Nobody is saying it's California yet. Do you only see the problems? Do you not remember the enthusiastic <b>and death-defying</b> election process last year? The US-led coalition made that possible. Everyone is tired of the terrorism but why not lay that at the feet of the terrorists?
Which had absolutely ZERO to do with Iraq. No, the only people who espoused that belief were people pushing for the war. All the available evidence showed that Saddam would do whatever possible to hold onto power, and attacking the US directly or indirectly would have been the surest way to get Talibanized out of Iraq. And, unfortunately, the president's actions have made America less safe, have increased terrorism, and have given the terrorists a massive new recruiting tool. Maybe his duty should be protecting the military as well as civilians.
1. The executive branch should be overseeing the President's work on this, and in order to provide the checks and balances they need to see all the evidence. Yes they should legislate, but the point is we don't want them to legislate from a point of ignorance, but from an informed point of view. Unless you like the idea of an American dictatorship. 2. Obviously he doesn't agree with my assessment. The problem is that he doesn't agree with reality. The reality is that those people were wrong. They were wrong about the costs, they were wrong about the reaction of most Iraqis, they were wrong about the post invasion planning, they were wrong about Iraq's nuclear program, they were wrong about WMD, they were wrong about it all. Yet this administration said the cost to the American tax payers was going to be 1.7 billion dollars. That Iraq would finance its own reconstruction outside of that. Meanwhile we are closer to 200 billion. Part of the problem is that Bush can look at situations like I described and think that his team did a good job. He can also look at people who were correct in their predictions and fire them, alienate the, force them to resign, and then bad mouth them. 3. No my side didn't want only evidence that showed Iraq not to be a threat presented, they wanted BOTH sides of the evidence presented. But it goes even further than that. They wanted assessments that some evidence was unreliable to be presented. Rather than get that, they were told the one sided evidence that was presented, was solid, and trustworthy. Only later did they find out that the intel experts didn't feel it was reliable.
it wasn't really a tough decision because they have made up their mind a long time ago.. since he made that decision based on conflicting evidence, he should be responsible and accountable.. what was the iraq war going to protect our nation from? is our nation/world safer now? hey don't even dare turn the tables.. you are the one using and reducing 911 as an excuse for the president's decision to invade iraq even though there were conflicting evidence/reports on the existence of wmds.. i was just calling you out..
But Presidents aren't supposed to conceal information from Congress regarding issues of national security since Congress has a Constitutional oversight duty. What you seem to be advocating is for the Executive to conceal or even mislead Congress. You're the one doing that since you're justifying invading Iraq by bringing up 9/11.
<b>andymoon Which had absolutely ZERO to do with Iraq.</b> And everything to do with terrorism and disharmony in the ME. <b>No, the only people who espoused that belief were people pushing for the war. All the available evidence showed that Saddam would do whatever possible to hold onto power, and attacking the US directly or indirectly would have been the surest way to get Talibanized out of Iraq.</b> Let's see, didn't that list include John Kerry, Ted Kennedy et al? <b>And, unfortunately, the president's actions have made America less safe, have increased terrorism, and have given the terrorists a massive new recruiting tool.</b> How are you less safe? Do you think just over-turning the Taliban would assure our American safety? <b>Maybe his duty should be protecting the military as well as civilians.</b> Of course it is... within reason... but the job of the military is to go in harm's way for the greater good. It is inevitable that harm comes.
<b>FranchiseBlade 1. The executive branch should be overseeing the President's work on this, and in order to provide the checks and balances they need to see all the evidence.</b> Isn't the president over the Executive Branch? Don't you work in a school? Does the staff supervise the principal?
Yet you used 9/11 as justification for the war in Iraq. Even Bush and Cheney have said that there was zero connection. Iraq was one of the few places in the ME that had no terrorist cells, no al Qaeda members, and presented no threat whatsoever to the US. Of course it did when Bush presented them with only the faulty "intelligence." Things would have been far different if they had been presented with ALL of the available evidence and not just the cherry picked claims of "Curveball" and Chalabi. No, but we could have and should have done things other than invading Iraq. We should have bolstered out intelligence gathering capacity and strengthened our relationships with ME countries instead of alienating them by invading a country that did not present a threat. Present ANY evidence that the invasion of Iraq has been "for the greater good."
Congress is supposed to be equal to the Executive. In order to provide the required oversight, they should have been presented with ALL of the available evidence, not just that which supported the case for war.
it was only death defying because there is massive resentment against the US occupation in iraq. because you yourself admitted that the reason for terrorism stems from the disharmony in the mideast. and guess what. going into iraq created that. and when the US pulls out for november 08 (leaving a sizable number in bases) and lets this civil war ferment...it'll only be worse.
It was the voter turnout that was massive. I know that people are tired of the violence but let's lay the blame for that on the violent ones-- the insurgents who will kill any number of men, women and children to wear down the spirit. Most of the unrest there is LIMITED to the Sunni Triangle. Much of Iraq is not war-torn. These folks have been at each other's throats for over 1000 years and you want to blame the US?
Equal is not identical. Aren't members of the Senate on committees such as Foreign Intelligence? I'm sure they had access to conflicting info as well...
No, the members of that committee recently came out and said that they were not provided with the conflicting evidence.
Is the WH responsible for providing their evidence-- such as evidence pre-9/11? Of course, no one is going to present conflicting evidence in order to make their case. Would you? Do you?
dang giddyup....why dont you take some of this vigorous excuse-making over to GARM and defend the Rockets...they sure could use the help over there.
talk about freaking revisionist history. can you please show me where they were at each others throats for over 1000 years?
