posted on February 13, 2002 08:14:20 AM new
The Prez, obviously with much advisement, has decided to "oust" Saddam Hussein. He has instructed the CIA and branches of the military to immediately come up with a plan. Iraq is not real happy and may make pre-emptive strikes.
posted on February 13, 2002 11:25:58 AM new
Russia and American allies are alarmed but the Bush administration is determined to act without their approval or help. When Cheney tours 11 Middle Eastern nations next month, he will inform them but he will not beg for support.
It's unfortunate that the American people go along with this Bush crusade for power. It will be interesting to observe the timing of this next war. Will it be used to divert attention from Enron revelations, for example?
posted on February 13, 2002 12:06:25 PM new
Well with the choice between Sadam being in charge and not having weapons of mass destruction being manufactored in Iraq, I guess I'll have to say So Long Sadam, the sooner the better.
posted on February 13, 2002 12:56:18 PM new
chococake
I didn't know that Gore had made that statement. It's insane, in my opinion to wipe out every country that may be considered a potential threat by some people.
posted on February 13, 2002 01:22:52 PM new
I laughed my ass off when CNN News announced yesterday that NOTHING HAPPENED in Iraq -- that an attack was NOT IMMINENT. Those of you who have watched the Babylon-5 series will recall an episode of disinformation for political purposes that use just this exact tactic.
Too bad about Gore. While he might have agreed that a lot of "trouble" emanates from those three countries, did the jackass really have to echo Dumbya's bazaar quote in expressing his opinion? I think not. I only hope that our 2004 candidate for president for the Democrats is someone intelligent.
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 13, 2002 02:31:17 PM new
I can't believe you folks are dismayed at the toppling of a government that used poison gas on its own people, and will use it on us if it gets the chance.
posted on February 13, 2002 02:37:57 PM new
chococake- If anything, Gore may have said that there WAS an "axis of evil", but I can't find where he said he AGREED with the "axis of evil" cause! What exactly do you think he said? Do you think he is a traitor? I saw where he said that we should act more in concert with our allies, but I don't think he would hesitate to attack an enemy without ally approval if our lives were threatened here or abroad.
I think there must be something in the air and everyone is losing their minds.
He actually said it if you can believe this paper USA Today.
02/12/2002 - Updated 09:51 PM ET
Gore sides with Bush on 'axis of evil' comment
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
By Shawn Baldwin, AP
"One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a president," Al Gore said.
Former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore put himself solidly behind President Bush on Tuesday in his characterization of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil."
"There is value in calling evil by its name," Gore said in his first policy address, which he delivered to the Council on Foreign Affairs in New York. Gore compared Bush's phrase to Ronald Reagan's calling the former Soviet Union an "evil empire" and Jimmy Carter's elevation of human rights in foreign policy.
"One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a president of the United States," Gore said.
But Gore also said Bush needs to show more respect to America's allies. He said the administration shows "impatience and disdain" toward NATO members. "We cannot bind them to us ... if we take them lightly," he said.
Bush's State of the Union address last month created controversy at home and abroad, including a backlash in Iran against Americans at a time relations between the two nations had been improving.
Some Democrats, notably Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, have questioned the "axis of evil" phrase. Daschle said Tuesday that Bush's wording "conjures up the notion that we have a single-minded, unilateral policy affecting all three countries identically, and I don't think that's the case."
Gore stood with Bush on the need for "a final reckoning" with the government of Iraq, which he called "a virulent threat in a class by itself." Most Democrats, with the exception of Gore's running mate, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, have been circumspect about expanding the war to Iraq.
Looking to the future, Gore warned against ignoring terrorism's root causes — poverty, ignorance and oppression he called "another axis of evil."
The speech marked a continuation of Gore's gradual emergence into the spotlight. On Feb. 2, he gave a political speech at a Democratic fundraiser in Nashville; more appearances are planned. Gore said Tuesday that he delayed his return to public life because it would have been "graceless" and possibly damaging to the nation to speak out after "a very divisive election ... and then came September 11th."
posted on February 13, 2002 05:30:56 PM new
Gore hasn't lost his mind, he has been briefed on what we are actually up against.
These terrorist have shown they have nothing to lose and will kill thousands of innocent people without a second thought, all they need are the weapons to do it.
Bush's list of evil countries is, if anything, too limited.
What should our leaders do, wait until they nuke a city or start a small pox epidemic ?
posted on February 13, 2002 05:39:59 PM new
I read both Helen, and my mind remains the same. He should have either come out completely against the silly-ass, stupid statement by Bush, or to have kept his mouth shut. By juggling his liberal tendancies with political compromise is what largely lost him the election edge (that, and massive ballot-box stuffings by the Republicans). I wish that he, or Tom Daschele, or another Democract would be able to stand up and call off all of this nonsense!
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 13, 2002 05:42:16 PM new
REAMOND
That's what I hear from my husband, REAMOND.
He want's to bomb the entire mid-east...
On the other hand, I don't believe that we can bomb a country based simply on an opinion that if they have weapons then they will use them. That seems incredibly illogical to me.
posted on February 13, 2002 06:00:59 PM new
If you look at Bush's plan, it is not to bomb Iraq, but to topple Sadam's government by other means.
It is not the case that I or anyone else has recommended that we bomb ANY country that has these weapons or is developing them. But there are some regimes and groups that must never possess these weapons no matter what we have to do to stop them.
There is no mutually assured destruction principle deterent that can be applied to insane dictators or terrorists that have nothing to lose and are bent on killing as many people as they can on their way out, whether by using the weapons themselves or by supplying them to terrorist groups.
Our entire task force in the Persian Gulf is at risk should Iran or Iraq develope nuclear weapons. Not only that, but every rationale government in the region would be under nuclear black mail.
Sadam has already demonstrated that he will use chemical weapons if he thinks he can get away with it. I have no doubt that he would supply these weapons to terrorists, if he hasn't already.
The nut that runs North Korea is little different. Iran will create just as much weapons mischief if they develope the weapons. Israel just interdicted a load of Iranian weapons bound for terrorists in Lebanon and Palestinian terrorist groups.
I didn't vote for Bush, and I am not too enamored with him, but I do prefer him to Osama bin Laden, Sadam, or other assorted murderous nuts.
posted on February 13, 2002 06:29:23 PM new
borillar- What exactly is the "nonsense" that the Dems should call off? I am not a big fan of Dumbya, but I was in agreement with him and not particularly offended by his use of the term "axis of evil"- I think it is an accurate description. I have never heard anyone but a Rep call Gore unintelligent. Although I am not completely comfortable with him as the candidate in 2004, I am not so quick to suggest that someone else would do better.
posted on February 13, 2002 07:03:11 PM newOn the other hand, I don't believe that we can bomb a country based simply on an opinion that if they have weapons then they will use them.
Jesus Christ, Helen. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Reamond is right. The rest of you have your heads up your asses. Borillar, this is good news for you. Howzabout you truck on over to Iraq so you can get a firsthand view of Armageddon?
posted on February 13, 2002 07:44:29 PM new
Furthermore, I provided documentation for your comment. Shouldn't you thank me rather that tell me to knock it off?
Where in the hell do you people have your alliances?
If you want to play elsewhere then go there.
Don't tell me to knock it off. When someone tells me that I have my head up my ass, you can count on an answer.
posted on February 13, 2002 07:56:29 PM new
Helen, fine throw shots back for something said about you. But, why take every opportunity to slam another board? I thought that was gone over and behind us.
I couldn't provide a link, because, I heard it on the radio. Besides, there are only a few posters here, and they are up on politics. But, thanks anyway.
posted on February 13, 2002 08:00:30 PM new"What exactly is the "nonsense" that the Dems should call off?"
stusti, I think that the Democrats should stop playing 'Suck-Up' to Bush and Co. The nonsense is this war on terrorism. 9-11 happened in retaliation for Bush's announced plans to attack Afganistan in October. The point there was that we could be reached.
Since then, Bush will not own up to what he did. Surely, he didn't mean for the 9-11 attack to happen, but he's enough of a politician to use it as a tool to get what he wants: a complete corporate take-over of America with a Police State to boot to keep resisters at bay.
That's the nonsense I was talking about.
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 13, 2002 09:07:55 PM new
Borillar- I try to keep up with politics and the world and local news as much as possible but I am far from an expert. However, I would ask you you to cite specific examples of the Dems sucking up. I know that right after 9/11 it was a most inappropriate time to criticize the President's actions and even as a moderate Democrat I agreed with the military response. Where I tended to disagree was with some of Ashcroft's statements and policies. The Dems were critical and Daschle and others have been fairly vocal since then on this and other issues. Although I am not quite so paranoid as to the actual possibility of a police state, I am deeply concerned about the religious right looking to erode the separation of church and state.
posted on February 13, 2002 09:25:50 PM new
Stusti, there's an awful lot of posturing going on in the Democratic ranks in Washington. On the one hand, the Democrats come out to criticize the Bush Regime while simultaneously sending just enough Democrats over the aisle to the other side to pass the Republican Agenda. That is the sickening nonsense that we put up with last year before 9-11, and since then, it's only gotten worse.
That after the 9-11 attack it was unpopular to criticize the President is sheer nonsense! When an errant small plane lost contact with the tower, it took the air national guard only 17 minutes to discover them. The hijackers were in the air over two hours. Lots of questions like that were applicable then and also now. Only the hype from the media trying to tell us what to think and how to act made criticism paramount to Treason back then. I distinctly recall several journalists asking these questions, only to have them hushed up. A cover-up? Certainly! And there is NEVER a time when criticizing our government is tantamount to Treason. Never!
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 13, 2002 09:58:33 PM new
Helen, what you got was the edited version. Believe me, that was self-moderation. You are too ignorant and obtuse to waste a debate on. Any idiot can see why Hussein shouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. As for where I post, that's my business. I have tried to avoid making this personal but your incessant yapping is becoming intolerable.
