Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Your Bro in law doesn't try to legislate or contract you c.i. , he just wants to talk

As a Business major, we were required to study business law, and it included "Contract Law." Wonder what I missed? Got an "A."

On what basis do any of us presume to judge who might serve a useful purpose in this "community"? Intolerance occurs about as frequently in every part of the political spectrum. It is no more desirable from "liberals" than it is from "conservatives".

I done purty good in lawschool ... 'least up untill the point I figured out I pretty much couldn't stand most of the jerks I'd likely be dealin' with. I decided to go off to a war, instead, seeing that a more pleasant alternative.

LOL, Timber....very funny. My nephew (who graduated from law school, but refuses to practice law for the same reason you give) says I should have gone to law school because he can't win an argument with me.


Whatever was said by Bush, court of law or not, as a rationalization to go to war was not what he's saying now. It's all smoothed over like chocolate on a piece ****, served up nicely with coffee and cream for the American people. Yummy.

If he had tried to make a case for a preemtive strike, without allies based on his present, humble face delivery of nothing, do you think the American people would support him. Hell no.

I don't know, Lola, this war aside, there is no love lost in this country for Saddam. I remember after the Gulf War, there were a lot of American's, for a long time, that were pissed because, "we didn't finish the job". I don't think it would have took much to sell this public where Saddam is concerned.

I think that also depends on where in the political spectrum one is. The "we should have finifshed the job" noises were likley mostly heard from those in the right. Most of the people I know are not fond of war, and don't see a presidential vendetta as a valid reason. Ironically, its my understanding that at the end of WWII there were at least as many who complained that the job was unfinished, becasue Stalin remained in power. GW I was certainly no WWII.

On the contrary, I believe President Bush was utterly clear about the principles that would govern our policy with respect to both terrorism and the outlaw states that pose a danger to us or our interests, beginning very soon after 9/11. He singled out Iraq in his inelegant but very clear depiction of the "axis of evil" states. He further made clear his intent to preempt states that have or threaten support of terrorism. To borrow a metaphor used by Franklin Roosevelt soon before the attack on Pearl Harbor, he saw no reason to wait until the snake before him actually struck to take action against it. (Roosevelt used it to justify his undeclared naval war against German submarines, and the economic measures being imposed on Japan.)

The admittedly convoluted WMD argument was merely an (ill-advised in my view) attempt to state the case in terms our 'allies' might accept. The problem was, as we can now see, their opposition went far beyond any of the legalistic arguments we offered - nothing could then persuade them to act, just as nothing will persuade them now to facilitate the successful conclusion if the enterprise under U.S. leadership. The WMD effort in the UN merely exposed us to further criticism from opponents whose opposition transcended all the rhetoric.

So, georgebob, if I may paraphrase, you are saying that lying to the congress, the people, etc.. is allright, but just a tactical error?

The only war that will bring Iraq peace, liberation and democracy will be the war of the Iraqi's forcing the US out of Iraq.

duplicate post

And a lie is a lie, right hobitbob?

This always helps me put things into perspective:

"While the system of laws under which we live provides a substantial basis for ethical conduct, ethics is much more comprehensive than law or regulation.

Law deals with man as he is, setting a minimum standard of conduct.

Ethics seeks to lead man to what he ought to be and do; it establishes a maximum standard.''

Law is designed to keep us from doing wrong while ethics encourages us to do what is right and good. Law is negative while ethics is positive.

Law and ethics overlap, but ethics is much more extensive, continuing on where the law leaves off.

Thus, while all that is ethical is also lawful, all that is lawful in the strict sense is not necessarily ethical. He who takes the law alone as his standard, his code, takes a too narrow and limited view of ethics."

Stephen C. O'Connell
Justice of the Florida Supreme Court
Tallahassee

Diane, Excellent point: law without ethics leaves much to be desired in human society. I also see problems with religion and ethics, but that's me.

very nice quotation, Diane

Lola, yes, a lie is a lie (at least that's what my ex wife always told me!).

What did she know, anyway?

Names and dates, and I wouldn't be surprised if she knew positions, as well!

george

I believe you were speaking to my post (re value or lack of in the community)....this isn't a matter of political affiliations. You'll note I haven't said that about either yourself or timber or anyone else other than two or three folks who've arrived over the last year plus. That's out of hundreds of community members. But those three or four individuals have proved no asset.

laugh, I meant about lying