Memos and Demos and such...

[Bustem' Down]

So I read that some, I won't say all cause That wouldn't be accurate, of the Democrats are calling for an inquery on Bush due to these latest memos to come out. I personally am not sure of the validity of them, but I say that there should be an inquery. I say that because it's the only way for closure. Have it done and then when nothing comes up, it's over and done with. If there isn't an inquery you'll have to listen to the opposition through the next election. I think they are heathy to the government and not demeaning at all as some people will try and point out. Me personally, I couldn't care for the reason for invasion. Bush could have come out and said "Hey, I don't like this Saddam guys and they have a butt load of oil, let's go get them." and I would have gone over there and done my job with just as much zeal as I did for the reasons given, it makes no difference to me.

 

[vraiblonde]

If there isn't an inquery you'll have to listen to the opposition through the next election.

We're going to have to listen to them anyway. I say whoever is in charge of these frivolous inquiries should tell these bawlbabies to pack sand.

I find it highly annoying that the people who whined about Clinton "I wish they'd leave him alone so he can do his job" are the exact same ones who want to open an inquiry everytime Bush blows his nose.

 

[Ken King]

I seem to recall that the 9/11 commission looked into this already and determined that the intelligence was not skewed to make going to war easier nor was it directed by the Bush administration to do such. Regardless of the memos, it seems that since Congress gave Bush the authority to use force against Iraq for our protection he has only executed the will of those elected representatives in a manner to assure our safety and has done nothing but what they said needed to be done.

 

[vraiblonde]

Regardless of the memos, it seems that since Congress gave Bush the authority to use force against Iraq for our protection he has only executed the will of those elected representatives in a manner to assure our safety and has done nothing but what they said needed to be done.

For real. If you don't like the decision to go to war, WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN!!! They're the ones that approve that, not Bush.

Idiots.

 

[FromTexas]

So I read that some, I won't say all cause That wouldn't be accurate, of the Democrats are calling for an inquery on Bush due to these latest memos to come out. I personally am not sure of the validity of them, but I say that there should be an inquery. I say that because it's the only way for closure. Have it done and then when nothing comes up, it's over and done with. If there isn't an inquery you'll have to listen to the opposition through the next election. I think they are heathy to the government and not demeaning at all as some people will try and point out. Me personally, I couldn't care for the reason for invasion. Bush could have come out and said "Hey, I don't like this Saddam guys and they have a butt load of oil, let's go get them." and I would have gone over there and done my job with just as much zeal as I did for the reasons given, it makes no difference to me.

It quited down after Bush was re-elected, but now 2006 Congressional elections are around the corner, so they are playing their fiddles again. I hope and pray the Dem's keep singing this tune all the way to 2008. After all, it worked wonders for them this time around!

 

[Bustem' Down]

I agree with all of ya'll, but like I said, inqueries are good for the system. Once we stop that, there's too much oprotunity for someone to abuse the system.

 

[FromTexas]

I agree with all of ya'll, but like I said, inqueries are good for the system. Once we stop that, there's too much oprotunity for someone to abuse the system.

Which of the Iraq inquiries was not satisfactory?

 

[Bustem' Down]

I find it highly annoying that the people who whined about Clinton "I wish they'd leave him alone so he can do his job" are the exact same ones who want to open an inquiry everytime Bush blows his nose.

That's funny cause you'll never hear the end of that argument. The moment that a Dem is in office we'll hear the same from the repubs.

 

[Bustem' Down]

It quited down after Bush was re-elected, but now 2006 Congressional elections are around the corner, so they are playing their fiddles again. I hope and pray the Dem's keep singing this tune all the way to 2008. After all, it worked wonders for them this time around!

Careful, it wasn't quite the landslide like Reagan '86.

 

[vraiblonde]

I agree with all of ya'll, but like I said, inqueries are good for the system.

I disagree. Inquiries with merit are good for the system - laying charges just to be doing it is decidedly bad for the system.

The fact is that liberals, who make up a decent chunk of the Democratic constituency, do not want to be at war with Iraq. They think we should have given Saddam one more chance, to go along with the 50 million other last chances he had. Plus, they don't like George Bush. He could make Madonna a Supreme Court Justice and liberals STILL wouldn't like him.

They are silly and tedious and I'm sick of them.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I disagree. Inquiries with merit are good for the system - laying charges just to be doing it is decidedly bad for the system.

The fact is that liberals, who make up a decent chunk of the Democratic constituency, do not want to be at war with Iraq. They think we should have given Saddam one more chance, to go along with the 50 million other last chances he had. Plus, they don't like George Bush. He could make Madonna a Supreme Court Justice and liberals STILL wouldn't like him.

They are silly and tedious and I'm sick of them.

But I'm sure that have equally frivilous charges against you conservative, so who's right?


No one, that's the point. Unless a formal inquery decides.

 

[rraley]

I would say that the inquiry should be called...we all know that there will be no seriously awful information about the Bush Administration's pre-Iraq decision-making, but that congressional Democrats (Pelosi, Conyers, et. al.) will never accept that. Kinda like the whole belly aching about the 2000 and 2004 "frauds." Too many of these anti-war Democrats are more about pushing anti-Bush rhetoric rather than coherent reasoning for why Iraq is a misguided policy. Republicans should jump at the opporunity to call this inquiry...it would only allow these Democrats to further show how full of vile and crap they are. May help the GOP's and Bush's numbers to go up.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I would say that the inquiry should be called...we all know that there will be no seriously awful information about the Bush Administration's pre-Iraq decision-making, but that congressional Democrats (Pelosi, Conyers, et. al.) will never accept that. Kinda like the whole belly aching about the 2000 and 2004 "frauds." Too many of these anti-war Democrats are more about pushing anti-Bush rhetoric rather than coherent reasoning for why Iraq is a misguided policy. Republicans should jump at the opporunity to call this inquiry...it would only allow these Democrats to further show how full of vile and crap they are. May help the GOP's and Bush's numbers to go up.

Look! A democrat that's not full of crap!



Just kidding rraley.

 

[Ken King]

I would say that the inquiry should be called...we all know that there will be no seriously awful information about the Bush Administration's pre-Iraq decision-making, but that congressional Democrats (Pelosi, Conyers, et. al.) will never accept that. Kinda like the whole belly aching about the 2000 and 2004 "frauds." Too many of these anti-war Democrats are more about pushing anti-Bush rhetoric rather than coherent reasoning for why Iraq is a misguided policy. Republicans should jump at the opporunity to call this inquiry...it would only allow these Democrats to further show how full of vile and crap they are. May help the GOP's and Bush's numbers to go up.

"Misguided policy"? Our policy has been fairly consistent since 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. We've had PL102-1 to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 687 to push them out of Kuwait, PL105-235 to bring Iraq into compliance with UN Resolutions concerning WMDs and other international responsibilities as to their conduct, PL105-338 to remove Saddam from power and to promote the development of a democratic form of government, and PL107-40 to take action against nations that support or conduct terrorism which threaten our security.

This spans three administrations over 14 years and only those that believe we should never go to war, no matter the reason, are still whining about not having things done their way. Bush has been put into the position to make tough decisions in order to execute the laws laid out before him and those already in place as it his duty to do. He has only done what they, the Congress, have directed and authorized him to do.

I guess it upsets some of them that he is actually enforcing their laws, unlike another President that did little to nothing to enforce the laws that were passed which might have curtailed events that followed this inaction.

 

[Bustem' Down]

"Misguided policy"? Our policy has been fairly consistent since 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. We've had PL102-1 to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 687 to push them out of Kuwait, PL105-235 to bring Iraq into compliance with UN Resolutions concerning WMDs and other international responsibilities as to their conduct, PL105-338 to remove Saddam from power and to promote the development of a democratic form of government, and PL107-40 to take action against nations that support or conduct terrorism which threaten our security.

This spans three administrations over 14 years and only those that believe we should never go to war, no matter the reason, are still whining about not having things done their way. Bush has been put into the position to make tough decisions in order to execute the laws laid out before him and those already in place as it his duty to do. He has only done what they, the Congress, have directed and authorized him to do.

I guess it upsets some of them that he is actually enforcing their laws, unlike another President that did little to nothing to enforce the laws that were passed which might have curtailed events that followed this inaction.

But Clinton did use military force in both Iraq and Croatia.

 

[Bustem' Down]

OK, I'm going to bed now. I just want to point out that I'm not taking sides on anything. It will be many hours before I'm back here and I'm just pointing out the logical opposions to any side of this argument. Like I said in the first post, I don't really care why we went. I just like to post the opposision, the logical and the juvinile, just to further debate. This makes the conversation much more informative. Night all.

 

[ylexot]

Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War

When I started reading the article, my reaction was , but by the end of the of the article...

 

[FromTexas]

Careful, it wasn't quite the landslide like Reagan '86.

Who is just referring to the presidency? Did you notice anything about the Senate and the House?

 

[Ken King]

But Clinton did use military force in both Iraq and Croatia.

Yeah he tossed a few cruise missiles their way, what else did he do to enforce the laws passed by Congress in this regard? As I said, little to nothing.

 

[Penn]

I read a storry this morning, that stated the reason why Clinton did not accept the offer by the Sudanese of the turn over of Bin Laden to our custody; we had no where to imprison him.
No Guantanamo Bay at that time?