Replies

"It's quite obvious that Bush wants Iraq because Ariel Sharon told him to do it, and so Bush can enrich himself and cronies by dividing the spoils among his oil buddies."

I have often enough heard that American Mid-East policy has been created by a Zionist conspiracy but I wonder if this is some sort of mis-direction. What if, rather than Zionists manipulating U.S. foreign policy, it's actually the U.S. that is manipulating Israeli internal and external policy by means of surrogates (such as Sharon)?

In any event, I applaud your opposition to George and Dick's Excellent Adventure. Iraq had not been our enemy until George I decided that it was in our national interest to intrude in the Iraq-Kuwait War. All of Saddam's subsequent (alleged) involvement in anti-U.S. terrorism can be viewed as a response to what he perceives as our reversal of policy towards him, and the subsequent war and blockade. Saddam was, essentially, blind-sided by a friend.

The war party at FR have become as noxious and shrill as the Democrats who were supporting the U.S. attack on Serbia during the Clinton administration. It just goes to show that it really isn't the principle of the thing; it's whether the people in charge have an "R" or "D" after their names. I have no doubt at all that if George II were ever caught in flagrante de licto with an intern, the same people who called (justifiably) for the impeachment and conviction of Clinton would now (for the good of the nation, of course) insist that we "move on." The hypocrisy is palpable.

Oh, and another thing . . .
When James Woods came out against the Clintons, I didn't hear a peep about "Yeah, well what does he know? He's only an actor!" Now, this Viggo fella speaks up and there are calls to boycott the Tolkien film. I am surprised that the title of the thread is not "An Insult to Tolkein, America, and God."

The war party at FR have become as noxious and shrill as the Democrats who were supporting the U.S. attack on Serbia during the Clinton administration. It just goes to show that it really isn't the principle of the thing; it's whether the people in charge have an "R" or "D" after their names. I have no doubt at all that if George II were ever caught in flagrante de licto with an intern, the same people who called (justifiably) for the impeachment and conviction of Clinton would now (for the good of the nation, of course) insist that we "move on." The hypocrisy is palpable.

How can the hypocrisy be "palpable" when it's all based on an event that has not occured and will not occur? For one thing, it's a false premise. Most people here were disgusted by Clinton's behavior in the Oval Office, but few wanted him removed for that. It was the lying under oath, the obstruction of justice, etc. etc. And, yes, if Bush did do those things, you would see the right calling for his removal. Nixon resigned. Livingston resigned. Gingrich resigned. Packwood resigned. You will actually see many here complaining that the Republicans "eat their young" instead of defending them to the bitter end, right or wrong.

As far as supporting only a war based on the letter after the name, that's false, too. I don't think too many Republicans reversed themselves on Iraq when Clinton was beating the anti-Iraq war drums in '98. Nor did we stand in the way during other Democrat administration conflicts, such as WWII and Vietnam. It's more an issue of confidence in the commander-in-chief, which was missing with Clinton.

Its too late to go back to the sensible realpolitik of employing Saddam as the local anti opec/anti fundi bully unfortunately now we must go in to "maintain the integrity of the firm". Don't worry the Saudis will get whats coming to them Kissinger will make sure of that( I love Henry).