I know I'm not Brad, but what does it matter what any of those people thought when none of them were the C-in-C with who the decision to invade or not to invade ultimately lay? Was it Harry Truman who used to keep a sign on his desk that read 'the buck stops here'?

It seems with Bush, and the inner circle (Cheney, Condi, Rumsferatu), that the buck is something to pass to somebody else, and usually the democrats who, with minority status in all arms of government, don't even have any real power.

I thought these were the adults in charge, adults who are supposedly really big on 'personal responsibility'.... so where is it? Or is that just something for the peons like Charles Graner?

No offense taken. ;)

Thanks Tak, the recuperation continues and I'm once again willing to wade into the political debate - if nothing else its mental exercise while I wait for the body to catch up for some kind of physical exercise. :)

The Democrats aren't being challenged to do anything other than prove their assertions of "Bush lied". Somehting they've thrown out there but never been able to back up. The left continually throw out alot of bombs that prove to be bogus. And they said some of the same stuff as Bush (Using the same intel also) pre-invasion. The left has been intellectually dishonest and are basically being called to task for their own BS. It's about time the Bush administration does it. The only thing that's being passed is burden of proof.

I have plenty of my own criticism for the Bush Administration, but he's alot better than what the Democrats have been able to conjure up. They criticise and offer no alternatives. And they get caught with their pants down making claims that are just plain BS, and no way to prove them. I hope they lose big time in November. *crossing fingers*

BTW, Charles Graner was convicted. I guess you don't keep up. Prove that Bush ordered Graner to conduct himself the way he did.

Oh? Technically this statement is correct, but that's mostly because the world is so interlinked that very few things can happen that don't affect your country at all, thus you almost always can find some small reason.

Many, but apparently not enough to get the resolution passed. Compare that to Gulf War I and you can see the huge difference. Not many people like Saddam Hussein, but apparently not that many people figure to invade either.

Here we go again. America plans to attack yet another nation it does not like.

You see, the whole problem with the US military is the definition of "deterrence". Most nations tend to use "deterrence" to mean "deterring against an attack on my national integrity."

The US uses "deterrence" to mean "deterring anything that bothers me."

Amazing, so America's beefs are genuine, but anybody elses isn't.

Take the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that crisis, the US used its military power to enforce a blockade to subvert two other nations from establishing a deterrent to America, who freely bases missiles in IIRC Turkey. You might whine that national security is involved, but it is hypocritical to say your enemy is not allowed to deploy SRBMs in nations close to you when you can.

Unlike Bush and America, however, not that many of them (except for Brits) feel that the evidence warrants an attack. Many people certainly thought there was a possibility, and that's certainly OK. The job of intelligence services, after all, is to look for possibilities. If there is a shred of a chance that Iraq can build a nuclear weapon, they are obliged to report the possibility. The national leadership is a bit different.

Not that many of them are being accused of making things up either. There is a difference between citing "coulds" and "mays" and "concluding Iraq had an active nuclear program and a huge stockpile of unconventional weapons.."

There is also a difference between saying Iraq has not accepted the disarmament (Blix), which is perfectly reasonable - no nation likes to be disarmed. Furthermore, motives can only be inferred and guessed at. Blix of course also points out he can't really find anything. He can certainly point out discrepancies, and he's not lying to do so, yet in the end he can't find anything.

Ultimately, it would seem only the United States and Britain decides to turn this possibility into a certainty so they can use it for casus belli, thus embarassing themselves as they leap in and find nothing.

When you bust into someone's house to do a search, you'd better be able to find something.

I don't hate America, though I am more than aware of the footprint their military makes on the world. I'd admit that my evaluation from the evidence so far is that Bush should at least have been investigated Clinton-style, very deeply.

No doubt - since they think Taiwan belongs to them. America actually kinds of admits this, but somehow feels a need to support them.

That goes hand in hand with Part 1. Delete "rescue", insert "intervention".

You mean, their efforts to recover their own. By that standard, when the US had the Confederate succession, maybe they should have stood there.

Sea Demon, how do you know Bush ISN'T lying? Obviously there never was any WMD in Iraq after the first Gulf war and during the years thereafter during the US sanctions against Iraq. This was all used as a ploy to get the American people scared into a fighting stance against Iraq. Therefore, Bush and his regime LIED!!!

You seem to be an Army of one here btw since a whopping majority of the post in this thread and on these forums state Bush is a liar and has lied. Majority wins in most debates and obviously elections. Bush did win the election back when people were still uncertain about the events happening in the world, but ever since then an astouding amount of Bush supporters have turned their backs to him and his poll numbers are dropping faster than Monica Lewinsky down on her knees for old Bill.

Obviously the American people have felt lied to and betrayed. Why was the war in Iraq so important to Bush jr.? Why did it take so little time for Bush to declare war on Iraq for the second time when Kim Jong-Il over in North Korea poses the REAL threat to America? Why has America not invaded North Korea yet since they too are harboring terrorist, and developing WMD and had been for years longer than Iraq?

The answer my friend is simple: OIL OIL OIL! Bush and his buddies are profitting BIG time personally from this war. Are you? Am I? NO! We get the bill - the US taxpayer! And now we get unstable and dramatically inflated, overly priced, gas on top of that. There is no oil or any interest in North Korea, so that is why we haven't attacked or ever will attack North Korea until it's too late.

It's not for me to prove he isn't lying. I'm not making the charge. The charge is "Bush lied". I ask for proof, and no one can give me any. I show how American Democrats, Hans Blix, and intelligence services worldwide all agreed with the major assessments pre-war. I'm just saying if you call Bush a liar, so are all these people. The obsessive compulsive reaction to just trash Bush doesn't seem very rational.

Oh, and you can't prove that Oil was the reason for invasion either. :D

Which stuff is public opinion? I can't remember the Whitehouse disclaim any of it. What, you will only accept it if it comes from a republican? All that stuff is public information.
You can't be serious? A memo couldn't be classed as a memo if it had a whole policy attached to it. I gave you your proof and you just discount it.
Because Bush is the one that started the whole thing didn't he? The buck stops at his desk. He twisted whatever intelligence was truthful to fit his needs.
Time article:
And then:

You're free to hold your own opinions. ;)

Martin Frost is a partisan Democrat. The article is one man's opinion. And a Daily show skit? :roll:

No, I don't dismiss it. But it doesn't prove that Bush lied to go to war. And there was a policy in place before Bush even came to office, supported by much of the Democrat establishment. ;)

Still, they said the same stuff as Bush. :doh: If Bush is a liar, so are they.

Time article:
And then:
All this should show you that the decision to move was actually a difficult one. Based on the fact that many were on the same page, it's hard to just link George Bush to some sort of conspiracy theory. Well, unless you have PROOF. Which you don't. ;)

Should we attack North Korea? If Bush invaded North Korea this November, would you support him? :hmm:

Not him. I can't trust a guy that lied.

Gotcha. So you make it look like we should attack North Korea in your first statement.....quickly, but then say you don't want Bush to do it. Do you think Kim Jong-Il deserves more trust than Bush?

Oh yeah, do you trust Bill Clinton. How about the UN. How about Germany, France, UK, Russia, Israel, Madeline Albright? They must all be liars regarding Iraq also, seeing as how they're on record saying the same stuff about getting rid of Saddam. ;)

This often repeated but rarely challenged assertion blows my mind. The largest attack on U.S. soil since Pearle Harbour occured on Bush's watch, the guy behind it remains at large, and Bush has initiated two nation-building style wars to what end? What have they accomplished for the 2,500+ lives lost and $1 trillion+ price tag?

And in such a climate, where national security is the issue, what makes Bush the best qualified to be the man in charge? The (R) attached to his name, or the last name "Bush"? Seriously, look at the man's bio and point out what about it makes him more qualified than anyone else:

- he was a legacy student (ie: affirmative action for the rich) at Yale and graduated with a 'C' average before going on to Harvard and getting an M.B.A.

- he did a brief stint in the TANG during the Vietnam war where he never saw combat and never advanced beyond the rank of 2nd Lt;

- he ran for Congress and lost;

- he started an oil company that never found any oil;

- he served briefly with the Carlyle Group, likely a position handed to him through his daddy's influence (who was a member of its board of directors);

- he bought into the Texas Rangers and traded Sammy Sosa;

- he served as Governor of Texas. His only political office and the net of his public service career before becoming President.

What among that bio screams out at you that he is the best man for the job of running and protecting the country?

That was why I mentioned him: because it seems only the peons at the bottom like Graner are ever held accountable for their misconduct.

If the governments intelligence is correct and N. Korea plans to use the missiles against the U.S. or other allies then the correct decision probably won't be to invade but to bomb and take out certain facilities. The same goes for Iran.

We can only hope the right decision is made.