NO! Chemical weapons in Iraq???

[scaeagles]

Well, disagreements will continue to mount. So many things I disagree with GC I won't bother.

Bin Laden has made himself a non story. A video or audio tape every three months means he probably isn't doing much. Would love to catch him, sure.

Afghanistan....moving along, not swimmingly by any means, but the elected government is functioning.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

What about bin Laden? What about Afghanastan? Why don't we hear about that anymore?

Yeah, we only hear from bin Laden when Bush needs a boost and *wham* there's another tape on the news... And what about Afghanistan? It's a mess there and in Iraq and in New Orleans for that matter. But these things have all dropped off our radar while we focus on numb sh!t things like gay marriage amendments. Boy, is our country not paying attention or what? Our politicians should focus more on benefitting the country rather than getting reelected or keeping their jobs or giving blowjobs to corporate America.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

To say war was unjusitifed on Bush's grounds and then to recite the very reason the invasion happened seems strange.

That's not true. All of those other reasons that could have been used to justify restarting the war existed for 13 years. The reason given for why it had to be done now was that he possessed the weapons and was actively developing new weapons that we could not allow to get into the hands of terrorist organizations that wouldn't hesitate to use them.

The reasons from which Bush hung his assertion that war in 2003 was necessary were unfounded. Now, I believe that the case they'd have liked to make is very similar to the reasons I believe the war needed to be prosecuted (and would have been legally justifiable prior to 9/11 and became more imperative after) but that they chose not to present that justification because they didn't think it would sell enough of the population. So, they chose instead to present an imminent threat that turned out not to exist rather than the unacceptable risk that did. I have no doubt that they believed their case to be strong and valid but they were still wrong.

It is only after they failed to find the massive WMD caches they expected that the administration began to present alternate justifications and that was rightly perceived as desparation on their part, even if some of the altnerate justifications are actually pretty valid reasons.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Well, disagreements will continue to mount. So many things I disagree with GC I won't bother.

And why not? I'd love to hear you come to the defense of Rick "Man on Dog"* Santorum. That guy's an idiot!




*

SANTORUM: In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

Source

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Yeah, we only hear from bin Laden when Bush needs a boost and *wham* there's another tape on the news...

Do you really believe that somehow the Bush administration and Al Qaeda are coordinating these tapes? Or that they are just fabrications of the Bush administration?

[scaeagles]

Hearing from bin Laden gives Bush a boost? So....killing Zarqawi doesn't give Bush a boost, but hearing from an uncaptured (dead or alive) bin Laden is staged to give him a boost. I fail to follow the logic.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

That's not true.

But it is. Regardless of the intelligence, believed or not, correct or not, the invasion itself came down to the final UN resolutions with Saddam refusing to allow inspections to verify or debunk the intelligence. All he had to do was agree and there was no invasion. It's that simple.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

...even if some of the altnerate justifications are actually pretty valid reasons.

Heck, liberation's a great reason if we actually were liberating someone...

They say that since the US-led invasion, gay people are being killed because of their sexual orientation.
They blame the increase in violence on the growing influence of religious figures and militia groups in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was ousted.
Islam considers homosexuality sinful. A website published in the Iranian city of Qom in the name of Ayatollah Sistani, Iraq's most revered Shia cleric, says: "Those who commit sodomy must be killed in the harshest way".

Source

And this is after we went in...

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Do you really believe that somehow the Bush administration and Al Qaeda are coordinating these tapes? Or that they are just fabrications of the Bush administration?

I find the timing of the bin Laden tape the day before the 2004 elections to be suspect. You're implying a coordination effort between the US and al Qaeda, I'm not. These tapes often do not need to be released to the media at all. Especially coming from such a secretive Administration. But they release them. Why? Fear. Fear rallies people behind the POTUS.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

And why not? I'd love to hear you come to the defense of Rick "Man on Dog"* Santorum.

Regarding Santorum being the one who brought it out (but wait - you said it was old news, so how could Santorum have brought new info to the public in an effort to win his election?), I couldn't pretend to know why he was the one who held the press conference.

Hoekstra, however, is the chair of the House Intelligence committee. Does his presence make it anymore credible? If Santorum wasn't there would you have a differing opinion?