26 Former U.S. Officials Oppose Bush

[MAS117]

Its not going to do alot, but I think it says alot...If military personnal who know what they are talking about, including former members of the Joints Chiefs, along with dipolomats from both sides of the aisle are saying Bush shouldnt be Commander in Chief, I'm going to give them a few minutes of my time.

[MAS117]

I had hoped I wouldn't have had to remind StatesRats that if it were not for the French Fleet at Yorktown, we may still be speaking with a bit of a Brit accent....

And if it wasnt for the Americans the French would be saying... ZIEG HEIL right now...

[MAS117]

Enough of your kiddie talk.....

I suppose this is laso a vague movie reference that I shouldn't be bothered by?

The real problem with you folks is that you just don't get it.

Did the world object to Afghanistan....no. Did we ask permission....no. The same could be said of Panama, Grenada, the bombing of Libya etc. etc.

Why did they object in the case of Iraq, countries from every continent in the world?

Because Bush has "bet the farm" on this pre-emptive war BS of a policy. The cost benefit ratio should we fail is far too high, not just for us but for OTHERS in the region as well. That includes Europe.

I hope we succeed, we have to succeed. But I ask you....Again.....where are the WMD, where is the evidence of links to Al Queda....our real enemy.....that warrents our GI's to die for??? You presume that I think it was the right policy to begin with therfore why should I care for international approval.

I can assure you, in my view this will be should we fail, the biggest strategic mistake we could have made at this time. I was against this since August 2002 when I saw it coming.

Just how many terrorists did we recruit by invading Iraq compared to the number we have killed? A war based solely on intelligence, without direct clear evidence of a threat, or even overt act will always illicit more hatred than defeat our enemy.

You might say f**k'em ....we'll bomb them too!

Well, that does seem to be the Bush doctrine...doesn't it?

Your comments on the Frenchies you should save for the Limbaugh show or Vorlorns thread for the seriously mis-informed....I won't give it credence by commenting.

Funny that you mention how the whole world was behind us when we bombed Libya, since in reality, Mitterand denied us the use of French airspace for that mission.  So much for your theory.  France in fact view blocking American power to be a major goal of its foreign policy.

Where is the WMD?  The sarin shell, the bio-trailers, the assembly line for drone planes, the SCUDS that were fired at coalition forces, the scientists Saddam employed, none of this has convinced you.  You have simply made a decision that Bush is bad, and like a religious zealot, you cling to the ideal that he is always wrong.  How about Al Qaeda connections, well, I refer you to my thread on the topic, the the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, to the court ruling of Judge Harold Baer, etc.  Just type "Salman Pak" into Google and see what comes up.  Not that it will matter.  I'm sure there is a convenient explanation for everything you'll find, something tat lets you sleep soundly at night.

Whatever.  I'm over this thread.  Laaaaaaate.

Lt. Gov. Ford, that didnt really convince me that Iraq had WMD. What that proves is that they tryed to have them. There's no doubt that they had some missiles when Saddam fired them on the Kurds back in the early ninetys, however times change. Saddam knew we were coming, he shipped them off or destroyed them, or possibly didnt have them at all. Frankly, I'm wondering if Bush lied to the country, or it was a personal vendetta against Saddam. Now we have men and women there dieing for a lost cause.