Sheehan now a borderline anti-American

[Wolf Georges]

Taking the Insepctors to the weapons would prove that they were there or destroyed. Or at the very least letting them inspect all areas of the country. Bill CLinton said he had them in 1998, so where did they go?

Women already voted....I remember the ink on their fingers. It remains to be seen what kind of constitution will finally pass, but we can only hope it is one that has the ability to form into something that gives rights to women and minorities. If I remember correctly, women and african americans did not vote under our original constitution either.

Give these people a chance

Valid point regarding inspectors but the opposite point can also be made that we didn't tell the inspectors where the WMDs were either. Lest we forget Colin Powell had some pretty detailed "intelligence" when he went to the UN. Yet we never told the inspectors where to go to find the proof that we could have used to truly make our case. Why? Possible because there was no proof. Maybe because the WMDs had actually been destroyed. Could it be that Saddam knew that if the rest of the Middle East....in particular Iran...knew that he didn't have WMDs they would have made there way in to try and unite the Shiite community. End result would be similar to what we are starting to see them do now. Bad situation.
Instead we went with the boldly position of supposedly going to war based partially on UN violations while, in the process, violating the majority voice of the UN. That whole strategy was a real head scratcher to me....and still is. We like the UN when their rules say things that support our position but hate the UN when they don't.

I hope and pray that Iraq does establish a true democracy but I don't think that it is unreasonable to question if that will occur. The democracy of the US grew out of an already parliamentary government, by the people...for the people. It was not an artificial idea implanted by an outside entity. Part of the problem that I think the administration has is expecting Iraq to blossom like some modern day America and that is not going to happen. Whatever the outcome it will be a very different country that what we have here.

Considering the position that the administration has put Iraq, the US and entire world in I don't see that we really have a choice but giving these people a chance.

 

[saami]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What Noble Cause Did Casey Sheehan Die For?
"Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation. No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam."
- Iraqi Constitution supported by Iran-backed Shiites and the Bush Administration (but opposed by Sunni leaders)[/font]

"Fortunately, after years of effort and expectations in Iraq, an Islamic state has come to power and the constitution has been established on the basis of Islamic precepts. We must congratulate the Iraqi people and authorities for this victory."
- Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of Iran's powerful ultra-conservative Guardian Council[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/font]"This is the future of the new Iraqi government - it will be in the hands of the clerics. I wanted Iraqi women to be free, to be able to talk freely and to able to move around. I am not going to stay here."
- Dr. Raja Kuzai, an obstetrician and secular Shiite member of the Assembly who met President Bush in the White House in November 2003.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Resolution of Inquiry into Bush Lies Gains Momentum
There are now 53 co-sponsors on Barbara Lee's Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memos, including one Republican member of the International Relations Committee, Jim Leach. If your Representative isn't on this list yet, please call their D.C. office (202-224-3121) and ask to speak to the Legislative Director. Ask why they haven't cosponsored HRes375, and then report back to us. A vote in committee will come between Sept. 6 and Sept. 16.
[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/902[/font]http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/1887

 

[Jipsah]

Fine... then you can believe John Kerry.

Good grief, can't you come up with someone who ever told the truth?

How do you know it will be under Sharia law? Or are you making a worst case assumption to try and prove a point.

Oh, maybe it's because on the one hand we have the moderates, influenced by the "quietist" Sistani and us (Americans), who are now advancing, as a minimum demand, the imposition of sharia in matters of family law and other "social" issues. According to them, Islam must be "a source of legislation" and the ensuing political order – precisely the formulation encoded in the American-authored "interim constitution."

On the other hand we have the radicals, such as Moqtada al-Sadr, and the more militant mullahs and grand ayatollahs, who want the Koran and sharia to overshadow every aspect of life in Iraq. Islam will be the source of legislation, enshrined as the state religion and a guide to policy in all matters, both domestic and foreign.

If you want to keep your head in the sand, that's cool. But you'll have to pull it out eventually.

I'm glad you weren't around during the American Revolutionary War.

I'm glad the folks who led the American Revolution weren't Muslims.

 

[arnegrim]

I will let John Bolton speak for me in answer, "There is NO U.N. The U.N. only works when the US wants it to work."

In any case, why all this focus on the UN? Especially since the US has ALREADY ADMITTED THEY CANNOT FIND WMDs!!!

Exactly... they are not where we thought they were.

The question is... where did they go.

 

[arnegrim]

I think the stronger argument would be for insanity if the Democrats tried to make Pearl Harbor an issue almost 64 years after it occurred...but that's a whole other debate.

They did use Vietnam...

 

[arnegrim]

Why should she give up? She is demanding accountability among a public servant...something that is not only her Right, but a responsibility shared by ALL Americans.

Bush could have squashed this in Texas by setting up a press conference across from her ditch and addressing her and the crowd face to face. I'm betting dollars to pesos that his advisors told him to do nothing because it would be better to allow the American public get at each others' throats through partisan attacks...that way Sheehan will be handled and most importantly, the attention will be taken off of the people where it really belongs. (Wonder if I'm related to Karl Rove )

There is no way any second meeting with Cindy Sheehan would have done anything but hurt the President.

 

[arnegrim]

Good grief, can't you come up with someone who ever told the truth?

In politics... probably not.

Oh, maybe it's because on the one hand we have the moderates, influenced by the "quietist" Sistani and us (Americans), who are now advancing, as a minimum demand, the imposition of sharia in matters of family law and other "social" issues. According to them, Islam must be "a source of legislation" and the ensuing political order – precisely the formulation encoded in the American-authored "interim constitution."

On the other hand we have the radicals, such as Moqtada al-Sadr, and the more militant mullahs and grand ayatollahs, who want the Koran and sharia to overshadow every aspect of life in Iraq. Islam will be the source of legislation, enshrined as the state religion and a guide to policy in all matters, both domestic and foreign.

If you want to keep your head in the sand, that's cool. But you'll have to pull it out eventually.[/qoute]

Wrong. You were more correct when you said 'a source of legislation'... not 'the source of legislation'.

I'm glad the folks who led the American Revolution weren't Muslims.

Why? Is that beyond muslims?

 

[Wolf Georges]

Exactly... they are not where we thought they were.

The question is... where did they go.

If they were there they would have been used. Thank God they no longer existed.

Before the war the Bush administration spoke of stockpiles and then, after they found absolutely nothing, the administration softened the rhetoric to reflect the fact that Saddam desired WMDs, which does not justify war. I mean, don't you think if Saddam had the means to smuggle out all those WMDs and keep them hidden almost three years later he could have done a better job hiding himself?

I fail to see the logic behind holding on to the thought that there were WMDs left by the time we invaded...at the least bad intelligence and at the worst unscrupulous leadership. To me the jury is still out on which actually occurred. At what point does partisan loyalty get put aside for the good of the nation?

 

[Wolf Georges]

They did use Vietnam...

And I would agree with you that the logic there is fuzzy.

 

[arnegrim]

Just FYI on the new constitution...

The draft constitution establishes the full equality of men and women before the law and equality of opportunity for all Iraqis.

Women have the right to participate fully in public affairs, and electoral laws will be designed to ensure that 25 percent of members of parliament are women.

http://baghdad.usembassy.gov/iraq/20050828_khalilzad_statement.html

 

[arnegrim]

If they were there they would have been used. Thank God they no longer existed.

Before the war the Bush administration spoke of stockpiles and then, after they found absolutely nothing, the administration softened the rhetoric to reflect the fact that Saddam desired WMDs, which does not justify war. I mean, don't you think if Saddam had the means to smuggle out all those WMDs and keep them hidden almost three years later he could have done a better job hiding himself?

The two scenarios aren't even comparable.

On one hand you have a small group of UN inspectors being allowed in only certain areas to find WMD's...

On the other you have a coalition of over 100,000 looking for him...

I fail to see the logic behind holding on to the thought that there were WMDs left by the time we invaded...at the least bad intelligence and at the worst unscrupulous leadership. To me the jury is still out on which actually occurred. At what point does partisan loyalty get put aside for the good of the nation?

I would more likely suspect the former... but again... the fact that he had WMDs is not disputed... the question is what did he do with them. And for 12+ years the UN was demanding an answer to that question.

 

[arnegrim]

And I would agree with you that the logic there is fuzzy.

Hypocritical more like it.

 

[Wolf Georges]

The two scenarios aren't even comparable.

On one hand you have a small group of UN inspectors being allowed in only certain areas to find WMD's...

On the other you have a coalition of over 100,000 looking for him...

Is your assertion that our troops were not tasked with finding WMDs? We side stepped the UN because we said the inspectors wouldn't find WMDs, we knew where they were located and our troops would secure them. Saddam is a great consolation prize but hardly the reason for the invasion. Sorry I disagree with the logic.

I would more likely suspect the former... but again... the fact that he had WMDs is not disputed... the question is what did he do with them. And for 12+ years the UN was demanding an answer to that question.

No question he had them because he used them in the past, when he was our ally. The question is does the UN violations justify a preemptive strike. The fact that we have turned up empty handed answers that question in a big negative. In my opinion. We jumped the gun because we had a larger agenda in that region. At this point we don't have the justification we speculated we would and it's too early for either side of the debate to say if our actions in Iraq were positive or negative to that volatile region.

 

[Wolf Georges]

Hypocritical more like it.

Nah...just fuzzy logic used to try and make an argument.

 

[arnegrim]

Is your assertion that our troops were not tasked with finding WMDs? We side stepped the UN because we said the inspectors wouldn't find WMDs, we knew where they were located and our troops would secure them. Saddam is a great consolation prize but hardly the reason for the invasion. Sorry I disagree with the logic.

Not all of them were tasked with WMDs.

No question he had them because he used them in the past, when he was our ally. The question is does the UN violations justify a preemptive strike. The fact that we have turned up empty handed answers that question in a big negative. In my opinion. We jumped the gun because we had a larger agenda in that region. At this point we don't have the justification we speculated we would and it's too early for either side of the debate to say if our actions in Iraq were positive or negative to that volatile region.

I disagree... you can play monday morning quarterback all you want... with the facts we had and the possibility of cooperation with terrorist groups we had to invade.

 

[arnegrim]

Nah...just fuzzy logic used to try and make an argument.

When you have a group denouncing the use of 911 and at the same time using Vietnam... that's hypocritical.

 

[Wolf Georges]

Not all of them were tasked with WMDs.

Fair enough but your early statements implied that the search for WMDs wasn't part of their mission at all. I have no desire to split hairs with you. We can just leave this as a point of contention.

I disagree... you can play monday morning quarterback all you want.

I don't see how being open to form opinions as facts become available is comparable with being a Monday morning quarterback. This is not a game and none of us are merely spectators. If we do not hold our leaders accountable for their actions then we are letting liberty slip through our fingers.

with the facts we had and the possibility of cooperation with terrorist groups we had to invade.

Well, we'll just have to leave this as it is. In your opinion the facts justified the means. Had WMDs been found this would be a much different conversation. They were not. The possibility of WMDs and the possibility of global terrorist ties does not make a justification for war. That's my opinion.

 

[Wolf Georges]

When you have a group denouncing the use of 911 and at the same time using Vietnam... that's hypocritical.

I don't see it. Sorry.
9/11 was used to justify this war.

Vietnam is just people trying to dig up an argument that is easier to make than investigating all the facts available about Iraq. Fuzzy log. Maybe even lazy. Hypocritical...I don't think so.

I myself feel that the administration has overused 9/11 in their rhetoric but have never mentioned anything about Vietnam.

 

[Wolf Georges]

Fuzzy log.

Sorry.

I meant fuzzy logic.

I don't what to get on the bad side of the Greens by bringing logging into this debate.

 

[arnegrim]

I don't see it. Sorry.
9/11 was used to justify this war.

Vietnam is just people trying to dig up an argument that is easier to make than investigating all the facts available about Iraq. Fuzzy log. Maybe even lazy. Hypocritical...I don't think so.

I myself feel that the administration has overused 9/11 in their rhetoric but have never mentioned anything about Vietnam.

I am talking specifically of the Presidential campaigns in regards to Vietnam and 911.

As for 911 being used to justify the war... it wasn't. WMDs and terrorism were.