And You Thought It Was Over

[Achilleez 10]

I just came from my recliner in the den watching CBC's Global Report, and came upon the news that George W. Bush is now launching his own private investigation into the events leading up to the war in Iraq (namely WMD).

 

But why was Bush so opposed to a private investigation earlier? He took the intelligence concerning WMD in Iraq to Congress and started himself up in a war. Does it not seem logical that he would have launched an investigation and made 100% certain that his reasons were valid prior to invading? Did he employ the tactic of 'shoot first ask questions later'?

 

Now he has control over all aspects of the investigation, allowing him to disclose whatever information he wants. And that in my opinion gives him too much power. So once again we must sit in the dark over the Iraqi situation, waiting for rumors to begin flowing through the press.

 

ps. don't put Janet Jackson under a magnifying glass, she'll melt.

[LovetoCamp 9]

 

And just so you don't loose complete faith in today's youth, I assure you that I too, am a youngin. Only 15 years of age if you can beleive it.

I thought you said you were 15?

[Fat Old Guy 11]

" Does it not seem logical that he would have launched an investigation and made 100% certain that his reasons were valid prior to invading?"

 

No. Do you think that Kennedy launched an investigation before the Cuban Missile Crisis? Do you think that Ike launched an investigation before D-Day?

 

W had no reason to doubt his intelligence sources before he started. Now he wants to find out if why he was given bad gouge, if indeed he was.

 

[Achilleez 10]

That was my son, who is now 16. I said he should take a look at this forum, because he is after all a scout. He has his own account now though.

[LovetoCamp 9]

"Beleive me I know I'm an Ontario beef farmer."

What a coincidence, you and your son misspell the same words. 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Achilleez,

 

I agree the "intelligience" that lead us to war may have been suspect, and I am not quite sure I understand our post-war strategy in Iraq, but before the world wrings it hands over the dastardly deeds of the "rogue state" the US, tell me, how many Iraqi citizens have Uday and Qusay raped, killed, and or tortured say in the last 3 months? How many Kurds have the Iraqi forces slaughtered in that time period? Where was the world outrage heaped on the US while this was occuring?

 

We have Irqui's on the street protesting the way things are going in their country, thats fair, how long ago would have saying a single word disparate about the rulers meant ruin for the vocalizer and family?

 

I feel as betrayed by the governemnt about the WMD mess as I felt about Clinton lying, but at least in Iraq it was a move to make things better and more people are alive today than would have been had the regieme stayed in power

[EagleInKY 14]

Right on, Old Salty-haired One! Couldn't have said it better.

[ScouterPaul 11]

Achilleez,

 

I believe that the answer is obvious. Mr. Bush sees the gathering storm over the Iraq debacle. By starting his own investigation Mr. Bush can delay the truth from coming out until after the election. This is a classic Cheney/Rowe tactic. No matter what the cost, no matter who gets hurt we will do whatever it takes to win the election. On a side note, I understand that he wants to include 911 in this investigation. That somehow seems ironic since there is one going on now and he has stonewalled it.

 

When did it become okay for the ends to justify the means? The primary reason stated by the Bush administration for going to war was that Iraq posed an imminent threat. When this threat proved to be nonexistent we did it topple a brutal dictator of a rogue state. As long as the result is good then the lies and deceptions used to get there are okay. Not something I want my sons to emulate.

 

With all due respect OGE if Mr. Bush had wanted to save lives by regime change he would go after the worlds largest terrosit state Saudi Arabia. Here is something to ponder. Would 911 have happened if the Bush family wasnt so tight with the royal family of Saudi Arabia.

 

Paul

 

[Achilleez 10]

Huh, I guess it was silly for me to have missed that one. Stalling an investigation until the months prior to an election does seem both logical and beleivable. Of course it may mean nothing, just as Bush-Saudi Arabian relations may mean nothing. Nothing is certain.

 

Sigh... Trail Pounder. You certainly have done some snooping. Please feel free to continue, but I doubt you will be able to prove that me or my son don't exist. FYI "beleive" is spelled exactly as such. I even checked by typing it into Microsoft Word and no red squiggle appeared beneath it. Perhaps the Canadian spelling is different, like with color(colour).

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I agree the Saudi's do not have the most stellar record on human rights, but as far as I know, and I could be wrong, the Saudi Olympic team is not tortured if they lose as was the case in Iraq and lets not forget how many votes the UN (Unrelevant nations) took condemning Iraq. The Saudi's rulers, as far as I can tell, havent gassed an ethnic group while systematically killing thousands of a rival religious faction. Nor have I seen piles of skulls taken out of mass graves in Saudi, they may be there but I havent seen them

 

And if stonewalling (I did not have sex with that woman) and delays (See Rose Law firm billing records)are a Cheney/Rowe (Rove?) trick then both sides are quite apt pupils

[SR540Beaver 116]

OGE,

 

On one hand, a lie is a lie. But are you actually going to equate lying about an extra-marital affair to taking a nation to war for ulterior motives. Both would be wrong, but the consequences of one are much greater than the other.

 

[acco40 95]

Yes, there is no comparison. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

 

A lamp can become a WMD in the hands of a scorned woman.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I thought lying under oath was pretty bad, just my mistake, and again, how many times did the UN agree that "something" had to be done with Iraq ?

My point, however clumsy is that neither party has a stellar record when it comes to fair play or what they wouldnt do to win an election. We oughta throw both sets of rascals out, but I am not sure what that leaves

[LovetoCamp 9]

It leaves Kucinich/Sharpton!!!

[Fat Old Guy 11]

" FYI "beleive" is spelled exactly as such. I even checked by typing it into Microsoft Word and no red squiggle appeared beneath it. Perhaps the Canadian spelling is different, like with color(colour)."

 

I checked that source of all thing English, the OED and it doesn't have "beleive." When I put that into MS Word (American version), it changed it to "believe".

 

As for human rights, we need to look to the UN for guidance and which country was chosen to chair the commission on human rights.