Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying

On 30 Oct 2006 09:04:48 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
Going into Iraq was "consistent with the United States and other
countries continuing to take necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001."

Just a second there fella. Fact check: The word "Iraq" is not
contained anywhere in the AUMF.

You mean other than in the heading, the name and when I quit counting,
12 times in the first 4 paragraphs?

It has been conclusively and factually shown that Saddam Hussein and
the nation of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks and
no functional relationship with the organization behind them despite
Bush, Cheney, & Rice's continuous selling of that lie.

And "selling of that lie" or otherwise, Clinton, et al, were saying the
same things. IAC, I didn't comment on whether or not Iraq was involved
or not, only that many Dems agreed with the language. Also IAC, that
was only one of several reasons given.

Without that responsibility or relationship, the invasion of Iraq was
clearly NOT "consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists
and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." It
had nothing to do with it. It was a lie sold to the US people, the
price for which we will be paying for generations.

The body count won't reset on November 8. You're wrong if you think we
won't care.

Oh, I've no doubt that the rabid anti-this or thats/pro-notthis or
notthats in the US appear to be "caring" themselves into getting
hammered in the 2008 US elections, too. If you really do care, educate
yourself and try to be objective when you attempt to get others to care.
Here's ya a start: why is the Pentagon (including Rumsfeld, et al), the
news media, and the supposedly-caring general populace ignoring those
battlefield officers who are saying things like, "We needed and continue
to need to be here, but we also need the ability to start acting like a
wartime army and not meter maids and crossing guards..." and what would
your opinion be as to why each is ignoring them? Secondly, does the Tet
Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

HTH,
R

Joe F.