>Not in September, but hopefully in November ;-)
oops :)


>Sadly, the past few weeks the administration has gotten a bit of a bounce in public opinion about
"staying the >course" in Iraq. They have gone back to their old staple of claiming to be "strong on defense" while the Democrats >are weak. And it's working!

>And it's working!
Not sure I agree here. Despite all the bravado, people are sick & tired of the war and the lies. The American people are not stupid, and see right through all the fluff being thrown in the way.




>
>>I truly believe that come september, the GOP is going to lose the House. As you said, people are tired
>>of this war.
>>
>>And think about this. The GOP went on a witchhunt after Clinton. They spent $80 Million dollars
>>investigating Clinton and came up with nothing.
>>http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/01/counsel.probe.costs/
>>
>>All they came up with is Clinton lying, under oath, (a civil affair I remind you), about having an affiar. This
>>had absolutly nothing to do with the security of the United States, yet the GOP voted to impeach the President
>>of the United States. Does no one else see the utter absurdity of this and total hypocrisy of the GOP?
>>
>>Senator Trent Lott once said that every member of the House who has had an extramarital affair ought to resign;
>>Senator Ted Kennedy responded that the House would then be empty. If it wasn't true, it would be funny.
>>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20010719.html
>>
>>Who the heck are the people to impeach Clinton when the did the same act he did. Think they didn't lie about it
>>too?
>>
>>Again, lying under oath is a civil offense and certainly doesn't justfy impeachment.
>>
>>Sending US troops the invade a country based on lies - now that deserves impeachment.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Ask a question on this topic and you are a terrorist, anti American, defeatist, liberal or a Democratic. Now every good little American should just go Baaah, Baaah, like good right wing bible thumping real Americans!
>>>
>>>The Administration wants war, and controls the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal government. The majority of the people of this country do not want the war to continue. The politicians represent our views in theory. In fact they represent the views of one man. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.
>>>
>>>Oh yes - be sure to relect the same republicans to office. We need to continue our present policies.
>>>
>>>
>>>>There has been considerable discussion here on the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>The Bush administration and the GOP has repeatedly tried to justify the invasion on the premise that Iraq
>>>>was developing WMD's and that Iraq posed a grave danger to the security of the United States and it's interests.
>>>>
>>>>In spite of the lack of documented proof of WMD's, the GOP still defends this decision, and the continues to
>>>>denounce anyone who tries to question it.
>>>>
>>>>Here again is another example of this. Yesterday, June 23rd, two Republican senators came forward and
>>>>stated that WMD's had in fact been found and that, on the basis of this, the war is justified.
>>>>
>>>>Today, the Department of Defense refuted this clame. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/
>>>>
>>>>I quote:
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>"Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan on Wednesday
>>>>pointed to a newly declassified report that says coalition forces have found 500
>>>>munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents.
>>>>
>>>>They cited the report in an attempt to counter criticism by Democrats who say the
>>>>decision to go to war was a mistake."
>>>>

>>>>
>>>>Reading this, one might conclude that there were in fact WMD's in Iraq, and therefore the basis
>>>>for attacking Iraq was justified.
>>>>
>>>>Yet, if you read on, you can see the response by the Department of Defense. These are the people
>>>>on the ground in Iraq who were actually looking for the weapons.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous
>>>>because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991.
>>>>

>>>>
>>>>It was well known after the Gulf War in 1990 that Iraq had these kinds of weapons. Some were destroyed
>>>>in that war, some were not. When the Bush administration used the term 'WMD', it was not referring
>>>>to these types of weapons.
>>>>
>>>>Why is it that it was only after 12 years, and until George Bush took office, did someone suddenly
>>>>decide that these 'degraded' gas canisters were enough of a grave threat to the US to go and attack
>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has
>>>>been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in
>>>>this time."
>>>>

>>>>
>>>>Could it be that the existance of these old, encrusted gas canisters was unknown up till now? We know that's
>>>>not true, because we destroyed some of them in the first gulf war. We knew then that Iraq had these weapons.
>>>>
>>>>Could it be that these weapons somehow became more of a threat 3 years ago then they were back in 1991? The
>>>>only change in the status of these weapons was their age.
>>>>
>>>>In fact, the types of WMD's that the Bush administration was referring to were large scale weapons, such
>>>>as nuclear weapons and the like. Yet there has not been one single documented piece of information that
>>>>proves that Iraq had or was acquiring large scale destructive weapons such as nukes.
>>>>
>>>>Even more, in October 2004, Charlse Duelfer, the head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, the group tasked
>>>>with finding these weapons, submitted to the CIA a report that clearly stated that no such weapons existed in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>See also this article
>>>>
>>>>One part of the article states:
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>"The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.
>>>>
>>>>"We were able to determine that [the missile] is, in fact, degraded and ... is consistent with what we
>>>>would expect from finding a munition that was dated back to pre-Gulf War," an intelligence official told
>>>>NBC. "However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard
>>>>if used in attacks against coalition forces."
>>>>

>>>>
>>>>First, the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they didn't want to look foolish being in
>>>>error. The CIA's Survey Group found nothing. Saying the WMD's do in fact exist doesn't make it so.
>>>>
>>>>And, they go on to say "...if used in attacks against coalition forces"
>>>>
>>>>The coalition forces wouldn't be in danger of being attacked by gas-laced artillery shells had we not
>>>>attacked Iraq in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Now consider this:
>>>>

>>>>A leading Democrat on intelligence issues said (Senator) Santorum's assertion that there were in fact
>>>>weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was politically motivated.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And finally:
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>For his part, Hoekstra, appearing before cameras on Thursday, reiterated his assertions of Wednesday
>>>>evening, saying, "Iraq is NOT a WMD-free zone" and it "amazes me" that members of Congress still say
>>>>that there was no WMD in Iraq.
>>>>

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I quote: "Iraq is NOT a WMD-free zone and it 'amazes me' that members of Congress still say that there
>>>>was no WMD in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>Huh?? In fact, notwithstanding some 20 year old, rusted sarin shells, Iraq IS a WMD-free zone. And it
>>>>amazed me that GOP members of Congress still say that there ARE WMD's in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>Again, saying the WMD's exist does not make it so. The US has had free access to all of Iraq for years.
>>>>So WHERE are the weapons? Again, I remind you - Not a single shred of evidence has surfaced to support
>>>>the assertion that WMD's exist in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>I say to the GOP - put up or shut up. If there are WMD's, then prove it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In spite of the overwhelming lack of evidence to support this war, I ask how anyone can still
>>>>support this? Isn't it time the American people take off the blinders and question this?
>>>>
>>>>It is the right and the responsibility of every American citizen to question it's leaders. Shouldn't
>>>>we all be asking hard questions right about now?
>>>>
>>>>Instead of attacking those who see the truth, why shouldn't the GOP start looking for a way out
>>>>of the mess they got us into?