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

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

[RedWing9]

But he said that by going to war with Iraq without linking President Saddam Hussein and September 11, Washington was risking a conflagration in the Middle East that would also engulf its efforts to defeat global terror groups.

What makes you (edmund929) and Commie Basher so sure that the Bush admin cannot conclusively link Saddamm to 9/11 or planned future terrorists attacks? Is there no place in your mind for patience in the administrations efforts to divulge the necessary evidence? Not only to bolster their cause with John Q. Public, but with Congress.

IMO - the Bush admin is not ready to invade, so they see no reason to prove their point. But when they are likely to start any kind of military action, I think you will see an overflow of evidence appear.

[ex-snook]

Hey thanks for the ping-ding.

Actually this is an easy call. If Bush does not establish a Palestine state first, an invasion of Iraq will be wagging the dog. The test to be met by the Bush is to bring long-range peace to that area. Squeezing Saddam, like the pimple he is, won't cut it. That's pretty clear.

[Freemeorkillme]

I'm sick and tired of reading posts by freepers who support the war plans drawn up by old fossil Washington bureaucrats that will send our young volunteer armed forces to fight in a foreign land for reasons that many of them cannot agree on.

Why? Perhaps you'd care to write some advisory notes to SOD Rumsfeld, school political neophite Cheney on the merits of the Bush foreign policy? Are you suggesting that it is our "old fossil Washington bureacrats" that they are divided on the reasons we are conducting the WOT? If so, don't insult American or the families of the 3,000 that were taken from us on our own soil! If you were suggesting in your above statement that it is our "young volunteer armed forces" that are divided on the reasons they risk their lives in defense of this great nation, then shame, shame, shame. This is not Vietnam, sir. You are not fit to set foot upon the ground these heroes walk. Maybe your statement was simply not clear enough and you were really expressing concern over recent reports that there is an upper echelon division over strategy concerning the toppling of Saddam. In which case, you, sir, drank the coolaid. This is not "the Gulf" all over again. There is purpose in the Bush administration's portrayal of a divided house---DISINFORMATION

Would you rather us sit back and literally do nothing(like the Clinton years?) until the time comes when our families suffer the massive destruction that has been promised us? Would you rather we not effectively prosecute the WOT by leaving in power a chief terrorist state dictator who has known ties and links to terrorists internationally and the attacks on 9 11? Have you seen the site where the towers once stood? The Pentagon? Does it not strike you the imminency and urgency to return fire in defense of liberty and freedom where a foe would have us destroyed for these simple, yet meaningful words?

Bring back the draft and draft the sons of these Ivy league ba$tard$ as well as the sons of the CEO's who run the industrial/military complex and bankers who profit from a war.

Respectfully, your statement here smacks of isolationism, class envy,liberal anti-establishment and anti-Vietnam attitudes of the late 60's and 70's. If you have lost a loved one in Vietnam, I am sorry for your loss. BUT, this is not Vietnam or Panama or Korea or WWII, for that matter. In WWII, more men were lost than should've been due to fence-sitting, isolationist attitudes like those transparent in this post.

We are not launching a war here, edmund929. We have been attacked and, in fact, war had been declared on the US at least as early as the first WTC bombing in '93. We are responding to this declaration of war with the smartest possible way to win a war and that, for the US, is taking out our enemies, aggressively eviscerating terrorists and the nation states that support them of the ability to due so, thereby, ensuring the future of liberty and freedom FOR YOUR CHILDREN.

As for the draft-there will be no need for the draft in the foreseeable future. If the President of the United States calls on the able-bodied men and women of this country to enlist in defense of this country(traslate-Unlce Sam needs the whole family), I predict you will see enlistment numbers rival and possibly surpass the numbers seen in the US in WWII.

So, in total, the attitudes so thinly veiled behind your post are devisive, sophmoric and insulting-to me, this country, her citizens and our brave freedom fighters.

God Bless America and those will would fight to see her through!

[MeekOneGOP]

Stop Bush's 'Wag the Dog' Invasion of Iraq, Democrats Urge

Excerpt:

Democrats.com, a website that bills itself as "the largest independent community of Democrats," is calling on its supporters to sign a petition to oppose what it sees as the Bush administration's "wag the dog" plan to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.

"Wag the Dog" refers to a 1998 comedy depicting a conspiracy by political spin doctors to manufacture a war and thus divert a scandal involving an American president as election day approaches.

Bush's poll ratings are falling because of public outrage over corporate corruption scandals and a falling stock market, so he needs a war to change the news headlines and boost his ratings, according to the Democrats' thesis.

The Republican Party also is likely to lose control of Congress and key governorships in the November election, so Bush is desperately looking for a way to engineer an "October Surprise," the Democrats said.

Other forces supposedly influencing Bush's war plans include oil industry donors, who want to gain control of Iraq's oil reserves, and weapons industry donors, who would profit from another war, they said.

In addition, "Bush wants to avenge his father's failed presidency by killing Saddam Hussein," and "to demonstrate to the world that U.S. power is supreme and unchallengeable," the Democrats said.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[MeekOneGOP]

Stop Bush's 'Wag the Dog' Invasion of Iraq, Democrats Urge

See excerpt on #64.......

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my President Bush ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[MeekOneGOP]

Stop Bush's 'Wag the Dog' Invasion of Iraq, Democrats Urge

See excerpt on #64.......

[maxwell]

Bush's poll ratings are falling because of public outrage over corporate corruption scandals and a falling stock market, so he needs a war to change the news headlines and boost his ratings, according to the Democrats' thesis.

HUH... How's about Saddam is a crazy f-ed up nut who will get us if we don't get him first?

OH NO WAIT this is all about taking Bush out. Yeah. I got it now.

[Fracas]

Thanks for the ping.

Early last week, Brit Hume gave the perfect answer to Mort and Maura when they started the Lib spin - 'he has to get Congressional approval; there must be debate so the American public is behind this effort...' - etc. He stopped them in their tracks by saying this:

'Correct me if I'm wrong (grin), but don't the polls show that the American public overwhelmingly wants to get rid of Saddam?'.

They babbled for a few minutes and then gave up.

This is a no-brainer. Bush goes to war, the vast majority of the American public will be right behind him. Trailing behind will be some members of Congress, Democrats.com, and, of course, the French.

[justshe]

Thanks for the ping! The author states: Bush's poll ratings are falling because of public outrage over corporate corruption scandals and a falling stock market, so he needs a war to change the news headlines and boost his ratings, according to the Democrats' thesis.

Must be hell to write and publish an article like this not expecting a new poll out that totally blows apart the thesis (which the author ignores).

New poll numbers Corp Abuses, 9-11 Attack Seen As Most Important Causes Of Downturn, FEW BLAME BUSH

Excerpt: The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows that few Americans blame either the Bush or Clinton administrations for the recent economic downturn. ...The poll, conducted July 29-31, gave respondents a list of seven reasons for the current state of the economy, and asked them to rate the perceived importance of each. Twenty-eight percent of Americans say greed and corruption among corporate executives are "one of the most important reasons" for the current state of the economy, and another 49% say they are a "major reason." The total of 77% compares with 72% who cite the Sept. 11 attacks as a major or most important reason, and 66% who say that about the stock market. (end excerpt)

How sweet it is!

[ohioman]

If you have to hear a debATE TO DETERMINE whether or not war on Iraq is feasible, then chalk yourself up as either a Useful Idiot or just a plain 'ole worthless dumbocrat.

[Victoria Delsoul]

The Republican Party also is likely to lose control of Congress and key governorships in the November election, so Bush is desperately looking for a way to engineer an "October Surprise," the Democrats said.

The Democrats are desperate and they are going to get worse as the November election approach. They are trying to influence the elections with missinformation.

[hchutch]

The Palestinians have not done anything to warrant us supporting a state. As far as I care, we ought back Israel's efforts to end the terror.

We deal with the cancer that is Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and then deal with Iran. I didn't vote Republican to let the bad guys hit us first. I'm going to take them out before they take us out. We can't afford "neutrality" (read: isolationism) any more.

We did the "time" for our alleged "imperialism" on 9/11/01. Might as well do the "crime" since we ain't got anything to lose on that front.

[Mudboy Slim]

"If Bush does not establish a Palestine state first, an invasion of Iraq will be wagging the dog."

Nonsense...no Palestinian State will be established until there's been a duly-elected leader to take over for Arafat, and an appreciable amount time wherein the PLO has stopped committing the violence that we've seen lately. This will take years to accomplish, and Saddam will have used those years to increase his stock of Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nukes. It would be a Dereliction of Duty were Dubyuh to allow this to happen on his watch.

"The test to be met by the Bush is to bring long-range peace to that area. Squeezing Saddam, like the pimple he is, won't cut it."

Au contraire, mi amigo...taking out Saddam will scare the bejeezus out of the remaining tyrants in the Mideast, and embolden the reformers who realize what a soul-less pit their region has become due to the fanatics running the various nations. Bringing long-range peace to the Mideast is definitely the goal we should be pursuing, but it ain't gonna happen by pussy-footing around trying to get Palestinian terrorists to start playing nice!!

FReegards...MUD

[RightWhale]

Bush's poll ratings are falling because of public outrage over corporate corruption scandals and a falling stock market

That's the premise. Reality is otherwise. No dog to wag.

[Mudboy Slim]

"The Palestinians have not done anything to warrant us supporting a state. As far as I care, we ought back Israel's efforts to end the terror."

Yep...although I'm confident that Israel can take care of themselves in a war situation if we just quit pulling back on the reins.

FReegards...MUD

[Timesink]

"They may have made up their mind on regime change, but I'd be very, very surprised if the president has made a decision on how he intends to change the regime," Biden told reporters.

Biden is right!

Bush hasn't decided if we should invade from the north, invade from the East, invade from...

[ex-snook]

"We did the "time" for our alleged "imperialism" on 9/11/01. Might as well do the "crime" since we ain't got anything to lose on that front. "

Sorry, we differ on this. I don't think our sitting occupying some Saudi Arabia sand pile with an airfield for the indefinite future was worth 9/11. The 'crime' that I see here is our lack of anticipation. We have been bombing these guys for years and we did not expect payback.

In war there is payback and what we have to 'lose' is to make our children's future like Israel's where there is continuous killing and continuous payback. There is no 'final solution' but long-range peace with justice. Future generations will keep arriving on this planet. Let's solve today's problems for them.

[aSkeptic]

Although I don't agree that invading iraq is a particulary good idea, It isn't "wagging the dog". Bush's popularity was already very high because of the war effort... As that becomes lesser in the public mind people will start becoming more critical.

There really is no scandal here that "wagging the dog" would draw away attention from. Corpo-blah blah... Everyone is doing it.. How the democrats can brush this culpability off is beyond me..

[Timesink]

Why is the Constitution so offensive to Dems/Repubs when the other side is in office?

Have you ever read the War Powers Act? And SJ RES 23/HJ Res 64? Congress UNANIMOUSLY (except for Barbara Lee) gave Bush carte blanche on September 14, 2001 to use our Armed Forces to attack any nation, group, or individual that he, and he ALONE, determines had the slightest bit to do with 9/11. Any Congressman or Senator bleating now on TV that Bush needs another Congressional approval to attack Iraq is nothing but a grandstanding hypocrite.