On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:59:16 -0400, Nick McClure
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which 42 did they call, were they all Republican?
>
> Weapons were the primary reason given to the American public, if there were
> other reasons they should have been spelled out in the same detail, but they
> were not, it seemed to public that weapons was the only real reason ever
> given.
>
> When I say Saddam was legally in charge that is because he was the leader of
> the government recognized by the UN and the US. Just as Fidel is recognized
> as the leader of Cuba and Kim Jong Ill is recognized as the leader of North
> Korea, because they are dictators does not mean they are not the legal
> leaders of the country.
>
> We deal with a number of non-democratically elected governments, that
> doesn't make the deals any less valid. If we claim that Saddam was not the
> legal leader of Iraq, then the UN resolutions he agreed would not be valid.
>
> In the end, the legal basis in regards to the United Nations resolutions
> allowed us to go to war because it was believed that he had the bad weapons,
> if he did not and we knew he did not, then we have broken international law,
> while I don't care much about that, it still is something we have done.
>
> I voted for Bush, and I supported the war when I was shown intel that
> pointed to the existence of these weapons, I also feel there were a number
> of other valid reasons to go to war, however those reasons were not given to
> the public up-front, only now are we getting the information from Congress
> we should have gotten over a year ago, only now is the President talking
> about other reasons, a year too late.
>
> Over the past 60 years, we have put troops in a number of countries,
> including Korea and Vietnam, wars where 45,000 and 55,000 were lost
> respectively, however there was no declaration of war, we have assigned new
> terms to things like police action, and conflict to allow us to say it
> wasn't really war. The constitution doesn't contain anything about police
> action, as a conservative, I look at the Constitution in a strict light, it
> states only the Congress can declare war, and they didn't. In WWII Europe,
> we declared war on Germany, that was a war of liberation, we still declared
> war.
>
> All I am saying is that it doesn't make you a bad Republican to be upset the
> President and the Congress, I'm also not saying the Republicans are more to
> blame than the Democrats, they all voted to fund this invasion. I'm not even
> suggesting that you shouldn't support it, only that you should still be a
> little upset that when the President gave us his reasons for going to war,
> he used bad intel, that ended up wrong, the congress saw the same intel, and
> if they had other reasons to go to war, why didn't they tell us before we
> went in instead of after we went in and couldn't prove the first accusation?
>
> _____
>
> From: Sam Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:02 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: 9/11 Commission to Cheney - You're still wrong.
>
>
>
> Ted Koppel reported: "We wanted to see whether the
> conclusions reached by the Intelligence Committee
> would have made any difference to the other senators
> who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, so we called
> them.
>
> "Of the 42 we reached, only three said they would have
> changed their minds had they known then 'what they
> know now.'
>
> And then there's Sen Rockefellers statement on October
> 10, 2002
> http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
>
> Seems like we would have still gone to war.
> WMD's were just a part of the reason we went to war.
>
> When you say Saddam was legally in charge, is that
> because he won the election with 100% of the votes?
>
> World War II
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_in_the_United_States
>
> -sm________________________________
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
