken place outside of the US where we lost troops.. WWI? Korea? Somalia? What determined that those were any different. Tell the parents of soldiers that died in WWI that they died only to have Europe allow Germany rise again. There has to be a time of healing and attempted peace. Sometimes it works.. sometimes not. We have no idea what will come out of that meeting.. but it seems you do, so run for President... maybe you can lead us to glory...


Thanks for pointing out that neo-cons called themselves neo-cons.


Read it again asshat. I said it is an outdated term, and you use it on people who do not fit your term.

Lets say we follow Murtha'a plan and pull out. Where will the insurgents that are currently focusing on causing choas and killing Americans go? At least with us keeping them busy in Iraq, they are not focusing all thier attention on the rest of the world or more specifically the United States. We lost more American lives in one day then we have in 3 years in Iraq.. while any life lost is tragic, it is helping prevent another mass loss on innocent US citizens.

Apparently shanno's "plan" is to kill off the world's billion+ Muslims then.

He seems to have been very effectively terrorized. Score 1 for OBL & Co.


No Thor, but good try.

Not every Muslim is interested in spreading thier religion throughout the world, just as I do not feel the need to spread mine. But there are extremists out there that do and that is what we need to combat. For example.. look at the news today. The Pope quotes a 14th century king and holy shit..the muslim community explodes. Does every muslim want the Pope dead? no... but when is the last time you seen Christians rioting because of something like this? If Jihad is not spreading islam at the end of a sword.. then what is it?

Tell you what.. Rosie O'fatdonnell commented the other day that the extreme Chirstians out there are just as bad if not worse then the extreme Islamics... What happened to her? Nothing major... now lets reverse that and have her be say something negative about islam... she would have death-threats, probably be retired from the show, and who knows what else. Why is that??

Nice try, how about we debate every war or conflict that has taken place outside of the US where we lost troops.. WWI? Korea? Somalia? What determined that those were any different. Tell the parents of soldiers that died in WWI that they died only to have Europe allow Germany rise again. There has to be a time of healing and attempted peace. Sometimes it works.. sometimes not. We have no idea what will come out of that meeting.. but it seems you do, so run for President... maybe you can lead us to glory...



Read it again asshat. I said it is an outdated term, and you use it on people who do not fit your term.

Lets say we follow Murtha'a plan and pull out. Where will the insurgents that are currently focusing on causing choas and killing Americans go? At least with us keeping them busy in Iraq, they are not focusing all thier attention on the rest of the world or more specifically the United States. We lost more American lives in one day then we have in 3 years in Iraq.. while any life lost is tragic, it is helping prevent another mass loss on innocent US citizens.

You know what...your nuts...ignorant and thoughtless..plain and simple.

The Pope quotes a 14th century king and holy shit..the muslim community explodes.When does it not explode? When you threaten to blow shit up, people listen to you. In fact, they give you inalienable rights and a lawyer.

I'm waiting for the Jewish street to explode and threaten to chop some heads. Maybe we'll have a lasting peace in the middle east finally.

You know what...your nuts...ignorant and thoughtless..plain and simple

Thank you for your Prognosis Dr Rover... and to think.. I did not even have to pay for that...

Please break it down and show me where I am ignorant and thoughtless...

Not every Muslim is interested in spreading thier religion throughout the world, just as I do not feel the need to spread mine. But there are extremists out there that do and that is what we need to combat.
This is what you said:
Say whatever you want, but for the last couple centuries, there has been a movement that has been ignored for the most part. Muslims are slowly taking control of the world, and if you are to ignorant to see it, step back and look.
...
well the islamic culture preaches that state is run by church. People are trying to say that is it Allah's way that they can beat thier philipeno (sp) maids, treat them like sex slaves and truely think there is nothing wrong with that. Some branches of that faith use terror to enforce thier will, others use time and the rights they get from just being American citizens. You clearly generalize to "Muslims" and to "islamic culture," so my good try' seems rather on the mark. But I'll take the above as a clarification of your position. I don't know what Rosie O'Donnell has to do with anything. I'd say Rover is at least half wrong in his estimation; you have too many thoughts, latching onto the most distant and bizarre non sequiturs in order to articulate a point barely related to a given topic.
If you do not wake to fuck up and realize there is a problem on the horizon and we need to act now, then please never vote again.Yep, just add the forum title, "Terrorized" by your name. It fits.

When does it not explode? They're a pretty sensitive bunch, yeah. Unfortunately, even more moderate Muslims (maybe especially moderates) are unwilling to recognize that conversion by the sword was SOP back in the day. One can only guess how the world might be without Charles Martel.

Ya Thor.. you are right.. I should be "terrorized". I mean come on.. basically every terrorist act outside of Ireland and Tim McVey are committed by a certain religious preference, but hey.. why worry. It is easy for you to sit sheltered in your house and critize me, and that is well within your right. Ask the people that survived 9/11 or the USS Cole, or any of the other multitudes of attacks and ask how they feel about the militant branch of the muslim religion. Ask any Kurd what they think. Since you have never had to deal with them it is very easy for you to sit back and pass judgement. But, I am sure the next time there is an attack you will act all shocked and outraged.. until the next day.

Then again, Rover is more on target than not in his analysis (which is different than a prognosis, but whatevah). My feelings on the "militant branch" of the Muslim religion are little different than most other people. It's a dangerous entity that must be fought by military means when necessary, cultural and political means when possible.

But I am not willing to become like the enemy in order to fight them. I am not willing to bypass the principles upon which our country was founded because of what they might do. I'm not willing to compromise our system of governance because our President asks for trust he has not earned. In short, I am not willing to succumb to fear and hysteria.

I look forward to your posting what "any Kurd," the survivors of 9/11 and the USS Cole and the multitudes of other survivors of terrorist acts feel. You have transcripts, of course.

Shanno, I used to respect you, but you clearly are brainwashed or just blinded by some sense of having to support the Republican cause just because "Its the Republican Cause". Since when can intelligent people find it so easy to defend shear and utter stupidity? Bush doesn't seem to care about the people he is supposed to be serving or the military that die for him or even the values of the country he was elected to represent. Bush cares about furthering the agenda of Bush. Probably the only reason some had any faith in Bush was because of Powell being on board, since Powell was on the battlefield while Bush was off snorting coke and getting drunk. Powell can't just sit idle while Bush pontificates about all the rightious ideals of The USA while pushing legislation that further runs counter to them. Stooping to the level of the filth who do the US harm is not going to yield much benifit other than to further present Americans as being filth, and the rest of the world will treat this country as such. Politically, economically, socially, you name it. The USA was supposed to be setting the standard, but that is in question. Thankfully Powell isn't under Bush's thumb, and still has the right to oppose him (for now).

Thor, here is my analysis..

You are treating this like the terrorists are a beehive, and if you do not poke it with a stick you will be ok.. but what you fail to see is that they are in fact not bees, but wolves... and you are prey. They are not content to sit in the desert and leave the rest of the world alone, and until you see that.. then I am done debating you, since it is a waste of my time. Cannot wait to hear the witty comeback in your next post...

As for how the kurds and such feel.. I love the old show me proof arguement.. I do not have transcripts, but I spent 4 months with Kurds in Iraq.. how about you? I have served with soldiers or Marines that have been the target of attacks.. have you? It might not be in writing or in a transcript, but I am sure that is not enough for you.

By..



I see your point, but on the flip side we are facing a new type of warfare, and we are handicapping ourselves to a point that we are never going to win... It is like you fighting Chuck Lindell , and you can only use a whiffleball bat because we do not want to appear too vicious to his supporters... Now, you then challenge all his friends using that wiffleball bat, and what do you think thier response will be? Better pack a lunch my friend...

In the foreseeable future, anytime I see an american soldier taken captive.. I am going to guess that the only time I will see them set free is posthumusly without a head or having signs of a painful death... And that is not because we changed the wording of the Convention....

You are being short-sighted, Shanno. This is a single conflict, where certain extremists have cut off heads. Bush is asking for sweeping changes to the Geneva Conventions language which will apply to any conflicts the U.S. engages in; the moral conventions governing warfare cannot be changed on the whim of the CIC based on what this particular enemy now may react to under interrogation, or on how a certain enemy treats our soldiers when captured. The Conventions govern actions in all conflicts, whach was the intent. Bush wants to change the rules with each conflict, apprarently.

For starters, Bush and most Conservatives have been saying that this war is not about Bin Ladin, but against the terrorists as a whole.

If that were the case, we would never have gotten ourselves mired in Iraq, but would have gone straight for Syria and Iran, which have proven, documented paper-trails to the support of terrorist organizations. Everything we went to war in Iraq for was based on speculation, and simply reinforces the argument that there were other non-spoken reasons Bush wanted to go for Saddam.

Like the fact the he was a mass-murdering fuckhead?

If that were the case, we would never have gotten ourselves mired in Iraq, but would have gone straight for Syria and Iran, which have proven, documented paper-trails to the support of terrorist organizations. Everything we went to war in Iraq for was based on speculation, and simply reinforces the argument that there were other non-spoken reasons Bush wanted to go for Saddam.I'm a little fuzzy on '90s history, but I don't recall ever seeing 13 years of accumulated UN sanctions and resolutions, flustering, and overall condemnations by the entire world about what Syria and Iran were doing.

The Neo Con isnt a myth or a bugaboo Shanno.. its a real actual person. They are coined Neo Cons because they are conservatives who are taking a stance that is in stark contrast to that of traditional conservatism.
Project for a New American Century is a good place to start your education.

Let me help.

After the 2000 election of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC's members were appointed to key positions within the new President's administration:
Name Department Title Remarks


Elliott Abrams National Security Council Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
Richard Armitage Department of State (2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of State Leaked Valerie Plame's identity to Robert Novak in the Plamegate scandal.
John R. Bolton Department of State U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Previously served as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs in the first administration of GWB.
Richard Cheney Bush Administration Vice President PNAC Founder
Seth Cropsey Voice of America Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau
Paula Dobriansky Department of State Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
Francis Fukuyama President's Council on Bioethics Council Member Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University
Bruce Jackson U.S. Committee on NATO President
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Embassy Baghdad, Iraq U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from November 2003 to June 2005
I. Lewis Libby Bush Administration (2001-2005) Chief of Staff for the Vice President Indicted by Grand Jury on charges of Obstruction of Justice, False Statements, and Perjury and resigned October 28, 2005.
Peter W. Rodman Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Donald Rumsfeld Department of Defense Secretary of Defense PNAC founder and previously Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences Developer of Tamiflu
Randy Scheunemann U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute Member Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller Former V.P. of System Planning Corporation[11]
Robert B. Zoellick Department of State Deputy Secretary of State Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001-2005);
Gary Bauer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Bauer), former presidential candidate, president of American Values (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Values_%28organisation%29&action=edit)
Abram Shulsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abram_Shulsky&action=edit), former Director of Office of Special Plans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans), member of PNAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC), mentored by Leo Strauss.
William J. Bennett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Bennett), former Secretary of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_Education) and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Office_of_National_Drug_Control_Po licy), co-founder of Empower America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empower_America), author of the Book of Virtues (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Virtues&action=edit)
Ellen Bork (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Bork), deputy director of PNAC, and wife of failed Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork)
Rudy Boschwitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Boschwitz), former US Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Senator) from Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota)
Jeb Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush), governor of Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida)
Eliot A. Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen), professor of strategic studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategic_studies&action=edit) at Johns Hopkins University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Hopkins_University)
Thomas Donnelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Donnelly), director of communications, Lockheed Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin)
Steve Forbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes), multi-billionaire publisher of Forbes Magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_Magazine), former presidential candidate
Aaron Friedberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Friedberg), director of the Center of International Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_of_International_Studies&action=edit)
Frank Gaffney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney), columnist, founder of Center for Security Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy)
Reuel Marc Gerecht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuel_Marc_Gerecht), director of the Middle East Initiative (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Initiative&action=edit)
Fred Ikle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Ikle), Center for Strategic and International Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies)
Donald Kagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kagan), Yale University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University) professor, conservative columnist with various State Department (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Department) ties
Jeane Kirkpatrick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Kirkpatrick), former U.S. ambassador
Charles Krauthammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer), conservative columnist
William Kristol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol), a PNAC founder and chairman, editor of the Weekly Standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Standard)
Christopher Maletz (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Maletz&action=edit)
Daniel McKivergan (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_McKivergan&action=edit)
Richard Perle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle), a PNAC founder, formerly of the Defense Policy Board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Policy_Board), fellow of the American Enterprise Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute)
Norman Podhoretz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz), Hudson Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute)
Dan Quayle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle), former vice-president
Stephen Rosen (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Rosen&action=edit), Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs, Harvard University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University)
Henry Rowen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Rowen), former president of Rand Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Corporation)
Gary Schmitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Schmitt&action=edit)
George Weigel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weigel), political commentator
R. James Woolsey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._James_Woolsey), former director of the CIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA) for Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton), vice-president at Booz Allen & Hamilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_%26_Hamilton)
Vin Weber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Weber), Minnesota congressman

I have served with soldiers or Marines that have been the target of attacks.. have you? It might not be in writing or in a transcript, but I am sure that is not enough for you.


Yes I have and I have been the target of an attack. I've pulled bodies out of a pile of rubble. I've held someone as they died in my arms. I've had rounds whizzing so close to me I could feel the air move. I've seen children killed, mothers killed, fathers killed, sons, daughters and dogs, cats and anything that moved...just wiped out. Ive been knocked to the ground so hard and fast that it took me at least a minute to figure out how I got there.

I assure you, if you were ever in the middle of shit you would have a different outlook other than the one of having served in the safest provinces in Iraq.

But I am not willing to become like the enemy in order to fight them. I am not willing to bypass the principles upon which our country was founded because of what they might do. I'm not willing to compromise our system of governance because our President asks for trust he has not earned. In short, I am not willing to succumb to fear and hysteria.

I had to quote this because it's exactly how I feel.

Like the fact the he was a mass-murdering fuckhead?

I don't believe that was ever used as justification. Bush presented a case of Saddam having weapons of mass-destruction, and being a threat to the American people. He also presented faulty information about ties to AQ.

And Shanno, Al Gore was only in the military for two years, but his service was in Viet Nam. He experienced and understood what those being sent into conflict had to endure, so yes, compared to the Bush administration, he was an expert.

But you have not discussed the point I raised. By using methods advocated by Bush, in opposition to those who have experience in these matters, we would not win the support of the people of the countries we fight with, but would instead be creating an even more intense hatred toward Americans, which would most likely guarantee harsher treatment of any prisoners.

Bush cannot grasp these simple fundamentals, for some reason, or simply does not care, since neither he nor any of his family have to be subjected to the threat. Like it or not, the simple "Golden Rule" still carries more weight in the long run with the peoples of this planet than anything else.
It is why you have seen smiles on the faces of Iraqi's when you hand out a candy bar, or have a medic treat an injured child, or any act of kindness. Those positive acts would mean little if those people knew you were torturing and terrorizing their husbands and brothers and friends and countrymen.

Like the fact the he was a mass-murdering fuckhead?

You mean like the guy from North Korea? Or like the guy in Darfur? Or like the guy in Rwanda?

Mass Murdering Fuckhead with oil in a strategic location.

You are treating this like the terrorists are a beehive, and if you do not poke it with a stick you will be ok.. but what you fail to see is that they are in fact not bees, but wolves... and you are prey. They are not content to sit in the desert and leave the rest of the world alone, and until you see that.. then I am done debating you, since it is a waste of my time. Cannot wait to hear the witty comeback in your next post...What debate? Here, as elsewhere, your posting pattern is the same, mischaracterizing someone's argument then whining about the evil terrorists while completely ignoring substantive responses in favor of more mischaracterizations or non sequiturs. I'd be interested in seeing just where I've ever suggested an "if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone" approach. Hell, one of my most recent posts very clearly listed use of military as an option in dealing with the enemy. So yet another contention of yours bound for the ever-growing landfill of your ideas.

It's especially notable just how much of my last few posts you completely ignore while at the same time reinforcing their content through your replies.
As for how the kurds and such feel.. I love the old show me proof arguement..I love unsupported, meaningless assertions, poorly wrought characterizations and sanctimonious ad hominems. Those are what make your posts so very entertaining.

"I love the old show me proof arguement" would make an apt sig.

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: “My God, make my enemies ridiculous!” God has granted it to me.


Perhaps God in fact does endorse GWB. Just not for President.

The biggest argument against allowing the Bush administration what it is seeking, is that they want language to be clear on what they can do to SUSPECTED terrorists!

Granted, there are some in captivity that we know were responsible for some terrorist acts, and I have no qualms about them being aggressively interrogated. What I do object to is giving a blanket permission slip to Bush and his lackeys to do whatever they want as long as they say the person is a "suspected" terrorist.

Bush's lackeys are hitting the talk shows saying they need clear and specific language on what degrading or humiliating treatment would be, so that the CIA program can continue. Is he that damn dense he is unable to ask himself, would I feel degraded or humiliated by this specific act? And when asked what if another country then rewrites the definition to what they want to do to an American, or tries an American without due process or letting them see what they are charged with and the evidence, he brushes it off as a hypothetical.

That we are even having this argument exposes to the world how low our leader is willing to take this country.

I don't believe that was ever used as justification. Bush presented a case of Saddam having weapons of mass-destruction, and being a threat to the American people. He also presented faulty information about ties to AQ.

The man did have WMD, and he was linked to Al Qadia. It's just the WMDs were old, and not as effective as they once had been, and the links to AQ were
tenuous.
Regardless, he was someone that would have had to have been dealt with sooner or later.
Doesn't Lybia ending its bit for Nuclear Weapons after Saddam's defeat count for much?
And I don't know about you, but trying to assasinate a former President of the United States counts as being well deserving of being put on the "naughty" list.
We are in Iraq, and we have to deal with that fact. Claiming that the reasons were not valid for why we went in is a moot point.
We are there now, and we should see it through to the end, where Iraq is either a smoking crater, or a Democratic State.

Sixee, can you join us in late 2006 when everyone knows every point you listed has been proven factually incorrect by such crazy and leftwing groups as the CIA and US Congress? It hasn't been that bad of year, and it's almost Christmas.

Yeah, he didn't have Old Mustard Gas, and Zarqawi was never in Iraq.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1534832/20060622/index.jhtml?headlines=true

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13195017/

Regardless, Bush should have used the angle of Saddam being a murdering bastard, and the fact that he tried to have a former President assasinated as the reasoning for going to war.

Then why not take him out when he tries to get said president assassinated, not wait for years if you are going to use that as a basis for the war.

Because Bill Clinton was the President when the attempt was made on Sr.'s life.
I guess he didn't think it was worth going to war over.
Or he was too beleagured by the investigations going on.

The assassination attempt on Sr. wasn't one of the reasons that was given to the US public at the time of the invasion for said invasion in either case. Going back years later and trying to assign that as even a partial reason when it wasn't a reason given is just par for the course over the last few years.

That also doesn't take into acct. that Zarqawi wasn't a member of Bin Laden's al-queda prior to the US invasion of Iraq. That's not to say there weren't terrorists in Iraq before the war. There were, just like there are in just about every country around the globe, including our own. Prior to our invasion, Zarqawi was a wanted man by Iraqi defense forces. He was wanted to be extradited to Jordan. Before the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi had broad philosophical differances with Bin Laden that kept him from joining Bin Laden's al queda.

Now, I'm not saying that Zarqawi wasn't a dangerous man before we went into Iraq, or that he wasn't a known terrorist. To use him as an excuse to invade Iraq after the fact again is akin to stating that an assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush was a reason to attack Iraq.

There were many valid reasons to attack Iraq, first and foremost was violating a decade worth of UN sanctions. Getting rid of Saddam is a GREAT thing. Using other reasons now that weren't stated at the time is simple propaganda though. We can all look back and see where certain aspects of the Iraqi invasion and subsequent occupation has gone wrong, but seriously, that's in the planning and execution stages of the war. It doesn't get rid of what Saddam did for years and years.

I'm not going to argue that we should have never gone into Iraq. I just wish that the planning of the generals was heeded, and I wish we had secured the borders shortly after our invasion. I won't go into it too far, because no, I'm no armchair general. It just rubs me the wrong way when people state reasons for the war that weren't the reasons that caused us to initially go in, at least on paper to the US populace.

As I've posted several times, the US military gave Bush three options to take out Zarqawi prior to the war's start. Bush reportedly passed on those opportunities because it might undermine international support for going to war with Iraq. From that time until his death, Zarqawi has been implicated in the deaths of hundreds.

As I've posted several times, the US military gave Bush three options to take out Zarqawi prior to the war's start. The US military gave Bush a dozen options to take out Saddam in the minutes, hours, and days just after the war started as well. We didn't literally get him until the following December though.. and not for failing to try either.

Difference being, we were trying to get Saddam.

No.

Z was only a fraction of one out of 22 reasons Congress authorized Bush to go into Iraq. The real difference being Bush was looking at the big picture while you're monday morning quarterbacking and playing 'Gotcha' with one aspect of a very complex situation.

Yes, the "big picture" being "Don't do anything that might interfere with my upcoming war." Like, say, fight terrorism by killing actual terrorists. Of course, most of the other 22 reasons have their faults as well. The broken record "Monday morning quarterbacking" line is just weeping and gnashing of teeth from persons who have no problem conducting their own Mmq on the actions of Presidents they don't like.

This also forgets the pre-war warnings of those who warned that we would need more troops, that the effort would cost more money than alleged, and that the post-war period wouldn't be sunshine and rainbows.

But hey, we haven't reached 10,000 dead soldiers yet either. That was another prediction that never came to be.....

But almost 20k wounded in the coalition. New battle equipment and medical advances are keeping the number dead down...but the number of wounded is astounding. It's going to really stress the recently budget sliced VA healthcare system.

Yes, the "big picture" being "Don't do anything that might interfere with my upcoming war."That's one myopic way of looking at it.

I love the left's continued railing that this is George Bush's war. I voted for the president, I voted for my state's Senator and Congressman who voted for authorization, and I agree with the reasons we went in there wholeheartedly to this day, so it's my war too.

the reasons we went in there

That would be the imminent threat of Iraq's WMDs and the link to Al Quaeda?

...just to clarify.

...just to clarify.

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Regardless, Bush should have used the angle of Saddam being a murdering bastard, and the fact that he tried to have a former President assasinated as the reasoning for going to war.


Well and good.

But, the war in Iraq was tied into the war on terrorism and, in his rush to get Saddam, Bush left his initial push on Afghanistan pursuing OBL unfinished; and, we have been facing a reversal now as the Taliban are reclaiming territory in Afghan.

It might have been more strategically sound to leave Saddam as a buffer between Iran and Syria until we had a more comprehensive battle plan designed, and had done a more complete assessment of targets.

But, armchair QB'ing accomplishes naught.

But back to the theme of the thread, Bush wants to be able to use methods in conflict with the Geneva Conventions Article 3 on prisoners who have not been proven to have done anything yet of a terrorist nature. He is demanding others specify what consitutes "degrading and humiliating" treatment, but he has yet to specify which of the people taken prisoner he intends to turn these aggressive interrogators loose on, and until he does I hope those with some conscience and moral backbone will continue to say no.

Just about all that treatise was under bad intelligence (or outright lies) given forth by this administration. Iraq was not , in any way shape or form, a clear and present danger to the US.

...and don't pull out the shit about UN resolutions, and him being a bad guy, and Bush and Chaney's buds needing cash (wait, that's mine)...because those aren't in this declaration. Don't tell me about the use of chemical wepons against Kurds and Iran because we gave them to him and the Republicans in power then (a lot of the same ones now) didn't give a flying fuck about that. We shipped chemical weapons to Iraq AFTER both these attacks.

So you still agree that going into Iraq was a good idea based on false information...got it. Thanks.........blind.

"and don't pull out the shit about UN resolutions, and him being a bad guy...because those aren't in this declaration"

Reading for the win:

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';"

Saddam "bad guy" stuff:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

There were multiple reasons given in support of the Iraq war. Some were based on faulty intelligence (status of WMD development). Others were based on indisputable fact (Saddam's support for terrorism and violations of UN resolutions/cease fire agreements).

To say that Saddam being a supporter of terrorism is sort of BS.

Under that criteria we have enough reason to invade Saudi Arabia, they have equal levels of support for the same terrorist groups.

Hamas/Hezzbollah /= AL Queda as far as American interests go.

To say that Saddam being a supporter of terrorism is sort of BS.

Under that criteria we have enough reason to invade Saudi Arabia, they have equal levels of support for the same terrorist groups.

Hamas/Hezzbollah /= AL Queda as far as American interests go.Again, where are the 13 years of continued UN resolutions, sanctions, and overall worldwide flustering against Saudi Arabia's actions both past and present?

Why switch the topic? This was about the point of Saddam being a supporter of Terrorism.

The 13 years of UN sanctions... ok... North Korea? Oh, no oil... forgot. Sudan? Not our oil...
Stop trying to convince people that GWB is some great big defender of the UN. This was cherry picked support for the UN, where they would ignore almost any other nation who flaunts the edicts of the UN if it didnt coincide with their agendas. These people dont believe diplomacy works. They seek change through military action, not words.

You can talk about Saddam did to his people, and right up the point of mass gassing, Saudi Arabia is no slouch to commiting atrocity on its own people. You start digging holes in the Arabian Desert, Im sure youd find more than one mass grave.

During the period between 1967 and 2000, Iraq was the subject of 69 Security Council resolutions. By comparison, Israel, our closest "ally" in the Middle East, has been the subject of 138 resolutions.

why hello thar, herr double stardard, how are you doing?

why hello thar, herr double stardard, how are you doing? Apples to fish. Ever read the UN's charter? There's a very clear difference between the resolutions against Israel and those that were against Iraq. Maybe Hans Blix's time would have been better served in Haifa anyway.

Why switch the topic? This was about the point of Saddam being a supporter of Terrorism. Terrorism was the topic incorrectly. You could argue all day about why your car broke down on the way to work, but if I know you don't have a job to begin with, what's the point in listening to you blather on ad nauseam?

I dont agree akipt.

It seems the tactic is to try to take as many partial truths and weak justifications and ram them down our throats en masse. The reasons fall apart when you look at them individualy for validity. It seems no reason stands on its own, and it requires an acceptance of the totality of all the events. I can understand that, but it doesnt make any of them any more valid.

Terrorism became the topic because this administration made it the topic. The main justification for the ending of the diplomatic process, and the refusal to consider it any longer in any fashion or attempt was that Saddam had WMDs and there was a "1% or greater chance" that he could give these weapons to terrorists in order to use them in the united states.
Thats the problem here. The infamous Dick Cheney "1% doctrine". Proof is no longer needed or required, just belief. And belief is subjective, really all you need is political will. 9/11 gave these people the political will to carry out their agenda, which had already been stated. Cheney and Rumsfeld were urging Clinton to attack Iraq in 94.

You are partially right Akipt. Iraq wasnt about terrorism. And it wasnt about WMDs, and it wasnt about UN resolutions either. Yet those reasons are palitable to the American public, so thats what they fed us.

I know you don't agree. You've gone from supporting the invasion, just not supporting the execution, to blaming Mic, to now saying the entire reason we're there is bogus. Make up your mind.

Terrorism was an issue, just not the only issue. Afterall, your car did breakdown :p

Why did Saddam try to obtain uranium from Africa?
Why did Saddam try to purchase thousands of units of atropin just before the invasion?
What were Saddam's men hiding from the inspectors?
blahblahblah, the list is countless. Those things cannot be swept under the rug like some poorly written and factually incorrect NYT editorial.

Cheney and Rumsfeld were urging Clinton to attack Iraq in 94. OOOOOooooooOOOOOOOOO /chilling

.. and Clinton polled what he should do and decided to launch a few missiles and air strikes to remove that bogus threat.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations

Umm, Furt...elements of the current administration supported Saddam in doing this even sold him more weapons after he did it. Can't use it sorry.

Long and short - Bush attacked a country under false pretenses that had nothing whatsover to do with the war on terror and did not pose a clear and present danger to the US. I will accept from those that like the asshole, that they think he truly believed the faulty intelligence to be true and was truly trying to act in the county's best interest. I don't believe it...but that's okay. What I can't accept is anyone that still believes it was a good idea or that thinks it was done even remotely correctly. :eek:

Why did Saddam try to obtain uranium from Africa?

He failed.

Why did Saddam try to purchase thousands of units of atropin just before the invasion?

You mean Atropine, the pre-surgery drug? Some of the older purchases could have been legit.....or paranoia from mad asshole. Yes it is also an anti-dote for nerve agnet use...but since he didn't have any nerve agent, he probably wanted to make us think he did to scare us from invading.

What were Saddam's men hiding from the inspectors?

Nothing from what I've seen.

Show me how he was a threat to the US...please....and why this endeavor was worth the resources it's taken and the diviersion from Afghanistan and our mission there.

Don't misunderstand me...he's an evil asshole, deserved to be taken out, and should be put to death. My problem is, we went in for the wrong reasons, with little support worldwide and then, to make it worse, went in half-assed and mis-managed the whole thing from start to...well now.

I did initially support the invasion because I think it could have worked if done correctly, and I had, (had, it is very much gone now) enough confidence in the people who were doing it to do it correctly. They took a massive gamble and fucked it up.

I never blamed the MIC for the invasion. But there is no doubt they were enablers for the delusion of our capabilities.

And we arent there for bogus reasons.. we are there for very real reasons, its just the administration feels compelled to lie about them. They have a very noble intention.

For years we, the United States of America, have supported regimes in the middle east that were oppressive, abusive and corrupt in order to sustain stability. We have been shown that we were fostering an illusion, and the support of these disfunctional states, while they kept the oil flowing, creates anything but stability.

It created 9/11.

I applaud George Bush for recognizing this fact. I was encouraged when he decided to try to change that and create real stability in the region by removing one of our mistakes and replacing it with a real, free society.

But I damn him for his execution.

Let me ask you this Akipt... Recently Bush has been saying that we are in the greatest fight of our generation, that the fate of the entire world rests on the out come of this battle vs Islamic Fascism, as assuredly as our fate rested on our winning vs Hitler and Nazism.

How do you jibe this Rumsfelds infamous "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had".. was it him or MacArthur who said that???
Or the fact that they cut in half what many people, including Colin Powel said was necessary in order to achieve their objectives.

I mean, which is it akipt? Are we in the fight of our lives with the stakes being nothing less than our survival? Or are we in some conflict where we can afford to do it on the cheap with minimal forces. Because if its the latter, can we please ask the Republicans to stop trying to scare the shit out of people every 2 years?
And if its the former, then can we please get an explaination as to how they could have allowed this monumental event that has such colossal impact on our future to be fucked up so throughly?

Well, since nobody wants to address the original subject of this thread, let's go ahead and discuss the Iraq debacle of the Bush cartel.

While the timing of the invasion was wrong (we did not have a complete plan of action in place yet), and insufficient troops were put to the task to ensure a complete and overwhelming takeover, removing Saddam was in the longrun an important step in the move to confront muslim extremism. Saddam could have once again provided the U.S. with an "ally" in keeping Iran in check, had we swallowed some fraternal pride and looked at the big picture.

If Bush wants to engage in a complete all-encompassing war against any and all Muslim extremists, why has a draft not been reinstated? We are already fighting shorthanded, and there have been opposing newsprint articles reporting shortages in recruitment, as potential soldiers are seeing the government renegging on promises made to rotate troops, and instead cancelling orders returning troops home because they are "experienced" and needed.

At what point is Bush going to stop pussy-footing around and simply move all Shiite to Iran, and all Sunni to Saudi Arabia? We already support the Kurds to the north, if our administration can be believed; give them their requested territory and establish treaties of mutual support. Provide some form of subsidy for those wishing to move to a dry, arid climate; the housing boom should attract many who are young and adventurous. The influx of new settlers could provide more than enough potential workers to not only staff the oil fields but also the necessary infra-structure positions in water and energy management.

We can follow the lead of Israel and make Iraq an American settlement, and push the Iraqi's out until we have established an independent colony.
And, any who shout "death to the Christians" in the streets can be imprisoned and interrogated for terrorist affiliations in accordance with the Bush administration's methods. We no longer need to follow the old process of arrest-trial-conviction-punishment; Bush has convinced the country that we can now go arrest/capture-punishment-trial based on information garnered from punishment-trial-conviction.

The violent outcry across the Islamic world in response to the Pope's speech quoting a 14th century text should be enough to show the world that these people need to be treated with the same degree of compassion and good will that they are willing to bestow upon the rest of us.

Let me ask you this Akipt... Recently Bush has been saying that we are in the greatest fight of our generation, that the fate of the entire world rests on the out come of this battle vs Islamic Fascism, as assuredly as our fate rested on our winning vs Hitler and Nazism.

How do you jibe this Rumsfelds infamous "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had".. was it him or MacArthur who said that???
Or the fact that they cut in half what many people, including Colin Powel said was necessary in order to achieve their objectives.

I mean, which is it akipt? Are we in the fight of our lives with the stakes being nothing less than our survival? Or are we in some conflict where we can afford to do it on the cheap with minimal forces. Because if its the latter, can we please ask the Republicans to stop trying to scare the shit out of people every 2 years?
And if its the former, then can we please get an explaination as to how they could have allowed this monumental event that has such colossal impact on our future to be fucked up so throughly?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat. Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.

Fighting the same old bullshit religious "we are right and you are wrong" idealogical war thats been going on for the last 2000 years. except now we can give it a fancier name like "Crusade, version 26.7". that and we got really cool .50 caliber ballista's and other toy's.
We can't win. neither can they. best we can do is kill enough of them to make them capitulate. for a bit. then it's on with "Islamoblast version 1.2" in say 50 to 100 years.
At least by then we should have some really bad ass laser rifles, and the Colt close range heartmelter microwave pistol.
The longer i live the more i think John lennon nailed it. Imagine there's no religion, it's easy if you try.

Those are pretty words of rhetoric from the White House akipt... but they dont match their actions, nor do they answer the question.

Why do the actions of this administration not reflect its talk.

The Rumsfeld doctrine calls for limited engagement with limited troops. He originally wanted 60,000 men for Iraqi Freedom.
The Powell doctrine calls for overwhelming force, yet was ignored in favor of this disasterous policy.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_17/b3880048.htm

Maybe because when you start talking massive troop deployments, the American Public starts thinking 2 things:
1. Oh those poor soldiers. This is going to be another Vietnam.
2. How are we going to pay for all this? (taxes)

Those are pretty words of rhetoric from the White House akipt... LMAO. You're pathetic.

The longer i live the more i think John lennon nailed it. Imagine there's no religion, it's easy if you try.Image there's no velvetsilence blathering on about completely idiotic things, it's damned near impossible because there is always some idiot in the room blaming all the world's problems on something other than what the problem really is.

Isn't that already the case though Sixee? Wouldn't it have been better, if we were already going to hear those things, to use the troop count that was desired by the generals and potentially have a better result?

The longer the war goes on, the easier it would be to bring home an excess of troops. It's harder to garner more support than he had initially after a few years to now go back and increase troop deployment.

Well, if we hadn't heard from the news agencies in the first hours of the war that this was "just like Vietnam", the public perception might not have been so skewed, so quickly.
I agree that we should have gone in like a steamroller with as many troops as humanly possible.
An insurgency wouldn't have been possible if the population of Americans in Iraq would have increased by 300,000%.

we hadn't heard from the news agencies in the first hours of the war that this was "just like Vietnam"

No offense, but that's pure crap Sixee. That rhetoric didn't come out till 2005...and it's not "the news agencies", but some people just trying to get attention. It's really nothing like Vietnam.

Sorry Ailwon, but I remember watching CNN when the Invasion began.
They were showing an area near the Tigris-Euphrates river where soldiers were fighting, and the reporter said,"This area is very swampy and marshy. You can't help but think of Vietnam when you see a place like this."
While I'm sure the reporter was referring to the swampy area, one can't help but think the "race was on" to five a way to connect the invasion to Vietnam.

They were showing an area near the Tigris-Euphrates river where soldiers were fighting, and the reporter said,"This area is very swampy and marshy. You can't help but think of Vietnam when you see a place like this."
While I'm sure the reporter was referring to the swampy area, one can't help but think the "race was on" to five a way to connect the invasion to Vietnam.

ROFL...so this is "news agencies", one fucking reporter making a comment about a swampy area. You crack me up Sixee...thanks for the laugh!!

Yeah, he was just a reporter working for CNN....
No one watches them, anyways.....
But isn't it funny how Iraq is regularly compared to the Vietnam conflict?
It's probably just coincidence, I know....

But isn't it funny how Iraq is regularly compared to the Vietnam conflict?

So me examples....and make them from before the war like you stated.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/05/sprj.irq.rallies/index.html

The rallies seemed a tamer version of student protests of the Vietnam War.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/06/bush.speech.transcript/index.html


Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty-thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi and it hasn't harmed or threatened a single American in 30 years since the war ended.

What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/08/btsc.sites/index.html

This time, we fret, the pictures on every channel could have the look and feel of the muddy film footage airlifted out of jungles during the Vietnam War.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/04/sprj.irq.college.protest/index.html

Unlike memorable protests of the Vietnam War, in which students skipped days of classes or shut down campuses for weeks, today's collegiate activists pencil in their anti-war activities much like corporate executives plan for meetings.

Comparing protests to protests during the vietnam war does not = comparing action in Iraq to Vietnam.

The second one was a person asking what would keep this from being like vietnam, again that does not = them saying "hey going in there will be like Vietnam"

The third one is stating that due to anti communications equipment, that the quality of pictures/video coming out of Iraq for the coverage of the war could look like the quality of the images/video coming out of Vietnam and not as good as the video/pictures looked in the first Iraq war. Big differance from comparing the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

The fourth one states how protests for the war in Iraq are DIFFERANT than the protests for Vietnam and how the young populace is DIFFERANT. That does not = comparing Iraq to Vietnam either.

You are really grasping for straws here Sixee. None of these proove your point. What did you do, google for the word Vietnam on Cnn.com before a certain date and post whatever came up with them without actually looking into the context of the articles?

Yeah, you are right.
The image conveyed when Vietnam is brought up should be the images of happy Communist children singing in the Worker's Paradise.
Not the images of American Soldiers dying for no good reason.
And you don't think framing the question that way doesn't say, "America can't win, just look at what happened in Vietnam."?

If you are discussing the second article, read it again. The question asks what the President can do to insure that the quagmire in Vietnam didn't happen again. He didn't say, hey this is going to happen, he was asking for strength from Bush to ensure it didn't happen again. And if you read the line after the question... Bush stated that "it's a great question."


You are acting very dodgy and aren't proving your point. Obviously I was willing to read what you stated or I wouldn't have read each of the 4 articles you posted. The fact that you 'read' those same articles and thought that each of the 4 was comparing Iraq to Vietnam shows me you didn't read the articles at all.

Every conflict since Vietnam has been compared in some way to Vietnam (or, at least, questions regarding comparability have risen).

LMAO. You're pathetic.

Im glad youre amused.

I find it a little sad that you have lost the ability to debate, and instead have only press releases from the White House propaganda machine and Ad Homs to fall back on at this point.

But whatever... the crushing reality of your misplaced obescience to an incompetent administration is no easy cross to bear, so I forgive you.

I'm sorry Sixee, you've painted yourself into a corner with an incorrect statement and are grasping at straws trying get out. Anyone can see your statement about the "news agencies" equating Iraq to Viet Nam before the war started was just a made up last ditch effort to defend the indefensible. Your examples, as Taleran pointed out, were pathetic at best.

Your point has been blown to pieces...but was off the subject of the thread, that I helped derail. My apologies.

Back on the subject.....

Our so called president claims to be a religious man....a talking buddy with god. Where exactly does it say in the Bible that as a follower of Christ it's okay to torture people for information? Is it within' the moral boundries of Christianity to torture captives? Or does religion enter into these issues only when it's expediant for the president to achieve his objectives and is dutifully ignored when his "religion" doesn't condone his objective?

Just some things I was thinking about, regarding abandoning the 3rd Geneva Convention.

I find it a little sad that you have lost the ability to debate, and instead have only press releases from the White House propaganda machine and Ad Homs to fall back on at this point. Reading for the win. I would hardly call the "Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People" on September 20, 2001 a mere "press release" full of empty rhetoric.

But whatever... the crushing reality of your misplaced obescience to an incompetent administration is no easy cross to bear, so I forgive you.Perhaps if you paid attention instead of mucking around in the cesspool of dailykos and the freeper boards reading about the latest conspiracy theories you'd be better informed too. I forgive you though.

One hardly needs to surf blogs to see that Bush's speeches are laden with meaningless and misdirecting verbiage. "Every means of diplomacy?" Laughable. Pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism? Cue the picture of Bush holding hands with our Saudi friend. And now Islamabad's newly minted laissez faire relationship with its Waziristan province. And the resurgent Taliban presence in Afghanistan (a Taliban Bush once claimed to have been destroyed).

To suggest that any President's speech lacks "empty rhetoric" is delusional, doubly so with the WH's current occupant.

To suggest that any President's speech lacks "empty rhetoric" is delusional...
Lack of reading comprehension must me contagious.

No offense, but that's pure crap Sixee. That rhetoric didn't come out till 2005...and it's not "the news agencies", but some people just trying to get attention. It's really nothing like Vietnam.

Wrong!

It is very much like Viet Nam. I was there.

Our soldiers are fighting enemies that they cannot recognize until they see the weapon in hand, because there are no uniforms. Everyone is a potential threat, which is a major factor in the Post Traumatic Stress Disorders that affected many of the nam vets and is affecting many of the Iraq vets now.

You go through your daily assignments not knowing if there will be an attack, or if your normal daily route has been booby-trapped since yesterday. You keep listening to the politicians, who know squat about your day to day fight to survive and get home, telling the world their view of what is happening. You listen to the officers who cannot help but slip now and then and state "if only the goddamm politicians would stay the fuck out of decision-making", and leave it to the experienced officers.

You try to forge friendships that will help you keep your sanity, but at the same time you keep a certain distance between you and your comrades because you know any of you can die any day, and it just hurts too much having to deal with grief like that over and over.

Sorry, Ailwon, but this war is very very much like Viet Nam.

Sorry, Ailwon, but this war is very very much like Viet Nam.

Sorry By...I meant from a Geo-political standpoint.

In battle there are many similarities...but that can be said about many conflicts in the modern era. On the bright side (not that there is much of one), at least it's not jungle.

Yeah, I admit the examples I put up were not that strong.
But whenever I see CNN reporting I get a sense of Deja Vu.
I mean I know I saw a report during the invasion that compared Iraq to Vietnam.
I stand by my statement, though.....

No worries Sixee...it was probably an impression you picked up. It's just that I had gotten a very different impression from the media at that time...I had the feeling they were being very careful not to do the Vietnam comparison thing. Of course, one coverage of some ultra left peaceniks shouting "not another Viet Nam" and that's blown away. :')

...back to the subject...again.

Anyone have a response to my earlier post about how torture fits into Bush's "Christian" image?

Tower of London? Salem, Massachusetts? It's not like through the long history of Christianity that the group as a whole was against torture.

Anyone have a response to my earlier post about how torture fits into Bush's "Christian" image?
I don't know that Bush's mind is sophisticated enough to put this together on his own, but with help he might reply that it's his duty as President to put aside his religious convictions "for the good (or security) of the country."

Anyone have a response to my earlier post about how torture fits into Bush's "Christian" image? As was repeatedly explained through Clinton's last years in office, we don't elect a Pope to the office of president.

Oh Gawd!
Akipt used the "But Clinton..." defense....Everyone DUCK!
:D
If you piss off a Christian badly enough, they will fight back.
Then they get to ask for forgiveness, later.
It's a win, win situation.....

Anyone have a response to my earlier post about how torture fits into Bush's "Christian" image?

Sure... Maybe he is more conservative (like 14th century) than people thought!

http://www.maltafly.com/inquisition.jpg

for a thousand years about it was permissable to torture a heretic as long as the end result was an attempt to save his soul. Why should it be forbidden in that cultural tradition to torture a non christian as long as you are saving others?

It always amazes me the capacity of people to fret and worry and cry and go into panic about the "Slippery Slope" of gay marriage, but be completly unconcerned about the use of torture to achieve strategic goals.

As was repeatedly explained through Clinton's last years in office, we don't elect a Pope to the office of president.

Holy shit Akipt, really?....your posts get weaker and weaker with every moment.

Did Clinton use religion as a platfrom to get elected?....I'll answer that for you...NO

Did Bush?....Again, since your a little Dee-Dee-Dee today...YES

What was Clinton's faux paux.... adulterous sex with another women vs Bush's, let me torture the crap outa people whenever I want in secret.

How bout a fill in the blank question:

George W. ______ has claimed that god directs him and thinks he president through some kind of divine intervention.

I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.

"On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord."

"I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."

Okay, now that we've established that...maybe you can now address the question, Akipt...

How does a man, who claims to be divinely inspired, a man of god, justify wanting to torture people for information?

Anyone have a response to my earlier post about how torture fits into Bush's "Christian" image?

Look at the number of executions in the state of Texas under Governor Bush, and it fits just fine with Bush's "Christian" image. Bush is pro-life, as long as it is pre-natal. Bush is a staunch supporter of human dignity, as long as it fits his needs of the moment.

Bush is as much a man of religion as the Iranian president is a man of peace.

How does a man, who claims to be divinely inspired, a man of god, justify wanting to torture people for information?


I can answer that!!!! Because God told him to torture....sheesh...I can't believe you missed that.

When I was in highschool God told me to explore the rastafarien (sp) religion...so I became a great promoter of its benefits. Sadly satan intervened and I had to quit the religion thing.

Bush is pro-life, as long as it is pre-natal

ROFL...OMG, my wife is alseep next to me and I almost woke her up...if I could give more rep to you By I would...that was classic!!

Come to the Chruch of Tom, we worship Crisy Kremes, DR.Pepper and playing ball with puppies.

Rev

"How does a man, who claims to be divinely inspired, a man of god, justify wanting to torture people for information?"

Perhaps if you asked your question in a less partisan manner you would get a fair response.

"How does a man, who claims to be divinely inspired, a man of god, justify the need to torture people for information?"

According to some people's faith, it is not a sin to commit a sin that is forced upon you. That is, if a gun is being held to your head and you are forced to take the Lord's name in vain or die, it is not truly a sin.

Bush clearly believes that the methods used are necessary to save American lives and that it is his duty is to protect Americans. Under that scenario, it is very easy to understand that he could consider his sin "forced" and therefore not a sin in God's eyes.

A more appropriate question is:

How does a man reconcile western ideas of science and justice with the "One Percent Doctrine"