Stop Bush's 'Wag the Dog' Invasion of Iraq, Democrats Urge (Vomit Bag Material)

CNS NEWS.COM ^ | 8-5-02 | Lawrence Morahan

[rightwing2]

Curiously, the Democraps may not be too far off on this one. It might indeed be in part a "wag the dog" operation for President Bush given the timing around the election. We shall have to see. It is certainly true that the planned invasion of Iraq is not for reasons of military necessity and does not have a shred of justification, but is merely being prosecuted for personal reasons by President Bush to "avenge" his father's ultimate failure to oust Saddam.

However, the hypocracy the Democraps are dmonstrating in issuing such a charge is truly galling. They defended their adulterous, ChiCom supporting President to the last asserting that the Republicans were mean-spirited demogogues when they were really describing themselves. Democraps tend to project their own sins and shortcomings on the Republicans which tend not to be guilty of the endless immoral stands and pathological lying for which the Democraps themselves are so well-known.

[Commie Basher]

You don't actually think that a weakened KoomBuyYah America wouldn't be overrun by whatever Huns wanted to take by force that which we've built over the years?

Why do you equate foreign non-intervention with weakness?

I never said the US should weaken its military. Our dept of defense should be second to none -- but it should only be used for defense. Not for foreign adventurism.

One can believe in America First without singing kumbaya.

What color's the sky in that nether-World you live in?! We ain't Switzerland, C.B., we're the most powerful Nation in the history of the World,

You prove my point. We are the most powerful nation on earth. So no one wants to pick a fight with us. There's no reason to invade Iraq. It'll leave us alone -- out of fear -- if it thinks we'll mind our own business.

[doug from upland]

It is getting to the point that I not only disagree with these RATS, I almost want them to just die.

[LisaFab]

Many on this thread seem to have forgotten that Iraq has violated a UN treaty on top of other connections to his fellow Islamist terrorists.

Bush doesn't need the permission of congress for 90 days following the initial invasion - plenty of time for a 'national discussion' and a formal declaration of war by the critters.

[Commie Basher]

Curiously, the Democraps may not be too far off on this one. ... However, the hypocracy the Democraps are dmonstrating in issuing such a charge is truly galling.

I feel the same. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and the Dems may indeed be more correct about this current war hysteria ... but they lack the moral right to make the arguement.

Bushie globalists v. socialist Dems. What a depressing choice!

[NeoCaveman]

Do you honestly think that if you have a choice between taking down the Iranians Mullahs or taking down Saddam, you would choose Saddam?

Iran is close to a revolution from within...the Arabic mullahs are hated by the large population of Persian youth. Taking care of Saddaam may just speed up their revolution with little or no help needed from us.

[Redleg Duke]

You just don't understand it. The Serbian Christians did not donate to the Clinton Campaign Fund. How can you expect them to get any fair treatment?

[Mudboy Slim]

"If we only got 80 billion dollars, and 200,000 soldiers to work with, would it better if we used them on combating Islamic terrorists or combating a dictator."

I reckon the biggest difference between yers and my perception of this is that I do not see the two items as being mutually-exclusive. IMHO, taking out Saddam and bringing in a democratically-elected leader in Iraq will do more for combatting Islamic terrorist than even capturing, trying, and executing Osama bin Laden. All of a sudden, smack-dab in the middle of the mideast, you'll have a Leader with the legitimacy of being elected to his office, and that'll put the fear of Allah into the illegitimate leaderships of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, et al. I reckon we'll get a lot more cooperation in taking out the terrorists after that, don'tcha think?

"Remember, Mr. Ritter, the UN inspector said that Saddam does not have much left to cause a danger! "

LOL...is this the same Mr. Ritter who looked and looked and looked and found nothing while he was there?! Methinks this guy ain't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree and has no legitimacy in fashioning American foreign policy.

FReegards...MUD

[Redleg Duke]

I think your problem is that you expect all Presidents to act with the same morality as Clinton. That is the only basis underwhich your claim could even be considered.

If you equate President Bush with Clinton, you have a serious cognative problem.

[Mudboy Slim]

"Iran is close to a revolution from within...the Arabic mullahs are hated by the large population of Persian youth. Taking care of Saddaam may just speed up their revolution with little or no help needed from us."

Excellent point...MUD

[Redleg Duke]

You certainly got your talking points from the latest DNC Fax down pat.

[Redleg Duke]

So, what crater of the Moon do you hail from?

[Black Agnes]

Well, dfu, most of the anti-war crowd is dems. Most of the dems live in big cities, ditto for those academic types like Chomsky. The upside to this is that if/when Hussein does decide to do something nasty to the US, these are the people who will %age wise, 'get it', the most...(Hillary will never be president, her electorate will be smoking subatomic particles or stacked cordwood from smallpox outbreak)

[Redleg Duke]

And I am sick and tired of hearing the same old socialist and anarchist mantras from the burned out creeps who tried to burn down the campus in the Sixties.

You fooled the people once with that crap, but don't expect it to work a second time. You will return from the debate with your head under your arm.

[Redleg Duke]

What the hell kind of drugs are you on, anyway?

[Mudboy Slim]

"Will you volunteer to head the troops when they invade or send your son/daughter?"

I doubt the military would take me, but I do believe in the worthiness of the cause and would go if called into service (Phat Chance!!) Sure, that's easy to say and makes me sound like a doofus Clintonoid--did you hear the EX-DraftDodger-in-Chief say he'd fight on the front lines fer Israel if they were to be attacked by Iraq? LOL!!!

However, my brother is an Air Force officer stationed over in Germany and will certainly be called in any Iraqi invasion, and he swears by the worthiness of our cause.

Nobody wants to risk spilling any American blood over this, but we risk spilling a lot more if we ignore the growing danger in that region.

FReegards...MUD

[Dazedcat]

Nice post, I agree.

[Mudboy Slim]

"Our dept of defense should be second to none -- but it should only be used for defense. Not for foreign adventurism."

I reckon we just disagree that this is "foreign adventurism"...America's been attacked, and now we've got the Chi-Coms targeting American cities with nuclear weapons of our own making. It won't be long before Iraq has the technological expertise to do the same...to me, it's not adventurism to crush this threat before hundreds of thousands--or millions--of Americans lose their lives in a nuclear holocaust, it's National Defense!!

"We are the most powerful nation on earth. So no one wants to pick a fight with us. There's no reason to invade Iraq. It'll leave us alone -- out of fear -- if it thinks we'll mind our own business."

I disagree...America's not about to "mind our own business" as Iraqi tanks roll into Israel any more than it did when Iraqi tanks rolled into Kuwait. The best strategy for minimizing the loss of American life is to strike them before they strike US!!

FReegards...MUD