OT: State of the Union

[Deleted]

I don't understand something.

Why does GW always make a point of the fact Saddam was found in a "hole" or that Osama is hiding out in a "cave"?

Where exactly does he expect them to hide out? Huddled in the bunker with Cheney?

I mean, really, everyone is LOOKING FOR THEM. What else are they going to do?

[Barefoot In Kailua]

Bete said:

I mean, really, everyone is LOOKING FOR THEM. What else are they going to do?

SURRENDER!

My favorite line of the speech..... "America will NEVER seek a permission slip to defend the security of our Country." Bravo, Bravo! I hope that blackguard Chirac was listening.

[Deleted]

My favorite line was about the 2-year-old who wrote him the letter.

And what do you mean?

I thought the one thing we all agreed on was that the U.S. was wrong and France/Germany (and the U.N.) were right?

The U.S. was seeking a resolution to invade Iraq because of their WMD and imminent threat to the World.

There were no WMD. There was no threat.

Did Bush admit he screwed up last night?

Seriously, do you REALLY believe America has the right to invade anyone they choose?

[Psychopotamus]

Bete said:

Seriously, do you REALLY believe America has the right to invade anyone they choose?

Yes. It is the perk of having the strongest military in the world. We also have the right to not reelect Bush after he wags the dog. I think his daddy proved that. Advisors shouldn't be hereditary.

[Barefoot In Kailua]

Bete said:

I thought the one thing we all agreed on was that the U.S. was wrong and France/Germany (and the U.N.) were right?

The U.S. was seeking a resolution to invade Iraq because of their WMD and imminent threat to the World.

There were no WMD. There was no threat.

Did Bush admit he screwed up last night?

Seriously, do you REALLY believe America has the right to invade anyone they choose?

The only agreement made was that I was right and You were wrong. ;D

I don't think it is proper to say "there was no threat". "There IS no threat" is a more suitable term for the now. Well not by Hussein, not anymore. If William had the testicular fortitude of a Bush , our Country would be a bit safer today.

As for your last statement, Sure why not. A friend of mine used to always say "Smoke it if you got it".
Perhaps we should look for Saddam's WMD's in Syria?

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

Barefoot said:

SURRENDER!

My favorite line of the speech..... "America will NEVER seek a permission slip to defend the security of our Country." Bravo, Bravo! I hope that blackguard Chirac was listening.

And, if there is a case where the security of the country is actually threatened, I'd agree.

I didn't hear too many people complaining when we went after the Taliban and terrorists, but then, they were really a threat to the US.

The dig against Chirac is odd, in light of Bush's comment. Apparently, it's OK for the US to not have to ask permission to defend the security of our country, but we also get to be peeved if France doesn't assist us in defending the security of our country, despite the fact that France does not perceive a threat to themselves.

Lastly, given the lack of any WMDs and the lack of any imminent threat, the administration has now rested it's case more on humanitarian grounds, in that Saddam was a bad ruler and bad for the Iraqis. It's a nice case of revisionism, but even given it is true, does Bush really think we shouldn't have to gain international support for wiping out a government of another state for their own good?

[Barefoot In Kailua]

OrFiF said:

We also have the right to not reelect Bush after he wags the dog.

Bush will be re-elected, Considering the alternative (the lousy Democratic Nominee, whoever it is).

We got Bush! We got Bush!

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

Barefoot said:

We got Bush! We got Bush!

Despite our ideologicial disagreements, I always must recognize a good Revenge of the Nerds reference.

[Psychopotamus]

I just had an interesting thought:

If they really did find any WMD, wouldn't they cover it up? I was thinking the government would stick them in a warehouse somewhere, just in case, and deny finding anything. After all, why cause unneeded panic?

[7thWoman]

International support is nice but not necessary. I think we actually preferred that France not help us. We've seen what their military can do. What we didn't like is the way they rallied against us by saying they would use their veto against any US effort to invade. It's one thing to object to the war, it's another thing to stand in our way.

The Bush administration always gave the humanitarian argument as a reason for going to war. They just focused on the WMD more and I think that was a mistake, whether they were sure they would find any or not. Even Clinton bombed Saddam a couple of times. I think he has been the second most hated man (after Osama) in the world by the American people since the Gulf war. I don't think WMD was a reason they needed to put so much stress on for going to war. The people would have stood behind the humanitarian argument and the fact that Saddam was violating the agreements that kept him in power at the end of the Gulf War. We just can't have that. That's like Castro with a powerful army.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

OrFiF said:

I just had an interesting thought:

If they really did find any WMD, wouldn't they cover it up? I was thinking the government would stick them in a warehouse somewhere, just in case, and deny finding anything. After all, why cause unneeded panic?

Would they cover it up? Heck no! They have been trying to turn every corroded battery they find into a chemical weapon, causing a massive sensation on Fox News about how the chemical weapons have been found, only to turn around 2 days later with a "_nevermind"

[Psychopotamus]

The bigger question is, would it get Bush reelected if they found WMD? On one hand you can look at it as saving the US. But on the other hand, I think finding something that could wipe out the US wouldn't exactly instill a lot of faith in the leadership of our counrty. That is just my take on it.

[StanfordFan]

Here's another thought, why are the Republicans so gung-ho about state's rights unless it's an issue they don't like? Now, Bush is talking about the need for a federal constitutional amendment to stop "activist judges" from allowing gay marriage. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, marriage has always been an issue in the jurisdiction of the states. States issue marriage licenses. States issue divorce certificates. States define the limits of marriage (i.e., whether second, third, fourth, etc. cousins can marry). So where does G. Freakin' Bush get off suddenly federalizing the issue of marriage?

What a hypocrite.

[Psychopotamus]

Repulicans. Its says it in the name. Res Publica. It's their business to be gung ho in the interest of our country. It's the same way that it's the democrats' business to move about as fast as mole asses.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

7thWoman said:

International support is nice but not necessary. I think we actually preferred that France not help us. We've seen what their military can do. What we didn't like is the way they rallied against us by saying they would use their veto against any US effort to invade. It's one thing to object to the war, it's another thing to stand in our way.

Excuse me? How did France stand in our way? France stood in the way of taking the whole world with us, but that obviously didn't stop anything.

The Bush administration always gave the humanitarian argument as a reason for going to war. They just focused on the WMD more and I think that was a mistake, whether they were sure they would find any or not. Even Clinton bombed Saddam a couple of times.

Specifically, because Saddam was preventing the activities of UN inspectors, who were increasingly frustrated and asked for help. The UN made the move, led by the US.

In this case, there were no complaints from the UN inspectors, who basically asked for more time.

I think he has been the second most hated man (after Osama) in the world by the American people since the Gulf war. I don't think WMD was a reason they needed to put so much stress on for going to war.

So why did they? Because they knew that the US people would only support the action if they thought Saddam was a threat to us.

More importantly, why didn't Cheney use a "humanitarian" argument in front of the UN? The US has done it in the past, successfully. But instead, he wasted time talking showing pictures of parking lots saying "this has buried WMDs!"

The people would have stood behind the humanitarian argument and the fact that Saddam was violating the agreements that kept him in power at the end of the Gulf War. We just can't have that. That's like Castro with a powerful army.

The US would have only stood with the humanitarian effort if the UN was behind it, and I doubt the UN would have supported it. The UN has too much respect for state rights to sovereignty. Americans would recognize the inherent problem of the US going in and removing governments we don't like unprovoked and without international support.