i want to know 1. who made the decision to invade iraq 2. when did the make it 3. why did they make it. (btw i mean the real answers)
I'm just guessing, Dys:
1) The old gang and some of the new.
2) 1991
3) Territorial/mineral resources/pipelines, a touch of revenge, erasing past mistakes, all to be covered by a spin story about curing the Middle East of its troubles.
I think the decision was actually made in about 1994-5 and also included enrichment of The Carlyle Group and Halliburton directly.
No argument, sofia. How many times at all those basketball games I followed my son to, and yelled "defense, defense."
We have started an offensive, and it's about time. But the definitely defensive attitude about that State of the Union Speech - that's worth watching. I know the ear isn't deaf to it - why else would everybody be explaining how it was someone else who was responsible for al the bad information?
But the republicans started on the offensive some time ago, and now the democrats are coming back with their own questions, a lot of which seem to be unanswerable, so they are busy defending positions. What, you don't like that we actually have people who doubt what they're being told? Howard Dean knows a lot about the democrats, and now Kerry is beginning to do some of the same things. And they're not quiet, which makes a lot of people sit up, and some of them actually join in. And Sharpton - make as much fun of him as you will (although Santorum is a bundle of laughs himself) - had a wonderful line the last go-round. He said he was a conservative - that he believed in conserving a lot of values.
I love the fact that we seem to be irritating the right. I mean, how could we be so loathesome as to speak up?
Dean has been very, very smart -- one can't say that often enough. Whatever else happens, he's made a real contribution to the party.
There will be a continuing demand -- probably increasingly less forgiving and polite -- for facts about Iraq, oil, energy policy, election manipulations... etc. etc. There are increasing numbers of Republicans who have the same questions as many of us. That will up the ante. And the anti.
The jibes will continue from the right about any challenges to Bush. I think the most effective response is to ignore them. Most of the yammering is a waste of time.
The picture is changing quite quickly -- that the attitude of irritation and defense on the other side is wholly enjoyable to this Dem! Plus the fact that attention is being drawn to the candidates. All very encouraging.
John Dean has his finger on the Democratic party self destruct button---middle of the road democrats are horrified that Dean might actually get the nomination------The Republicans can then celebrate and howl with laughter. His far left views are polarizing the Dems and will probably split the party or so they say. I'm all for it.
Like, I'm going to trust a Rightie that says - you don't want so & so, they're a loser. Just because they have a loser, they want the Dems to have one too.
perception, you might well make an argument that Dean is in the left regarding his position on the invasion of Iraq- what else can you offer that is "Far Left?"
I don't think Perception knows much about Dean if he thinks Dean is "Far Left"!! But that's fine with me. Misperceptions are very useful.
Dys
Your question makes me think that you are so far left John Dean seems middle of the road----dream on ---- his finger is on the button.
What basis of comparison are you guys using for these appelations?
The tedious, Rabidly Partisan Side, Gel ... both of 'em.
I ask because by current US standards Dean is indeed quite left. But his contention that America has shifted to the right is also, IMO, correct.
just answer my question perception, its not necessary to refer to my politics to explain you reasons for the "far left" label for Dean or am i nit picking?
This is as good a time as any to ask a question about the approach Dems use in the application of military power.
Charles Krauthammer provided this apt analysis according to current thinking among liberal Democrats-----excuse me--his perceptions of current thinking among liberal Democrats
Quote:
The only conclusion one can draw is that for liberal Democrats, America's strategic interests are not just an irrelevance, but a deterrent to intervention. This is a perversity born of moral vanity. For liberals foreign policy is social work. National interest--i.e., national selfishness--is a taint. The only justified interventions, therefore, are those are morally pristine, namely, those which are uncorrupted by any suggestion of national interest. Hence the central axiom of left/liberal foreign policy: THE USE OF AMERICAN FORCE IS WRONG, UNLESS DEPLOYED IN A REGION OF NO STRATEGIC SIGNIFICANCE TO THE U.S.
Would you all agree with the above analysis?
just answer my question perception, its not necessary to refer to my politics to explain you reasons for the "far left" label for Dean or am i nit picking?
sounds like a fortune cookie
you will take a trip over water and meet a stranger with a texas accent (if he tries to sell you fear of immanent threat to national security, shoot him in the knees)
