Defending the Truth

The Downing Street memo supposedly implicates George Bush as having engineered the excuses for the war we're currently in. People are saying that the underlying theme of the memo is that George had decided to declare war on Iraq much earlier on than admitted, but needed to find ways to make it legal before proceeding.

Read it here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...593607,00.html

And before you Cons go off on a tangent defending Bush, or you Libs go off damning him to a fiery hell full of face stinging scorpions, actually read it. The whole thing. Don't just base your opinions on what Rush Limbaugh or Radio Air America or Fox News told you to believe.

I read it. I think if a BJ warrents an impeachment trial this is leagues beyond it (people are dying everyday). A thorough investigation should insue.

I don't think he went to war for personal reasons. Obviously he went to war for political reasons. What I got from the memo was that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq all along. So they figured the reasons they could engineer, manipulate, or use at their discretion. I think what happened was the reasons were not good enough, in the eyes of many people, and I believe this war is not justified. This memo reports that talk about the aftermath of military action did not happen. It's safe to say, as we look at things in Iraq since the supposed victory (Bush on the aircraft carrier), that they were not ready for the aftermath of an overthrow of Saddam. Also, the timing was clearly geared for the 2002 Congressional elections. I heard speculation about that in the fall of 2002 as well.

Here's a good question. Would he have gone to war if 9/11 never happened?

Here's the obvious answer...

Yes

I don't know if it's obvious, but I would still say yes. At least we didn't go to Iraq before 9/11.

I think he might have been able to go to Iraq but it would have been a lot harder to convince the Joint Chiefs and a lot of the other officials in charge of makin the decisions on that type of thing.

I think he went to war because he thought it was the right thing to do. Bush is a man of convections.. not facts. he has an huge sense of pride and that can be extremely dangerous because people follow that. Just like what Regan did is that he didn't really do much of anything but people followed him because he told them exactly what they wanted to hear. People don't like to think for themselves or outside the box so when they hear someone telling them america's great and blah blah blah they get stuck into it.

Thats why so many people love bush because he tells them things that make them happy and secure. When in reality many of the Bush tatics are by fear and people respond to fear just as what hilter did.

I recently did a paper on why bush was so much like hilter because hey, hilter was elected too.

First off the JCS don't make decisions on who to invade, only how to get the job done.

Secondly, even if they did make such decisions, I suspect it would be easy to convince them to do so, because they could use such action to justify their budgets.

Finally, I don't think it would be difficult for the propaganda machine to have gotten us to war with Iraq without the 9/11 attacks. We could have simply had them invade Kuwait again, it's amazing what can be acomplished by wagging the dog a little.

Why do people love to compare other people to Hitler. It seems in this country everytime someone dislikes someone else, they must be like Hitler in some way. It's ridiculous. The simple fact of the matter is that few people have walked the planet that are anywhere near as bad as Hitler, and 'W' is not one of them. He may be an idiot and less than inspiring, but hitler he is not. Infact I would argue that Hevusa and RidinHighSpeeds are everybit as much like Hitler as 'W' is. They are equally like Dolly Parton, Ray Charles & CP's Uncle Earl. How about making clear factual statements of opinion and fact rather than just comparing people to Hitler. It trivializes Hitler's atrocities.