Maybe it's because the executive branch turned out to be very, very wrong about Iraq. Just an alternative interpretation.

If this war were like WWII, it would already be over.

 

I said by the end of 1942. They would not have the guts to hang in there when it gets tough.

1) From EJ Dionne Jr's Stand Up Fight Back, pp 17-18:

 

and pp 53-54

 

 

Bush advocated cutting taxes by 1.6 trillion when the economy was doing great, he proposed cutting taxes by 1.6 trillion when the economic downturn after 2000 became apparent, and following 9/11 he fought for a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut. The circumstances were, for lack of a better word, circumstance; the tax cut was a goal in and of itself, not a tool.

 

2) Then why do 66% of Republicans still approve of Bush? It's time to really get mad.

 

3) The participation of the ever-shrinking "Coalition of the Willing" was a PR stunt. Their numbers were nominal and their support compelled, especially when you consider that the majority didn't even send combat troops, only logistical and medical support. Even Britain sent only 45,000 for the invasion, making the US and UK forces over 98% of the combat troops. We made a decision to invade, and England rode shotgun.

 

While it may not fit a technical definition of unilateral action, it was based in the principles of unilateralism. The decision making process was entirely our own.

 

4) The Iraq war is now called a mistake by 63% of Americans and 57% approve of immediate withdrawal. 52% think a Democrat is better suited to take on Iraq.

 

The money belongs to the person that earned it. It is not for the government to take and redistribute it. There are constitutional duties to fulfill, such as maintaining the military or a post office and coining money. We even help people in time of need temporarialy, even though the Constitution does not provide for it.

This war war was supported by many Democracts in the beginning, but for political expedicency only they now are against the war. No ability to see the long term or courage to fight when things get tough.

No doubts mistakes were made. In situations like this nothing goes your way 100% of the time. If the current Democrats were our leaders in WWII they would have quit the war by the end of 1942.

 

This war is FAR from WWII. We were attacked and had war declared on us by the Axis. Our allies had been conquered and others were in danger of falling. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not attack us, and posed about as much of a threat as Mexico.

The money belongs to the person that earned it. It is not for the government to take and redistribute it. There are constitutional duties to fulfill, such as maintaining the military or a post office and coining money. We even help people in time of need temporarialy, even though the Constitution does not provide for it.

I'm not trying to debate the merits (or lack there of) of the tax cuts.

This war is FAR from WWII. We were attacked and had war declared on us by the Axis. Our allies had been conquered and others were in danger of falling. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not attack us, and posed about as much of a threat as Mexico.

 

Absolutely!! I could not agree more. Why does everyone not see this?

This war is FAR from WWII. We were attacked and had war declared on us by the Axis. Our allies had been conquered and others were in danger of falling. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not attack us, and posed about as much of a threat as Mexico.

 

I never said it had anything to do with 9-11. WMDs was what it was all about. The Bush bashers have been the ones to mislead people into thinking the war in Iraq had a link to 9-11. That is a way of turning people against the war in Iraq is by handing out false info.

By the way, while I have supported Bush in the War on Terror I disagree with many othe things he has done or not done.

I never said it had anything to do with 9-11. WMDs was what it was all about. The Bush bashers have been the ones to mislead people into thinking the war in Iraq had a link to 9-11. That is a way of turning people against the war in Iraq is by handing out false info.

By the way, while I have supported Bush in the War on Terror I disagree with many othe things he has done or not done.

 

I am sorry but that is just dead flat wrong. As a justification for this war Bush and Co. tried their best to link Iraq to 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

I said by the end of 1942. They would not have the guts to hang in there when it gets tough.

 

 

This wornout argument is a tremendous oversimplification of the situation. It presumes that a favorable outcome is achievable if only we "hang in there" long enough and "don't back down from the fight" or some other trite slogan. And even though the definition of "favorable outcome" has been redefined time and time again by the administration, Iraq is still not close. If a favorable outcome is not possible, and Iraq cannot be glued back together through our military involvement, what you're saying is that we should simply stay in Iraq forever, so as not to show a lack of "guts". The public (including a growing segment of Republicans) will not support staying in Iraq forever.

I never said it had anything to do with 9-11. WMDs was what it was all about. The Bush bashers have been the ones to mislead people into thinking the war in Iraq had a link to 9-11. That is a way of turning people against the war in Iraq is by handing out false info.

By the way, while I have supported Bush in the War on Terror I disagree with many othe things he has done or not done.

 

 

Huh? I must say I've been following these issues since 9/12/01 and I've never, ever heard anyone say that Bush's critics misled people into thinking there was a connection between 9/11 Iraq.

Absolutely!! I could not agree more. Why does everyone not see this?

 

People will choose to see what they want.

Huh? I must say I've been following these issues since 9/12/01 and I've never, ever heard anyone say that Bush's critics misled people into thinking there was a connection between 9/11 Iraq.

 

The term "revisionist history" comes to mind.

When the executive branch has information fabricated to convince everyone war is needed then they will probably follow. I would be curious to see how much GW's and Cheney's personal finances have grown during this war.

When the executive branch has information fabricated to convince everyone war is needed then they will probably follow. I would be curious to see how much GW's and Cheney's personal finances have grown during this war.

 

 

Chosing to become VP was the worst finanical decision of Dick Cheney's life.

^ Interesting, Pigman makes allegation of documentary fraud and war profiteering. Anything to substantiate that?

^ Interesting, Pigman makes allegation of documentary fraud and war profiteering. Anything to substantiate that?

 

 

Of course it can't be proven--if there was anything to substantiate it, Congress would be preparing impeachment proceedings right about now. Cheney is much too clever and knowledgable about the inner workings of government to be tripped up by such a loose end.