David Michaels April 19, 2006   02:42 PM PDT   Isn't it sad to see what George W. Bush has done to our country? "If we lose our nerve and bolt, Iraq will spit into warring factions." HELLO! That is happening now. In fact, there have been warring factions in the Middle East for thousands of years. Why did Bush ever think he could change history that is so ingrained into a culture? Nobody can deny that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator who needed removed. Why didn't we act in 1982? Why didn't we act in 1988 when he gassed tens of thousands of Kurds? This war has been fought for all the wrong reasons - not the least of which is a Bush family vendetta. Every day, innocent Iraqis die at the hands of insurgents who weren't even in the country before we invaded. Now, we have created a breeding ground for terrorists. They are shooting at our sons and daughters for target practice. So, before you go patting yourself on the back for "liberating" Irag, think about the family who is mourning a year without their child. That soldier died in a war based in LIES. How tragic is that? I support our soldiers, but it is time to hold this administration accountable for its incompetence - from Iraq to the domestic issues.

	JM April 19, 2006   02:59 PM PDT   >Isn't it sad to see what George W. >Bush has done to our country? If by "sad" you mean "mostly very good," then yes. >HELLO! That is happening now. Not at all. Please stop letting the NY Times do all your thinking. The Iraqi military has not split into factions, and the leaders are still working on creating a government. I really despise this Liberal mindset that when the going gets tough, America should get quitting. Grow a spine, jellyfish! >so ingrained into a culture Sure, "those people" aren't capable of self-determination. I think I've heard that song before. >Nobody can deny that Saddam >Hussein was an evil dictator who >needed removed. Glad to see you're on board with the liberation of Iraq, after all. >This war has been fought for all >the wrong reasons Really? Please read the entire Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq and let me know why you think the reasons were all wrong. Thanks. Here it is: http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf >Bush family vendetta No, no, Conspiracy Theory 101 is down the hall. >Every day, innocent Iraqis die at >the hands of insurgents who >weren't even in the country >before we invaded. Then they're not insurgents, but invaders. I suppose that's what happens when you parrot Liberal talking points instead of thinking about what you say. >That soldier died in a war based in >LIES. You know, I get tired of debunking that particular Liberal lie over and over again. Please list the lies you claim to have heard, along with your proof that they were, in fact, actual lies. Only do it somewhere else.

	Jimbo April 26, 2006   08:24 PM PDT   Wow, what sort of evil world do you live in? The lies have been irrefutably proven. If even I knew they were lies - and I'm just a student - I think the President of the US knew it too. Especially, since he was the liar who made it all up. Joke you are, funny you are not.

	JM April 26, 2006   10:39 PM PDT   >The lies have been irrefutably >proven. Jimbo, NY Times op-ed pieces do not count as proof of anything. If you want to call someone a liar, you'd better be prepared to list the lies you accuse him of, and show your proof that he knew he was lying about whatever it was. Are you actually saying that repeating everything the UN and Democrats said about Saddam's WMDs for a dozen years is somehow lying? Before embarassing yourself further, please read this, just for starters: http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/306.html

	Jimbo April 27, 2006   09:25 AM PDT   Thanks for the reply. I'll check out the link (to avoid embrassing myself further lol) and then reply with the list.

	Jimbo April 27, 2006   11:07 AM PDT   Well, I hardly know where to begin. I find it strange that you thoughtfully analyze the motives of the Rumsfeld critics, but do not bother to do that with the comments made by the people that you quote. Note: Chief of Staff Larry DiRita called Shaw's charges "absurd and without any foundation." Shaw handed in no evidence whatsoever, and now the Feds are onto him... Then there is David Kay, who seems to have changed his mind afterwards. Funny how he says one thing when he's working for the President and now says something different... Regarding the President, I don't think I have time to write such a big essay on the subject, but at least the existence of the Downing Street Memo is very clear. The President had said several times before the war that he didn't want to go to war, and was for diplomacy. No doubts there, and you know it too, if you remember. Perhaps that lie is enough to prove he is not an honest man, or was there a very good reason for the President to lie at that time?? Note that he's not lying now, saying that all options are on the table against Iran. perhaps he has learnt his lesson. I would also like to recommend you the reports of Scott Ritter, the man before Blix, though I see that you doubt the UN's effectiveness, perhaps with reason. Finally, on a different note, I find it worrying that America should torture suspects - with terrorists that's fine, but suspects are only suspects, especially when some of them are just kids. By the way, I think these things should be exposed in the press: if we are THE Democracy, and proud of it, then we should act like it. I see bad results coming in the future elections and I can see why - the President was out of line on these matters.

	JM April 27, 2006   01:19 PM PDT   You cannot point to two or three dissenting opinions and claim that Bush should have somehow magically known that they were right and the other 99.9% of the world was wrong. Your claim of lies is unfounded and ridiculous. Derita is wrong and Shaw is right. I think you should check out the evidence piling up from the 48,000 boxes of documents and tapes recovered from the regime, that are only now being translated. You also need to check out the statements made by Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada. David Kay did not change his mind about anything. He said the intelligence got it wrong, and that is correct. Intelligence -- ours and the entire world's -- was wrong about Saddam's WMD stockpiles that the UN insisted he had not destroyed. Saddam still had some WMDs and was ready to make more, but did not have the massive stockpiles everybody "knew" he had. The UN published frequent lists of what they KNEW Saddam had that he had not accounted for. Yet I hear no word of blame from you for the UN. In the months leading up to the war, Saddam moved what he could to Syria, and hid what he could not move. If only he'd cooperated, he'd still be running Iraq now, starving families, filling those mass graves and rape rooms, and torturing people for sport. The Downing Street Memo is a trick to play on gullible Lefties. It merely shows that Bush was pretty certain Iraq was not cooperating with the UN's demands, making war inevitable. He was right, of course -- Iraq was not disclosing anything new. Else the David Kay report would have been blank, instead of being full of details on things Saddam never disclosed. >Perhaps that lie is enough to >prove he is not an honest man Uhh... what lie is that? Please state your evidence that the President WANTED war. Of course the President didn't WANT to go to war. As I said, if only Saddam had cooperated, as Libya did, we wouldn't have had to. Why is that so hard for Liberals to understand? >I would also like to recommend >you the reports of Scott Ritter Before saying another word about inspections, let me remind you it was the responsibility of Iraq to prove it had dismantled and destroyed its WMDs and WMD programs, not the job of the inspectors to play hide-and-seek. Scott Ritter's movie was financed by Saddam, but I'll bet you think that has nothing to do with Ritter's conclusions. As for Blix, he missed Saddam's entire nuclear program, back when he was in charge of the IAEA. No wonder Iraq would only submit to inspections when -- after 24 or 25 rejections -- the UN suggested Blix to head UNMOVIC. >I find it worrying that America >should torture suspects I might, too, if it were actually happening. But I think you're confusing mild discomfort and sleep deprivation with torture. Show me a single pulled fingernail, a hacked-off healthy limb, a living body dissolved in acid or a detainee flayed alive, and I'll agree with you.

	Jimbo April 27, 2006   07:55 PM PDT   Ok, that makes things difficult. Mild discomfort - if it is only mild then, why do bother with it? Sleep deprivation, same question. What's the point? Revenge? Ok, I wouldn't mind if they were criminals or terrorists, but they're only suspects. Which leads to the next question - why don't they take them to court - don't we trust the courts any more? If they are guilty they should be made to pay, if they are just suspects then they should be tried. The courts don't get it right every time, but they get it right most of the time. Beating on suspects is what the Chinese and Russians do. Aren't we better than they are? Why is the Whitehouse fighting against the rights that make America strong? http://news.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510782004 Amnesty International makes strong claims that torture by Americans exists. These guys have been on the front line fighting for human rights in rogue states and communist countries. Now I see that America has joined their list. That is sad. Or do you think that they were telling the truth about countries like Iraq, Iran, China and Russia, but now are lying about the USA? The letter in the link should be read carefully. They seem very honest. If you don't believe the Downing Street Memo, nor remember what the President said before the war, then there's not much more that can be said. The trouble is that if it is not lies, then intelligence is really messed up. The CIA should be dismantled and changed for something new that actually works. Just because the others got it wrong is no excuse. A President is only there for a few years, and if he's weak we can change him. But the CIA stays. The country is not safe with low quality intel. It is crucial. Regarding the UN, it is weak because America makes it weak. The idea of the United Nations is good - it's an American ideia. If we really put a big effort into it, we could make it work. Anyway. glad you read Debka, I thought it was almost unknown.

	Jimbo April 27, 2006   08:06 PM PDT   Forgot about this little bit of info I found on sleep deprivation. I hope it's useful. Does seem to constitute torture I'm afraid... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3376951.stm

	JM April 27, 2006   08:54 PM PDT   >if it is only mild then, why do >bother with it? Because it works. Sorry, but mild discomfort is simply not torture. And the "rights that make American strong" certainly don't extend to treating our enemies with kid gloves. Amnesty International is hugely anti-American; they would accuse us of torture if a detainee got a hangnail or missed his soaps one afternoon. And as for "fighting on the front lines," please can that crap. They publish reports. Our troops are the ones fighting on the front lines for human rights. By your mentioning courts, it appears you fall into the fallacy of thinking this is a law enforcement situation instead of a war; the same wrong way of thought that brought us to 9/11 in the first place. Downing Street memo again? I already told you what it meant. It was obvious to the President and anyone who paid attention that Iraq was not cooperating. >The CIA should be dismantled and >changed for something new that >actually works. Ahh, we finally agree. The CIA has become an entrenched and useless bureaucracy, literally at war with President Bush. Porter Goss was appointed to reform it, but he's got a tough fight on his hands. As fo the UN: it's weak because it allows non-democratic nations to have an equal voice with democracies. France, Russia and China openly sell their votes on the Security Council -- first to Iraq, now to Iran. For God's sake, Iran is in charge of disarmament. You've got to wake up and look at the reality here. A little something to read about the UN: http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/145.html >info I found on sleep deprivation Torture is definable as any deliberate treatment that will result in permanent disability or damage. I'm sorry, but a few hallucinations aren't torture. Hell, some people pay good money on street corners for that sort of thing.

	Jimbo April 27, 2006   10:10 PM PDT   I do see your points but I'm afraid I must disagree. Especially about torture. "treating enemies with kid gloves", They are suspects, so they should be tried, or they are POWs. The ones caught in Afghanistan are POWs. So they didn't have a uniform... Call me an idealist if you like, or an idiot if you prefer, but I believe that "enemy combatants" was pure invention by the Whitehouse and is not acceptable. Weren't we in Afghanistan fighting a war? Did we not capture prisoners? Isn't the war in Afghanistan over? I thought we won and implemented Democracy. Or are they "terror soldiers" to be held forever? Even the Admin says that they were captured fighting against the troops. That makes them non-terrorists by definition. "fallacy of thinking this is a law enforcement situation" The non-fighter prisoners are enemies? If they are enemies of America they must be accused, tried and convicted. There is no halfway about it, and if the Admin is so sure, then what's the problem of putting them in prison or executing them legally?? Why do you believe (rightfully) that the power of the Government should be limited, but then in other things you think it should be free to do exactly as it likes? How do you do the selecting? Part of the horror of communism and rogue states we are fighting against is about going to prison without due process, and the government throwing away the key (and torturing you). KGB methods is not what America is about - or do you think it is? "Our troops are the ones fighting on the front lines for human rights." Nope, they are not fighting for Human Rights. If I remember correctly, Afghanistan was because of 9/11 and Saddam was because of WMD (and 9/11). "wrong way of thought that brought us to 9/11 in the first place" sorry - don't understand what you mean. "France, Russia and China openly sell their votes on the Security Council" Openly??? China sells it's votes? The only thing China will be selling, the way things are going, is dollars.

	JM April 27, 2006   11:23 PM PDT   >They are suspects, so they should >be tried, or they are POWs. This is not a law enforcement matter, and they do not meet the standards for POW status. They are battlefield prisoners, enemy combatants. >So they didn't have a uniform... That is one of the four criteria that MUST be met for them to claim Geneva Convention protection. >Even the Admin says that they >were captured fighting against the >troops. That makes them non- >terrorists by definition. That doesn't even make sense. You don't get to rewrite the Geneva Conventions to suit your passing whims. >If they are enemies of America >they must be accused And you don't get to make up laws to suit your passing whims, either. Please show me the place in the US Code where it states this. Thanks. >How do you do the selecting? Common sense, logic, reason, things like that. >going to prison without due >process And you don't get to extend Constitutional protection to non-citizens and enemies based on your passing whims, either. >Nope, they are not fighting for >Human Rights. There has never been a greater force for the advancement of human rights than the United States military. >If I remember correctly, >Afghanistan was because of 9/11 >and Saddam was because of WMD >(and 9/11). You are remembering the NY Times talking points correctly, but not what the war is actually about. Is it possible you don't know that Afghanistan and Iraq were just two parts of the war we're fighting against the root causes of terrorism? Maybe you'd better spend some time reading yet another rant: http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/250.html and http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/167.html >sorry - don't understand what you >mean. http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/91.html >China sells it's votes? Yesss.... http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/173.html Maybe you'd better just read everything I've ever written, instead of asking me to regurgitate it all in this comments section.

	Jimbo April 27, 2006   11:58 PM PDT   I'll have a look at the links tommorow, cause it's getting late, but very quickly: Terrorists attack civilian targets - if they were fighting soldiers at most they were guerilla fighters. I'm amused you refer to the Geneva conventions. Quaint. "you don't get to extend Constitutional protection to non-citizens and enemies" So the "bring Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq" is a lie - empty words without real meaning? Human rights too. America, for me, is more than hollow promises. I suppose you also think the Nuremburg trials was a mistake - they should just have executed or imprisoned all Germans who looked like Nazis? "a greater force for the advancement of human rights than the United States military" Perhaps so - but this time, unfortunately, it was different. And over two thousand three hundred soldiers are now dead.

	JM April 28, 2006   12:20 AM PDT   >Terrorists attack civilian targets - >if they were fighting soldiers at >most they were guerilla fighters. Again, you don't get to rewrite the Geneva Conventions as you see fit. If they claim GC protection, then, where were their uniforms and insignia? Who were their officers? Last of all, did they adhere to GC standards? Of course not. >I'm amused you refer to the >Geneva conventions. Quaint. You'll have to let me know whether that was actually supposed to mean anything, or whether you just felt like keying in words at random. >So the "bring Democracy to >Afghanistan and Iraq" is a lie What does giving them a chance to build their own democratic governments have to do with extending the protection of the US Constuitution to their oppressors? >I suppose you also think the >Nuremburg trials was a mistake I suppose you never noticed that the Nuremburg trials took place after the war was over. >Perhaps so - but this time, >unfortunately, it was different. Oh, are you seriously claiming that Saddam wasn't a brutal totalitarian dictator? >And over two thousand three >hundred soldiers are now dead. It may be news to you, but people die in wars. Even the good guys, from time to time. Go on, tell me that no war should ever be fought if the US might lose a single man, or that we should immediately withdraw once we do.

	Jimbo April 28, 2006   01:21 AM PDT   The Geneva conventions do not mention terrorists. Times have changed a lot since those days. (Which is not a reason to move backwards - the conventions should be improved on, not their omissions exploited to abuse prisoners.) We were invading, and we did well to invade, but they were defending their land or else what they believed in, which is something I'm sure you can understand... They could be returned home - to face trial in their new democracy if necessary. By the way, you realize your arguments mean that the French resistance against the Nazis were terrorist / enemy combatants? They would blow things up, France had already surrendered, and, obviously, no insignias or uniforms were used. I'm only saying the war is over in Afghanistan and Iraq because the President said it was over, and you said he was an honest man. "What does giving them a chance to build their own democratic governments have to do with extending the protection of the US Constuitution to their oppressors?" It's called leading by example - we are meant to be good at that. Despite everything they are human beings (just). "Oh, are you seriously claiming that Saddam wasn't a brutal totalitarian dictator?" Nope, I'm just saying that wasn't the reason the military went there. WMD - 2003 wasn't that long ago, you must be able to remember. If bringing democracy to Iraq had been the reason from the start the nation would have united completely and everyone would still back the war effort today.

	JM April 28, 2006   02:23 AM PDT   >The Geneva conventions do not >mention terrorists. Precisely! And they never will, because terrorists by definition do not adhere to the Geneva conventions, so they are forever outside of its protection. >they were defending their land Don't engage in moral relativism. They were fighting to keep the Afghani people enslaved in one case, and to enslave the Iraqi people in another. You understand, don't you, that there are such things as right and wrong, and they don't change to match which way the wind blows? >which is something I'm sure you >can understand... No, I do not understand people who fight to enslave others, or commit mass murder upon innocent people merely to make a political statement. I don't understand people who defend people who do things like that, either. >your arguments mean that the >French resistance against the >Nazis were terrorist / enemy >combatants First, they directed their efforts at the enemy military, not innocent civilians. Is this a point you find difficult to understand? Second, when the Germans caught them, were they treated as honored guests, or tortured for information and summarily executed? Third, you really do have trouble grasping the difference between right and wrong, don't you? Do you really think there should have been no resistance to the Nazis? >I'm only saying the war is over in >Afghanistan and Iraq because the >President said it was over Please stop making things up. I hate lies. Perhaps you think "major combat operations" are the only component of a war? Because those were his exact words. >you said he was an honest man I said you need to prove your accusations of lies. Which you haven't. You've just gone off on about a hundred tangents, and it's beginning to bore me. >It's called leading by example You're really floundering at this point, aren't you? Do you really think all countries should be just like us, or that they can be made so with a wave of a magic wand? Do you think that the Constitution covers all people, everywhere? Have you ever actually read it? >they are human beings (just) I think I detect the hint of Liberal racism peeking out from behind the mask. >I'm just saying that wasn't the >reason the military went there. You really must stop letting the mainstream media do your thinking for you. If all you heard was WMD, you weren't listening at all. I wanted to know why it looked like we were going to war with Iraq, back in 2002, so I did the research and found out for myself. I didn't let the news tell me what to think. The reasons for sending troops to Iraq were all carefully laid out in the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, which Congress voted into law. Please do yourself a favor and read it: http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

	Jimbo April 28, 2006   04:15 PM PDT   Fair enuff, whatever. I didn't have time to look at these links cause something came up. A problem with saying that the war on terror is not over is that it will never be over. It's like expecting that on a certain day the President will say "It's ok now, we don't ever need to worry about America's security ever again". While there are other free countries in the world that will never be possible - even if they are all Democracies. All I'm saying is that there may be no legal rule which forces us to extend the Constitution to others, but that we could. It would be a better world under Democracy like ours, and it wouldn't hurt us - it might just do a hell of a lot of good -for example avoid another 9/11. Avoid hate, destroy the power of the terrorists who say the USA does not treat pows fairly. I think America can be graceful with its foes, or else it will keep making more enemies. The Afghan "enemy combatants" captured fighting in Afghanistan were defending their country against invaders - they weren't killing civilians, they were directing their fighting against American and Allied military. We are right and they are wrong, so we should do what the Nazis did to the French resistance they captured? We are bigger and better than that. Mixing up combatants fighting in their country with terrorists attacking the USA and civilians is what you are doing. I really shouldn't need to tell you that they are completely different things, and so should be treated as such. Anyway, I'll be looking at the rest of your website. Though I disagree with some of the stuff you say, keep up the good work.

	JM April 28, 2006   08:07 PM PDT   >A problem with saying that the >war on terror is not over is that it >will never be over. When the rogue regimes that supply, succour, train and use terrorists either forswear all terror ties or are replaced, I think we can relax a bit. But you're right; it will not be completely over in our lifetime. >there may be no legal rule which >forces us to extend the >Constitution to others, but that we >could. It would be a better world >under Democracy like ours Scratch a Liberal, and you find a potential totalitarian with a plan for a "better world." And here I thought it was the Left screaming "you can't impose democracy on people." Here you not only want to "impose" democracy, but our own particular system of government. >terrorists who say the USA does >not treat pows fairly You really think that's why they hate us? It's got nothing to do with radical Wahhabi Islam, does it? Nothing to do with imposing their religious view on the entire world, eh? >Mixing up combatants fighting in >their country with terrorists >attacking the USA and civilians is >what you are doing. Apparently you missed the part where "We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them." Another statement you may wish to recall was that "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." Your major mistake is in thinking that we can win over the enemy with love and flowers. It's not going to work. These are absolute fanatics, convinced that they will be rewarded for killing as many of us as possible. There is nothing they want that we can offer them, except mass suicide or dhimmitude. They rely on squeamish people like yourself, soft decadent Westerners who can't stomach the fight. People who would give a little here, a little there, buying temporary security with permanent concessions, until they have what they want: world domination.

	Jimbo April 30, 2006   08:09 AM PDT   First of all, I would like to say that I appreciate your finding me all these links for me - I know it takes time and it was kind of you. Quick couple of questions: "either forswear all terror ties or are replaced, I think we can relax a bit" "Scratch a Liberal, and you find a potential totalitarian with a plan for a "better world." Lol, do conservatives not look for an improved world? And using preemptive force? What is regime change? For your information, I don't have any definite views on many political matters yet. I'm learning to be a historian and I try to look at things with as much objectivity as I can. "You really think that's why they hate us? It's got nothing to do with radical Wahhabi Islam, does it?" You should understand there will always be extremists. It's a percentage thing. We see it everywhere and in everything. In my most humble opinion, the serious problems commence when the percentage of extremists grows. That is what must be avoided at all costs - cutting off recruitment options is essential. What I'd like, is for when terrorists go to normal people and tell them that USA is evil and get them to join their cause, for the people to say no. Saying no because they know America is not evil. In your opinion numbers of terrorists and their sympathizers can be reduced with bombing the hell out of them and tickling prisoners' toes with feathers (which is also not torture), telling those who are left that the repression is over and they can go and vote. I admit that in truth, it may have some effect. But if you think that it is the best or the only way, little do you understand of human nature. You want people to thank America for bombs, occupation and ensuing democratic freedom. Instead they fear America and recruitment grows. Bombs tend not to buy thanks, even when they have "Liberty" written on the side. I would like the US to treat the causes of terrorism as well as the symptoms. You can treat the sysmptoms of a disease forever, but to cure it you need to tackle the causes. Why doesn't the President tackle the causes? Please note that I do not, nor ever did say that the symptoms do not need to be treated - however "squeamish" I might feel about this matter in my decadence. In fact, what on earth makes you think that executing people or putting people away for good through the courts is decadent? And is executing people after trial being "soft" on them? Remember that USA is signatory to a couple of international human rights treaties. And if you think that any elections that have ever been held with an occupying foreign power present were "free", you need your head examined. Talk of mass media bullshit and not thinking for yourself... "We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them." Any and every junior law student can tell you the distinction, and there is a hell of a difference. Did the President actually go to Uni - or was he AWOL there as well? I find your devotion to this President almost moving. When you accuse others of fanaticism, you may well be right after all...

	JM April 30, 2006   10:56 AM PDT   >do conservatives not look for an >improved world? And using >preemptive force? What is regime >change? We should not seek to impose our vision of what the world "should" be upon others. Let them choose their own system of governments, write their own laws and create their own economies. When regime change is necessary to free people from tyrants, should we not give that power to the people? What do Liberals have against democracy? Oh, I forgot: people are too stupid to be allowed to choose. Damned elitists. >I don't have any definite views on >many political matters yet Right. No Liberal likes being called a Liberal, for some odd reason. But it's too easy to spot a Liberal the minute he or she begins to speak (or write). >Saying no because they know >America is not evil. And how do they discover this, in repressive totalitarian regimes, where information itself is controlled by the government? Osmosis? Magic pixie dust? >numbers of terrorists and their >sympathizers can be reduced with >bombing the hell out of them Dead terrorists rarely kill anyone. >if you think that it is the best or >the only way, little do you >understand of human nature Child, do not presume to lecture me on human nature. No one ever said force is the only way to stop terrorism, though it certainly stops the states that support it. And human nature has little to do with preventing terror-supporting regimes from supplying and training terrorists. Ask Moammar Ghaddafi whether the fearful knowledge that the US will remove terror regimes had any effect on his decision to give up terror support and WMD research. >Why doesn't the President tackle >the causes? Oh, he is. http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/265.html >In fact, what on earth makes you >think that executing people or >putting people away for good >through the courts is decadent? Where on earth did I say it was decadent? It is simply the wrong approach to fighting a war. We tried that approach all through the 90's, and it brought 9/11. >Remember that USA is signatory >to a couple of international human >rights treaties. And is al-Qaeda also a signatory to these treaties? >if you think that any elections that >have ever been held with an >occupying foreign power present >were "free", you need your head >examined And if you think the three Iraq elections were not free, you need your head examined. The only Iraqis who protest the elections are Saddam and his cronies. Really, you ought to pay some attention to what's actually happening in the world before passing judgment. >every junior law student can tell >you the distinction For the last time (I hope), this is not a legal action, this is a war. Get that through your thick skull. >your devotion to this President I wonder why whenever anyone dares to disagree with a Liberal, they're accused of being brainwashed? Your childish insults are rapidly becoming too tedious to bother reading. Last warning.

	Jimbo May 4, 2006   08:48 AM PDT   Thank you for the links you sent me. I took advantage and saw some more of the info you put online. A very interesting and enjoyable read. Since I didn't mean to offend, I won't put any posts here any more. But I would like to return your kindness and recommend you a couple of interesting links I found online, (which do not share your opinions). http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2838.htm http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm Some of my friends believe that a war on Iran will have to be fully justified, possibly by a terrorist attack on American homesoil. Good luck to all of us.

	JM May 4, 2006   10:19 AM PDT   Information clearinghouse is the biggest collection of Left-wing lunacy outside Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. If that's where you're getting your information, no wonder you've got your head on backwards. As for Iran, I'll reiterate what the President said: if we wait until the threat fully materialises, it will already be too late. It's nice that you're willing to sacrifice innocent lives to your sense of fairness, but -- luckily -- he's not. You have to take people at their word, and when the president of a country tells us that his intention is to destroy America, we have to believe him. Better safe than sorry,

Leave a Comment: Name Homepage (optional) Comments