O'Reilly & Moore

[Ed]

Lets see,


-Iraq does not support terror VS AMERICA.

Unfortunately, there was a time that they didn't. I wonder where that stands now.

 

[rikzilla]

The decision to go to war against Iraq was made by George W. Bush. Now, if you want to call him "no one," I will only laugh. But it was his decision. So don't give me this crap about "no one gets to make this decision."

So your take on this is that GWB just took it in his mind to go to war and he did? Again, your planet? Big black X painted on it right? GWB is the executive branch of government. He needed the advice AND consent of the Congress. Guess what? He got it. That's right...he got it...and for that you can thank your wishy-washy pals Kerry/Edwards. See? They were for the war before they were against it. Sheesh!

It was a terrible cost, but the goal is worthy. Friendly fire happens. If it with the right intentions, I can accept it, even it if were my son.

So then let's rephrase Moore's question for you. "Would you agree to "sacrifice" your son in a completely senseless accident?"

Did Gunnery Sergeant Jeff Bohr, who was killed by a sniper in Baghdad, die in defense of his country?

Damned straight he did. If Sgt Bohr had cut his finger in Baghdad loading his weapon I'd say he'd cut it in defense of his country. Hell, John Kerry got 3 Purple Hearts for such wounds!

He most certainly died while doing his military duty, as a good soldier will always do. But I have yet to see any reason to think that the military mission he was on had anything to do with defense of the country.

Then you're being purposely obtuse. The President, the Congress, and the Senate agreed to send these men to war. That means that your elected representatives, under the law, acting on your behalf sent these men into harm's way after careful debate. Now YOU by way of 20-20 hindsight don't agree. Therefore YOU pronounce that these fine men and women are dying for no good reason.

Well you're a little late. The system has worked precisely as laid out in the Constitution. You don't like it? Yell at your representatives, but don't come on here and tell me that soldiers and their families should be able to choose whether or not they fight America's wars. They signed that choice away of their own free will. The only thing most of them would ask for from people like you....people that enjoy their protection...is for a little respect and support of the mission.

Being the top soldier he was, he did his duty as he was told, and his opinion on whether or not he was doing anything to defend the country was not relevent to him. He did what he was supposed to do. I admire him for it, and am proud to have known him.

But...

Unfortunately, he died in an activity that had little to do with defending our country.

You're glad to have known him, but in the next breath it's....what? But he died for nothing. I'm sure if he was with us right now he'd appreciate that. Your friend....I never knew him, but I do know one thing about him.

He deserved better friends.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Ask Scott Ritter.

Oh wait, his opinion doesn't count (although he was right on the mark).

Yes, let's all talk about Scott Ritter. Prior to the Iraq invasion I read his first book "End Game". Here is the thread I created after reading End Game and Laurie Mylroie's book on Saddam:
<iframe width="100%" height="400" src="http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=311187"></iframe>

Look carefully at items #6, 8, 9, and 10...all are directly from Mr. Ritter. End Game was from first page to last a scathing indictment of Saddam's regime and almost amounted to an open invitation for someone to please do something about it.

Do you know when Scott Ritter came out against intervention of any kind in Iraq? I'll tell you,...it was about 6 months after he was arrested for luring a minor child across state lines for the purpose of sex. Your hero Ritter is an internet pedophile.

Sorry, but I have to wonder about his motives. And you need a new expert.

-z

 

[WildCat]

I think it should also be pointed out that as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, John Edwards has access to every bit of intelligence that the president does. And he voted for the war.

So either:
1) Edwards, like Bush, believed the intelligence he was given was likely true.
-or-
2) Edwards completely shirked his duty as a member of that committee to properly oversee intelligence.
-or-
3) Edwards has found that 20/20 hindsight on a difficult decision allows him to make cheap political points.

Or, of course, any combination of the above.

Edwards supporters, what do you think?