WalterM140 wrote:

Ed allows:


I have no trouble with my opinions or my actions. I don't have a clue
who you are nor how you might be justified to comment on my positions
on the issues.


I could say the same thing about you, couldn't I, Ed?

I'm a veteran too. I was on Desert Storm.

But you don't have to be a veteran, or even an American, to see that we have
5,000 casualties because of the arrogant, maladroit actions of the Bush
administration.

Now I've cited General Zinni of course. He cites Former General and National
Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf,
former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric
Shinseki.

True, but Dr. Ed is a very prominent "professor" at a very exclusive
junior college. Let's show some respect for the professoriat.


I also cited James Webb. I'd say altogether I've made a pretty good case. Bush
and his minions are incompetent.

They'd probably ace Dr. Ed's "Intro to Political Science."


Cheers

--mike


We have guys dying in Iraq due --directly-- to their incompetence.

You're blowing that off.

Now you may have some emotional attachment to Bush, you probably voted for him.
But it's time to wake up. I was for the war. I've always thought Bush just a
puppet. He sounds like a retard to me. But I knew that Cheney and Powell were
savvy and experienced. But what we have is a -disaster-.

It's a catastrophe, just like former VP Gore said.

What's also plain as day is that the good name of the United States has been
dragged through the mud by the Bush administration.

As you probably know, the White Counsel wrote for Bush two years ago a paper in
which he said we could (secretly of course) dispense with the Geneva
Convention.

Bush is in charge, and oh yes, he is definitely responsible. He's practically
a criminal.

Don't forget to direct your poly sci class to this thread.


I've got a long career of service to country and have
no need to apologize for anything.


Oh, yes you do. You need to apologize for this fantasy rant that excuses the
Bush admnistration.

Robert E. Lee had a long career of service too. But he chucked it and went with
the traitors. Not to compare you to Lee. "Dick" Cheney has a long career of
service. He's practically a criminal too.


General Zinni is entitled to his position on the situation, but it
doesn't determine mine and if we disagree it doesn't mean I don't care
for folks in uniform.


Your position is --so-- not based in fact, that I respectfully disagree.


As for the war on terror, it leads me to recall Sean Connery's
comments in "The Untouchables". Let me roughly paraphrase. If you
threaten me, I will hurt you. If you threaten my family, I will kill
you. If you threaten my nation, I will kill you by the thousands.


Whooo hoooo.

Too bad Iraq was the wrong target, huh?

It's as if in "The Untouchables" that Ness had set up his ambush to catch the
mob bringing in bootleg liquor from Canada --- somewhere near El Paso.


I
will determine the level of force used and it will be decisive,
possibly even viewed as extreme, but I will win. I know too well the
cost of gradualism in a war.


Iraq was the wrong target. Ask General Zinni. Ask James Webb.


America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
terrorist organization responsible.


Which had nothing to do with Iraq. Atacking Iraq was the worst strategic
blunder in memory.


We didn't lob a few cruise
missiles from afar, destroy an aspirin factory and go back to the
hallway adjacent to the Oval Office with our intern. We rolled up our
sleeves and took on the thankless task of rooting the *******s out.


As General Zinni has indicated, containment worked. At least the Clinton
administration didn't generate 5,000 battle casualties -- and several thousand
civilian deaths --- unlike the disastrous and maladroit Bush administration.
They didn't trust Chalabi. They didn't manufacture from whole cloth an excuse
to go to war.

And don't forget:

LONDON - The U.S.-led war on terror has produced the most sustained attack on
human rights and international law in 50 years, Amnesty International said in
its annual report Wednesday.

Irene Khan, secretary general of the human rights group, condemned terrorist
assaults by groups such as al-Qaida, saying they posed a threat to security
around the world.

But she criticized the response of the U.S.-led "coalition of the willing,"
saying its powerful governments were ignoring international laws by sacrificing
human rights in the "blind pursuit" of security.

"The global security agenda promoted by the U.S. administration is bankrupt of
vision and bereft of principle," Khan said in a statement. "Violating rights at
home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, and using pre-emptive military
force where and when it chooses have damaged justice and freedom, and made the
world a more dangerous place."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...p_on_re_eu/bri
tain_amnesty_report_1

Be sure and direct your class to this thread, Ed.

That's "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle," in case you missed it.

Bush is the -worst- president we've ever had, and the blood of those service
people killed in Iraq is -red- on his hands.

Walt