It must be tough to be the President of the United States and a pathological liar all at once! It is your side who has been saying all along that this administration blamed Saddam for 9/11. I never said it nor did I think it. And I don't think that the administration pushed that idea. What they said going back to the SOTU2003 was that a hostile Saddam was only one bio-chemical briefcase away from perpetrating significant damage on the US citizenry. Are you just going to hope against hope or what?
Make him insignificant through no-fly zones, resolutions, modified sanctions, weapons inspections, intel personel on the ground inside Iraq, and keeping the pressure on. Again, the policy with regards to Cuba has been regime change, but no president decided to attack it. Again Bush never once said because of these reasons(bad guy/dictator) the U.S. will need to invade with its military. In regards to WMD's Bush said exactly that. He was clear cut on why our military would be used.
When the GOP abuses its power and snubs the Democrats at every turn, how is it even possible for the Democrats to respond any other way? On The Daily Show last week, they showed clips from a "hearing" on the war in which no GOP members showed up and the meeting was assigned to a sub-basement level with folding chairs for the members of Congress. Not exactly the kind of behavior that is conducive to "present[ing] a united front to the enemy." As far as a "united front" goes, we had one, a worldwide one, after 9/11. Unfortunately, this administration turned away from and spurned the good will we enjoyed from countries that had never supported us in the past. We had unprecedented support for the action in Afghanistan and might still be enjoying that good will were it not for the actions of GWB and his cabal regarding Iraq.
I would argue that the actions we have taken in Iraq have "embolden[ed]" said "wackos" FAR more than AJ broadcasting Durbin's remarks. Heck, I live here and didn't hear about it until I saw Jon Stewart poke fun at Durbin on The Daily Show last week (Shackles day! WOO-HOO!!). When you disagree at such a basic level with the people in power as some of us do with this action, the people who founded this country made it pretty clear that it is our DUTY, our solemn obligation, to make that disagreement known. But WTF did Gworge Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin know anyway?
Comments like Durbins are most definitively over the top. However, public protest may get our troops home earlier than without and that IMO will be a good thing. Again, I submit that our ACTIONS have spoken far louder than any words which have been uttered on the subject and even the CIA is now saying that those actions are creating a breeding and training ground for terrorists that is far more effective than the desert bases they had in Afghanistan.
Are you really saying that the US government should be able to hold people indefinitely without trials or any oversight at all and that said detentions should remain secret from the entire world? I don't have to say anything to make that sound unAmerican, you did a mighty fine job of it all by yourself.
First, define "Enemy Combatant". Second, tell me how I can be assured the defenition is being correctly applied, seeing as there is no oversight.
I don't believe that the beheading videos did them any good at all with the populace. I am quite certain that the everyday Muslims were as disgusted by those videos as they were with the pictures from Abu Ghirab.
Kind of strange for you to say this when there weren't any terrorists or AQ ties in Iraq until AFTER we invaded.
It is your side who has been saying all along that this administration blamed Saddam for 9/11. I never said it nor did I think it. And I don't think that the administration pushed that idea. You're saying the administration never tried to imply a connection between the two? Let's see... http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm Here, the Bush administration claimed a link between Al Queda (not 9/11 specifically) and Iraq, which was used to push invasion. Turns out, it wasn't true. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/ Here, Cheney, even though all of the US intelligence community has said otherwise, simply says "we don't know" whether there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Either the administration was trying to manipulate the truth to get people to believe there was a connection, or they are the stupidest people on the planet. Which is it?
If that wasn't enough, here's some more: http://americaforsale.org/mt/archives/000085.php <I>n Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a relationship with the Iraqis." "The bottom line is that we're [in Iraq] for the safety and security of the nation, and our friends and allies around the world," Cheney said. "We didn't do anything to provoke the attack of 9/11. We were attacked by the terrorists, and we've responded forcefully and aggressively." In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." But at the time President Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]. What the vice president said was that he has been involved with al Qaeda." </I> All of this is false, and the administration was told that by everyone in the know. So again, intentionally misleading, or just dumb as doornails?
Typical lying Republican. I would appreciate it if you would stop telling tall tales about things when you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't expect you to do so because you seem incapable of carrying on a reasoned debate, but I am giving you the chance to prove me wrong.
No, I have argued for covert operations to take out terrorist cells once our intelligence services find them. I further argued that this would be a much more effective way to fight terrorists than to bog down our military in Iraq.
Cheney has just been on a propaganda campaign equally as ridiculous as that of Saddam's old information minister. If Bush wanted to improve his credibility the first step should be to replace Dick Cheney.
Quote from Bush's SOTU in 2003: To summarize, Bush said Iraq had: 1. 25,000 liters of anthrax 2. 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin 3. 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent 4. 30,000 chemical munitions 5. several mobile biological weapons labs 6. advanced nuclear weapons development program 7. a design for a nuclear weapon 8. five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb 9. high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production (10. sought "yellow cake" from Niger) How many of the above have NOT been proved untrue? Giddy, if I were you, I would avoid alluding to SOTU2003 as much as I could - like refusing to use "my dog ate my homework" as an excuse.
