John Kerry and Hanoi Jane!

[merikeyegro]

Or we could all hold hands and march for peace and let the Islamic Terrorists choose the battlefield.

Let me get this straight...Protesting the actions of your government - which, I might add, has a penchant for lying - is tantamount to allowing the terrorists to win and similar to treason? Seems to me that is your logic. The German reference was a good point. Everyone thinks their ideology is the right one. No one in Germany was able to stop Hitler and look at all the good he did. Heck, he even said that he was "liberating" Austria. Sound familiar?

If you don't question your president, especially this one, you welcome him to walk all over you and others. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. True, hold those accountable for their actions (9-11 perpetrators, the Taliban, fell like little bitches and no one complained because it was a good response to a serious problem). However, Saddam Hussein and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11, although Bush would have you think it.

When GWB is wasting young people's lives fighting for - really - nothing, blowing my cash, and diverting resources from the War on Terror, you're quite right that I'm going to protest.

Does this make me a terrorist?

 

[bart]

Let me get this straight...Protesting the actions of your government - which, I might add, has a penchant for lying - is tantamount to allowing the terrorists to win and similar to treason?

No, I simply said we can choose the battlefield or the terrorists can. I know the facts are that the WTC was attacked Sept 11th, 2001. Islamic Terrorists were behind the attacks. The terrorists have not attacked since we began aggressively pursuing and killing them where we can find them and/or attract them.

Or we can hold hands, march for peace and let them come find us.

I know my choice, and currently the US is pursuing that strategy. I could give a crap for the reasons we are in Iraq... the net result is the Islamic Fundamentalists are engaging us there, where it is easy to fix and kill them, and not here, where it is difficult to pursue them with the appropriate means
(spelled L E T H A L F O R C E).

I don't think it is treasonous to protest. I think it misguided and naive.

 

[EagleRJ]

However, Saddam Hussein and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11, although Bush would have you think it.

Unless you have free access to CIA headquarters, that's an unsubstantiated statement. Hopefully there will come a time soon when all of our intel can be released.

 

[CLCAP]

That is too funny EagleRJ. And you obviously must have access to that intel yourself?

Let's see - we have intel - so do the Russians, the French, the Brits, the Germans and most other countries in the world. Before the second Gulf War our intel told us that Saddam can launch massive quantities of WMD's within 45 minutes - that has been proven wrong by no other than mr. Kay himself - and he went into Iraq KNOWING that they had WMD's (at least the man has integrity to admit that he and others were wrong).

We were also told that they have mobile WMD labs - which turned into helium facilities (i think) for baloons. Then we were told that they have links to Al-Queda even though ideologically they are worlds apart - no truth found so far there either (BUT IT COULD BE TRUE!!! And we could still find WMDs in the desert!! And GWB COULD have gone AWOL - All speculations until proof is found and published)

And if our intelligence sucks that much (and our Commander in Chief does not take responsibility for it) maybe from now on we should disregard their data and ask the Germans or the French - they seemed to get it right.

 

[rettofly]

You're assuming we could have won the war either way. From what I've read, we didn't have popular support in South Vietnam. That, in itself, made the war unwinnable.

Just this week, a "mainstream" (as opposed to "neo-con", "radical right") media outlet stated that none other than
Vo Nguyen Giap has said that the NVA / Viet Cong would have been defeated if our war effort had not been compromised by the protesters. He mentioned Jane Fonda and her crowd by name.

 

[merikeyegro]

...

...John Kerry opposed a war in which he PARTICIPATED AND SAW TO BE UNJUST, Jane Fonda was at the same rally as John Kerry, thus John Kerry is responsible for thousands of American deaths and a lost war. I love people mistake correlation for causation. Heck, Hitler got the German economy going, the Germans built up their military, Hitler went ballistic, then Jews got killed. So, does economic growth cause Jews to be killed? Heck, I woke up this morning to a cup of coffee and some fog. I then had to pee a bunch. Did the fog cause my frequent urination? You need to look at the big picture. A veteran at a protest is quite significant. If you want to paint Kerry into the liberal, tree-hugging, commie-loving crowd, go ahead. Your argument lacks teeth.

GWB dodged Vietnam. He is in no position to judge John Kerry. Pick up a weapon, already, Mr. Commander-in-Chief.

 

[CFI'er]

John Kerry is just an escape goat for Hillary's run for the first Woman President. The political clout of Wild Willey and Hillary will not allow Kerry to win. If by some crazy chance Kerry should win the White House , Hillary would have to wait another 8 years to regain the coveted White House address. It ain't gonna happen, which means Hillary will only have to wait 4 years. The American people will see through the Demo's attach on J.W. as just political mud washing. Why did Wild Willey have a closed door meeting recently with DNC heads? Me thinks it had to do with faithful Hillary's future run for President. Team faithful (Willey & Hillary) knows that Bush is too strong and will win in November.

 

[Singlecoil]

John Kerry is just an escape goat for Hillary's run for the first Woman President. The political clout of Wild Willey and Hillary will not allow Kerry to win. If by some crazy chance Kerry should win the White House , Hillary would have to wait another 8 years to regain the coveted White House address. It ain't gonna happen, which means Hillary will only have to wait 4 years. The American people will see through the Demo's attach on J.W. as just political mud washing. Why did Wild Willey have a closed door meeting recently with DNC heads? Me thinks it had to do with faithful Hillary's future run for President. Team faithful (Willey & Hillary) knows that Bush is too strong and will win in November.

There must be a little too much static on your right-wing scream machine, or I'm being had. General Wesley Clark was the Democrat candidate from Arkansas who was using some of Clinton's old strategists, not John Kerry. Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal would have you believe that Clark was merely running to divide the party and sink their chances of taking the White House in 2004, thus opening the path for Hillary in 2008. That's why he was referred to as a "stalking horse" for Hillary. An "escape goat" was last used on the Ark. I think Noah had one as some form of early ejection seat.
At any rate I think you are confusing Kerry with Clark, which isn't that surprising considering they were both decorated with our nation's second highest honor, the Silver Star, in Vietnam. They were both wounded in combat as well.

 

[EagleRJ]

That is too funny EagleRJ. And you obviously must have access to that intel yourself?

Let's see - we have intel - so do the Russians, the French, the Brits, the Germans and most other countries in the world. Before the second Gulf War our intel told us that Saddam can launch massive quantities of WMD's within 45 minutes - that has been proven wrong by no other than mr. Kay himself - and he went into Iraq KNOWING that they had WMD's (at least the man has integrity to admit that he and others were wrong).

We were also told that they have mobile WMD labs - which turned into helium facilities (i think) for baloons. Then we were told that they have links to Al-Queda even though ideologically they are worlds apart - no truth found so far there either (BUT IT COULD BE TRUE!!! And we could still find WMDs in the desert!! And GWB COULD have gone AWOL - All speculations until proof is found and published)

And if our intelligence sucks that much (and our Commander in Chief does not take responsibility for it) maybe from now on we should disregard their data and ask the Germans or the French - they seemed to get it right.

My point is- none of us peons have the information to decide what weapons Saddam may or may not have had.

I'm blown away by the media and political pundits saying now that "we were wrong" and "there were never any WMDs". Maybe they don't recall the mid-late '90s discoveries of mustard gas, anthrax, and uranium enrichment- all the reasons for resolution 1441. They had to go somewhere! Presumably Saddam didn't come to his senses and destroy them all as he claimed.

Evidently they weren't able to prove anything about those mobile weapon labs. We had intel that they existed, but when we captured them, they had been sterilized and didn't have any traces of bio weapons. It's true that they could also be used for creating hydrogen for weather balloons, but it's unlikely. When the rest of the world uses simple chemical hydrogen generators for weather balloons, why would you build an elaborate system of hidden vats and piping into a semi trailer, and then hide it from UN inspectors? Something stinks there.

Follow intel from the French and Germans instead? You didn't happen to catch the story last week that France's opposition to the war was bought by Iraq for oil? An Iraqi official implicated many French government officials, including several that were very high up. Saddam owed millions of dollars for weapons that he had purchased from France, Germany, and Russia- the countries that opposed his removal.
Every country has useful intel. You just have to ask yourself if they have an agenda that would color it.

 

[chawbein]

Question:

Would if it turns out that Iraq didn't have any WMD's? Saddam didn't exacly come out and say "Hey guys, I don't have any of this stuff, why don't you come on in and show the world it doesn't exist." Instead, he keeps the claim that he has had forever, that Iraq has no WMD's (even though he did in the past), lets some inspectors in and gives the inspectors a hard time, not letting any conclusive results come out.

What do you do? Do you:
A. Continue to let Iraq have one more chance (the 15th time) with a little uncertainty; after all, there is not conclusive evidence one way or another, and hope for the best while keeping your guard up?

B. Call his bluff and kick him right in the balls? In the process, putting the fear of allah into every POS dictator in the world. Demonstrating that the USA will not put up with being bluffed in a situation that is so serious and of so much concern to OUR national security.

I choose answer B. It is the most cautious choice.

 

[merikeyegro]

Every country has useful intel. You just have to ask yourself if they have an agenda that would color it.

Funny, what color does GWB use? Maybe we should all ask this question of ourselves. If you think the Bush administration didn't crazy up the evidence a little (including Powell showing pictures of a Kurdish terror camp as proof that we needed to get moving - we controlled Kurdish Iraq), you're missing something. GWB was SO DESPERATE to link al Qaeda to Iraq that he has made blatant misstatements about their links WITHOUT PROOF. Good to know that we have such an honest, caring president that is out to promote world peace and cooperation.

GWB wanted to avenge his daddy's assassination attempt. If you think for one second that Iraq was this close to launching an ICBM filled with mustard gas or whatever, you're dreaming along with GWB. You'd think they could come up with something better than a SCUD or Al Samood missile. If Hussein had these weapons, the crazy MF would have used them years ago. He hates everyone, not just Americans. He hates the Israelis, as well, but never fired weapons on them. He was not exactly a strategic thinker. He was a bit maniacal and probably didn't calculate much. I'm sure that, if he had nasty weapons, it would have done his heart good to see some Israelis fry in a cloud of mustard gas/sarin/VX.

Iraq should NOT have been a priority after 9-11. Catching OBL should have been priority #1. Now, al Qaeda is inside Iraq (talk about the tail wagging the dog) and blowing stuff up. Funny how fighting "terrorism" makes it easier for terrorists to kill Americans. We created a power vacuum in the Middle East and Americans today are much less safe abroad because of it. Tell me how safe you feel next time you cruise to Europe/Asia. It ain't any better today than four years ago.

GWB and his foreign policy (or lack thereof) are the main threats to our nat'l security, as well as to our liberties at home. You can vote for him all you want. It's your choice. I just don't see the wisdom in voting for a liar that pisses everyone off. Just a thought for your next layover.

 

[chawbein]

GWB wanted to avenge his daddy's assassination attempt.

A. You just destroyed the credibility of your arguement by bringing feelings into it.

2. There are alot of easier ways to "avenge his daddy" than to invade his country. You could...I don't know...send an assassin to take care of him, drop a few bombs without making any overtures toward war (you know, a surprise attack), or even (my favorite) pop a low-yield neutron bomb over his current residency (gound burst it) and blame it on the shiites. Say they got a neutron bomb from Iran, then there's another excuse to kick their @sses.

If you paid attention during the election (or selection for you hardcore libs), you would know that it was always GWB's intention to hold Iraq to it's UN obligations. Oh yeah, there is a law on the books that says the US is supposed make sure there is "regime change" in Iraq.

 

[pilotyip]

Charles Lindbergh

Lindbergh was a very focal anti-war/isolationist in 1940 and 41, He directly confronted the Roosevelt administration and publicly resigned his commission. He became a non-person as far as the Roosevelt administration was concerned. He was outcast to YIP, to test fly B-24's coming off the assembly line for another major anti-war activist, Henry Ford. Since he had toured Germany prior to W.W.II, he was appointed by the Truman administration to tour Germany after W.W.II to draw conclusions. One of the conclusions he drew as stated in one of biographies was "I was wrong about US involvement in European affairs, if the United States had been as strong in 1940 as it was in 1943 W.W.II would not have happened" Peace comes from strenght.

 

[CLCAP]

Eagle RJ, I sense a duality in your statements.

You say:

"I'm blown away by the media and political pundits saying now that "we were wrong" and "there were never any WMDs".

and then

"Maybe they don't recall the mid-late '90s discoveries of mustard gas, anthrax, and uranium enrichmenent"

Let's take statement number two.

Where did you get the information about the mid 90's WMD discoveries from? Could it have been the media?? Were you "blown away" by it as well? Did you dispute it? Or do you pick and choose when to dispute, just to make the story stick with your own convictions? (hmm....that one reminds me of the White House as well)

And what would it take for all you hardheaded guys to come to a conclusion that maybe, just maybe, we were wrong.

I will tell you right now that if they find "massive quantities" of WMD's buried in the sand or records of them being transported out of the country (and what media outlet wouldn't LOVE to publish that) I will have no problem saying: I was wrong.

About the mobile weapons labs. Kay himself (and there is probably no more qualified person on the face of this planet to make a statement about this) said that they were NOT dual use but mobile helium manufacturimg labs (yes mobile so that you can fill the balloons in different spots).

About the intel.

Yes an iraqui official did - how many iraqui officialls have said that we are there to get their oil? Do you believe them as well? Both have been reported by the media. And even if you were right. That's three counties of something like 120 that opposed the war...let's pick one that didn't have ties to Saddam and start using their intel

Let me give you a suggestion. Have an open mind! Don't start out with saying "It HAS to be this way and I'll prove it". Try "I don't know what's going on - let's look at all the availible information and make an informed decision"

 

[bart]

I could care less about whether we find WMDs in Iraq or not. In the grand scheme of things it is about as important as what color tie I will wear tomorrow.

Once again, the true reason for being there is to kill the terrorists who show up to fight us there and install an elected representative regime in the Middle East. Installing a representative government in Iraq will speed up the development of secular rule (instead of religious nutjob rule) in the region.

The clerics and their supporters that rely on the old power structures for their well-being will fight this tooth and nail and do most all in their power to see it fail. In the long run, this will bring more stability and peace to the region than it has seen in 1,000 years.

The old school Middle-East power brokers will also subvert whatever organization to carry water for them that they can. The Germans, Russians and particularly French said there were no WMDs to keep us from closing off the trough that the public coffers of Iraq represented to them, not because they are noble, peace loving people.

So WMDs were a poor cover for action, so what. The result is what is important.

 

[EagleRJ]

He hates the Israelis, as well, but never fired weapons on them.

Oh man, where to start...

Saddam fired how many Scuds at Israel during Gulf War I? Some were intercepted by Patriots, and some hit the ground, killing Israeli citizens. Remember that? Luckily, they all had just high-explosive warheads.
You can bet that Israel had their entire air force lined up on the taxiway ready to go if one of the missiles had a chem or bio payload. Thankfully, we were able to keep them out of the conflict, because I can only imagine where the Middle East would be if they had gotten involved.
That's another argument for removing the growing threat of Saddam Hussein. If the coalition of nations didn't do anything, Israel would have, as they did with the Iraqi reactor.

CLCAP,

Come on! Information about Saddam's WMDs was widely available from numerous sources; the media, the White House, the UN, etc. What blows me away are the statements that there never were any WMDs. Even the most biased members of the media should see that as a factually incorrect statement.

I don't think we'll ever find a 'mother lode' of WMDs. Saddam's stockpile was probably dispersed throughout the country, and maybe even sent to other countries. We're finding WMDs every few days in Iraq. The artillery shells filled with blister agent, the ricin in the lab, and just a few days ago, blocks of cyanide salt that were so pure, they had no use other than as a weapon. These discoveries are never given much press, because they are small. We probably won't find a huge hidden bunker full of goodies, like the press seems to be holding out for.

Had we left Saddam in power, he probably wouldn't have attacked us or Israel directly with his weapons- he knew that he would get jacked instantly. Instead, we would have a terrorist attack in one of our cities, maybe involving thousands of casualties, and we may never have found out who was responsible. Speak for yourself- I sleep better at night knowing that this threat has been removed.

Looking forward to voting for GWB's re-election in November...

 

[CLCAP]

Ok EagleRJ And Bart, we can be going in circles forever. Just answer this:

Is it ok for a statesman to say that "Iraq can attack us and others within 45 minutes with massive quantities of WMD's" in order to gather national support for a war? You seem to hate Clinton for lying about a BJ to "get away with it", how about lying about a threat to "start a war" and kill people on both sides?

And Bart, the "the end justifies the means" rhetoric has never been effective. If I don't remember it wrong Hitler tried that by sterilising and killing disabled and sick people - the new generations would thank him for it - well it just didn't work. Or maybe we should euthinize everyone wearing glasses or contact lenses (LASIK is no excuse)?? Think about the future - everyone having 20/20!! Do you wear glasses Bart?

 

[EagleRJ]

Bush never said that. Tony Blair did, using intelligence provided to him by MI6.

Once again, the subject of this investigation is not the presence of WMDs. The subject is the immediacy of the threat.

 

[enigma]

He hates the Israelis, as well, but never fired weapons on them. He was not exactly a strategic thinker. He was a bit maniacal and probably didn't calculate much. I'm sure that, if he had nasty weapons, it would have done his heart good to see some Israelis fry in a cloud of mustard gas/sarin/VX.

merikeyegro,

Hussien layed off of Israel because he knew that they would retaliate massively if he attacked. They had already knocked out nuclear plants in the region that they considered threats and gave every sign that an attack against them would cost the attacker more than he gained.

On the other hand, the US had taken every attack for the last 20 years laying down. Our crawdaddying started when my hero, Ronald Reagan, pulled out of Lebanon and was turned into an art form by Bill Clinton when he allowed the attacks against the WTC1993, Kobar towers, USS Cole, etc to to unavenged. It was no wonder to me that we were attacked, heck even a bunch of two bit Somalian warlords had run us off. Until George W Bush decided to hit back. You go ahead and vote for someone who wants to let the cheese eating surrender monkeys dictate our foreign policy, just make sure you volunteer to be suicide bombed by a radical islamist, you know, sort of like putting your money where your mouth is.

enigma

 

[bart]

CLaptrAP,

You will never convince me that you have a valid point. Period. Bill Clinton lied, he admitted it. You say GWB lied, and that is NOT a fact. He may have relied on intelligence that was inaccurate in making a threat assessment. I for one feel he went nowhere near as far as necessary to secure the US from terrorists.

You make a gigantic leap from logic to pure fantasy with your comparisons of our battles against terrorists to Hitlerian cleansing of the gene pool. How did you come up with that? Did your giant invisible talking dog give it to you? I see no connection between the two.

If you are trying to put Islamic terrorists on equal footing with Hitler's victims in WWII, I don't think you will find a sympathetic audience anywhere except on DU or Barbra Streisand's website.

My advice is get used to what you have seen in terms of foreign policy post 9/11. You will see at least four more years of it. You better hope for your childrens sake you see another 25 years of it.