# Conspiricy Theory Article About George Bush and The Invasion of Iraq



## agent911 (26 Jun 2005)

They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate 
by Thom Hartmann 
Richard Nixon authorized the Watergate burglary and subsequent cover-up to advance his own political ambitions. Because Nixon's lies were done for the craven purpose of getting and holding political power, his lies - in the minds of the majority of the members of Congress - were elevated to the level of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors." 

Bill Clinton had sex in the White House with Monica Lewinsky, but Congress concluded he'd lied about it to maintain political power. Another impeachable crime. 

The real scandal of the Downing Street Memos, with the greatest potential to leave the Bush presidency in permanent disgrace, is their implication that lies may have been put forward to help Bush, Republicans, and Blair politically. If Bush lied to gain and keep political power, precedent suggests he and his collaborators in the administration may even be vulnerable to impeachment. 

Conservatives say the Bush claims of WMD and "mushroom clouds" were a "lie of ignorance." Condoleezza Rice periodically does the talk-show circuit and repeats the "lie of ignorance" myth. "The entire world thought Saddam had WMD," she and other Bush representatives suggest over and over again. "We had bad intelligence." 

This is a lie to cover up a more damaging lie. "The entire world" was, in fact, watching and listening to Hans Blix, who was telling us that he couldn't find any evidence of WMD - or any other sort of threat - in Iraq. Most of our allies were convinced that Saddam did not have WMD, or that if he did have some small stockpiles left they were so insignificant and degraded that they were irrelevant. This is why the only permanent member of the UN Security Council to join us in attacking Iraq was Blair's UK: China, France, and Russia didn't believe Iraq represented a threat to them, to us, or even to its neighbors. 

Nonetheless, Bush keeps trying to push this lie-to-cover-up-a-lie. In his June 19, 2005 radio address, he suggested that the Saudis who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were actually Iraqis. "We went to war because we were attacked," he said, hoping Americans' memories are short. 

US media pundits, knowing the "WMD lie" and the "Saddam attacked us" lie for what they are, mostly suggest that Bush's use of WMD and terrorism to justify invading Iraq was a "lie of convenience." The implicit assumption is that Bush did this because of a "greater good"; that even though he lied, he was doing so to advance America's interests. This helps pundits to feel like they're part of an in-crowd elite who know what's best for America, even if they can't tell the children - er - citizens. 

The "lie of convenience" is based on the neocon argument that the US needed a "footprint" in the Middle East to both secure our oil supplies and provide military security to Israel. But it ignores the many nations in the region where we now have military bases (some huge), the power and ability of our navy, and the power of Israel's military. And it doesn't explain how our getting bogged down in Iraq could possibly advance our interests at home or around the world. 

Often included in the "lie of convenience" mix is the PNAC suggestion that for America to be safe, we must forcefully project military power all over the world and hold decisive control of the world's largest oil supplies. This flies in the face of most of America's history, starting with George Washington's farewell address warning against "foreign entanglements." It's not only un-American, but is the assumption used throughout history to justify empires, and in every single case has ended up bleeding dry those empires, consigning them to painful contraction or total collapse. 

And neither the "lie of convenience" nor the "lie of ignorance" were demonstrably the reasons why Bush invaded Iraq. 

So why then did George W. Bush lie us into invading and occupying Iraq? 

We know that Bush wanted to massively cut taxes on his corporate sponsors and people, like himself, with substantial inherited fortunes. He wanted to weaken government protections of the environment, children, the poor, the elderly, the ozone layer, and our nation's forests. He wanted his oil-rig and mining-interest friends to have more access to public lands. 

We know he wanted to undo Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal by stripping the American workplace (particularly government and schools) of unions, rolling back "socialist" unemployment and Social Security programs, and eliminating SEC and tort restraints on predatory corporate behavior. He'd even campaigned on this platform - particularly Social Security privatization - back in 1978 when he unsuccessfully ran for Congress from Texas. 

We know he wanted to increase the police power of the federal government, gut the First and Fourth Amendments, and thus create a "safe and orderly nation" of people under constant surveillance, who never question those in power. 

We know he wanted to give billions of our tax dollars to churches he approved of, and bring their leaders into the halls of government. He wanted to pass laws incorporating religious dogma about when human life begins, what is appropriate sexuality, and free churches to use tax-exempt dollars to influence politics. 

It was an ambitious agenda. In order to bring about this neoconservative paradise, Bush knew he'd need considerable political capital. And that kind of capital didn't come from his being selected as President by the Supreme Court. 

Such political capital - such raw political power - would only come, he believed, by his becoming a "war president." 

Bush wasn't the first to realize how war strengthened a president in power, although the Founders saw it as a danger rather than an opportunity. 

On April 20, 1795, James Madison wrote, "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few." 

Reflecting on war's impact on the Executive Branch of government, Madison continued his letter about the dangerous and intoxicating power of war for a president. 

"In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive [President] is extended," he wrote. "Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. 

"No nation," he concluded, "could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." 

But freedom wasn't the goal of George W. Bush or his neoconservative Republican colleagues. It was political power. And they were willing to lie us into a war to achieve it. 

Writer Russ Baker noted in October, 2004, that Mickey Herskowitz, the man Bush had originally hired to write his autobiography ("A Charge To Keep: My Journey To The White House"), told Baker that George Bush was planning his Iraq invasion - to seize and hold political power for himself and the Republican Party - during his first presidential election campaign. 

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," Herskowitz told Baker. "It was on his mind. He [Bush] said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." 

Bush lied, and Americans died. And continue to die. But politically - at least so far - it has worked out well for Bush. 

It was a lie of political expediency, with the war resolution carefully timed just before the 2002 elections to help the Republicans take back the Senate. 

It was echoed and amplified and repeated over and over again to help him and other Republicans get elected in 2004. 

It wasn't a war for oil - cheap oil was just a useful secondary benefit. 

It wasn't a war against terrorism - that was just a convenient excuse. 

It wasn't a war to enrich Bush's and Cheney's cronies - those were just pleasant by-products. 

It wasn't a war to show Poppy Bush that Junior was more of a man than him - that was just a personal bonus for Dubya. 

It was, pure and simple, well planned years in advance, a war to solidify Bush and the Republican Party's political capital. 

It was a war for political power. That had to be first. Everything else - oil, profits, ongoing PATRIOT Act powers, easy manipulation of the media - all could only come if political power was seized and held through at least two decisive election cycles. 

The Bush administration lied us into an invasion to get and keep political power. It's that simple. 

The same reason Richard Nixon authorized Watergate and then lied about the cover-up. The same reason Nixon lied about his "secret plan" to get out of Vietnam. 

When Americans - and the US media - finally realize that Bush's lie was just to get "political capital," to increase the "discretionary power of the President" so he could undo Roosevelt's New Deal and seal power across all three branches of government for his Party, they will turn on him and his Republican co-conspirators. 

If it comes out in the open before the election of 2006, Republicans could even lose the House and the Senate, which would virtually guarantee investigations of the many other crimes of the Bush administration. (For example, "bribery" is one of two crimes cited in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment - and the Big Pharma/Medicaid and Big Tobacco/lawsuit settlement cases may qualify.) 

Probably the only two things that could slow down the American electorate's growing realization of the magnitude and horror of Bush's political lies would be another attack on America or a new Bush-led war into Syria, Iran, or North Korea. 

Bush has already shown, by lying us into Iraq, that he's at least capable of the latter. As Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison on February 8th 1776, "It should ever be held in mind that insult and war are the consequences of a lack of respectability in the national character." 

And already the cons are working the talk-show circuit, threatening the US with a new attack, and recommending we strike now at Iran or Syria. "Be afraid. Be aggressive. Give us more political power." 

But if Jefferson was right when he said that the best defense of democracy was an informed electorate, there is still a small window of opportunity for the American press to do the job they've been so carefully avoiding these past five years. 

Instead of just reporting that the Downing Street Minutes and memos exist, they can highlight them against the timeline of Bush repeatedly lying during those days before the war. They can quote him saying that he had no plans for war, was working toward peace, and only wanted Congressional authorization to avoid a war, and point out that this was all after - months after - his administration had told the British that war was a sure thing. 

Lying, in other words, to get us to go along with an invasion that would cement in Republican control of the Congress and the White House, and, thus, also the courts. Lying for nothing more than "political capital." 

Let us hope our Fourth Estate is up to the task. 

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show and a morning progressive talk show on KPOJ in Portland, Oregon. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People," "The Edison Gene", and "What Would Jefferson Do?


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2005)

:boring:


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Jun 2005)

Ge,, I wish I were psychic like Mr Hartmann


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Jun 2005)

What shit!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## paracowboy (26 Jun 2005)

I now feel stupider for having attempted to read that drivel, and make any sense out of it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Jun 2005)

The Downing St Memo's, as I have stated in a previous post, are suspect in that they seem to be manufactured.


----------



## sigpig (26 Jun 2005)

Hang in there Johnson, not everyone on this site is a right wing Bush apologist, it just seems that way  

So, we ignore the Downing Street memo's for now. We still have an unneeded, unnescessary war in Iraq brought to you by Team Chimpy. Even before reading that article I had thought of the parallels to the novel '1984.' Keep the world in a perpetual state of war and the government can get away with anything. 

Tell me again what Iraq has to do with the "War on Terror"tm. Oh, that's right, nothing. It's a media friendly catch phrase that shrubco uses to justify the patriot act, guantonamo bay and anything else the govt decides it wants to do. 

It's funny that during the run up to the election that social security got very little mention but immediately aftwards became such a priority. If it was that important why wasn't it mentioned more? 

I enjoyed reading that article, keep up the good work Johnon. Don't let the crabby element get to you.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Jun 2005)

Of course, if it really bothered you, you'd leave the US...


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Jun 2005)

sigpig said:
			
		

> Tell me again what Iraq has to do with the "War on Terror"tm. Oh, that's right, nothing. It's a media friendly catch phrase that shrubco uses to justify the patriot act, guantonamo bay and anything else the govt decides it wants to do.



Alright, just because you seem to be truly confused and not just stubbornly pigheaded, I'll bite.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

Read it over and I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (26 Jun 2005)

The practise of copying stuff that has appeared in other links is inefficient and wastes space

This would be an excellent job for the DIRECTING STAFF to patrol

All should just post a link    and a 50 word summary and say I liked it and maybe you will too - vs re-wrapping rotten fish in an electronic sense.


----------



## agent911 (26 Jun 2005)

I actually got this article in an email


----------



## 54/102 CEF (26 Jun 2005)

Well keep plugging away - its a long road to become a certified rednexk or a leftie seems about a 50:50 split here


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jun 2005)

The _truth_ of the matter is irrelevant.  Something approach half of Americans, three quarters of Australians, Brits and Canadians, a somewhat higher percentage of Asians and Europeans and almost all Arabs _believe_ what Thom Hartmann  said: â Å“Bush lied, and Americans diedâ ? and so on, and so forth, _ad infinitum_.

Those who believe that the _war on terror_ is a just and sensible course of action and that the invasion of Iraq is part and parcel of that _war on terror_ had best get used to the idea that they are members of a minority.   Those who believe etc had also best find some way to get _opinion_ back on side â â€œ it's only been just under 800 years since John _Lackland_ learned that you cannot wage war unless someone pays for it.

Shooting the messenger is pointless.


----------



## Warvstar (26 Jun 2005)

It is a war that needs to be fought, you guys opposed to the war are just going to hate it when America decides to go after Iran or North Korea. and the truth is always relevant, and we are not the minority. Anyway who cares what Arabs or anyone for that matter thinks. For America its about what they think is best, For Canada its what we think is best. We fight for what we believe in and we do not believe in what the Asians the Arabs or the Europeans believe in. If you thought this war is bad, you should have been there when America and Canada(British) were at war. I couldent find a violin or I would have played it.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jun 2005)

Warvstar said:
			
		

> If you thought this war is bad, you should have been there when America and Canada(British) were at war. I couldent find a violin or I would have played it.



What are you talking about ?


----------



## sigpig (26 Jun 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Of course, if it really bothered you, you'd leave the US...



Gee, I think it's been a couple of months since one of the ds told me where I should be living. I guess I've slowed down.

I think you're tied at two with Bruce M in the "lets tell sigpig where he shouldn't live sweepstakes."

Don't worry, with the way shrub and his pals are going I'm sure it'll just be a couple of years before critizing the govmint is banned. Can't have that freedom of speech stuff getting in the way of the War on Terrortm


----------



## Warvstar (26 Jun 2005)

The war of 1812? When America Invaded Canada(British) and then Canada pused them out and destroyed Washington.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-06.htm This link is America maybe read it from a Canadian source too.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2005)

Really?  We fought a War with America?  

When was it - I've never heard of that one.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jun 2005)

Warvstar said:
			
		

> The war of 1812? When America Invaded Canada(British) and then Canada pused them out and destroyed Washington.
> http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-06.htm This link is America maybe read it from a Canadian source too.



Yes i am aware of the war of 1812..thanks  :

I was looking for the relevance....and i'm still waiting


----------



## 2 Cdo (26 Jun 2005)

Sigpig the first sign of ignorance is when resorts to name calling. Why do you have a problem with saying President Bush,   Bush or even Dubya? Is it because your left-wing buddy Al Gore(the man who invented the internet! ???) didn't win? Good riddance to the slow extinction of all left wingers!


----------



## Warvstar (26 Jun 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Yes i am aware of the war of 1812..thanks  :
> 
> I was looking for the relevance....and i'm still waiting



Well who would you rather fight? Your own people for freedom or an opposing Government who hates you.. for freedom?
Basically im just wondering what reasons someone would have for not wanting to invading Iraq.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (26 Jun 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Good riddance to the slow extinction of all left wingers!



AMEN!


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jun 2005)

Warvstar said:
			
		

> Well who would you rather fight? Your own people for freedom or an opposing Government who hates you.. for freedom?
> Basically im just wondering what reasons someone would have for not wanting to invading Iraq.



I was , and still am, all for the war in Iraq.....but what did the invasion have to do with freedom ?


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Jun 2005)

> Gee, I think it's been a couple of months since one of the ds told me where I should be living. I guess I've slowed down.
> 
> I think you're tied at two with Bruce M in the "lets tell sigpig where he shouldn't live sweepstakes."
> 
> Don't worry, with the way shrub and his pals are going I'm sure it'll just be a couple of years before critizing the govmint is banned. Can't have that freedom of speech stuff getting in the way of the War on Terrortm



sigpig - My only issue with you is that you wax poetically about the tyranny of the Bush regime, all the while enjoying the benefits the US has to offer. That, to me, is 2-faced and hypocritical. If these principles were as important to you as you make out, then I am surprised you haven't moved back to Canada, where things are more to your liking. It's easy to spout protests on the internet - a lot harder it seems, to take a real stand, and demonstrate, with actions, your disdain...

By the way, last I saw, DS were also allowed to make comments in threads as posters, as opposed to as Moderators. The DS comment just goes to reinforce your "poor me" mantra...


----------



## Warvstar (26 Jun 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I was , and still am, all for the war in Iraq.....but what did the invasion have to do with freedom ?


I think that the invasion was needed to show the World that America is still in control, and that it can and will defend its freedom(and that is good for us all).


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jun 2005)

Warvstar said:
			
		

> I think that the invasion was needed to show the World that America is still in control, and that it can and will defend its freedom(and that is good for us all).



I was clear that the US would defend itself ater OEF.......and that had a clear identifiable ennemy who had directly attacked the US.  Can't say i'm convinced that Iraq was the same.


----------



## Warvstar (26 Jun 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I was clear that the US would defend itself ater OEF.......and that had a clear identifiable ennemy who had directly attacked the US.  Can't say i'm convinced that Iraq was the same.


 Well what reasons do you support the war on iraq? I support it for the reasons I listed earlier. I dont think a Nation has to attack Another Nation before War and Conqouring is needed.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jun 2005)

Warvstar said:
			
		

> Well what reasons do you support the war on iraq? I support it for the reasons I listed earlier. I dont think a Nation has to attack Another Nation before War and Conqouring is needed.



Because i support the effort to bring democracy to the region.  But the ends do not justify the means.  Going to war under false pretences leads down a slipery slope IMHO.  The British and the french went to suez under false pretences and the US were less than supportive then.  Are the US that moraly superior ?


----------



## 54/102 CEF (26 Jun 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> But the ends do not justify the means.



I think you mean the means do not justify the ends - means is armed conflict or its many flavours - ends is new state of affairs..

There were various means tried

Kick his butt - 1991
Embargo his butt 
No Fly zone his butt
Shoot down his butt - 1991 - 2003
Kick his butt 2003

All the while he was doing the same thing internally while the rest of the world said poor us - 

Sounds like 1940 all over again

Bravo to the US and UK and allied coalitions


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jun 2005)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> I think you mean the means do not justify the ends - means is armed conflict or its many flavours - ends is new state of affairs..
> 
> There were various means tried
> 
> ...



No i meant what i said, the way i said it.


----------



## agent911 (26 Jun 2005)

I personally don't think that Bush should be in Iraq at all. The reasons why he invaded Iraq are fogged due to his many lies he has told the world. Did he invade to wage war on the terrorists? probably not. To find Weapons of mass destruction? That's what he told everyone. To gain more political capital? I personally think so. To protect the oil at its source? partly. To restructure the government and make it "democratic" so that free trade of the nations oil would be possible with the U.S.. YES
Theses are simply my opinions however right or wrong they may be, it's not up to me decide what is right, its up to the Americans...unfortunately.


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Jun 2005)

Alright Mr Professional 18 yr old Student, what would you have done if given the same facts at the time? If you want to politically blast the USA, finds another site.

Considering you were only 14 or 15 (other words a CHILD) at the time of the S-11 attacks, I suggest you learn a bit more on the reality of life and WAR before you go off spouting your anti-Americanism crap.

BTW, you should amend your profile, as you are listed as a PTE Recruit with a MOC other an 001, until you are so qualified, I think you owe that much to others that have earned it.

If you are so much against them, may I suggest a career with McDonalds (oops thats a US company) or maybe Timmy's, as you might find yourself one day sitting in some shithole country in the middle east, (getting heaps of support from The Great Satan) where you are NOT hated because you are an American, but hated because you are a WESTERNER.

Quite frankly it really shits me to tears when people of your calibre (life experience nil) post such political shit on some text book re-inforced values without regards to life on Real Street.

Rant off.


----------



## agent911 (26 Jun 2005)

I'm not politically blasting the USA. I just dont agree with what bush is doing. And due to numerous speeches of rhettoric by Bush, I dont think that the general population of the USA will really understand the motives of the invasion. However, through forums like this I hope that some Americans may gain broader perspective on the situation.
On another note, I don't appreciate your condesending attitude. Your right I am only 18 and have much to learn. That doesn't mean I can't express my opinions on a certain issue, given the information I have researched and received. And possibly I dont completely understand war. So enlighten me oh wise one.


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Jun 2005)

Pte (R) Johnson said:
			
		

> I'm not politically blasting the USA. I just dont agree with what bush is doing. And due to numerous speeches of rhettoric by Bush, I dont think that the general population of the USA will really understand the motives of the invasion. However, through forums like this I hope that some Americans may gain broader perspective on the situation.



The general population voted him in   : All you doing is making yourself look like an ill-informed idiot. Thats my opinion anyway. 

You go ahead and believe what you wanna believe, just stick your head in the sand and all those bad guys out there (who hate Canadians as much as Americans and Australians and other westerners), will go away.

Amend your profile yet?


----------



## agent911 (26 Jun 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> The general population voted him in   :



What does this have to do with anything?
I know that this is how democratic elections take place. However, is it not possible that due to so much rhettoric and propaganda people may be un informed or mis informed?

Maybe you should stop and wonder why all those people in the world hate us. Maybe then you will get a better perspective of where I am coming from.


----------



## mdh (26 Jun 2005)

Here's a strong antidote to the usual conspiracy fluff we've been hearing lately - it's by Christopher Hitchens and he does a much better job in demolishing the Downing Street Memo "evidence" than I can,

Cheers, mdh

---------------------------------------------------------



> Conspiracy Theories
> If you liked The Da Vinci Code, you'll love the Downing Street memo.
> By Christopher Hitchens
> Posted Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at 9:42 AM PT
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Jun 2005)

Condascending?



> I dont think that the general population of the USA will really understand the motives of the invasion. However, through forums like this I hope that some Americans may gain broader perspective on the situation.



... and THIS isn't condascending?


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Jun 2005)

Pte (R) Johnson said:
			
		

> I dont think that the general population of the USA will really understand the motives of the invasion.



You said it, and if you can't figure out why I repsonded, do you know what you are even saying   . I say give it a rest, and amend your profile.

WRT the democratic process, how many elections have you voted in anyways (excluding school elections) ?


----------



## agent911 (26 Jun 2005)

I should have really rephrased that. I don't believe that they now understand the true reasons for the invasion. THats not to say that they are incapable of understanding. And I have voted once and have never missed and election I have legally been allowed to partake in.


----------



## brin11 (26 Jun 2005)

Please take it to PM's if its going to get personal.  Just a reminder to all to keep it civil or this will be, unfortunately, another locked topic.


----------



## sigpig (26 Jun 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> sigpig - My only issue with you is that you wax poetically about the tyranny of the Bush regime, all the while enjoying the benefits the US has to offer. That, to me, is 2-faced and hypocritical. If these principles were as important to you as you make out, then I am surprised you haven't moved back to Canada, where things are more to your liking. It's easy to spout protests on the internet - a lot harder it seems, to take a real stand, and demonstrate, with actions, your disdain...
> 
> By the way, last I saw, DS were also allowed to make comments in threads as posters, as opposed to as Moderators. The DS comment just goes to reinforce your "poor me" mantra...



I'm well aware that ds can make comments as posters. I also freely admit my personal dislike for the politics and policies of President George W Bush (  2Cdo). Now, I don't care if you think I shouldn't be critical of US politics while I live here. I guess I'm supposed to quit my job, tell the wife to quit hers, take the kids out of school, and move to somewhere without a job waiting because you think I'm not man enough to stand by my words.  

In future I will refrain from noting site positions when responding to comments and just refer to the individuals names. Yes, I purposefully referred to the ds position because I was so p'd off about about the 'why are you living there' stuff. Criticize my politics, call me an idiot, have all the disdain for me you want but don't think for one minute you or anyone else who doesn't know me at all can question why I live where I do. 

Many Americans feel as I and others do. Why can't I as a permanent resident comment on the policies of a government that affect my family and I on a daily basis? I live here, can't I participate in the dialogue?  I know you don't agree with my politics, that's fine, I don't agree with yours. But please don't expect me to not express my opinion because I  wasn'st born here.


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Jun 2005)

sigpig - If I am a guest in your house, I'm not going to criticize your cooking. It is my opinion that you don't simply have reasoned arguments against Bush policies - most of your posts are acidic in nature. To me, it is simply bad form to so vehemently voice your opposition to everything Bush, while a guest in this country. Your arguments are beyond philisophical, indicating to me hate or passion, or maybe both. I am not telling you where to live - I am simply saying that for someone who hates it as much as you appear, I find it odd that you continue to stay. It's like someone who complains about their job all the time, yet chooses to continue coming to work every day. You mentioned being a Permanent Resident - of course you have a right to an opinion. I don't buy that your right to voice it so passionately (positive or negative) should be equal to that of a US Citizen.

Believe it or not, I do not agree with all of Bush's policies. Nor did I agree with Clinton's, nor Bush, Sr. The day I cannot find anything favourable to say about the US Government, and 90% of my posts on this board are bashing the current administration (whomever they may be) is indeed, the day that I will pack up my family and move somewhere else.

I'm "out" on this topic. We'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Jun 2005)

Sigpig, you are entitled to your opinion you pay your taxes after all. But not all opinions are correct. Usually time and events prove one side or another correct. Fortunately the anti-Bush opposition has been found to be wrong most of the time. The left wing in the US has been working overtime against the President. They are a powerful coalition of the media, Hollywood, politicians and socialist/communist/anarchist wack jobs funded by the likes of George Soros and others. The media has been playing up the daily casualties. Thirty people killed in a bombing. We have more people murdered in crimes or killed on the highway in a day than are killed in Iraq. The US has reached the 1700 KIA mark in two years of fighting. As bad as that is it pales in comparison to casualties in a day/month in Vietnam, Korea, WW2 and and WW1 not to mention the US Civil War. If a country is to be taken seriously it has to be prepared to lay its money and its military on the line to accomplish its national aims. It has to be willing to risk everything while acting in its national interest. The left in the US do not feel that there is any rationale to go to war. The left of today would oppose going to war in WW2. They would not have forced Saddam out of Kuwait. They do not see any threat from radical Islam. The left of today would have been comfortable in pre- WW2 Europe, right up to the time the Gestapo/KGB would have been forcing them out of their homes and into the camps or worse. I have little time for the left and their propaganda because I think they are wrong about whats good for my country. Appeasement is not a proper policy for a great country and its a proven failure through history.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2005)

What is astonishing about reading this thread is the "deja vu" factor. All these arguments, "facts" and opinions have been raised time and again since at least 1998 for and against enforcing regime change in Iraq; September 11 demonstrated there _ARE_ risks with a policy of neglect.

Perhaps fortunatly, we no longer have to take the MSM as the source of our knowledge of things in Iraq, plenty of soldiers, civillians and now Iraqis are reporting ground truth on the Internet, and after reading these reports; I wonder what alternative universe the MSM is reporting from. Then again, much of the western media prior to OIF had gotting into the position of being imprisoned in hotels in downtown Bhagdad and happily reporting what their Iraqi minders were telling them to say (or else). I have yet to see any serious efforts by the media to apologize for that little lapse of ethics, so the general Anti-American slant should be no surprise today. I don't think the MSM will ever admit the elected government of Iraq is legitimate, even decades from now, when most of the "Bush lied" articles are forgotten or have been exposed as lies themselves.

My only comment to the various people who say America should never have invaded Iraq is simply this; how else would a dangerous and agressive regime have been removed from power? What other action or actions would have freed millions of people from the whims of cruel and oppressive tyrants in Afghanistan and Iraq? What other policy has the ability to inspire democratic movements in Lebanon, Eygpt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran? Given the historical failure of American policy to do this between 1979 and 2003, I would suggest there were no better answers; and given the potential threats growing in the region, the outcomes could have been far worse.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jun 2005)

I'm still trying to figure out what happened in 1812?  Does anyone have a link - apparently Canada was in a war with the States?  Was that part of the War on Terror too?


----------



## Britney Spears (27 Jun 2005)

I'll stick to contributing new material on threads like this. If any of you benighted saps *still* think invading Iraq was a good idea or has made Canada/US safer from terrorism, I urge you to read _ Against all Odds - Inside America's war on Terror_ by Richard Clark.

But I suppose if you've made it this far, no amount of futher debate or revelation is going to change your mind. The next plane to demolish a building and kill a few thousand people probably _will_ be piloted by Iraqis, and then Bush will claim he was right all along.

 I just hope my home town isn't important enough to be a target. :


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jun 2005)

Where is Thomas Jefferson when you need him, eh?

Oh, that's right, he was prepping that bastard Madison for the invasion of Canada....


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Jun 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> What is astonishing about reading this thread is the "deja vu" factor. All these arguments, "facts" and opinions have been raised time and again since at least 1998 for and against enforcing regime change in Iraq; September 11 demonstrated there _ARE_ risks with a policy of neglect.



I refer you all to this book and its chapter on Gen Tony Zinni during his time as Commander of CENTCOM and you'll see the handsoff policy goes way back before the first gulf war.

THE MISSION
Priest, Dana
The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military
New York: W W Norton & Co Inc, 2003 - ISBN: 0393010244

In brief it says that the large power (s) have to help the regions of the world solve their problems at home. But there is a catch - you pay for raw materials and the locals run the country. They don't want your orders on how to act and it takes generations to change ideas. This is more problematic when there is a winner take all society. This can breed disaffected political situations who have learned to fly Airliners and ended up being the have nots at a great rate of knots.

My point? The policy of neglect is a hands off policy - when the west tells other countries how to behave - thats Imperialism. When they strike out at failed states (was Iraq or Afghanistan an unfailed state that had a snowballs chance in H_LL - anyone?) its a calculated risk that the problems here are easier to solve than those of the face to face nuclear confrontations of the 50s to the 90s. See Max Boot's Interview here 

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Boot/boot-con6.html

which states in part 

The problems we face today are severe. But they don't rise nearly to that level. Even if they get their hands on some weapons of mass destruction, it's not the same thing as facing an all-out Soviet strike. We have to put our current problems in perspective. They are very severe, and I don't want to make light of them, but we've overcome greater challenges in our history, and so I'm confident that we can overcome this challenge.....

Well, as President Bush said, "You're either with us or you're against us." Those are words to live by, and they're words that the Saudis should keep in mind, in particular, because they've played a double game for several decades now -- on the one hand, professing great friendship to the United States, and in some ways really helping us out on some things, but at the same time, opening up their checkbooks and writing checks to the most hateful madrasas around the world, and also to people like Osama bin Laden who, of course, is a Saudi himself. They've been playing this double game where they've been trying to have it both ways. Before long, they have to choose sides and decide, are they with us or against us? They'd better know that if they're against us, there is going to be a severe penalty to pay for that.

As long as there is turmoil and not stabliity - I am not saying the western forms of democracy - in these countries - the west must stay engaged - help the Iraquis and others help themselves.

Farsi anyone?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (27 Jun 2005)

What I don't get is that if Saddam had "no connection to terrorism," why was he paying the families of Palestinian sucide bombers? http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004765039.html?oneclick=true

Oh yeah, sorry: that was another argument that was "amended" by blind hatred for everything Bush does the antiwar left.

What I don't get is if Saddam had "no connection to_ al-Qaeda_," why was he providing  protection for one of al-Qaeda's top people (Zarqawi, currently public enemy #1 in Iraq), and why wasn't this news given the top headlines for weeks all around the western world? http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050519-06362800-bc-jordan-king.xml

{Oh yeah, nevermind}


----------

