Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment So now what do we do?

So now the opinion is there were no WMD in Iraq. Bush has countered to Mr. & Mrs. America that their son's death was still justified cuz Saddam was a "Bad Guy" anyways.

Should we accept this "bait and switch" from "W" ?

Should there be an Independant Council?

Can "W" kiss the White House Bye Bye no matter what? Seems to me an IC is a catch 22 situation at best.

Opinions?


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...atimes/iraqweaponsdataflawedcongresstold

RAM,

The Independent Counsel law expired at least a year ago...

John

Saddam tried to run a bluff, and had his ass handed to him.

Personally, I would suggest sending George a "thank you" card, and just move on. I hope they will decide against yet another costly investigation. We already know that our intelligence capabilities need to be beefed up.

What David Kay Really Said:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20040130.shtml

.

Saddam, got what he was due from 1990, I just wished we could of continued on to Bagdad then, my unit was ready, and so was the rest of the Military. It just took until 2003 to do it, which was too long. He was involved up to his neck in anti-american operations. This just like his buddy Osama, who we've have yet to catch, but we will. Osama was the money man for Col. Adid, behind the reason for Somalia, of which I had the opportunity to participate in also. The soldiers in the Military know what they are getting into when they join. They know that they maybe called to go places and do things that they don't want to, but that's their mission. They may even have to give their life to do this. I think if you would of been there, done that, regarding the military you would have a better understanding of the process. Oh, by the way what does this have to do with the Second Amendment.

John;

Expired or not, its being bantered around the media quite a bit. I know that a Council's term can expire, but I was unaware that the theory of an IC was abolished. Could you provide insight?

At any rate, If in fact it has expired, I don't think it would take much to re-instate it, particularlly if it was by executive order.

Hunter;

I reviewed the all posts, and I don't think anyone even inferred that Saddam didn't get what he deserved. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Your counter point, though probably accurate, is irrelevant.

Apparently, in your attemp to proffer your military resume' you missed the point of the topic. [BTW, since you seem to be looking for it; thank you. Most Vets don't ask for it] Understanding Military process is a topic I do not require tutelage on. I understand it well enough. There are several others with Military understanding that have asked the same question as I, so, I must assume for all of us that you garnered some special insight or training that allows you "understand" at a deeper level than we? Can you break it down for me?

Currently on several media outlets a substantiated story, even one that Bush's own administration is making admissions on, has brought to the fore front the question as to whether or not what has transpired was just "poor intel" or an outright fraud.

What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

With an upcoming election you really have to ask that question <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

What branch did you serve in to give you your tutelage? Your statement was how Pres. Bush was going to explain to the parents, how their sons were killed, when the excuse to go to war was WMD. The Pres. doesn't have to explain to the parents.

I've personally met during the funeral services, many of the parents of former soldiers that I served with at (FTCKY) Ft. Campbell, KY. who had been killed in both Afganistan and Iraq. These parents hold no ill will against the POTUS or anyone else.

Their family members would of served no matter what. My response to you is, if you would of served, you would of had a real or I should say personal understanding of the military process of dedication to country and mission above all else. I am very glad that you never did serve this countrys military. Because all you do is whine and complain, it saved the time of an NCO or Officer to either put a boot up your ass, to either make you soldier or ship you home to momma.

Gosh RAM, I guess we're just as dumb as the rest of the world and got taken in just like them as far as WMD and Iraq go. Just weeks before the military action began the mighty UN passed a resolution about them. Golly, do you think all those other countries would have voted for it if they didn't think Saddam had WMD. I guess its just another example of the dumbing down of America, huh? It appears that the only smart ones are the Brits. It seems that after their investigation Tony Blair didn't lie about WMD after all. Lets see now, Tony Blair said they were there and didn't lie and George W. Bush said they were there and he did lie. I'm confused.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />



The IC is established by Federal law (Act of Congress for those of you from outside the USofA) and always has a Sunset provision as part of the law. It has to be revisited each time it sunsets or it expires. The last time it sunset, the sun set and it expired. To appoint an IC at this time would require a new bill to be presented, approved, signed and enacted into law. When you think IC, think Assualt Weapons Ban and hope the same thing happens. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



Oh, I see your still getting you news from someone with an axe to grind. The LA Times has been known for years as having a slant that is almost, if not even further, as far to the left as the New York Times. But relax, this is America and you can read anything you want. If you read enough, sometimes you'll even get to read the truth; but I wouldn't count on it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

RAM,

This article's a pretty good short summary including links:

Timothy Noah Slate article on IC statute

Of course, the President can request executive branch employees to conduct an investigation, as the CIA has already done. And the Congress can have a committee investigation, as they've already done.

The bigger issue to my mind, is that critics are demanding an impossible standard of perfection on the part of intelligence organizations. The intel on this issue was consistent for the last decade and on some points the Brits still stand by it.

John

Don't argue with him, it only encourages him. Maybe if you stick around here long enough you'll meet up with Barak. Sometimes his points of view and arguements make RAM's look like chump change (no offense intended RAM). And for Christ's sake don't tell him what you're going to do to him over the internet or talk about his momma. Besides being bad manners its a reflection of your ability, or lack there of, to make a convincing arguement.

Skidrow, ROGER THAT! I know it's wrong, to mess with RAM. But it's so enjoyable at times, sorta like shooting stray cats. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

RAM...what's this Bait&Switch talk?
Even though the WMDs as a reason for war are a popular argument, it is not entirely true.
Do you really believe that WMDs were the primary, number one reason, or only reason, to go to war?
If so, you'd best review what the Prez said, prior to war.

Hunter;

Your chasing your tail so much trying to decern if, where, or when my military service was that your becoming obsessed. Take some lithium man.

Skid;

Where did I ever accuse ANYONE of being dumb? I really think your reaching trying to get a rise out of the L.A. times crank. That was just the first link I cut-n-pasted. If you prefer another source on the topic feel free to take a link from anywhee you wish.

Both of you;

I put a post up asking questions. 4 of them. I accused, argued or attacked no one. I was looking for opinions. Not making an arguement, not preaching a position. Simply taking sound bites from media headlines and talk radio and asking them here to see what the general concensus of opinions from a broad cross section of the country might be. If you two would stop trying to start a flame fest, grow up and add something productive to the conversation, I'ld entertain your thoughts. Otherwise, why do either of you even bother to read or "respond"?

John;

Thanx for the link, it was interesting opinion. From the latest I've heard reported [15:00 02/02/04] An IC is out and it looks as though "W" is establishing his own"blue label" commission. Reports say it will be bi-partisan , for credibility, but going this way avoids a Congressional commision and allows "W" to maintain control of the commissions members.

Right now at least it seems to me that this is a catch22 at best. If the Media or the DNC succeed in spinning this effectively, I fear we may be looking at President Kerry in the future.

You probably never did spend a day of military sevice to this country. You sound like a college boy who spent your time in Canada hiding out from the draft, still complaining about war.

Oh, don't worry Hillsborough County is not that big or the surrounding counties. A call to the local SO, give them what I've been able to retreive from your attitude towards things and etc. and I'll be able to retreive all the personal info. I need. Isn't the govt. great. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

"The poll showed Bush's job approval rating at 49 percent among all the adults surveyed, the first time since he became president that his job approval has dipped below 50 percent. A month ago his rating was at 60 percent, as he enjoyed a spike in approval after the capture of Saddam Hussein. "

latest CNN poll

You don't accuse people of being Dumb RAM, you just seem to assume that they're stupid. Maybe its just your writing style and you're being misunderstood. You come off pretty abrasive sometimes so sometimes that's the type of response you draw.

I wasn't trying to get a rise about the LA Times. What I stated is true. When you're trying to make a creditable argument at least use references that are also creditable. Try the Wall Street Journal.

You seemed to take the article at face value. You also seemed to agree about the bait and switch accusation. I think its crap. I think a lot of people have selective memorys. Everyone seemed to belive there were WMD there before we went in. The UN even passed several resolutions about them. Is it an issue now because some of the people who supported and/or voted for military intervention are doing a little second guessing now and looking for a scapegoat? How about you, or anyone else for that matter, explaining to me, why, when the rest of the world, to include France, Russia and Germany, believed that Saddam had WMD, was Bush lying when he said what the rest of the world believed at the time. While you're at it, explain to me how Tony Blair could be telling the truth and Bush could be lying when they both said the same thing. I don't particularly care for Bush myself but I care even less for people who want to make something out of nothing. In the past I gave you credit for being able to think for yourself and not just follow along lapping up the latest "hot story" but now I'm beginning to wonder. If you really want to hammer Bush do it for something he actually did like his lousy overblown Medicare spending for prescription drugs or wanting to increase spending on the "Arts" or spending our money trying to be everybody's everything. That's my opinion.

Didn't start a flame fest. Even used the little smilely faces for you. If you'd bothered to read the post you'd have found an opinion on that article and would have found the answer to your question about the IC. Sometimes heads of state just get bad information from their intel agencies. It happens. Remember a little place called Pearl Harbor? That's my also my opinion.

Why haven't you mentioned the gun control bills that the Dems are trying to slip through Congress under the guise of anti-terrorist legislation? Is it because you'd rather bash Bush than actually post something germane to the 2nd Amendment? I would have thought that a little thing like someone actually trying to get a gun control bill passed might have caught your eye. Excuse me if it looks like you'd rather push an anti Bush adgenda than a pro 2nd Amendment one. That's another of my opinions.

Oh, and if you fear it looks like we may be looking at President Kerry in the future why does seem like your trying so hard to put him there? That's a serious question.

Oh two, Don't lump me in with hunter. Don't believe I've ever threatened you. Responded angrily or sarcasticly yes, but I don't believe I've ever threatened you. Hunter is a dip--it who can't seem to help himself when it comes to making ridiculous threats and asinine statements. He sounds like the kind of person who never had an original thought in his life. Yeah, that's right hunter, I'm talking about you. I think RAM is right. You never should have stopped taking your medication.

Skidrow, you don't know a damn thing about me! So don't run your mouth telling me how it is. Don't make your comments about this or that refering to me. I think your all a bunch of whining, crying radicals, who think someone is always out to screw you, or that someone might hurt my feelings. Why don't you all load your guns and march up Penn. Ave. and take over this country. It would be worth it to watch the Secret Service shoot your asses dead in the street.

Wow, what an example of Orwellian Newspeak! Those of us who are opposed to socialism are now the "radicals" in America. What does that make socialist apologits like you? Conservatives? I guess I need to update my dictionary.

Y'all are funny....

Quit the name calling and get back on topic, will ya?

Look, not finding WMDs really is hurting Bush's credibility, especially with all the spin being put on it. I think it may very well cost him the election. I think it was worth it.
But don't forget: The war was not about WMDs, it was about failure to work with the UN on WMDs.

That's the whole point. Those who are criticizing with the loudest voices are those who have conviently forgotten that right up the the deployment of troops the UN was in agreement about the WMD and main disagreement was about how to enforce the resolutions, not whether or not Saddam had WMD. Now, given that no WMD have been found to date it seems that only Bush was wrong and is lying and the whole rest of the world knew there were no WMD there the whole time. Its the same as when the media and the Democrats were trying to make a big issue when the Bush administration "admitted" that Saddam had no direct ties to AQ and had nothing directly to do with the 9/11 bombings. Anyone who took the time to look at what was actually said would have found that those accusations were never made by Bush or his administration. Alluded to perhaps, but never actually made.

Of course it will hurt Bush if it continues to get traction but its not the only issue that will hurt him. Lately he seems to be doing his damnest to shoot himself in the foot. Republicans have never been as adroit at politics as the Democrats and Bush's stumbling is just the latest example. The Republican's biggest problem in overcoming the Democrats in politics has always been that its easier to gain a following with an emotional campaign than with a cerebral one. The voting electorate, for the most part, doesn't want to think a problem though, they want to do what feels right at the moment and if it turns out later that they were wrong for the most part they just shrug and say, "well, we did our best."