Anti-war crowd must make it's case

The Citizens' Forum ^ | Patlan | Michael

[Monti Cello]

If you trust Bush no more than Clinton, I'd say you're a poor judge of character.

Clinton trotted out 'proof' for bombing the Sudanese aspirin factory and for bombing the crap out of Yugoslavia and it was completely fabricated. Surely an equally untrustworthy Bush administration could do the same thing.

Bottom line, is I trust Bush's judgment on this one -- that Saddam is a threat to US security. I don't trust his judgment on some issues (e.g. immigration) but I do trust it on Iraq.

If a guy like Rumsfeld says Saddam is a threat to my security, but Saddam says no, and Burkeman1 agrees, being unimpressed with the circumstantial evidence...I don't know any of them personally, but with my ass on the line I think I'll stick with Rumsfeld!

[Long Cut]

I wonder how those who arrogantly say "I'M not convinced/ not enough evidence/ MORE PROOF!!!" respond to STORIES LIKE THIS ONE. We already know that they ignore those about Innocent victims which in itself says a lot.

Those who are now disagreeing with the effort would not be convinced in any case, no matter the proof. And it seems to me that circumstances like this somewhat preclude the use of evidence that would convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as if that were even necessary outside of a normal criminal trial.

War is seldom that clean and neat. Those playing "Matlock" should realize that.

[Long Cut]

Oh, and we also have the usual "Patriot act/TIPS/CFR/borders/ etc. etc." cries showing up in the din. As if some problems we admittedly have in domestic policy have any connection whatsoever to national security matters.

The difference is fundamental...if you don't like the domestic security programs, an election looms. Go vote. You cannot, however, vote away an exterior threat. It does not go away if you ignore it, either.

It is the height of folly to use some unsatisfactory domestic issues (CFR, for heaven's sake?) as an excuse for ignoring a threat to our nation as a whole. I'll bet that plenty of those who do so also guarantee such problems in the first place by continually tossing votes to unelectable third party gadflies, which, you may notice, has had the ultimate result of weakening the President's hand at this critical time.

As previously stated: self-centeredness on parade.

[FreedomFriend]

What's with the bar code in the pic?

[FreedomFriend]

A president's judgement on domestic issues corresponds to his judgement overall. Thus, why can't poor judgement domestically extend internationally? Bush has poor judgement internationally when he continues to push "free trade" and immigration. Why would he not have poor judgement when it comes to Iraq? Also why would Bush sign a bill to make it illegal to go after Al Quaida? That represents bad judgement. Look what happened shortly after.

[inquest]

[The media] have incorrectly labeled such action an “Attack on Iraq;” it is actually the liberation of innocent people from an evil dictator.

This needs to be explained loudly and clearly to the "Nuke Baghdad" crowd.

[Long Cut]

What exactly is this "law against going after al Qaeda", W199i, you keep referring to? Considering that ALL laws from the Senate use a "S" suffix and all laws from the House use an "H" suffix, and that such a law would surely have been used by now by the Leftists to pound the President about the head and shoulders, you might just have been "'Net Scammed", like a lot of people are about laws all the time. It is beyond all belief that it has not been WIDELY publicized, if not used by the Dims to call for the President's head.

As far as the domestic issues you raised, they are, IMHO, an attempt at distraction from the main objective. Those laws and measures are wrong-headed in my own opinion as well, but they and the issues surrounding them are best blamed on the "soccer moms" and government 'crats who proposed them. Want them gone? Vote conservative. Throw out the Dems who comprise their strongest support. Don't forget, we (thankfully) do not have a dictatorship at home. The President must compromise with a hostile legislature at every turn on domestic issues.

As for the bar code, it sends your computer's address to the F.B.I whenever you see it. The loud noise you now hear are the helicopters outside your house.

Actually, it came with the picture. I'm also trying to find a colored-in version, thus far to no avail. It's a wonderful picture of a Naval Aircrewman, which I am.

[Long Cut]

Never mind answering my previous post. A quick Google search on "W199i" yielded only references to an individual named Greg Palast, who seems to believe that the President "stole" the 2000 election. The "legislation" appears only in his LEFTIST, paranoid book.

You must look for better sources of information. There are a lot of crackpots out there.

[profmike23]

I think a pro-demcoracy revoltuion is nearly inevitable in most of the Arab world. There were some articles about the high unemployment for males (especially in Saudi Arabia)and I guess in this case idle hands are the tools of freedom. I think removing Saddam may be a spark which would ignite a pro-democracy revolution. I don't think our culture would be imposed, I predict it will be embraced. Overall, the world is better post-liberation. While we disagree, I encourage you to visit the Citizens' Forum and post your disagreements on the message board.

[Phillip Augustus]

Westernizing the Middle East? Are you serious? That's an impossible task; nor it is a task that we are obligated to perform, if it WAS possible. Let them stew in their own juices; we are not the world's policeman, nor hammer of democracy.

[knighthawk]

CHICKENHAWKS?

Well, anyway, the people who defend Saddam maybe want to look here:

http://www.serenitygiftshop.com/bushcountry/guestbook.html

Search for this name: Songul. She fled from Iraq after Saddam started to gas the Kurds.