AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

There is not a single claim or suggestion above which is free of your ideological presumptions, foxfyre. I'm afraid that I concluded a long while ago that unless you are struck by a bolt of lightening which facilitates a new framework of thought that conversation with you on these matters is of no good purpose at all.

Ican's problem is that he thinks each one of the 23 "whereas" clauses in the congressional resolution constituted sufficient cause to invade Iraq.

Of the 23 “Whereases” (i.e., reasons) given by the USA Congress for its October 16, 2002 resolution, 13 were subsequently proven true. The remaining 10 were subsequently proven false. The true reasons are more than sufficient to justify the USA invasion of Iraq. The false reasons are therefore irrelevant.

Ican's problem is that he thinks each one of the 23 "whereas" clauses in the congressional resolution constituted sufficient cause to invade Iraq.

Of the 23 “Whereases” (i.e., reasons) given by the USA Congress for its October 16, 2002 resolution, 13 were subsequently proven true. The remaining 10 were subsequently proven false. The true reasons are more than sufficient to justify the USA invasion of Iraq. The false reasons are therefore irrelevant.

In fact, it's pretty clear that none of them was sufficient, in and of themselves, to justify the invasion, and that congress piled up the "whereas" clauses not because it had so many reasons to invade but because it had so few.

AARP Responds to Health Reform Scare Tactics
(AARP Press Release, July 24, 2009)

WASHINGTON"AARP Executive Vice President John Rother issued the following statement in response to recent commentary by Betsy McCaughey in various media outlets on health care reform measures passed or currently being considered by Congress.

“Betsy McCaughey’s recent commentary on health care reform in various media outlets is rife with gross"and even cruel"distortions.

“Ms. McCaughey has again launched her customary broadside attack against comparative effectiveness research. She describes this term as ‘code’ for ‘limiting care based on a patient’s age.’ In fact the term for that is ‘age rating,’ a practice used by insurance companies to discriminate against older Americans against which AARP is vigorously fighting, and we look forward to her next column to help the cause.

“‘Comparative effectiveness research,’ on the other hand, is a technical term that just means giving doctors and patients the ability to compare different kinds of treatments to find out which one works best for which patient.

“Some estimates say that only about half of all therapies that patients receive have been backed up by head-to-head comparisons with alternatives. While our country spends more than $2 trillion a year on health care, we spend less than 0.1 percent on evaluating how that care works compared to other options.

“This research has been around (although sadly not enough) for decades, enjoying support from political leaders of both parties, doctors, patients, and consumer advocacy groups.

“The main opponents of this research are those groups with a vested interest in a health care system that wastes billions of dollars each year on ineffective or unnecessary drugs, treatments or tests. Given Ms. McCaughey’s position as a Director of a medical device producer, I would hope that any potential conflict of interest has not influenced her commentary.

“More concerning, Ms. McCaughey’s criticism misinterprets legislation that would actually help empower individuals and doctors to make their own choices on end-of-life care.

“This measure would allow Medicare to pay doctors for taking the time to talk with individuals about difficult end-of-life care decisions. It would help provide people with better information on the positives and negatives"both physical and financial"that different treatments can mean for them and their families.

“Facing a terminal disease or debilitating accident, some people will choose to take every possible life-saving measure in the hopes that treatment or even a cure will allow them more time with their families. Others will decide that additional treatment would impose too great a burden"emotional, physical and otherwise"on themselves and their families, declining extraordinary measures and instead choosing care to manage their discomfort. Either way, it should be their choice.

“This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves, but also better ensure that their wishes are followed.

“To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion"especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.

“AARP is committed to improving the quality, effectiveness, and affordability of health care for our 40 million members and their families. We will fight any measure that would prevent individuals and their doctors from making their own health care decisions. We will also fight the campaign of misinformation that vested interests are using to try to scare older Americans in order to protect the status quo. Profits should never be allowed to come before people in this debate.”

JTT, that's just more bunk. Americans did not kill 6 or 60 million Africans in the slave trade in the 1800s.

No, I wasn't there!

Were you there?

This reason, "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq[," one of the 13 true reasons given by Congress in its October 16, 2002 resolution authorizing "the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq," is sufficient reason all by itself for the USA invading Iraq.

There were al Qaida members in Pakistan too. Hell, according to the Bush administration there were al Qaida members in Buffalo and Detroit. Did that give us sufficient reason to invade those places?

The USA invaded Iraq because the Iraq government did not agree to try to subdue al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence concluded in 2006, "Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi