Replies

Tenet, in a letter read before a joint hearing of the House and Senate intelligence committees Tuesday, said that "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons." But Tenet went on to say that should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack against his country could not be deterred, "he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action."

Well at least the CIA is telling the truth. Saddam has never attempted terrorist or WMD attacks against the US, but he very well might attempt them if the Bush Administation tries to kill him by way of an all-out US invasion. Such an unprovoked invasion would risk the lives of thousands of soldiers who might fall under CBR attacks from a Saddam with nowhere to go and nothing whatsoever to lose.

But while it appeared to be clear sailing for the measure in the GOP-led House, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., served notice on other Democrats at a party luncheon that he intended to use parliamentary tactics to delay a final vote, according to those who attended the session. That could delay the vote well into next week, suggested Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-W.Va. Byrd, widely respected for his deep knowledge of the Senate rules, has emerged as the primary Senate opponent to the president's war resolution.

This is just sad! Patriotic conservatives now have to rely on the Democrap President pro-tem of the US Senate to stop the President's few bad policy endeavors such as amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and now an unprovoked invasion of Iraq threatening to derail the President's admirable just war on Islamicist terror.

"Saddam has never attempted terrorist or WMD attacks against the US..."

True, perhaps.

But that's because proxies are doing it for him.

"an unprovoked invasion of Iraq threatening to derail the President's admirable just war on Islamicist terror."

Do you perchance have any Joan Baez records in your attic? Time to get'em down! For old time's sake, I mean.

So according to you, we should just throw away all our weapons because if we're nice to our enemies, they'll be nice to us!?

How many innocent people have to die before you realize that there are real enemies of the US that will kill you for no other reason than you are an American? How many innocent people have to die before you realize we have the obligation to protect ourselves from those who try to kill us and the people that enable them?

Was your grandfather's name Neville Chamberlin?

You obviously have a problem with the president's "liberty doctrine", or you would not be able to make this type of comment.. I'm not going to argue with you on this thread about it, or even educate you about it here, but you may wish to educate yourself. I suggest you start by going over to whitehouse.gov and looking up the president's speech at West Point in early June, then checking out the new National Strategic Policy. Whether you like it or not, we have no other rational choice in how we fight this war, or who we fight against.