Bush will talk on Iraq -- when he should talk about eminent domain (that's more threat to freedom)

churchillbuff

[churchillbuff]

Do I feel safer because we've spent $300,000 ousting a tinpot dictator from a country that didn't threaten American freedom? No --- but I feel a h-ll of a lot less safe in my home because the Supreme Court says it's ok for government to seize it and give it to some politically connected friends of politicians.

Has Bush said ANYTHING about the Supreme Court's outrageous eminent domain decision last week? I want to hear about THAT, not another speech about the mess in Iraq.

[Echo Talon]

Wasn't that Kurdish-controlled territory?

Even if it was, Saddam couldn't control his own country. And he was harboring terrorists.

[Michael Barnes]

Gotta run..later folks..

[A.B.Normal]

Thanks, any nonsense, including a theocracy, socialism, fascism, etc etc should be cause for us to return. Especially if we can save American lives now. Personally, I do not care how many Iraqi's die IF they fight against us. However, the "L"s in our society would laud our withdrawal and not "permit" a return. Guess, I just miss the old US, rugged individualism etc.

[True Republican Patriot]

You might try rereading this you post, its hard to understand the meaning with your misspellings and incorrect word usage.
So much for being PC.

[tkathy]

W is not God, contrary to popular opinion. Just what is he supposed to do?

[in hoc signo vinces]

Nope, while Kurds are in Northern Iraq, and controlled territory there thanks to the no-fly zone, they didn't control the area which held Al Ansar (Al Ansar did)

However, with the Kurds help we blew their base straight to hell.

It was later discovered that agents of Saddam's regime had loose ties with the organization. If I recall that was detailed in the 911 Report. Any organization that gave the Kurds grief were friends of Saddam.

Essentially, there was plenty of precedent and justification for going into Iraq...the failure of Saddam to live up to the armistice accords of GW1, the failure to observe UN resolutions (We now know why he did, contempt for the institution...Saddam knows the UN is corrupt.)

And the end of the day...this is a great "experiment in democracy", which American is well acquainted with. Sadly, many forget their history or understand why it is extremely important that we maintain our resolve.

[A.B.Normal]

Thanks, any nonsense, including a theocracy, socialism, fascism, etc etc should be cause for us to return. Especially if we can save American lives now. Personally, I do not care how many Iraqi's die IF they fight against us. However, the "L"s in our society would laud our withdrawal and not "permit" a return. Guess, I just miss the old US, rugged individualism etc.

[inquest]

[Wasn't that Kurdish-controlled territory?]

Even if it was, Saddam couldn't control his own country.

Whoa, there. You're making a serious error of logic on a couple different levels. For one thing, he "couldn't control [that sector of] his own country" because we were keeping him out of that sector. Secondly, if this al-Ansar character was operating in Kurdish-controlled territory, wouldn't that implicate the Kurds in some way?

[johnb838]

Freedom For The Iraqi People! Yea!

[johnb838]

Protecting the borders is not isolationism.

[in hoc signo vinces]

We're all human...even the POTUS. He can only do the best he can do, but what he's done is a step forward. IMHO

[RobbyS]

Cut out federal aid to the public schools. Biggest waste of money.

[inquest]

Nope, while Kurds are in Northern Iraq, and controlled territory there thanks to the no-fly zone, they didn't control the area which held Al Ansar (Al Ansar did)

Thanks for clearing that up. I'll keep that in mind from now on.

Essentially, there was plenty of precedent and justification for going into Iraq...the failure of Saddam to live up to the armistice accords of GW1, the failure to observe UN resolutions

Whatever other reasons may have justified the invasions, the thing about "UN resolutions" was most definitely not one of them. UN resolutions are not worth the paper they're printed on. We should never put our soldiers' lives on the line for their enforcement.

[Lazamataz]

We do NOT agree about Iraq.

But we do agree that Bush should be angry about this blatant destruction of the American Dream -- owning one's own home without threat of government seizure -- and he is not.

The fact that he is not, tells me that he's just peachy with it.

I have just officially gone anti-Bush.

[Echo Talon]

Whoa, there. You're making a serious error of logic on a couple different levels. For one thing, he "couldn't control [that sector of] his own country" because we were keeping him out of that sector. Secondly, if this al-Ansar character was operating in Kurdish-controlled territory, wouldn't that implicate the Kurds in some way?

Who was the leader of Iraq? Saddam.... If he couldnt control his own territory, plus you have other intel of his security forces meeting with terrorists. At some point the Bush doctrine comes into play.

[Calpernia]

>>>With what, spitwads?

A look at some of Saddam's spitwads

[inquest]

By the way, everything we talked about (including my most recent #91) is pretty much academic now, now that ihsv has cleared up the matter by establishing that al-Ansar did not operate out of Kurdish-controlled territory.