> Lets just say that we fall for this foolishness and we do it. > And while we're making mistakes, lets assume that a court > finds that they did nothing wrong . > > Whats next after this witch hunt ? > Do we go after bill arnold because we all were foolish enough > to follow him ?
Virgil, if you read the article cited in that note, it says "Bush challenges war critics to offer own plan" and 'To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible,' he says http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16611409/from/RS.3/ Here - a quote from Cheney today: "They have absolutely nothing to offer in its place," Cheney said of Democratic leaders. "I have yet to hear a coherent policy from the Democratic side." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16624979/ This was the challenge to which I responded. If you've been following the "news", you'll see many references along these lines. It seems the Democrats won all those elections and now comprise a majority in Congress because they ran on what people wanted to be an anti-war platform, but it seems that now they have been elected, they are loathe to produce a plan. It's my position that the cornerstone of a workable plan involves holding those responsible for that invasion accountable. Of course we're not going to hear Cheney or his neocon pals saying "we should indict ourselves". > Somewhere the voice of reason needs to come into play. > People do something by making the best decision that they > possibly can with all the facts that they have at their > disposal. We in turn do NOT have access to the info that they > used to make the decisions, no matter what the media or the > bill arnolds of the world would have you believe. Will you listen to two Senators who had this to say today? "The most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a presidential aspirant and persistent war critic. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., until now a war supporter, said, "I have not been told the truth." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11442720/ Do you see the "I have not been told the truth" part? This is from a member of Congress, who would either have access to this crucial information that's been denied the public, or would at least be required to say "I know things that I can't talk about", but what he actually said is "I have not been told the truth". How big a leap of faith does it take to translate this as: "I've been lied to"? > Face it, until you've had to make the same decision that the > person made based on the same circumstances, then you can't > even begin to justify accusations like these. Bush challenged people for a plan, and I offered one. It may be the worst plan ever devised by anyone in the history of mankind, but it's what I believe we should do. Bill > Virgil Bierschwale _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
