Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Well, we have an aging population and an entitlement time bomb, so I guess we're in the same club.> Sure. But we're junior members, and they are the leaders.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I'm sure the Bush Administration invaded Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people. Because guys like Cheney, Rove, Scooter, Rice and the rest of the gang are so compassionate. <--[doing my best Dr. Evil impersonation -- which is quite good by the way] Riiiigggghhhhhht....
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm sure the Bush Administration invaded Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people.> It was one of many reasons. You might want to read the following to review them all: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news /releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yeah, government propaganda is well known for providing unvarnished truth.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It's the resolution that a majority of both houses of Congress voted for.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj That Congress doesn't exist anymore. I guess you forgot that we elected a new Congress to take the country in a different direction last year.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I guess you forgot that we elected a new Congress to take the country in a different direction last year.> I'm well aware we have a new Congress. That has nothing to do with the reasons we went into Iraq.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj A majority of both houses of Congrees recently voted for a resolution to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, so by your previous standard, I'm guessing you find that resolution to be a good one too.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A majority of both houses of Congrees recently voted for a resolution to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, so by your previous standard, I'm guessing you find that resolution to be a good one too.> You need to stop guessing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Tenet was on Meet the Press this morning, and one of the things Russert brought up was a letter written in response to a question by Sen. Bayh, that DD posted on another thread to "prove" that the CIA had no serious qualifications or doubts about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda. Tenet said the letter did not include them, and it was a MISTAKE that it did not. In fact there were all sorts of doubts, and Tenet said the letter should have included qualifications, caveats and "however"'s. They had included them in spoken statements to members of subcommittees and the like, but Tenet knew that was a poor substitute. This letter was presented to the senate just before the vote on authorization (just 3 days before, I believe), obviously influenced the senate's thinking, and was probably intended to. This incident doesn't make Tenet or the administration (which knew about the letter) look very good at all, but it does make the vote of the senate more understandable.
Originally Posted By DlandJB The French have a strong sense of national pride -- so do Americans. I think we clash with eachother because we are more alike than we care to admit. Americans hate it when people come here and don't speak English (not all but many). The French prefer that people who go there speak French, or at least attempt it. Again, why begrudge them what we ourselves demand? I've only been to Paris once. I speak no French, but my late husband did. I didn't really want to go to Paris, but he was dying to go. I thought I would have a terrible time -- I had a wonderful time. It is true, that as soon as my husband spoke in French we were treated very well. Otherwise, I don't imagine it was much different than being in any big city. (However, when some German tourists came into town over the weekend, you could see that the dislike and disgust for the Germans was a great deal stronger that any visible dislike for Americans. But then German tourists make American tourists look like absolute sweethearts.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <DD posted on another thread to "prove" that the CIA had no serious qualifications or doubts about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda.> DD would never claim he could "prove" anything like that. <This incident doesn't make Tenet or the administration (which knew about the letter) look very good at all, but it does make the vote of the senate more understandable.> I fail to see how it doesn't make the administration look very good at all. They didn't write it.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Considering the French elections over the weekend, I suspect that we'll get a full dose of talking points here on LP once they are delivered to the disciples over the radio and Fox News on Monday.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom All I can say is that it amazes me how some people in some countries treat others. I am sure that if I went to France I would have a good time. I can speak some French and everytime I go to Canada ( and its always the province of Quebec ) I am treated with respect. One of the most startling episodes I have ever witnessed was when I was in Hong Kong and Chinese treated me well, oh course I was treating them well too. The place is so facinating. Hong Kong is literally 400 islands of malls, LOL... But I am so facinated with Asians anyway, LOL. But I witnessed an Austrailian couple who treated the a Chinese man very poorly. I was actaully embarred. They kept cursing at this man in English and it was just awful. No excuse for it.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <I guess you forgot that we elected a new Congress to take the country in a different direction last year.> <I'm well aware we have a new Congress. That has nothing to do with the reasons we went into Iraq.> Would you agree then, that since the invasion, our reasons for going into Iraq seem meaningless?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom No I would not agree with that statement at all. I think our reasons for going into Iraq were and still are quite clear. Saddam invaded his neighbors. Saddam on a daily basis violated the Peace Accord ( or whatever you want to call it ) that ended the First Pursian Gulf War by shooting at US planes patroling the neutral zone around Iraq. Saddam threw out the UN inspectors who were looking for nuclear research. Saddam had chemical weapons. Saddam used those chemical weapons against his own people. Iraq clearly was doing nuclear research. There were 17 UN resolutions that said we could go in to enforce the Peace deal and guess what we did. But thanks for playing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<DD posted on another thread to "prove" that the CIA had no serious qualifications or doubts about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda.>> <DD would never claim he could "prove" anything like that.> That's exactly what you did. You posted a link to the letter and then said "where are the qualifications - there are none" or something close to that. <<This incident doesn't make Tenet or the administration (which knew about the letter) look very good at all, but it does make the vote of the senate more understandable.>> <I fail to see how it doesn't make the administration look very good at all. They didn't write it.> They knew of the letter and knew it was being delivered to Congress. Had they wanted to, they could have said "you should make the qualifications clear, otherwise it looks like there's a definite link, when there isn't." They didn't do that - my guess is because they were quite happy at the mistaken impression the letter gave just before the vote on authorization. Although all this may be more appropriate in another topic.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Would you agree then, that since the invasion, our reasons for going into Iraq seem meaningless?> Kennesaw Tom is correct. If you read the joint resolution, you'll see that we had ample reasons to act against Saddam's regime, and most of those reasons are still valid today.
