Should we be more like the French "Europeans" (who seem to get it) and learn to surrender (like the French) so we don't have to ever "resort" to going to war?


Viva Le Francis! ( as long as nobody makes them "resort" to defending themselves)

Americans are better at war than we are at peace. We have to be we got where we are via war and now on top everyone wants what we have so we are going to have to defend it. Like it or not that truth has no party lines. You will see completely different aqttitudes in the locker room of the Pistons than you will in the Sonics or the Yankees and the Mariners. Winners losers and middle of the roaders all have a different view of things. And there always be winners losers and middle of the road types, always. So this pie in the sky give peace a chance is certainly something to strive for in reality it is very difficult.

So far in the history of man nearly every civilization (up to the current, global civilization) built has experienced a precipitous failure.

I don't doubt for a minute that what we call 'western civilization' will be brought down, like Rome, under the weight of its own imperialism.

Call me crazy but I believe the world will be a better place when we start solving differences with other nations in the way God teaches us.

As I recall the Bible is pretty specific.

Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you....

not 'do it to others before they do it to you.'

This elvis is the core hypocrisy to the arab disdain, distrust and fear of the west.

Unfounded?

Abu Ghraib.

H2o very myopic. Not to turn this into a biblical debate but your interpretation of the bible is extremely off base. Again you take one phrase of the bible and use it to your own end.

You might read Wild at Heart by John Eldredge
It discusses very well the roll of the male warrior in Christain life and how to raise boys into this roll. It will cite verses for you and help to understand the conflicting message borught about by lack of understanding.

But given your anger at God I doubt you would read it or anything that would point to the truth as you have your opinion in spite of reality.

That's the part that SCOWAK (the chicken-hawk) and other Bush apologists with their heads buried in the sand conveniently leave out.

Now it " Misinformation" and not a lie. It's funny that the majority saw the same evidence and voted for the war and to fund the war. Several incluing Hillary Clinton have said since. Knowing today what they did not know then it was the right thing to do. But she was not a presidential candidate heading into the primaries when questions about the war where at their peak from the wilson lies and backdoor accusations from the liberal poster child at the time H. Dean.

Even the noited liberal rag El Tiempo De Los Angeles AKA LA TIMES has it right.


EDITORIAL Kerry-Edwards Stonewall

If not murder, John F. Kerry and John Edwards have accused President Bush of something close to criminally negligent homicide in Iraq. 'They were wrong and soldiers died because they were wrong,' Kerry said of the Bush administration over the weekend."

"The trouble is, both Sens. Kerry and Edwards voted yes on the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. And now they refuse to say whether they would have supported the resolution if they had known what they know today. Both say they can't be bothered with 'hypothetical questions.'

But whether it is a hypothetical question depends on how you phrase it. Do they regret these votes? Were their votes a mistake? These are not hypothetical questions. And they are questions the Democratic candidates for president and vice president cannot duck if they wish to attack Bush on Iraq in such morally charged language."

"When Kerry says 'they were wrong,' he is referring to the administration's basic case for going to war. Kerry supported that decision. So did Edwards. Were they wrong? If they won't answer that question, they have no moral standing to criticize Bush."

"Reluctance to answer the question is understandable. If they say they stand by their pro-war votes, this makes nonsense of their criticisms of Bush. If they say they were misled or duped by the administration, they look dopey and weak. Many of their Democratic Senate colleagues were skeptical of the administration's evidence even at the time. If Kerry and Edwards tell the probable truth ? that they were deeply dubious about the war but afraid to vote no in the post-9/11 atmosphere and be tarred as lily-livered liberals ? they would win raves from editorial writers for their frankness and courage. And they could stop dreaming of oval offices."

"In the past, Kerry has dodged the question of his pro-war vote by saying that he intended to give Bush negotiating leverage and to encourage multilateral action, not to endorse a unilateral American invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, what he may have intended is not what he voted for. Furthermore, a vote in favor of the war resolution was unavoidably a statement that the various complaints against Hussein did justify going to war against him, if all else failed, whatever caveats and escape hatches were in any individual senator's head."

"And even if it had no practical relevance to our future Iraq policy, hearing how Kerry and Edwards explain their votes to authorize a war they now regard as disastrous would be helpful in assessing their character and judgment.

Their continued refusal to explain would be even more helpful, unfortunately."

Look honey....its 'Mount Molehill'......where?.....right next to that big pile of red herring at the end of non-sequitur avenue.

Keep going until you see all republican types with their asses in the air...............

....its an appropriate position given their heads are buried so deeply in the sand.

H20,

A little short of facts and points today as usual today I see. Maybe if you spent less time sucking on the bong you might have some subsantance to your post instead of the usual vapid comments?

Smatter....being outhunk by a stoner gotcha down?

Go have a beer and take solace in the fact that you are better than 'the druggies', you hypocrite.

:p

H20,

Out thunk by a stoner, now thats a pipedream. Your so high you forot to post anything but GW slams. No Points to ponder nothing of substance from Ol H20. I don't drink and gave up the weed after college so no hypocrisy here.

Newsflash:

Viagra is also a drug.

I feel sorry for your livestock, You all alone in the middle of no where expierimenting with viagra!. And to think I poo poo'd all the talk of weed being a gateway drug :p

How did we go from addressing whether Bush "lied or deceived" to the Senate authorization for enacting War with Iraq to Kerry and Edwards vote on this? It was the executive branch that brought that bill before congress and it was Bush and company that championed it. Becuase our executive branch made the case right after being attacked on 9-11 for going into Iraq, there was an almost unanimous vote to approve it. To me, Kerry and Edwards votes just shows me that they are not the cowardy liberals that the Republicans make them out to be. Bush is going to have to stand up and face the music!!!

Yes you're right about the spelling. If he is not baked most of the time then he needs to be based on his comments

Jeff'ed


It was about who really lied. Two biapartisan groups have said Bush Balir did not. The conclusion of the US committee while clearing Bush of misinformation,lies, half truths, inuendo etc. was that the biggest liar was Joe Wilson. Who was championed by Kerry, Edwards and Dean as holding info that proved Bush Lied. So while Kerry and Edwards voted for the war they built thier campaigns on Wilsons information to then appose the war. When in reality they voted for the war, they voted for unlimited authority, and then started rhetoric about conditions that should be placed on the war. With this Kerry /Edwards have established himself as a men of no conviction, who only talk about war and wont actually make it. Who would back down like Kadhaffi with a waffle like those two laid out on this action? These actions are not compatible with a CIC and a VP. Further more
they made assinine to assertion that a US president, having been authorized by the US Congress to go to war , needed to get the permission and acceptance from the UN. Anyone that thinks that they need to get the permission of anyone outside the US to act on a vote from the US congress is clarly unfit for the office of the President.

And you O' rings Championed the same evidence and used the same rethoric as Kerry, Edwards,Dean, Gore etc and plan to vote for such people. Most still stick to this twisted fable , it's Beyond comprehension.

And just like Kerry several here have posted they would vote for MCain for president. He fully backs the war and would probably be in Iran as well if he were pres. he used less evidence that Bush used to draw his conclusions to go to war. Now if Bush is a liar, a deciver why the heck would you support someone that made a decision off of less evidence? Oh I forgot Bush is openly Christian so hating him is Ok for that in the two least active Church attending states in the US that also swing liberal. But hey it's OK to discriminate against Christian up here.

Sorry, Bush isn't going to weasil out of this one saying, claiming his intelligence was wrong.... The buck stops with him.

Thats OK Jeff'ed no sense using facts when emotion will do.

23 senators voted not to appove the war But Kerry did.

Authorization for Preemptive War Against Iraq On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114) 10/11/2002 Senate Roll Call No. 237 107th Congress, 2nd Session

Passed: 77-23 (see complete tally) Reflecting an intention to limit debate on the critical issue of war against Iraq, the U.S. Senate first voted to limit all debate to 30 hours. The passage of the resolution was evident when Senate Majority (Democratic) Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota took the floor to announce that the resolution was acceptable to him. "I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice," extolled Daschle.

By 77 yeas to 23 nays (Vote No. 237), Senate passed H.J. Res. 114, to authorize the preemptive and unilateral war against Iraq.


More than 100 House members did not vote for this war, but John Kerry did.


President Bush gave the following reasons (among others) for going to war with Iraq

1 We believe Iraq has WMD.

2. Iraq has denied inspections since 1998.

3. The risk to the US if Iraq gets WMD is too great.

4. Iraq is a threat to the region.

6. Iraq persistantly violates UN Resolutions.

7. Iraq is in material and unnacceptable breach of peace treaty obligations.

8. Iraq brutally represses its own citizens.

9. Iraq has fired on US troops, on thousands of occasions.

10. Iraq tried to assassinate a US President.

11. Iraq supports and harbors terorists.

12. Iraq has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people.

13. Regime change is the official policy of the US toward Iraq.

Only the one of these reasons is under any question.


Congress gave these reasons for going to war in Iraq:

1 We believe Iraq has WMD.

2. Iraq has denied inspections since 1998.

3. The risk to the US if Iraq gets WMD is too great.

4. Iraq is a threat to the region.

6. Iraq persistantly violates UN Resolutions.

7. Iraq is in material and unnacceptable breach of peace treaty obligations.

8. Iraq brutally represses its own citizens.

9. Iraq has fired on US troops, on thousands of occasions.

10. Iraq tried to assassinate a US President.

11. Iraq supports and harbors terorists.

12. Iraq has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people.

13. Regime change is the official policy of the US toward Iraq.

Only the first of these is under any question. Twelve perfectly good reasons even if intelligence data were faulty.

John Kerry voted for the War based on one reason only:

" I believe Iraq has WMD. "

If this reason is in question and condemns Bush in any capacity, then it also condemns Kerry . Even more so because Kerry did not have 11 valid reasons to vote go to war he chose one and one only.

I have to give you credit TK for finding the actual post on the War Resolution. You can call it inconsistent if you want, but I hold the President to a higher standard than Congress. The Congress backed the President in a very sensitive time in our history in an attempt to show solidarity.