I meant to go home, but I feel I owe you a partial reply, at least.
W is a product of the televison set, just as was Clinton. (I'm not comparing the two--I have nothing against W the same way I think Clinton was morally destructive to our society and was a traitor to boot). All we know about him is what we see on television, and his leadership can only be measured by its effects on our daily lives. We don't know W personally--you don't even know if he is truly religious, other than whatever you heard him read off a teleprompter. (Even Clinton went to church EVERY Sunday. See what I mean?)
I'm not implying that W isn't religious. I'm saying implicitly (did I spell that right?) that all we know about him is what we see on television. And television lies.
I think he's a puppet of those with money, as is any politician (or has been). That's why the borders are still open (business makes gobs of money suppressing everyone's wages by importing cheap, illegal labor--it's been done before with black slaves and Irish immigrants). He does what they want because they fund election ads on television.
We continue to go into debt as a nation because all the Federal government pays homage to the banks, who buy past debt and, through a variety of means, fund election ads on television.
Is there a pattern here? You bet.
Osama's organization launched 9/11--not Saddam. The direct perpetrators of that crime were sheltered in Afghanistan and Pakistan--that's where they should have been chased down and killed. Instead, the military took a hard left turn to pursue the oil fields because, face it, W and his cabinet are knee-deep in the oil industry. It's obvious.
I'll accept the realpolitik argument of seizing the oilfields before the Chinese got there. That still doesn't make the invasion of Iraq legal--though it WAS moral. A Saddam in a cage is better than a Saddam running loose.
I'm really tired, and want to call it a day. This is just a few elements of why I don't consider W two steps from Jesus, as my daddy says scoffingly. I have other reasons, a dozen or more, but it's time to call it a day.
Thank you for being reasonable.
That's only natural after wasting so many hours of your employer's time. Time to get home to whip up some mushroom ravioli, a real southern favorite there.
But you give the credit to Bush being too "secretive". Unlike you, I'd rather have my public officials out there where I can see them. That way, they can all be held to account.
The one that helped finance the attack has no relevance?
Newsweek magazine is expected to have an explosive article showing Saddam had everything to do with 9/11. You're argument is tantamount to saying the thug who loaned his car as the getaway car in a bank heist is not culpable of any crime. Your argument also suggests that even the Saudi's would be left off the hook, even though it has been proven they were funding terrorist groups worldwide too.
Beyond that, your argument over "it was all about oil" comes straight out of the leftist playbook, it's laughable.
SHORT. Best of luck, but please return and we can continue debate another day.