Hey everyone. Hope you enjoyed your few days off from me. :)
I arrived back from Pascagoula on Friday afternoon and promptly realized I had lost my keys. I guess I didn’t forget my forgetfullness on the Gulf Coast!
Thanks to Sean and Stacie who posted while I was gone. As usual, both of them are always welcome to post anytime they want. They both bring different ideas to the table and, if anything, this blog has definitely demonstrated that there are wide and varying positions among the readers of this blog.
I think we’ve worn out Hurricane stuff in the past month so I wanted to jump into something a little more, shall we say…familiar? Of course, it’s politics time!!
The political cycle does not end, even though I take breaks from it. There’s a couple of thoughts I’d like to pass along for your reading pleasure, or displeasure.
- I am proud of the fact that Judge Roberts was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Despite all the incessant flaming from Democrats, the Senate functioned exactly as it Constitutionally is called to function - Advise and Consent. In other words, The Senate is permitted to express their pleasure or displeasure and to ask tough questions… it’s part of their job description. However, also part of their job requirements is to, when push comes to shove, rubber stamp a nominee unless something extremely negative is unearthed about the nominee. So welcome to the bench, Judge Roberts.
- Dick Morris is apparenlty taking his notes from me. Immediately after the 2004 election, I predicted on this blog that Condoleeza Rice would be the Republican nominee for President in 2008 to eliminate the Hillary Clinton factor. Former Clinton Advisor, Dick Morris, is about to release Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race. Maybe now I’ll be called to the television circuits. The reality is that Hillary has a virtual lock on the Democratic nomination. There is a certain romanticism to having “the first female president”. By running Condi, that factor is neutralized… plus some. Condi would also be the first African American. Other likely Republican contenders are Sen John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, both too moderate for a conservative base. I’d vote for either. Sen Bill Frist does not have the star power necessary to compete with a Clinton. It all makes sense to me and has for quite some time.
Food for thought?
{ 38 comments }
Mike 10.04.05 at 8:45 am
Welcome back Aaron… I don’t think Condi will be the Republican candidate for two reasons. One she doesn’t want to run and two there are others as you mentioned, Giuliani and McCain who will grab the spotlight. I really like Condi and feel she could be a very good president, but that’s not going to happen, not yet. Also, I’m not so sure the Hildabeaste will make it through the primaries. There’s going to be a lot of skeletons dug up and thrown in her path. My biggest hope is that she loses her Senate seat from NY, which would put a dent in her presidential aspirations.
Vinnie Garcia 10.04.05 at 8:52 am
If it was Giuliani/McCain versus Hillary I think I’d vote for a Republican president for the first time ever. I agree with Mike though; I don’t think Hillary will make it through the primaries because of the non-moderate stigma attached to her name (and a social liberal like me wouldn’t vote for her because of her stance on censorship).
Mike 10.04.05 at 9:45 am
Welcome back Aaron… I don’t think Condi will be the Republican candidate for two reasons. One she doesn’t want to run and two there are others as you mentioned, Giuliani and McCain who will grab the spotlight. I really like Condi and feel she could be a very good president, but that’s not going to happen, not yet. Also, I’m not so sure the Hildabeaste will make it through the primaries. There’s going to be a lot of skeletons dug up and thrown in her path. My biggest hope is that she loses her Senate seat from NY, which would put a dent in her presidential aspirations.
Vinnie Garcia 10.04.05 at 9:52 am
If it was Giuliani/McCain versus Hillary I think I’d vote for a Republican president for the first time ever. I agree with Mike though; I don’t think Hillary will make it through the primaries because of the non-moderate stigma attached to her name (and a social liberal like me wouldn’t vote for her because of her stance on censorship).
Sean McCormick 10.05.05 at 9:59 am
Aaron-
I would certainly jump at the chance to back Condi, and I would even vote for Giuliani, but I do not think that we will get the chance to consider McCain. I see darker things ahead for him considering his alliances and stances over the past few years. I predict a jump across the aisle as he tires of bridging the gap between the ever-more-conservative right and the left flailing to chase the shifting center. Anyone else see this coming?
Sean McCormick 10.05.05 at 10:59 am
Aaron-
I would certainly jump at the chance to back Condi, and I would even vote for Giuliani, but I do not think that we will get the chance to consider McCain. I see darker things ahead for him considering his alliances and stances over the past few years. I predict a jump across the aisle as he tires of bridging the gap between the ever-more-conservative right and the left flailing to chase the shifting center. Anyone else see this coming?
Aaron Brazell 10.05.05 at 3:01 pm
Hey Sean! Good to see you made it back safe from the Bayou! ;)
Aaron Brazell 10.05.05 at 4:01 pm
Hey Sean! Good to see you made it back safe from the Bayou! ;)
Mike 10.05.05 at 5:08 pm
Sean,
I don’t think McCain will cross over, but I also don’t feel he is electable either. He won’t get the support needed from the Conservative base, because of his shifting stances on certain issues. I’m not even sure if he’s really up to running.
Mike 10.05.05 at 6:08 pm
Sean,
I don’t think McCain will cross over, but I also don’t feel he is electable either. He won’t get the support needed from the Conservative base, because of his shifting stances on certain issues. I’m not even sure if he’s really up to running.
Aaron Brazell 10.05.05 at 8:49 pm
However, Mike, and this is what both far right conservatives, such as yourself, and far left liberals fail to forget. Moderates CAN be elected because, though they might lose their base, they draw moderates from the other side as well. It is common for a candidate to run far-left or far-right in a primary to set themselves apart from the other contenders in their party, and then move to the middle because it will draw them more cross party support.
I think it’s a fallacy to believe that all the power resides with “the base”.
Aaron Brazell 10.05.05 at 9:49 pm
However, Mike, and this is what both far right conservatives, such as yourself, and far left liberals fail to forget. Moderates CAN be elected because, though they might lose their base, they draw moderates from the other side as well. It is common for a candidate to run far-left or far-right in a primary to set themselves apart from the other contenders in their party, and then move to the middle because it will draw them more cross party support.
I think it’s a fallacy to believe that all the power resides with “the base”.
Vinnie Garcia 10.06.05 at 12:59 pm
Extremists get nominated, moderates get elected. I forget who said that previous sentence but it’s mostly true.
Agreed there. Even with “the base” the Republican party only got a small victory margin last time. Seeing that most of the promises that energized the social conservative base haven’t come to pass, I’m not sure they’ll be as easily convinced to get out and vote red the next time around either.
Vinnie Garcia 10.06.05 at 1:01 pm
And I forgot to add: while the Republican party has been pandering to the socially conservative base lately, they seem to be pissing away their fiscally conservative base by running massive deficits. The fiscal conservatives probably won’t vote Democrat as a result, but that doesn’t mean that a party like the Libertarians can’t pick up some votes at the Republicans’ expense.
Vinnie Garcia 10.06.05 at 1:59 pm
Extremists get nominated, moderates get elected. I forget who said that previous sentence but it’s mostly true.
Agreed there. Even with “the base” the Republican party only got a small victory margin last time. Seeing that most of the promises that energized the social conservative base haven’t come to pass, I’m not sure they’ll be as easily convinced to get out and vote red the next time around either.
Vinnie Garcia 10.06.05 at 2:01 pm
And I forgot to add: while the Republican party has been pandering to the socially conservative base lately, they seem to be pissing away their fiscally conservative base by running massive deficits. The fiscal conservatives probably won’t vote Democrat as a result, but that doesn’t mean that a party like the Libertarians can’t pick up some votes at the Republicans’ expense.
Mike 10.06.05 at 6:10 pm
Aaron and what do you know about me that makes you think I’m a “far right” conservative? Define what would make me far right? Name your issues…
Aaron Brazell 10.06.05 at 6:37 pm
Mike– I’m not going to bother, bud. Your arguments all along in this blog; your continual comments in support of Bush; your unending support of the Neocon ideals. The evidence is everywhere on this blog… almost every comment. You don’t seem to be ashamed of it any other time…don’t feel like you have to styart now. You are who you are. :)
Mike 10.06.05 at 7:10 pm
Aaron and what do you know about me that makes you think I’m a “far right” conservative? Define what would make me far right? Name your issues…
Aaron Brazell 10.06.05 at 7:37 pm
Mike– I’m not going to bother, bud. Your arguments all along in this blog; your continual comments in support of Bush; your unending support of the Neocon ideals. The evidence is everywhere on this blog… almost every comment. You don’t seem to be ashamed of it any other time…don’t feel like you have to styart now. You are who you are. :)
Mike 10.07.05 at 10:10 am
Aaron - I’m not ashamed of my support for Bush, especially in regards to the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. In my opinion there are many who should be ashamed for not showing their support and undermining the morale of our troops. Your comment concerning my unending support of the Neocon ideals are not supported by my comments on your blog. If you’re going to make those accusations you need to back them up with the facts. For instance I have I have written on my blog concerning my great concern for Bush’s poor record on immigration. Do did not see any support from me on the Schiavo issue either and you won’t see my support for changing Roe vs. Wade. Unlike the Neocons I believe a woman should have the right to choose. I do support the military, always have and always will. If that’s being a Neocon then you’ve got me. Maybe you are a supporter of the MSM? In my eyes and most conservatives they continually write their stories based on what they want to feed the Ameican people instead of reporting the news as fact. You haven’t seen anything from me supporting Bush’s “over” spending and “big government” either. In regards to the Supreme Court I am a constitutionalist, I think I have commented to that affect. Another issue would be eminent domain… I am totally against the ruling from the court and if that’s being a Neocon, OK. Where do you stand in support of the war on terror, the troops, homeland security, immigration, spending, big government, women’s rights, eminent domain and how the MSM is totally Liberal biased? Show me where I have made comments that lead you to label me a Neocon?
Mike 10.07.05 at 11:10 am
Aaron - I’m not ashamed of my support for Bush, especially in regards to the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. In my opinion there are many who should be ashamed for not showing their support and undermining the morale of our troops. Your comment concerning my unending support of the Neocon ideals are not supported by my comments on your blog. If you’re going to make those accusations you need to back them up with the facts. For instance I have I have written on my blog concerning my great concern for Bush’s poor record on immigration. Do did not see any support from me on the Schiavo issue either and you won’t see my support for changing Roe vs. Wade. Unlike the Neocons I believe a woman should have the right to choose. I do support the military, always have and always will. If that’s being a Neocon then you’ve got me. Maybe you are a supporter of the MSM? In my eyes and most conservatives they continually write their stories based on what they want to feed the Ameican people instead of reporting the news as fact. You haven’t seen anything from me supporting Bush’s “over” spending and “big government” either. In regards to the Supreme Court I am a constitutionalist, I think I have commented to that affect. Another issue would be eminent domain… I am totally against the ruling from the court and if that’s being a Neocon, OK. Where do you stand in support of the war on terror, the troops, homeland security, immigration, spending, big government, women’s rights, eminent domain and how the MSM is totally Liberal biased? Show me where I have made comments that lead you to label me a Neocon?
Aaron Brazell 10.07.05 at 11:21 am
Mike–
First off, I never attacked you for your beliefs, so feel free to back down whenever you want. I was making an observation and it was not intended as an insult.
Secondly, I have no idea why you are bringing all the social issues into your neocon defense. Neocon’s could care less about social issues. Roe v. Wade is not a Neocon issue. Terri Schiavo is not a Neocon case.
The Neocon agenda has one plank. To establish American superiority across the globe in an effort to preserve the American ideal for many years to come. To that end, they believe the only way to secure an American peace for many years is by the use of military power to establish “the American Ideal”.
That is based on a paper written by Richard Perle, one of the leaders of the movement, back in the 90s.
Now, Mike… What was the reasons outlined to go to war? And based on those reasons, did you support the war? Do you support the war (not the troops…gotta keep those separated!) now?
Mike 10.07.05 at 11:59 am
Aaron - I never took it as an insult, but I needed to make clear where I stand. If the Neocon agenda has only one plank, which is to establish American superiority through the use of military force, how did you come about putting the label on me? I do support the war on terror and the reasons for going to war were very clear at the time. The reasons were based on intelligence that was believed to be true by most countries in the West, Russia and even the UN. You have a list a mile long containing the names of the Democrat Party stating their belief that Sadaam was a threat to American security and he could not be allowed to continue with his drive to obtain WMD, including nuclear. The true is that if it had been a Democrat in office that decided to invade you would not have the anti-war agenda led by the Liberal MSM. Clinton would have had nothing but their full support. Ensuring the safety of our country and the American people a president does not have the luxury of “wait and see” when the evidence in hand threatens American security. Clinton and his administration played “wait and see’ for eight years. Who knows how things would be today if he had acted earlier.Who knows if he had acted 9/11 may have been avoided. Based on what Richard Perle has written and believes I would say that gets mighty close to Communism. Isn’t that their belief?
I never support war just for the sake of going to war… I outlined the reasons we had for going to war against Iraq and I supported them at the time. Knowing now that the evidence was not correct relating to the WMD, which to be truthful some were found, I still support the war on terror. Should we pull out of Iraq because our reasons were not entirely correct, NO… That would be a major mistake and anyone who wants to follow the fanatical Left lead by the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Moveon.org have no regard for the safety of our troops or our country. As for supporting the troops I’ve been one of their strongest supports longer than you’ve been alive. Anything for the troops with no regards to the cost to ensure they have the ability to win…
Aaron Brazell 10.07.05 at 12:21 pm
Mike–
First off, I never attacked you for your beliefs, so feel free to back down whenever you want. I was making an observation and it was not intended as an insult.
Secondly, I have no idea why you are bringing all the social issues into your neocon defense. Neocon’s could care less about social issues. Roe v. Wade is not a Neocon issue. Terri Schiavo is not a Neocon case.
The Neocon agenda has one plank. To establish American superiority across the globe in an effort to preserve the American ideal for many years to come. To that end, they believe the only way to secure an American peace for many years is by the use of military power to establish “the American Ideal”.
That is based on a paper written by Richard Perle, one of the leaders of the movement, back in the 90s.
Now, Mike… What was the reasons outlined to go to war? And based on those reasons, did you support the war? Do you support the war (not the troops…gotta keep those separated!) now?
Mike 10.07.05 at 12:59 pm
Aaron - I never took it as an insult, but I needed to make clear where I stand. If the Neocon agenda has only one plank, which is to establish American superiority through the use of military force, how did you come about putting the label on me? I do support the war on terror and the reasons for going to war were very clear at the time. The reasons were based on intelligence that was believed to be true by most countries in the West, Russia and even the UN. You have a list a mile long containing the names of the Democrat Party stating their belief that Sadaam was a threat to American security and he could not be allowed to continue with his drive to obtain WMD, including nuclear. The true is that if it had been a Democrat in office that decided to invade you would not have the anti-war agenda led by the Liberal MSM. Clinton would have had nothing but their full support. Ensuring the safety of our country and the American people a president does not have the luxury of “wait and see” when the evidence in hand threatens American security. Clinton and his administration played “wait and see’ for eight years. Who knows how things would be today if he had acted earlier.Who knows if he had acted 9/11 may have been avoided. Based on what Richard Perle has written and believes I would say that gets mighty close to Communism. Isn’t that their belief?
I never support war just for the sake of going to war… I outlined the reasons we had for going to war against Iraq and I supported them at the time. Knowing now that the evidence was not correct relating to the WMD, which to be truthful some were found, I still support the war on terror. Should we pull out of Iraq because our reasons were not entirely correct, NO… That would be a major mistake and anyone who wants to follow the fanatical Left lead by the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Moveon.org have no regard for the safety of our troops or our country. As for supporting the troops I’ve been one of their strongest supports longer than you’ve been alive. Anything for the troops with no regards to the cost to ensure they have the ability to win…
Aaron Brazell 10.07.05 at 3:33 pm
Mike– This is continuing way off topic, but I’ll entertain the conversation. You are distancing yourself from the Neocons when, in fact, if I took the time, I can look at many, many comments you have left right here on this blog demonstrating unwavering loyalty to the cause of this war, and the reasons that were stated prior to the war for us going to Iraq… (I say prior to because somehow, “Weapons of Mass Destruction” have disappeared off of the current list of justifications, and somehow simplistically replaced with “Saddam was a bad guy”).
Tell me something, do you agree with the letter drafted in 1998 to then-President Clinton by the Project for the New American Century, a Neocon thinktank?
Notice the signees… Richard Armitage (Current Deputy Secretary of State), John Bolton (Current U.S. Ambassador to the UN), Bill Kristol (Editor of the The Weekly Standard, a Neocon publication), Richard Perle (Former Defense Council guy), Donald Rumsfeld (Current Secretary of Defense), and Paul Wolfowitz (Current Deputy Secretary of Defense). In other writings, Vice President Cheney is a signator. Do you agree with this letter?
Aaron Brazell 10.07.05 at 4:33 pm
Mike– This is continuing way off topic, but I’ll entertain the conversation. You are distancing yourself from the Neocons when, in fact, if I took the time, I can look at many, many comments you have left right here on this blog demonstrating unwavering loyalty to the cause of this war, and the reasons that were stated prior to the war for us going to Iraq… (I say prior to because somehow, “Weapons of Mass Destruction” have disappeared off of the current list of justifications, and somehow simplistically replaced with “Saddam was a bad guy”).
Tell me something, do you agree with the letter drafted in 1998 to then-President Clinton by the Project for the New American Century, a Neocon thinktank?
Notice the signees… Richard Armitage (Current Deputy Secretary of State), John Bolton (Current U.S. Ambassador to the UN), Bill Kristol (Editor of the The Weekly Standard, a Neocon publication), Richard Perle (Former Defense Council guy), Donald Rumsfeld (Current Secretary of Defense), and Paul Wolfowitz (Current Deputy Secretary of Defense). In other writings, Vice President Cheney is a signator. Do you agree with this letter?
Mike 10.13.05 at 4:20 pm
I do believe something had to be done to stop Saddam from using WMD, as did most of the world, even the Democrats. With the evidence available at the time, which was believed to be very credible, yes I did support the war. Saddam had WMD’s and had used them against Iran and his own people. WMD’s were found in Iraq, but the MSM never comments about them. A vile filled with saran is a WMD, correct? How many were found? What would have been a reason for invading Iraq in your mind? Should he have been left to continue in his pursuit to obtain and use these weapons? Now we have another threat on the horizon, Iran and Korea. Korea seems to be working itself out, but Iran is another story. “Setting Iran up for a preemptive strike, possibly with nukes” is the mantra now. Should we standby and allow Iran to obtain and “use” nuclear weapons? Do you believe their nuclear program is innocent as they claim? Do you believe Iran would use a nuclear weapon against the US and Israel if they obtained them? Is this thinking Neocon?
“Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater.”
The above statement taken from the letter says it all… If Clinton had acted there might not have been a 9/11. Clinton spent eight years appeasing our enemies and allowing the UN to control American policy. The reasons for going to war were very clear, as I have stated in earlier comments. Clinton failed as a president to do what he swore to do to defend America and the American people. Clinton had the same intelligence pertaining to WMD in Iraq that was believed to be accurate by every intelligence agency in the world, including the UN. What should a president do when they are confronted with overwhelming evidence that a rogue state has WMD and has ties with terrorists? Should he sit and wait and see if we will be attacked, as Clinton did? Eight years of the Clinton administration only emboldened Bin Laden. How many times were we attacked in the 90’s without anything retaliation? It’s no wonder we were attacked on 9/11. I suppose you don’t believe there were ties between Iraq and al Qaeda?
There are comments all over the Internet in regards to Neo-conservatism, or Hitlerism, whatever the radicals want to call it. Of course they talk about colonialism, empires and a Bizzaro World as stated in the wonderful, intelligent article:
http://www.etherzone.com/2005/raim091605.shtml
Aaron Brazell 10.13.05 at 4:31 pm
You’r evading the point and pointing at everyone else when I asked you a question.
Let me rephrase it. Do you agree with the war today?
Mike 10.13.05 at 5:03 pm
No, but based on the intelligence at the time we had to act. Also, I do believe we need to stay until the job is done… We cannot give a date and time for our pullout and to arbitrarily pull out before the Iraqi government and their military can defend themselves would again embolden the terrorist. Have you read the Zawahiri letter? This is a war against terrorism that will not go away. It has to be won… If we don’t finish the job in Iraq we will end up fighting somewhere else, maybe in our own streets.
Now I’ve given my answer now what are your feelings?
Mike 10.13.05 at 5:20 pm
I do believe something had to be done to stop Saddam from using WMD, as did most of the world, even the Democrats. With the evidence available at the time, which was believed to be very credible, yes I did support the war. Saddam had WMD’s and had used them against Iran and his own people. WMD’s were found in Iraq, but the MSM never comments about them. A vile filled with saran is a WMD, correct? How many were found? What would have been a reason for invading Iraq in your mind? Should he have been left to continue in his pursuit to obtain and use these weapons? Now we have another threat on the horizon, Iran and Korea. Korea seems to be working itself out, but Iran is another story. “Setting Iran up for a preemptive strike, possibly with nukes” is the mantra now. Should we standby and allow Iran to obtain and “use” nuclear weapons? Do you believe their nuclear program is innocent as they claim? Do you believe Iran would use a nuclear weapon against the US and Israel if they obtained them? Is this thinking Neocon?
“Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater.”
The above statement taken from the letter says it all… If Clinton had acted there might not have been a 9/11. Clinton spent eight years appeasing our enemies and allowing the UN to control American policy. The reasons for going to war were very clear, as I have stated in earlier comments. Clinton failed as a president to do what he swore to do to defend America and the American people. Clinton had the same intelligence pertaining to WMD in Iraq that was believed to be accurate by every intelligence agency in the world, including the UN. What should a president do when they are confronted with overwhelming evidence that a rogue state has WMD and has ties with terrorists? Should he sit and wait and see if we will be attacked, as Clinton did? Eight years of the Clinton administration only emboldened Bin Laden. How many times were we attacked in the 90’s without anything retaliation? It’s no wonder we were attacked on 9/11. I suppose you don’t believe there were ties between Iraq and al Qaeda?
There are comments all over the Internet in regards to Neo-conservatism, or Hitlerism, whatever the radicals want to call it. Of course they talk about colonialism, empires and a Bizzaro World as stated in the wonderful, intelligent article:
http://www.etherzone.com/2005/raim091605.shtml
Aaron Brazell 10.13.05 at 5:31 pm
You’r evading the point and pointing at everyone else when I asked you a question.
Let me rephrase it. Do you agree with the war today?
Mike 10.13.05 at 6:03 pm
No, but based on the intelligence at the time we had to act. Also, I do believe we need to stay until the job is done… We cannot give a date and time for our pullout and to arbitrarily pull out before the Iraqi government and their military can defend themselves would again embolden the terrorist. Have you read the Zawahiri letter? This is a war against terrorism that will not go away. It has to be won… If we don’t finish the job in Iraq we will end up fighting somewhere else, maybe in our own streets.
Now I’ve given my answer now what are your feelings?
Aaron Brazell 10.13.05 at 7:52 pm
I have thought that the war was wrong and we were duped. I believe the UN was intentionally misled and so, yeah, they bought into the war… then got smart and realized they had been duped.
The first President Bush explains why he chose not to go Baghdad in the first war. Yes we could have stormed up the Euphrates with little or no resistance, as we did in 2003. However, taking Baghdad and holding Baghdad… and by proxy, the entire nation of Iraq would be a costly notion… in terms of money, continuing allied support and blood.
Very wise, W. Shoulda listened to pappy.
Aaron Brazell 10.13.05 at 8:52 pm
I have thought that the war was wrong and we were duped. I believe the UN was intentionally misled and so, yeah, they bought into the war… then got smart and realized they had been duped.
The first President Bush explains why he chose not to go Baghdad in the first war. Yes we could have stormed up the Euphrates with little or no resistance, as we did in 2003. However, taking Baghdad and holding Baghdad… and by proxy, the entire nation of Iraq would be a costly notion… in terms of money, continuing allied support and blood.
Very wise, W. Shoulda listened to pappy.
Mike 10.14.05 at 8:44 am
How and by who were we duped and who duped the UN? It would seem that every major intelligence agency worldwide was duped then. If we were duped it was due to the lack of accuracy of the intelligence coming out of Iraq. Saddam himself believed he had WMD, which he did by the way. It was his own scientist and military who were afraid for their lives that duped him. Based on information that was available and the UN resolutions against Iraq the invasion was justified.
By the way did you really mean to say the UN got smart? Haven’t you been keeping up with the real reason they didn’t support us? Why didn’t Germany, France and Russia support the invasion? Was it because they just thought it wasn’t a nice thing to do, or did they get caught with their hands in the till? When doesn’t the UN get duped? The UN Secretary General is a crook and should be shot or at the least locked up for his scandalous lack of leadership. It is a great thing that we have someone like Bolton at the UN now. Maybe this league of depots, thugs and terrorist can be straightened out.
The first President Bush was pre 9/11, a whole decade passed before we invaded Iraq the second time and a whole lot has changed… The weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country and he continued to attack our forces as they patrolled the “no fly’ zones. We were attacked by terrorists and the knowledge (belief) that Saddam had WMD and a known relationship with terrorist was even greater justification.
Sorry, you’re wrong when it comes to W listening to pappy. I’m sure pappy was in full support of us invading Iraq. Bush 41 and 43 were entirely different times and thank God we have a President who will continue to fight the war on terrorism.
Does this make me a Neocon?
Mike 10.14.05 at 9:44 am
How and by who were we duped and who duped the UN? It would seem that every major intelligence agency worldwide was duped then. If we were duped it was due to the lack of accuracy of the intelligence coming out of Iraq. Saddam himself believed he had WMD, which he did by the way. It was his own scientist and military who were afraid for their lives that duped him. Based on information that was available and the UN resolutions against Iraq the invasion was justified.
By the way did you really mean to say the UN got smart? Haven’t you been keeping up with the real reason they didn’t support us? Why didn’t Germany, France and Russia support the invasion? Was it because they just thought it wasn’t a nice thing to do, or did they get caught with their hands in the till? When doesn’t the UN get duped? The UN Secretary General is a crook and should be shot or at the least locked up for his scandalous lack of leadership. It is a great thing that we have someone like Bolton at the UN now. Maybe this league of depots, thugs and terrorist can be straightened out.
The first President Bush was pre 9/11, a whole decade passed before we invaded Iraq the second time and a whole lot has changed… The weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country and he continued to attack our forces as they patrolled the “no fly’ zones. We were attacked by terrorists and the knowledge (belief) that Saddam had WMD and a known relationship with terrorist was even greater justification.
Sorry, you’re wrong when it comes to W listening to pappy. I’m sure pappy was in full support of us invading Iraq. Bush 41 and 43 were entirely different times and thank God we have a President who will continue to fight the war on terrorism.
Does this make me a Neocon?
Comments on this entry are closed.