News-Record.com

Charles, Thank you for providing the link. It gave me the opportunity to not only read the coverage but to sign the letter to the president demanding explanation. Not that I think any amount of demands to answer to the American public for involving us in a no win situation is going to make one iota of difference. Bush thinks he is above any legal or moral obligation to the US. He has been allowed to get away with out and out lies for too long. He has a big lesson to learn but is too immature and spoiled to see beyond his own hedonistic wants.

Charles and Yvonne, why do you hate freedom?

Just kidding. Although really, there is nothing funny about this immoral and unjustified war, is there?

Thanks for providing the link and for joining the millions around the world who speak out in opposition to this war. I, too, doubt we will ever hear an apology from this corrupt administration to the Iraqi people. But that doesn't keep me from continuing to seek one.

What?! Bush lied about Irag? How dare you people speak ill of our emperor.....uhm....I mean president that way. He only wanted to insure the freedom of oil.....I mean the people of Iraq. I mean our freedom. He only wanted to help overthrow the man who "tried" to kill his daddy. His plan to rebuild Iraq with all of his friends' companies is what is going to get us out of the deficit created by this horrible war for the freedom of all of us here in the U.S.A. Oh wait, it's for the freedom of the Iraqis. No, I'm sorry. It IS for our freedom. No, I'm sorry again. It's to find WMDs. All right now I've confused myself. Now I don't know what to think. I need a government official to come and reprogram my brain so I'll know what they want me to know.

Thanks for the laugh, Joe.

Kristin, I, too, keep hoping and trying to promote justice for those of us who feel Bush involved us in this war for his own personal gain. His and his rich, greedy buddies, that is. (I have no problem with people being rich but when they get richer by the bloodshed of innocent people, I DO have a problem with it.)

All kidding aside, I never have been one for war when diplomacy could prevail. I did my hitch in the military and back our military men and women one hundred percent. The administration who put them there is another story entirely. We Americans, and the people who have died on both sides along with thier families, deserve the apologies expressed by Mr. Lownes and others.

If we are going to "demand apologies" then why don't you go ask Clinton for one? I believe he owes us all one for his role in the mess we are now in....

P.S. Sometimes the sheer ignorance and one-sidedness of the post on here AMAZE ME.

Ahh, the ever-popular "divert attention away from Bush by bringing up Bill Clinton" strategy. OK, Tater, I'll bite. What exactly did Clinton do to contribute to "the mess we are now in"?

It amazes me how you lefties sit there and arm chair quarterback from your comfy homes and offices.

I know your memories are short, but Saddam invaded Kuwait, his soldiers raped and murdered people and then torched the place when we came in. He also gassed the Kurds in the north and otherwise led to the murders of hundreds of thousands in his "gulags".

Some of you may feel the first Iraq war was justified as I did. Only problem was we, under pressure from Europe and Middle Eastern countries didn't take out Saddam at that time, a big mistake.

Rather, the U.N. came up with these nice resolutions for Saddam to behave and naively thought he would abide by the resolutions. Saddam flipped his finger at the resolutions (14 in all) so sanctions were imposed. The left wing media claimed WE were starving the Iraqi children with sanctions. So then comes along the oil for food program. The children continued to starve as Saddam took millions from the oil sales to build more palaces. His buddies in the U.N. didn't care as some of them, including Kofi's son, the French, Germans, and Russians were profiting off the deals.

Europe, the U.N. and Clinton continued to look the other way. After all, illicit money and fellatio can distract the mind.

It amazes me how liberals think you can negotiate with evil people like Saddam & terrorists.

I can't prove this as a fact, but I would sumise that our complacency in Iraq along with ignoring terrorist attacks (1st Trade Center, Kobar Towers, Kenya, Tanzania, USS Cole) in the 90's emboldened terrorists. Evil takes advantage of weakness.

Bush finally called Saddam's bluff, after many warnings. He, Tony Blair, and some others were the only ones with the balls to say what they say and mean what they mean. You quarterbacks, along with your hero Ted Kennedy, think Bush concocted the war in Texas as a way to get some cheap oil. You think Bush cares nothing about the men and women who are killed or wounded in the line of duty as long as Halliburton is ok. How sick.

I don't mind if you don't agree with the war, no one wants war including me. But I never hear anyone offer solutions as to what we could have done instead. Continue negotiations? 14 years of that did nothing. Leave the rape rooms and torture chambers open? Hope and pray that Saddam would become a nice guy? What would you armchair quarterbacks have done?

Kristin, You can go to another thread and read Tater's rather long use of Clinton as a strawman, the one titled "President is inconsistent in reverence of life".

I have found when people want to express opinions but present them as facts, they employ all kinds of smoke screens. Usually it is criticism of those who have little or nothing to do with actual events.

Bush, not Clinton, made the decision to involve us in Iraq, lied about the reasons and got caught. Now it is time for him to accept responsibility and fess up. Even Nixon was man enough to do that.

People will NEVER agree 100% on whether we should have gone to war in Iraq, whether or not Bush is a good man, or whether or not you agree with his policies.

I believe we needed to invade Iraq. I believe Iraq was a threat and that they did not take the UN sanctions seriously.

I believe Bush, in his heart is a good man. I believe he feels every action he has taken is justified, and I feel he is bewildered that people do not see things his way.

I believe Bush is a bafoon when it comes to social isuues. I believe his one-sided line of sight has hindered his popularity and progress as much as it has helped him.

I believe Bush should stop saying how well things are going in Iraq, when they obviously are not going well.

I believe that the far right and the far left need to stop playing politics and focus on what is important.

I believe the majority of America is middle of the road. I don't feel there are as many "Ted Kennedy" or "Tom Delay" wannabes as politicians would like us to believe.

I believe the majority of people in America would be satisfied with a happy medium.

With that said, who is in favor of a Rudolph Juliani/Joe Lieberman ticket for the next presidential campain? Why not? A liberal Republican with a conservative Democrat...think of what might actually get done!

Dan, While I have always appreciated your passion (and Tater's too), aren't you doing exactly what you are so upset with us "lefies" and "liberals" for doing, armchair quarterbacking?

Can we not express our frustration about being lied to and manipulated into a war without being something you would not wipe your feet on?

It might behoove you to remember the world is full of brutal dictators who have no regard for human life. They are raping, murdering, robbing and imprisoning their own people. Are we going to take all of them on?

The "why" of invading Iraq is the issue here. I'm sorry but I don't buy into the notion it was for any noble cause. It is, imo, Bush's revenge war and his ego war. And yes, I do think he is that evil. I told everyone that in Feb. of this year. My opinion has not changed.

The facts of the Iraq situation continue to be manipulated by both political parties. The continued use of American resources in Iraq is degrading our ability to save lives both home and in places like Darfur. It is also degrading our ability to face real threats like North Korea. Our leaders need to come to terms with our national goals and our abilities instead of using phrases like "Bring 'em on", "...cut and run", and pejorative terms for those who disagree.

I believe Clinton did apoligize for his stupidity.
Clinton lied and his wife cried.
Bush lied and soldiers died!
When a neo-con diverts attention from Bush onto Clinton, what they're really saying is that they are sorry for Bush's lies and arrogant war-mongering.
I accept your apologies, my foolish conservative fellow human beings. It's OK.

I doubt Hillary cried, I bet she beat the s**t out of him!

I'll try to address everyone's arguments all at once.

First of all, it's not only Bush who thinks he's above the law, etc, as Yvonne said. Tater and Dan are correct that Clinton thought so too. But Tater and Dan do not go far enough.

Every president before Bush and Clinton, not to mention Congress, has continually and egregiously violated the Constitution. Even George Washington, our revered Father, led troops into Western Pennsylvania to quell a rebellion the cause of which was a refusal to pay an unconstitutional tax. John Adams and his Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, laws which made it illegal to criticize the government. Those laws were repealed, thankfully, under Jefferson's administration, but the fact that such tyrannical laws were passed so soon after the ratification of the Constitution proves that those in power can't be trusted one whit.

Of course, most of the damage to our limited constitutional Republic has occurred since the Civil War. The federal government has slowly and steadily hacked away at states' rights since then, and the presidents have usurped more and more power. Now it is true that Bush is exacerbating this fact.

As for the Iraq war, I won't pretend to know why we're fighting it. However, I do know a few things.

First, this war is unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress has the power to declare war. It does not give the president power to declare war. Congress has not declared war since 1941. Thus, this war is unconstitutional.
Instead, to prove what I said above about how the president has usurped power, the president simply decided he wanted war with Iraq, and we we started one. A few months before that, Congress, the president's obedient servant, said, "If you want to go to war, Mr. President, that's none of our business."

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution also lists the reasons for which we may go to war: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions." Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "to disarm other nations that we don't like" or "to bring freedom to other nations." To do either of those things, therefore, is unconstitutional.

I also know this: Iraq was a sovereign nation, and therefore what goes on in Iraq is the business of Iraqis, not our business. If the people of Iraq wanted a new government, then it was up to them to form a new one.

I can sympathize with Dan's comments about how evil Saddam was. I can understand Dan's desire to help others, and I think it's noble. But what's not noble is to force others to directly involve themselves in helping others. It is not noble for the president, who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, to force our soldiers (who I'm sure joined the military with the noble intention of defending our country) to go fight an illegal, pointless war under the lie that they're defending our country. It is not noble to force every American taxpayer to pay for it.

What would be noble, Dan, would be for everyone in this country who wants Iraqis to be free to go over to Iraq voluntarily, using their own money, and fight.

Personally, I wouldn't be willing to do that right now, because I'm fighting for my own freedom. I'm trying to convince others to stop voting for politicians who confiscate 50% of our wealth and control nearly every facet of our lives. If we ever achieve freedom here in America, then I'll think about helping people in other countries achieve freedom.

Paul, Your dedication to your party and your focus are to be admired. You even have me thinking about a change. At least it is something to consider, another option.

I am more than a little fed up with the status quo. Like you, I think it is up to the American public to bring about change. You can bet I'll be a more informed voter next election.

Yvonne,

Cool! As vocal as you are about your opinions, we'd love to have you join our fight.

Tater,

You're saying Clinton should have been tougher with Iraq like Cheney & Rummy by say meeting with him and giving him military aid and intel and looking the other way when he gassed his own people. Yeah those tough guy neo-cons really knew how to handle Saddam.

Funny how the neo-cons discovered human rights only after Saddam invaded one oil kingdom & threatened another.

On a side note.
You know Clinton's been in those Tsunami stricken lands alot lately. Mmmmmm, I wonder if the tsunami was his fault too. Makes one wonder.

Bill Clinton put us squarely in the middle of the terrorist mess by his failure to take actions to prevent it during his 8 year failure as our president.
Hard to blame the guy that took over Clinton's mess for only 8 months when the world erupted around us after 8 years of dismal performance by the man who could have prevented it.
Yes, Bill Clinton deserves to be front and center in any discussion about the current war on terror.

Kilgore,

We are discussing Iraq, not terrorism. Only being persnickidy because these 2 subjects have nothing to do with each other (or to be precise had nothing to do with each other pre-war, post-war the terrorist moved into Iraq bigtime & Iraq is now a terrorist haven and recruiting ground) and Iraq only made sense if you pretend that they did.

In a discussion of terrorism I'd say that GWBs ignoring of the warnings of the outqoing Clinton administration of the danger of Al Quaeda contributed to 9/11, not that I blame either administration for that event just like I'm sure you don't blame GHWB Sr. for the 1st trade center bombing.

In a discussion of Iraq I'm not sure how Clinton markedly contributed to any kind of a mess. Clinton kept Iraq in the box that Bush Sr. constructed. He resisted calls to let them out of the sanctions. The weakness of the Iraqi military and the failure to find even an iota of WMDs proves that he kept his eye on American interest concerning Iraq.

"I'm trying to convince others to stop voting for politicians who confiscate 50% of our wealth and control nearly every facet of our lives."

I'm right behind this statement.

As one would expect someone who goes by the moniker of "James D. Rockefeller" to be. (;-}

Marshall, you are spot on in your refutation of Kilgore's position.

Further, consider that 8 months is not enough time to alter the military to your liking. It was, therefore, Clinton's army that swept through Afghanistan on a truly anti-terrorist mission.

Bush's army got bogged down with a vague mission and poor performance in Iraq.

There's been some discussion here of which president is responsible for terrorist attacks against it. Any attempt to pin terrorist attacks against us on any one president is quite absurd when you look at the big picture.

Here's the deal: Throughout this country's entire history, we have been an imperialist nation. It started with the westward movement and slaughter of the American Indians. By the time of the Monroe administration, we had pretty much assumed the role of Police of the Western Hemisphere. We eventually ventured into the Pacific and Caribbean.
Then, of course, World War II struck, and we were the only country left standing. We figured we'd really milk that status.

Now we have a military presence in some 140 countries all around the world. We continually impose our will on other countries.

Why would others not want to attack us?

Dan, you are correct the world is full of brutal dictators who have no regard for human life. However, these leaders are not all dictators. Some are elected and some steal elections. Remember Dan, our country killed nearly 2 million Vietnamese in a war that was escalated based on a lie. Remember the Bay of Tonkin incidence? Dan, I'm sorry to say but we lost our position as the world's moral leader a long time ago and the illegal war against Iraq has not helped us to regain that respect. Another thing Dan, I'm not a Saadam supporter, but what UN resolutions did Saadam flipped his finger to? He allowed the inspectors in and out and in and out. He put them out because some were acting as spies. He disposed of his WMDs. Of course, Bush lied and told us he had not and went to war to distroy WMDs that had already been destroyed. Dan since you think violations of UN resolutions is something to kill and die for, what about the many UN resolutions Israel is in violation of? What must we do about Israel's violations and, not to mention, their nuclear weapons?

Charles