How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Does anybody take responsibility anymore   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ]
 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Does anybody take responsibility anymore?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


150 posted 06-14-2004 07:10 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Short memories, Brad? Just look around these forums or the archives of any major news outlet to see the "Bush lied about WMDs."

I personally don't want you or anyone else to listen to the U.N., but I find it hypocritical when the left, who usually hang on the U.N.'s every word and elevates its prouncements to the level of infallibility (or is that just in anti-Israeli, anti U.S. matters?) don't even have a passing interest in what they say when the U.N. does occassionally agree with the U.S.  
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


151 posted 06-14-2004 11:44 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

Isn't Human nature funny?  I dare some one to count all the finger pointing of different people in this debate. The fact of the manner is I don't know enuff to say who is too blame. What I do know is that we as Americans must take responciblity. Unfortunitly this event was not prevented.  All we can do is build on what has happen. We must define our selves as americans. AND Don't forgit the UN is kinda corrupt and Kinda against us. I hope the united states can continue down the balence beam of the middle east. Because once we started down that rope the only options were to fall off or continue down to peace.  We can't back out now, ever time we have given up hope it has been veiwed as a failor and we as a nation has been laughed at. We must finish what we started and bring peace to the middle east.


-Juju
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


152 posted 06-15-2004 01:29 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

nm.

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (06-15-2004 03:35 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


153 posted 06-15-2004 11:35 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Denise,

You're confusing the issue here.


As far as I can tell, they don't agree with Bush's pronouncements.

You misunderstand the article.
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


154 posted 06-15-2004 12:56 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

Ummmmmmm..........

what does "nm" mean I am guesing "not me?????????"
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


155 posted 06-15-2004 02:24 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

nm=nevermind

was going to rejoin the conversation but would rather maintain the weakening grip i have on sanity
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


156 posted 06-15-2004 05:39 PM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

Weakening grip?...Oh hell, I lost that a long long time ago....Sanity?...what the hell's that?....Doesn't that have something to do with those paper thinggies they put on toilet seats in your finer Hotels?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


157 posted 06-15-2004 08:46 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Michael, silence is sometimes the loudest sound in the world, isn't it?

Brad, how am I misunderstanding the article? I've read it several times and it still seems clear as a bell to me that the U.N. committee is saying that Saddam shipped out WMDs and WMD components before, during and after the war, and they're showing up all over the place, and some complete with their U.N. inspection tags still on them. They also state they don't know whose hands some of it may have fallen into:

"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax."

So that means that he had them, right? That means he didn't destroy them as he was supposed to, right? That means he wasn't in compliance with the cease-fire agreement, right? That means that Bush didn't lie about WMDs, right?

Honestly, what point am I missing?

Raph, speak your mind. Why should you be the only one left gripping onto sanity? I've heard it's greatly overrated anyway!  

Toe, you're not alone, me too.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


158 posted 06-15-2004 09:29 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Remember the discussion we had before the war over imminent v. potential threat?

It's the same thing here. Those that are mad at Bush over the whole WMD thing aren't saying that Saddam never had WMD's or that he was a good guy. They are saying that Bush misled the public into thinking that Saddam was an imminent threat rather than a potential threat.



Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


159 posted 06-15-2004 09:33 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102373/

quote:
In a recent public debate, so I was told, an American officer referred to the Abu Ghraib scandal as a "moral Chernobyl." You might think that this was overstating matters, even if in one important sense—because Chernobyl was morally an accident, albeit in some ways a "systemic" one—it is actually understating them.

But get ready. It is going to get much worse. The graphic videos and photographs that have so far been shown only to Congress are, I have been persuaded by someone who has seen them, not likely to remain secret for very long. And, if you wonder why formerly gung-ho rightist congressmen like James Inhofe ("I'm outraged more by the outrage") have gone so quiet, it is because they have seen the stuff and you have not. There will probably be a slight difficulty about showing these scenes in prime time, but they will emerge, never fear. We may have to start using blunt words like murder and rape to describe what we see. And one linguistic reform is in any case already much overdue. The silly word "abuse" will have to be dropped. No law or treaty forbids "abuse," but many conventions and statutes, including our own and the ones we have urged other nations to sign, do punish torture—which is what we are talking about here at a bare minimum.



quote:
Yes, but what about the ticking bomb? Listen: There's always going to be a ticking bomb somewhere. Some of these will go off, and it's just as likely to be in my part of Washington, D.C., as anywhere else. But we shall be fighting a war against jihad for decades to come. And the jihadists will continue to make big mistakes based on their mad theory. And they are not superhuman: They can be infiltrated, bribed, and turned. You don't have to tell them what time of day it is, or where they are, or when the next meal will be served. (Though it must be served.) But you must not bring in that pig or that electrode. That way lies madness and corruption and the extraction of junk confessions. So even if law and principle didn't enter into the question, we sure as hell know what doesn't work. The cranky Puritan voice of Sir Edmund Compton comes back to me down the corridor of the years: If it gives anyone pleasure, then you are doing it wrong and doing wrong into the bargain.
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


160 posted 06-16-2004 02:59 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

uhg....
An potential threat is still a threat? Right?
uHG.
JUJU
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


161 posted 06-16-2004 03:49 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Juju, when you're determining whether to wage a full scale assault the difference between potential and imminent threat is a large one.
Sudhir Iyer
Member Rara Avis
since 04-26-2000
Posts 7206
Mumbai, India : now in Belgium


162 posted 06-16-2004 05:51 PM       View Profile for Sudhir Iyer   Email Sudhir Iyer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Sudhir Iyer

To answer the 'Original' question... which was 'Does anybody take responsibility anymore?'...

There are two or more remarks/answers/questions...

1. Yes, Nobody does!

2. Why, is anybody crazy to do that?

3. What responsibility

4. Who is responsibility?

5. What's anymore?

...

Anyway, before I overstay my welcome... I will disappear

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


163 posted 06-16-2004 06:04 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Who was that masked man?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


164 posted 06-16-2004 09:50 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

And those who are saying that would be incorrect Brad. Someone unfamiliar with the political landscape over the past couple of years would really think that Bush misled and lied going by the sniping soundbites coming from the left and from the media. A lie repeated often enough starts to sound like truth. But the truth actually is, Bush never said the threat was imminent. He said the exact opposite in his State of the Union Address. How do some people keep missing that fact? How do people get away with stating, as fact, the very opposite of what the truth of the matter really is? Bush said we could not wait until the threat became imminent. He did not mislead, as some say, and he did not lie about WMDs, as some say.

To disagree with his decision of the need to go to war is one thing. Disagreement is honorable. But to accuse the President of being misleading and of lying when the facts do not substantiate the accusation is far from honorable, not to mention intellectually dishonest.

What I and others see coming from the left, for the most part, is a palpable hatred for the man, a blinding rage that seeks to destroy the character of someone they view, not as their President, but as an enemy. This is evident even among those who hold high positions in the Democratic Party. It's become apparant to me that the welfare of our country is not their highest concern. Their highest concern is 'the party' and getting 'the party' back in power at all costs, and they don't much care how they have to do it as long as it gets done. Anything that gets in the way of their goal must go, even if it is truth. Listen to the rhetoric. They are not seeking honest debate of the issues and presenting a viable alternative platform to the American people. They are attacking the man and his character, calling him a liar, a traitor, a deceiver, a warmonger, a greedy opportunist. They don't miss any opportunity to slander him. They have taken dirty politics to a new low and they should be ashamed of their actions, in my opinion.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


165 posted 06-17-2004 01:24 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
How do some people keep missing that fact?


The same way you keep missing the fact that after the initial address, the administration, in speeches and interviews, created that air of imminence and panic. Innundating us with information about Saddam and his arsenal. Also, the fact that the coalition mobilized quickly and against UN wishes seemed to suggest a hovering threat that had to be dealt with quickly. So much so that attention had to be pulled from Afghanistan.

quote:
But to accuse the President of being misleading and of lying when the facts do not substantiate the accusation is far from honorable, not to mention intellectually dishonest


Except that he did lie, using knowingly false information about Iraq's nuclear ambitions and presenting THAT evidence(not the other british intelligence), to the UN as proof.

quote:
This is evident even among those who hold high positions in the Democratic Party. It's become apparant to me that the welfare of our country is not their highest concern. Their highest concern is 'the party' and getting 'the party' back in power at all costs, and they don't much care how they have to do it as long as it gets done.


Funny, I recall the same attitude from the right when there were cries for impeachment after the Starr report. It works both ways which is why I said earlier partisanship is destroying us.

quote:
They are attacking the man and his character, calling him a liar, a traitor, a deceiver, a warmonger, a greedy opportunist.


Not all are accurate no, but considering the substantial profit his holdings have made, the fact that military contracting has gone to companies linked to his family and many of the Republican friendly companies? Well it sounds like poourtunism to me.

[This message has been edited by Aenimal (06-17-2004 02:28 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


166 posted 06-17-2004 04:55 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html


quote:
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

George Bush, 2003
Sudhir Iyer
Member Rara Avis
since 04-26-2000
Posts 7206
Mumbai, India : now in Belgium


167 posted 06-17-2004 08:36 AM       View Profile for Sudhir Iyer   Email Sudhir Iyer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Sudhir Iyer


!

[This message has been edited by Sudhir Iyer (06-17-2004 10:08 AM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


168 posted 06-18-2004 08:39 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Raph, I'd have to disagree. There has been no time in my lifetime where the divide has been so pronounced between the right and the left, and no time that I can remember where those differences have been evidenced by such a pronounced and vocal hatred for a President. The left hated Reagan too, but were not as vile in their attacks on him, at least to my memory. I do agree with you, however, that the type of partisianship that we see today is destroying us. We need to become more civilized and have the well being of our country as our focus again and not the welfare of a particular party.

And as far as your statement about Bush having lied: you believe your sources and I believe mine.

Brad, none of which speaks to imminence, but rather the seriousness of the threat posed by Saddam.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


169 posted 06-18-2004 09:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I agree, Denise. This type of unrestrained hate-filled partisanship is very destructive. I've never seen it in my lifetime. There has always been bickering, poking and jabbing and shennanigans both parties commonly engage in but this is different. Personally I believe it's because the Democratic party is so much on the defensive and, in their defensiveness, they are striking out in any way they can. That's one reason why topics like the prison abuse gets beaten to death, not that it's not important, but that it's an instrument to fire at the administration. To link it to being the same as when Hussein ran the prison (which Kennedy stated) to unraveling the fabric of the United States, which has been insinuated here is foolish but it's an arrow they cannot pass up and so it will get milked for all it's worth, not so much for the action of the abuse but for the show of resentment and hatred of Bush.

Perhaps the Democratic party feels defensive because they did almost nothing over the ten terrorist attacks against the US and US soldiers from 1992-2000, when a Democrat was President. Perhaps they are mad that Bush DID take action and the majority of Americans agreed with him. Even now, with many negative things happening and a liberal press there to insure that the negativity will be exploited to its fullest, still the majority of Americans stand behind Bush. This HAS to infuriate them so much the vileness comes out. With all of the top Democratic leaders calling for Clinton to attack Iraq in '98, with everyone, including the UN, feeling certain that there WERE WMD's in Iraq, it is foolish to attack Bush for lying about WMD's and yet that is what they do. They have to know that won't float and I'm sure that infuriates them more. Most  arguments they use have been taken from them - the "it's all about the oil" is gone. The "It's the economy, stupid" is gone because the economy has come back very strong. SO what do they have left to do but attack whenever the possibility presents itself? We are seeing pure hatred on display by political leaders born of frustration and desperation. Kerry is struggling to come up with topics for his platform. He offers no solutions at all. In a current ad he speaks of "There are 43,000,000 Americans without health insurance." That was basically what Clinton had siad when he ran and eight years in office still did not produce a health care plan and people are aware of that - and he does not say how HE would produce it. Last week he gave a speech stating that he has a way to insure that millions of Americans will be safer from terrorist attacks than they now are and - IF he is elected! - he will divulge this plan. In other words, I suppose, he;s saying if he is not elected, to hell with them. Does he think that's going to get him votes???

The hatred and the degree if partisanship has to stop and the country needs to be the main concern. Unfortunately I don't see that happening. We can't even make it happen in our small threads here - imagine the battles in COngress!!

As a country, we lose in this type of mudslinging....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


170 posted 06-19-2004 12:02 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Released this week; http://www.diplomatsforchange.com/project/project.html

quote:

The undersigned have held positions of responsibility for the planning and execution of American foreign and defense policy. Collectively, we have served every president since Harry S. Truman. Some of us are Democrats, some are Republicans or Independents, many voted for George W. Bush. But we all believe that current Administration policies have failed in the primary responsibilities of preserving national security and providing world leadership. Serious issues are at stake. We need a change.

From the outset, President George W. Bush adopted an overbearing approach to America’s role in the world, relying upon military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations. Instead of building upon America’s great economic and moral strength to lead other nations in a coordinated campaign to address the causes of terrorism and to stifle its resources, the Administration, motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, struck out on its own. It led the United States into an ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain. It justified the invasion of Iraq by manipulation of uncertain intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, and by a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda and the attacks of September 11. The evidence did not support this argument.

Our security has been weakened. While American airmen and women, marines, soldiers and sailors have performed gallantly, our armed forces were not prepared for military occupation and nation building. Public opinion polls throughout the world report hostility toward us. Muslim youth are turning to anti-American terrorism. Never in the two and a quarter centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted.



Most notable of the signatories: http://www.diplomatsforchange.com/signatories/signatories.html

Admiral William J. Crowe, USN, Ret.
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985 (under Reagan)
Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Command

The group also is populated by prominent diplomats from the Middle East and former Soviet Union as well as top military commanders.  Many were appointees of Reagan and Bush 41.

Of course other Bi-Partisan efforts in the news this week is the finding by the 9/11 commission there was no collaberative effort between Saddam Hussein and OBL.

Is there any bi-partisan effort somewhere that is supporting Bush 43?  I'd like to see what it says if there is.

Polls in Iraq this week show a dismal outlook for sentiment toward the U.S. there.  

Everyone here should remember that I supported this effort and gave the President the benefit of the doubt (in addition to having trust in the opinions of Colin Powell and Tony Blair).  The handwriting is on the wall though.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


171 posted 06-19-2004 12:25 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I have never in my life voted for a political party. IMO, the greatest presidents of my lifetime were Kennedy and Reagan, each for very different reasons. I find the thought of unnecessary war only slightly more frightening than National Health Care. I never look at parties and, frankly, I rarely even look at issues too deeply. Instead, I look for leadership. I look for a man with the strength of character and will to unite, lead, and accomplish.

Personally, I'm not convinced the opposition to Bush is any more antagonistic today than in many, many other Presidential elections I've seen. Goldwater played nasty and lost, Nixon played even nastier and won, and everyone seems to accept that "all is fair in love, war, and politics."

Still, let's assume for a moment that Denise and Mike are right. Let's assume that there really are millions of people who are being overtly nasty and antagonistic toward the present Administration. Is that the fault of the people? Or is that a failure of leadership?

I can't remember any President enjoying the support Bush did during his first year in office. Even LBJ (the worst President in my lifetime, btw) took over the reins of Camelot with less support than Bush had that first year. His popularity was so strong, in fact, that today we don't even have a better alternative because all Democrats strong enough to run a nation didn't want to bet against Bush in 2004. This is possibly the most important election since 1860, and arguably the most disappointing.

Bush had the support to do just about anything. If that support has turned to antagonism, it might be wise to ask why. Both leadership and divisiveness, after all, begin at the top.
Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


172 posted 06-19-2004 07:06 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

I have had my say on these pages....but let me just say that if we spent less time arguing about the rights and wrongs of war, and more time on the more important issues concerned with this life we are living..ie that fellow humans are STARVING and close to death NOW...then we MIGHT just be able to effect the outcome of a worthy cause with positive news for a change rather than the negative view that war has.
Just think of all of the people that could have been saved if we just used all of the money that went into developing and buying weapons that do HARM...into giving that money to people on this planet... that we all live on?....but NO..we have to spend Billions of dollars to fund things that are going to KILL...all in the name of money.
All that i can say on this is when the people involved in these decisions meet their maker....i hope they are prepared for his wrath and long journey down below...

Who on this planet WANTS war?....And yet it is ironically the poeple's taxes that go into buying these weapons....i say scrap ALL of the funding for weapons by every nation..and give it to the people like the people of Sudan...who are dying NOW AS WE SPEAK....

Goldenrose.

''Death where is thy sting? Love where is thy glory?'' William Shakespeare.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


173 posted 06-19-2004 08:38 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Ron, I agree with Michael's assessment. I believe the level of hatred seen today is unprecedented and I believe it is purely partisian and I believe that the Democratic leadership has deliberatly fomented the growing unrest in this country by their non-stop verbal attacks on the President. So I would lay the lion's share of the blame on them, not on the President. They are out to destroy him, regardless of his leadership abilities, simply because he is a Republican. And as Michael noted, every arrow they have attempted to use against him has failed. And that makes them even more angry. And the angrier they get the better Bush looks. He appears calm, mature, and in control, while they appear as temper tantrum throwing spoiled brats. Sadly, John F. Kennedy wouldn't recognize his party today.

L.R., that statement is loaded with so much garbage, how can it be taken seriously? For one thing, the U.S. did not strike out on its own. We do have a coalition. And who are the "traditional friends and allies" that we were insensitive to, places like France? Such a pity that we didn't consider their clandestine trade deals with Saddam before we went to war.

Bush exhibited disdain for the U.N.? I don't think he did, but I wouldn't blame him or anyone else for showing disdain for that organization. In fact, the next candidate who runs for office on the platform of disengaging us from U.N. membership has my vote, regardless of their party affiliation.

Bush got us involved in an ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain? Ill-planned is a judgment call. All wars are costly. I don't think our exit is uncertain. It will be when the new government of Iraq is stabilized and they tell us they no longer need us there.

As for the findings of the 9/11 Commission regarding the Saddam/Al Qaida connection, that was in reference only to the 9/11 attacks, and only to information that they were able to ascertain as credible. But there were definitely links between the two:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


174 posted 06-19-2004 10:31 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
They (Democrats) are out to destroy him, regardless of his leadership abilities, simply because he is a Republican.

If that's true, Denise, then their attack isn't on Bush, but on the party. "Simply because he is a Republican" obviously implies they would and will attack all Republicans in exactly the same manner. If you really believe that, then you can't really call the attacks either unprecedented or personal.

On the other hand, if the attacks *are* both personal and unprecedented, any unbiased exploration will want to investigate cause and effect. I don't necessarily buy into all those where-there's-smoke-there's-fire theories, but I have to admit, when I smell smoke I'm going to at least LOOK to see if there's a fire. Any other reaction would be foolishly dangerous.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Does anybody take responsibility anymore   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors