Don't Start the Second Gulf War

National Review Online ^ | 8-12-02 | Doug Bandow

[rintense]

If he truely is, then you know our government would be showing us the proof. Do you think they would take all the abuse they have taken from the Dems if they actually had proof? If they had the "smoking guy" you had better believe we would be seeing it.

BUSH: I am patient guy

RINTENSE: And I am a patient woman.

The Dems have caved and will support a resolution for force. If you're talking about Gore, he doesn't even know how to play the game. Again, I will trust the Bush admin to reveal the info when it is necessary and expedient to the cause. Until then, I've seen all the evidence I need to see.

[iranger]

"and certainly don't have the resources to pursue."

What? The Rhode Island National Guard could handle this job.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So who appointed you thread nanny, anyway? The entire premise is crap. Addressing the stench isn't going to make it smell any better.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

as in the last

which war are you referring to? And wold you mind citing your Nationality? Thanks.

[iconoclast]

The article seemed so much like the same junk coming out of Jesse Jackson's and Phil Donahue's pie holes that I hardly thought they warranted more than sarcasm. But hey, what do I know?

Hey it's only 3:15! Are you on the sauce already?

If Doug Bandow is too "liberal" for you, who the hell do you read while forming your opinions besides GWB?

[savedbygrace]

There are three types of people in this world: those who can count and those who can't.

;-)

(You did that on purpose, right?)

[Protagoras]

Well you have a wonderful way of twisting words, don't you? I trust what they say in public.

I twisted no words. My post was forthright. You claimed that the reason for the governments case for war might be based on them having info which they haven't disclosed to the citizens. EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE MADE NO SUCH CLAIMS.

Which means that if that secenerio were true, (unlikely) they would be witholding info and they couldn't be trusted to tell the whole story. I twisted nothing, I asked you a question based on your speculation. I'm sorry if it didn't make you confortable.

You asked for honest replies. I've given you mine. Sorry if you don't agree with it. Didn't expect you to.

We are not here to agree or disagree, we are here to discuss, at least I am. I appreciated that you read the article and have made no personal comments about you. Thank you for your opinions.

[VaBthang4]

"Please limit yourself to addressing the article and avoid attacking people who are of your own invention. Thank you for keeping the debate on a high level."

LOL

(My Best Stuffy British Accent...)
Ahem..yes. Here Here my good Man!! Steady on...keep above the fray. These simpleton kaffirs couldnt comprehend their elbows from their...well, anyway...we must maintain the vigorous exchange or moronic assertion and cultivated folly.

[Protagoras]

So who appointed you thread nanny, anyway?

I posted the thread, I have every right to ask that the comments be thoughtful and constructive.

You have every right to show yourself for what your are. Carry on.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Saddam's complicity in September 11 would present a good argument for devastating retaliation for an act of war, but there's no evidence that he was involved.

First point - no evidence provided to you. You're not in intelligence, nor are you in any decision making capacity which requires risking information sources in order to trust you. Big difference.

And the phrase "no evidence" is not the same as "didn't do it".

[rintense]

If he truely is, then you know our government would be showing us the proof. Do you think they would take all the abuse they have taken from the Dems if they actually had proof? If they had the "smoking guy" you had better believe we would be seeing it.

Are you really so provincial to think that the gov't tells us everything? That they don't keep information classified for the safety of our troops and citizens? Lord, I'm sorry but that is laughable. Gets back to trusting...

You wait for your smoking gun. I've already seen enough bullets to know what caused the gun to smoke.

[agrace]

Are you suggesting that "live free or die" isn't applicable to other countries? Personally, being well aware of who the Taliban were and what they did, I WOULD rather be dead than live under them, and would prefer to die fighting and feel I was living for a moment than to be dead inside for a lifetime. I bet few Afghans, women especially, would disagree.

[Protagoras]

I made my point to him. The same could be said of your participation. Thank you for your most thoughtful contributions.

[rintense]

But TJ, you have only posted an article and not clearly given your reasons for not supporting a war against Iraq- other than wanting more evidence. Can we assume that because you posted the article, that you agree with all of it?

[VRWC_minion]

Do you think they would take all the abuse they have taken from the Dems if they actually had proof? If they had the "smoking guy" you had better believe we would be seeing it

Actually classic Bush would be to let his opposistion get as bold as they can before delivering them the knock out punch. The first time he did this was over the flack about the damage done to the WH. The Rats questioned that there was any proof. Not until the Rats had seen blood and were on the attack did Bush release the proof. The Rats wrongly assumed that of Bush didn't put it forward at the outset that he didn't have it.

I believe Bush did say he would be releasing some information on this in the coming days and I would suggest that his critics wait and see before attacking him on this part of the issue.

[Protagoras]

If he truely is, then you know our government would be showing us the proof. Do you think they would take all the abuse they have taken from the Dems if they actually had proof? If they had the "smoking guy" you had better believe we would be seeing it.

Please redirect this comment to the person you posted it, it wasn't me.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Would Baghdad turn atomic weapons over to al Qaeda or similarly motivated terrorists? Not likely.

Brilliance, sheer brilliance at work.

"Not likely" - considering guy who launched scuds at israel, a noncombatant. Considering that the Atta meeting in the Czech Republic DID occur.

Do you really feel like defending this stupidity?

[iconoclast]

The irony here is that Iraq is a threat once again

Iraq suddenly becomes a threat whenever we have a President, regardless of party, that gets his a$$ in a crack.

[rintense]

I believe Bush did say he would be releasing some information on this in the coming days and I would suggest that his critics wait and see before attacking him on this part of the issue.

And I'd like to add that I also believe that the top party leaders have also seen more evidence that we haven't even heard about. Why else would the Dems be caving? This resolution will easily pass- with only a handful of Dems saying no.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

The key issue in the war on Iraq is any Al Qaeda linkage. We have three, at least:

1. Atta's meeting with the Iraqi official prior to 9/11.
2. Iraq's training of al Qaeda leadership in Iraq. There are plenty of articles on this just on FR.
3. Iraq's CURRENT harboring of al Qaeda refugees from Afghanistan. The President of the US said this. That's good enough for me.

Then there is the weaponized anthrax that was distributed last year. Its source is US, Russia, or Iraq. The government has not proclaimed its source yet. Which do you think is most likely? I think its sourceis Iraq, via al Qaeda, and I think this administration also thinks so.

The attempted assassination of President Bush is also a sufficient cause for war.

What more evidence do you want?