Rove outted Plame - grand treason

[MODU]

Just how many threads on this topic do we need?  Stick with the original one already on the forum.

[MODU]

Where is the original thread?

"MSNBC Analyst Cooper documents point to Rove in CIA leak"

or

"Bad day for Bush"

[MODU]

Where is Bob Novak in all of this?

[MODU]

Unlike the right, the left actually challenges things before they're accepted.

*dies laughin* 

[MODU]

Unlike the right, the left actually challenges things before they're accepted.

*dies laughin* 

I hope you didn't support the Iraq war.

You bet I do.  I've supported it since it started in 1991.  I've had many friend, co-workers, and relatives serve proudly over there.

[MODU]

So you don't challenge Bush's lies? Why were you laughing?

We've had numerous discussions in the past over this.  It is the opinion of some that he lied.  Everyone else knows that he (and the rest of the world) had faulty information, which was determined after-the-fact.  And like I said a long time ago, I'm still not convinced we will discover WMDs in larger quantities other than a few shells here, banned mines here, etc.  We knew he had it since we sold it to him in the past.  So, are the hidden, or did he, in turn, sell/smuggle it to someone else?

And I'm laughing at your hate-blinded statement about only the left questioning things. 

[MODU]

The opinons of some? What does that mean? It's currenly 59% against the Iraq war.  Did you accept the reasons he gave for war? Sounds like you didn't challenge him.

There is a difference between being against the war and thinking Bush lied.  hahaha . . . nice try though, son.

As far as the reasons for going to war, yes, I've accepted them.  Saddam had WMDs (we've seen him use them AND we had sold them to him), he was in violation of UN resolutions, he oppressed his citizens, killed thousands of his own citizens, invaded a sovereign nation, etc.  All are documented.

[MODU]

Also, invaded a sovereign nation is a pretty stupid reason for invading a sovereign nation.

We were already at war with them, just like we are already at war with North Korea.  You might want to brush up on your military history.

[MODU]

Also, invaded a sovereign nation is a pretty stupid reason for invading a sovereign nation.

We were already at war with them, just like we are already at war with North Korea.  You might want to brush up on your military history.

If you assume that I didn't know about the Gulf War, there's no point in having further dicussion with you. You'd rather attack me for not knowing stuff that I do know then really challenge any of what Bush said.

Oh, you know I'm not attacking you.  Just responding to your remark about the invasion.  We can't invade someone we are already at war with, which is something most people don't seem to understand, especially in the left and the media.

[MODU]

Points

1. The US has not formally been at war since 1945 - That is correct, but under the War Powers resolution, Congress allows the President to go to war with limits.

2. Why not attack North Korea? They actually seem to have or are working on WMD. If we're as powerful as we think we are, we should be able to take them out easily. North Korea is a crazy country. Iraq is hardly anything out of the ordinary for a 3rd world dictatorship. - Because N. Korea hasn't violated the cease-fire with the UN.  We would have to have the UN authorize the violation of the cease-fire.

[MODU]

Who cares about the cease-fire? They're working on nukes. Imminent threat. You look pretty silly claiming that the reasons for attacking Iraq don't apply to other coutnries, too.

I have no problems attacking North Korea. 

[MODU]

Then how come we haven't? Aren't there some other countries we should attack too? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Syria? Sudan? Let's attack them all.

I would say we have our hands tied by the UN with N. Korea, hence the reason why we are pressuring them by getting their neighbors (including the historical supporter China) involved. 

Saudi Arabia - as I mentioned a few weeks ago, we needed them in order to maintain a sizable foothold in the region.  Now that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can now pressure the Saudi's, which we have.  They are 'attempting' reform, as well as begun policing their own for terrorists (which they have been doing).  Failure to follow through, and I would expect US sanctions.

Iran - We've been expecting an internal revolt, and I was sure it was going to happen last year when they barred many pro-western candidates in the local elections.  There is a strong Kurdish movement and college youth movement demanding reform.  Unfortunately, they all stayed home on election day last month.

Syria - I think we already have special forces/operatives in their borders hunting down terrorists.  In addition, we are pushing heavily on them diplomatically.  They will most likely be our next target once Afghanistand and Iraq are settled and there hasn't been any change in their refusal to complay with the UN.

Sudan - That should be a UN police state.