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
 U.S. closes search for Iraqis' WMD   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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

U.S. closes search for Iraqis' WMD

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


0 posted 01-13-2005 02:37 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E6439%257E2650061,00.html

...
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


1 posted 01-13-2005 09:28 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Not to go too far OT, but that remark in the article by the Honorable Nancy Pelosi comes as no surprise.  Well, I was a bit surprised that her quoted remark was not as rabid as most of her's are about this Administration, President, Republicans, Conservatives, and basically anyone, including Democrats and Moderates, that don't completely agree with her torqued and twisted Californian views.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


2 posted 01-14-2005 02:00 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

...and what remains startling is that Bush believes it was "absolutely" worth it to invade Iraq anyway.

Tonight they're going to air that rare interview with Bush and Barbara Walters.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

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


3 posted 01-14-2005 06:37 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Ali im not familiar with Nancy Pelosi's past comments, but i have to agree with her on this

what remains startling to me Noah, is that people continue to support bush and this war
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


4 posted 01-14-2005 06:54 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Yes...that too.

But there remains hope. A new poll shows though Bush's approval rating is up three points after 75% believed Bush had strong leadership through the tsunami disaster, dissent in the war in Iraq continues to grow (57% now.)

Plus a North Carolina Congressman, a Republican, this week, has become the latest to come out saying we should bring our men and women home as soon as we can because he's sick of waking up and reading on the headlines that another 5 to 10 of our troops were killed.

I remain optimistic, I remain hopeful for the best.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


5 posted 01-19-2005 08:40 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

For those looking for a brief history behind the "WMD" search, here's a review of the rhetoric, spanning from most earliest to most recent:

******************************************

"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." Colin Powell, February 24, 2001

"He's been a menace forever, and we will do, he needs to open his country up for inspection, so we can see whether or not he's developing weapons of mass destruction."
George W. Bush, August 7, 2001

"I don't think it matters if Saddam has been implicated (in September 11th). He has weapons of mass destruction. The lesser risk is in pre-emption. We've got to stop wishing away the problem."
Richard Perle, November 21, 2001

"Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked."
Tony Blair, April 10, 2002

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
Bush, September 12, 2002

"I didn't hear it (the Iraqi Foreign Minster's speech at the U.N.), but let me guess: 'The United States is guilty, the world doesn't understand, we don't have any weapons of mass destruction.' It's the same old song and dance that we've heard for 11 long years."
Bush, September 19, 2002

"Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more."
Bush, October 7, 2002.

"He has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes."
Blair, September 24, 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
Ari Fleischer, December 2, 2002

"I took our message of peace and freedom to countries around the world. I want them to understand the nature of the man who runs Iraq is the nature of a man who doesn't tell the truth. He says he won't have weapons of mass destruction; he's got them."
Bush, December 3, 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
Fleischer, January 9, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
Powell, February 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons, the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Bush, February 8, 2003

"He has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
Cheney, March 16, 2003

"We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd."
Blair, March 18, 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified."
Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

"We did not want this war. But in refusing to give up his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam gave us no choice but to act."
Blair, April 10, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
Bush, May 3, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming."
Powell, May 4, 2003

"I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."
Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein, because he had a weapons program."
Bush, May 6, 2003

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction."
Paul Wolfowitz, May 9, 2003

"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."
Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. We've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Bush, May 30, 2003

"I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program."
Bush, June 9, 2003

"I believe that we will find the truth, and I believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
Rice, July 13, 2003

"Extensive work remains to be done on his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. But these findings already make clear that Saddam Hussein actively deceived the international community."
Bush, October 3, 2003

"We are seeking all the facts. Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."
Bush, January 21, 2004

"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere...nope, no weapons over there...maybe under here..."
Bush, March 24, 2004


****************************************

So there's your history to date regarding the excuse this administration went with in going into this senseless, immoral war in the first place.

Despite all that, despite revealing the obvious once and for all they and the intelligence were wrong, Bush STILL believes it was "absolutely worth it" to invade.

And all Scott McClellan could say in response was, "Based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action, because this is about protecting the American people."

Protect America from what? A nation that has never attacked our nation in history?

The hypocrisy astounds me. Here there are many who continue to point their fingers at pacifists and those who don't want to serve in the military, accusing people like us as terrorist sympathizers and murderers, yet honor those now they themselves have never served. They honor Cheney, who never served. They honor Ashcroft, who never served. They honor Rove, who never served. Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Frist, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Roy Blunt, Richard Perle, the list goes on and on. And then Bush himself went AWOL, something which you'd typically get a dishonorable discharge for, unless you come from a higher stature.

You see, just like a majority of these figures who make up the Bush Administration, I have never served in the military and never will, for I believe we are free to decide as Americans our lives and how to serve our country. I choose to serve America as a working class hero, as a pacifist, as a patriot of peace, as a volunteer special educator for children, as a songwriter, as a defender of civil rights and equalities.

Meanwhile, Bush chooses to sympathize to these many young people who are working their hearts out for America, many of which only chose to join the military so they could earn college tuition or put some job experience on their resume that could help get them get a career later, by saying, "Much more will be asked of you" and "we can't rule out military action in Iran.", without any regret or apology for the crimes he's already put on humanity, from the losses of thousands of innocent civilians to the erosion of civil liberties.

Incredible. Beyond incredible.

I for one still believe in King's vision. A vision of ending this spiritual death of our nation in spending more and more on military defense than on programs of social uplift. A vision of stopping worshipping the god of hate and bowing before the altar of retaliation. A vision of being able to hear the questions and point of view of our enemies and mature in understanding the overall assessment of human nature.

I continue to believe in this vision of peace, and believe you can't have it both ways. It's either peace or war.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


6 posted 01-19-2005 09:09 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Well, though I respect your Views, Noah, it would be nice if you would devote that same amount of research to how many thought Saddam DID have them.  Not just in the US, but multiple countries around the world, including all of Saddam's senior staff prior to the war.  It wasn't until the first bombs started dropping on Baghdad that Saddam came clean [sic] with his senior staff and advisors.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


7 posted 01-19-2005 11:41 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

  Alicat,

It’s worst than that.  Some time ago when he had returned from
his investigation David Kay had an interview on PBS.  In it he
said that Saddam Hussein himself may have believed he had
weapons of mass destruction when in fact he didn’t.  I was stunned
to hear it and am still trying to understand how it could be possible.

It is known, by their own reports, that they had certain quantities
at the end of the first war, it is known what happened to a portion
of those known quantities, what happened to the rest of the already
known quantities remains a mystery.  This leaves aside anything
produced in addition to those original known quantities.

It is known he punished, (in at least one case executed), officers
who failed in their obstruction of weapons inspectors both as a
personal punishment and as an example to others.

As you reminded us , everyone, the British, French, Germans, Russians,
etc. said Saddam Hussein had WMD, ( Vladimir  Putin has even publicly
stated that his intelligence gathered information that Saddam was planning
attacks on the United States).

Was there no WMD, or, (Saddam with twelve years of time and effort and billions
to spend), can we just not find it?  Or did Saddam, or others fearful of his
wrath, create an illusion of possession that everyone believed too well?





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


8 posted 01-20-2005 12:50 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

To what point, Ali? We don't convict a man for what he believes, but rather for what he does.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


9 posted 01-20-2005 02:07 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


On the other hand Ron, if they suspect he’s going for a gun . . .
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


10 posted 01-20-2005 02:39 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

What, John? If you think someone is going for a gun, it's okay to blow him away? Is that your point?

And what happens when you are wrong?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


11 posted 01-20-2005 03:06 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

No Ron, I think one should stand passively
and see if one’s suspicion is correct.
That way if one’s suspicion proves incorrect, he’s alive and good,
if his suspicion is correct he’s dead and good.  The important
thing is to be good.

Of course this ignores the obvious fact that the good guy
is always able to wait and then shoot the gun out of the bad guy’s hand.

Now it can then be argued that if the good guy gets shot by the bad
guy first, then that is evidence that the good guy was really not a good guy
and, at least in part, deserved what he got, which is shot.


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


12 posted 01-22-2005 03:01 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
Following The Washington Post's report on the end to the search for Iraqi WMD, the Leftmedia launched into predictable fits of pontification. Proving yet again that they just don't get it, USA Today gleefully opined that the intelligence failure invalidates the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense. "End to Search Seals Doubts About Pre-Emption," went the headline. Yet even more disturbing was the article's conclusion, which displayed not only the paper's amnesiac recollection of the events leading up to our ouster of Saddam, but also a gross misunderstanding of the very nature of intelligence: "The weapons debacle in Iraq shows the proper place for pre-emptive war: as a last resort, and only with rock-solid evidence." (emphasis ours)

As you might imagine, we at The Patriot don't see it that way. The Iraqi campaign has been an important WMD success in its own right, removing one threat and convincing another -- Libya -- to get out of the WMD business. In the long term, the demonstration that our nation will back its words with action is an immeasurably valuable deterrent -- despite what USA Today would have its readers believe.

Were we wrong about WMD in Iraq? No WMD have been discovered in large quantities in Iraq. But as we asserted two years ago, we believe there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that the most significant elements of Saddam's nuclear and biological WMD programs went into Syria for points elsewhere months before the U.S. invasion. We have it on good authority that the CIA and military SF units are acting today on that information.

Should we have invaded Iraq, believing what we (and the French, Germans, Brits, the UN, The Post, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Madeleine Albright) believed at the time, and despite 16 utterly unheeded UN resolutions? Absolutely! (Saddam firmly believed he had WMD!) And for reasons which we will reiterate in next week's edition, we believe the current strategy in Iraq, the font line of our war against Jihadistan, is brilliant.

Unfortunately, USA Today's suicidal standard of "rock-solid evidence" is one that simply can't always be met -- which became all too apparent on September 11, 2001, as it had on December 7, 1941.


http://federalistpatriot.us/current/

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


13 posted 01-22-2005 07:43 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Were we wrong about WMD in Iraq? No WMD have been discovered in large quantities in Iraq. But as we asserted two years ago, we believe there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that the most significant elements of Saddam's nuclear and biological WMD programs went into Syria for points elsewhere months before the U.S. invasion. We have it on good authority that the CIA and military SF units are acting today on that information.

Yet, more unfounded speculation? Some, indeed, never learn.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


14 posted 01-22-2005 10:17 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I wouldn't call it unfounded speculation, Ron, but I would call it an ongoing investigation. There were convoys of materials heading to Syria from Iraq just prior to the war and statements given by former Saddam aides stating that is what was done with some of the WMD's.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38371
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38041
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40946
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39182
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33216

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


15 posted 01-23-2005 12:31 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

“If Saddam could hide his air force from the U.S. with his erstwhile enemy Iran during the first Gulf War, why not hide WMDs with friendly Syria this time?”

Good question.
Thanks Denise.

It makes more sense than
that everyone, including Saddam, believed Saddam had WMD,
and he didn’t.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


16 posted 01-23-2005 08:59 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Let's assume you're right. The WMD were in Syria before we attacked. So, uh, why attack Iraq?

Any way it is sliced, mistaken is still mistaken.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


17 posted 01-24-2005 12:21 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

So, uh, why attack Iraq?


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


18 posted 01-24-2005 11:22 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

A look at the War Resolution will show that the WMD issue was not the only issue.

Some of the weapons are suspected of having been transported to Syria (only when war became a real possibility in his mind), some are suspected of having been destroyed and some are suspected of having been hidden throughout Iraq. Some have been found by coaltion troops, and some of the stuff has been found in the possession of the terrorists.

But if Saddam didn't destroy them all, as required by the cease-fire agreement, and didn't show evidence of destroying them, or at least a good-faith attempt to account for the destruction of all of them, well then he basically ended the cease-fire agreement, I would say, and the subsequent consequences are on his head, no one else's.  

Shipping them off to other countries, for either use by others, or future use by Saddam himself, if he survived the war unscathed, is not evidence of someone interested in abiding by the cease-fire agreement.

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


19 posted 04-30-2005 02:30 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

And then there's the attempted chemical attack from terrorists based out of Iraq and Syria in Jordan, where Jordanian authorities seized 20 tons of chemicals, numerous explosives, and several modifided trucks with plows to crash through security barriers.  Of course that begs the question of where Syria got 20 tons of chemicals used for blister agents?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

Granted, this is old news, a little over a year ago, yet largely ignored by those shouting 'what WMD's?!'.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


20 posted 04-30-2005 03:43 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Well Alicat consider more recent news. First of all as of February the CIA declared there was no evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq after 1991. More importantly as of Tuesday, there is no evidence Syria had hidden Iraqi arms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html  
http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Newsflash-CIA-ad mits-no-chemical-weapons-in-Iraq/2005/02/01/1107228705488.html
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


21 posted 04-30-2005 03:56 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

quote:
Although Syria helped Iraq evade U.N.-imposed sanctions by shipping military and other products across its borders, the investigators "found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD." Because of the insular nature of Saddam Hussein's government, however, the investigators were "unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."
Source: Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer

I guess then we only see and read what we want to see and read, as that paragraph stuck out in the link you provided.  And for some odd reason, the image of the varied Iraqi records offices being thoroughly looted after the fall of Baghdad keeps creeping in my mind.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


22 posted 04-30-2005 11:18 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

No Alicat, I read exactly what it said NO EVIDENCE. While the investigators haven't ruled out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials, they still have NO evidence that there was any such movement.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


23 posted 05-08-2005 12:06 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

THE HEAD of MI6 told Tony Blair that the case for war against Iraq was being “fixed” by the Americans to suit the policy, according to a BBC documentary that will reignite its battle with the government...

see the rest here of this sunday times aritcle here
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


24 posted 05-08-2005 02:19 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



Hey Aenimal, I love your new picture! (giggles) Yoda is my favorite Star Wars character of all time, yay!

(giggles) I went off track!

I'm really not suprised by this news. I think these are very much the sentiments exactly many who oppose the war and voted Thursday were feeling toards Balir and his attitude towards the war.

And Blair indeed has been elected to a third term, which definitely means one thing.

But another thing is the following:

*

* His majority, looking to be 66 seats, is down from 165 in 2001.

* Labour is back in office with the lowest share of the vote in british electoral history.

* George Galloway of the anti-war Respect party upsetted Labour's Oona King. He's considered the most outspoken opponent of the war, and King's upsetting is considered a strong defeat for Blair.

* 139 Labour members of Parliament voted against the war to begin with, so in his own party, which overall did support the war in Iraq, has many pockets of dissent.

*

This tells me three things. One, the anti-war movement in the U.K has gained a lot of political traction. Two, Blair has very likely lost the ability to allign himself with a future war should it happen soon, and three, Blair is very likely not to be around for this full third term given how unpopular he is despite being elected, which was pretty obvious from the beginning he would.

Their electoral system is in a mega-mess, and I believe so many there believe it needs great reform, but despite those troubles, I am pleased and accepting of the election results there. All their desired changes certainly may not have come true yet, but their voices were heard clearly Thursday in protest and that is the best thing an election can do for the people.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

 
 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 >> U.S. closes search for Iraqis' WMD   [ Page: 1  2  ] 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