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.

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

I mean the Authorization to Use Military Force, passed September 18,
2001. That bill does not reference Iraq. If you meant H.J. Res 114,
where that window dressing repeated from AUMF is buried as Whereas #23
out of 25, then yeah, I'll give that to you; but to imply that the
invasion of Iraq was in any substantial way connected to 9/11 is no
less dishonest.

why is the Pentagon (including Rumsfeld, et al), the
news media, and the supposedly-caring general populace ignoring those
battlefield officers

I am admittedly unqualified to put myself in the place of battlefield
strategist. Nor am I privy to whatever delusions or machinations go on
in the heads of our so-called leaders. I'm more accusatory as to why
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al ignored the UN weapons inspectors
and their own intelligence agencies when the information didn't fit
their agendas.

Secondly, does the Tet Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

Oh my; a Viet Nam analogy? Whodathunk it. Yeah sure, I could drone on
stupidly about the effect various chronological religious observations
may have on the level of violence; but I try to stay on topic (even
when off topic), I eschew long posts, and I'd be wrong.

Joe F.

wrote:

...Clinton, et al, were saying the same things.

I keep telling you guys, you should just go ahead and impeach the
******* again! Um......you might want to be prepared to do it on your
own nickel, though. I've got a sneaking suspicion that even the
"pedophile values" party isn't going to be overly eager to bankroll
another shot on the taxpayers' tab.

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.

Hm.....

O.k., you didn't say anything. Noted.

...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.

And you should never doubt that we are all touched by your touching
concern for the underserving rabble.

If you really do care, educate
yourself and try to be objective when you attempt to get others to care.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!........he said "objective"......HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

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..."

Ooh! Ooh! I know! I know! It's because if you've got a whole bunch
of cretins and you add a couple of cretins you've got a whole bunch of
cretins and if you've got a whole bunch of cretins and you remove a
couple of cretins you've got a whole bunch of
cretins.....and......and.....um.....oh yeah, the vast majority don't
really care what a bunch of cretins thinks or has to say.

and what would
your opinion be as to why each is ignoring them?

Hm......for precisely the same reasons that your counsel is so highly
sought after?

Secondly, does the Tet
Offensive figure into all of this,

Well, of course it does.....duh!

and if so, how?

It's driving up the price of absinthe.

Wolfgang
oprah oprah

wrote in message

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?

my guess is that the battlefield officers are of as diverse a range of
opinions from branch to branch, unit to unit, as the rest of us. Maybe more
informed about some things, less about others. Why the **** should we be
fighting a war in Iraq, and what on earth does it gain us, long-term?


Secondly, does the Tet
Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

HTH,
R

Tell me we aren't going to get the Walter Cronkite/Tet Offensive reporting
analogies going.....please.
Tom