In article <[email hidden]>,
RonSonic said:John Forrest Tomlinson said:On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 02:57:54 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:So what does Flogittodeathlinson do? Completely change the
subject.
OK -- let's take that as a working proposition that I have changed
the subject. I think they're related, you don't, but for now let's
say they are.
I'm still curious. Can you say that Bush was and is truthful about
the reasons the US went to war in Iraq?
First: most of the really good reasons for removing Saddam were
things that Bush as head of state cannot say. And yes, every reason
given was valid.
Bush can't say? God forbid that we have honesty and transparency by the
government of the self-proclaimed leading nation in the free world. It
amazes me that a so-called Christian is so easily willing to lie
repeatedly and without shame.
And, Ron, if Bush can't say them, how do you know about those reasons?
Is your security clearance higher than his? Or have you just been
spending too much time listening to Republican shill radio?
Every reason for invading Iraq given was valid? Such as "Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction?" Or "Saddam Hussein was in league with al
Qaeda?" Or "we'll be received as liberators by grateful Iraqis?" Given
that both the 9/11 Commission and the CIA have publicly documented the
falsity of almost all of the Bush/Rumsfeld "reasons" for going to war,
your statement merely demonstrates the willing obliviousness to reality
favored by the few supporters that Bush has left.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:And that the US is safer due to our going to war in Iraq?
Is it sufficient to say that the alternatives were worse? Long term,
yes, we're safer. Safer or not is a variable that fluctuates from
week to week and has since time immemorial.
Of course, we are much safer now that there are no functioning
governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, that al Qaeda in Iraq has been
formed and is recruiting and training terrorists faster than ever, the
Taleban is reforming and refining its tactics, that Hezbollah has been
emboldened, North Korea continues it's insane nuclear plans unabated,
Iran has claimed to have embarked upon the path to be coming a nuclear
power, and Bush continues to flip flop faster and farther than John
Kerry has ever managed.
What were the alternatives? Well, we could have completed the job of
overthrowing the Taleban, rounding up al Qaeda operatives in
Afghanistan, ensured the formation of a stable government in
Afghanistan, maybe even capturing Osama bin Laden (despite Bush's flip
flops). Since the Taleban *was* actually involved in supporting the
attacks on 9/11, those would have been good things to have attained.
But instead Rumsfeld's obsession with Iraq diverted us away from those
goals and has weakened American military effectiveness, has divided our
forces, and sent us into yet another quagmire. We have now two failed
nations instead of one. And whereas Saddam Hussein brutal dictatorship
prevented al Qaeda from gaining a foothold in Iraq, there is now a
branch of al Qaeda loyal to Osama bin Laden firmly and probably
permanently esconsed in Iraq.
The real elephant in the room is Saudi Arabia, where much of the funding
and most of the 9/11 terrorists came from. But we won't do anything
there because the Saudi dictators are friends of the Bush family and
their cronies- and we desperately need their oil thanks to decades of
short sighted policy by both U.S. political parties.
Anybody who think that America is safer than it was in January 2001 is
either ignorant or delusional. The Bush Administration has spent six
years making the situation much, much worse. And they're not done yet.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Or are you afraid to say it explicitly like that?
You'll sputter and pretend it should be obvious that this is all
wrong - but I won't care.
Apparently you are easily satisfied by an utterly incompetent government
that cannot manage either domestic or international affairs. The
Republicans have self-fulfilled Ronald Reagan's prophecy from 1980.
Fortunately the majority of Americans have finally woken up and smelled
the coffee and are ready to throw the bums out (but unfortunately the
Democrats haven't shown an inkling of a plan, either, which may cost
them at the polls. They are banking on not being Republicans to be good
enough to get elected. It's not).
