Bush's Latest Stance On Iraq?

[HDPM]

Check this out. web page (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25571-2003Sep17?language=printer)

Hmmmm. I think a smart opponent could do some damage in the next election with all of this. The talk about striking at the terrorists' "geographic base?" Errr, I think that means since the terrorists live nearby we are justified in kicking the crap out of Iraq. Not the best argument. The crazy thing is all Bush had to do was have one really good piece of intelligence that Iraq helped Al Quaeda. Right after 9/11 he could have gotten support for kicking the crap out of them with any proof of aid to the terrorists, just to set a little example for other countries over there. Especially our good and trusted friends in Saudi Arabia. Why overreach and overstate?

[ACPlayer]

Well he offered so many possible reasons that some thing would have to be true.

Well he offered so many possible reasons that some thing would have to be false.

Pretty much sums up the state of debate in this country.

Of course, we now know that American soldiers died and did not make the world significantly safer. We will spend 200 Billion that could be spent better here (more tax cuts) and the world is not significantly safer.

I apologize to the nation and the world for once supporting this president.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The talk about striking at the terrorists' "geographic base?" Errr, I think that means since the terrorists live nearby we are justified in kicking the crap out of Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that part of the world, many children are brainwashed to believe the United States is evil and needs to be destroyed. These children grow up to be adults capable of crashing planes into skyscrapers, slaughtering thousands. They can do this with out any guilt or remorse because they have warped sense of morality.

We have ignored this for years and look where in-action has got us. Now we are at a point in human history were we have to deal with Islamic extremist head on. We need to destroy these fanatics, and change the culture that bred these animals. If we can't change that culture we need to be prepared to destroy it as well. This isn't something we can do within the borders of the United States and strategically, it just makes more sense to take the fight to our enemy.

Does the war on terror make the invasion of Iraq just? I don't have a problem with it, we have to make our beach head somewhere. I wouldn't have a problem with it even if there was no war on terror. I think someday in history people will look back on this age and wonder how the world was so calouse as to allow tyrants like Saddam and Kim Jong-iL to exist.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, we now know that American soldiers died and did not make the world significantly safer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thier deaths may have not made you feel any safer(which is really a shame). For some, the world is now a much safer place than it used to be. For others, the world has suddenly gotten a lot more dangerous.

As an American, I certainly feel a lot more safer with 140K of our troops there.

Stu

[ACPlayer]

Kim is far more dangerous than Saddam - at least according to Carter (who commented more on Kim than Saddam - so that comparison is my interpretation) on tonight's mcneil lehrer. I heard the radio version on my way back from Brooklyn. Pretty good q and a session IMO.

Wait, you dont watch/listen to public radio and anything Carter says must be wrong.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, you dont watch/listen to public radio and anything Carter says must be wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

This comment makes you look a little foolish in my eyes as I actually agree with with Carter that Kim Jong Il is more of a threat to the United States than Saddam Hussien.

However, Kim Il Jong has not attacked us and the Islamic Extremest did. That turn of events happened to favor Kim and screwed Saddam.

Stu

[ACPlayer]

Do you type in the html tags or do you cut and paste your posts out of some other package. It may be worth putting an HTML block in so that the tags can render and not be considered text.

[nicky g]

"However, Kim Il Jong has not attacked us and the Islamic Extremest did. That turn of events happened to favor Kim and screwed Saddam."

Saddam Hussein could not be accurately described as an Islamic extremist.

[ACPlayer]

.. or be accussed of attacking the US.

[MMMMMM]

Iraq is the perfect strategical location for our beachhead, as Stu called it.

Whether or not Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 or sheltered terrorists, he was a no-good butcher that deserved to be removed, and the people of Iraq deserved better than to live for future decades under his massive state terror machine.

From Iraq's strategic location we can target the regional state sponsors of terror as may be needed, and removing the state sponsorship of terror is very important to the overall war on terror.

I believe it likely (and hope) that we will be in Iraq for years yet to come--until not only Iraq is stabilized, but until Iran is reformed, Syria is reformed, Hezbollah is eliminated, Saudi Arabia changes somewhat, and perhaps the mess that is the Israeli/Palestinian problem is resolved.

Perhaps the US is not more aggressively seeking to stabilize the region North of Baghdad because we don't want to leave the region too soon, before the job is truly done with respect to all regional sponsors of terror. We conduct some hunting sorties for the bad guys, but we don't just seal off Tikrit and the surrounding areas and begin a methodical house-to-house search with curfews in place...why? Iran and Syria are allowing jihad warriors to cross their borders into Iraq...why do we not tell them that if they do not seal their borders and stop supporting these terrorists, they will suffer precision strikes?

I think we are likely biding our time for a bit, looking for slow consolidation, and waiting until Bush is re-elected--after which we will threaten and perhaps launch regime changes upon Syria and Iran if they haven't yet gotten the message. To do so now would risk Bush's re-election and jeopardize the whole Mideast reform plan. Another year or so should give time to slowly consolidate Iraq's security.

[ACPlayer]

I think we are likely biding our time for a bit, looking for slow consolidation, and waiting until Bush is re-elected--after which we will threaten and perhaps launch regime changes upon Syria and Iran if they haven't yet gotten the message. To do so now would risk Bush's re-election and jeopardize the whole Mideast reform plan. Another year or so should give time to slowly consolidate Iraq's security.

So, the American people either dont understand what is going on in Iraq or do understand what's going on and dont agree with it, hence undermining Bush's election chances.

So, the American population is too stupid to understand the global geo-politics of Iraq and the middle east - so Bush and his henchmen must lie and decieve in order to advance the world.

And the American population will let Bush, who led the country into war under false pretenses and who plans to get re-elected in a stealth campain. Yes, I do believe you think the American population is stupid.

You may be right.

[HDPM]

I agree with some of what you say, however, I don't think Iraq was taken as a beach head. Our follow up strategy does not indicate that. And Bush never said that was what we were doing. Furthermore, Saddam is not an Islamic extremist, even if he has supported terrorists at times for various reasons. He is a colossal POS of course, and I am not shedding any tears for him. If we really want a beachhead in the cultural war, we should take Saudi Arabia and all their oil. We could find plenty to justify that. They support and create much more Islamic extremism that Saddam ever could. Won't happen though. Also, I agree that Islamic extremism is a threat and needs to be stopped. The question is how to do that. I don't think our Iraqi operation will make much headway in that regard.

What we did to Iraq may have been justified. Nevertheless, Bush's evolving position on Iraq erodes any credibility he has. And if you think taking Iraq was justified you should be mad at Bush. His position shift has made it so that any future similar actions will not be allowed to go forward as the article points out. He has undermined his own strategy if in fact he had a coherent strategy going in.

[Cyrus]

This was real cheap of you, High Desert, posting up a link without verification! I have looked into it but could not discern a verifiable source.

How do we know that the President actually said those words??? How do we know that he meant what he said? How do we know that the Washington Post accurately reported it ? If he ever said it natch.

How do we know that the link is actually the Post's and not some imPostor's?? How do we know that your post is not actually bin Laden's who wants to defame the Prez??

Proofs please!

--Cyrus

[The above is dedicated in loving memory to Wake up CALL's credibility and objectivity, may they both rest in peace.]

[MMMMMM]

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Bush administration must lie and deceive, or that it has, but I suspect it is selectively offering reasons for what we are doing. If you want to call that partial deception you might be right, I guess. I don't know that this is the case but to me it all points in that direction.

Overall, I do think the idea of encouraging and somewhat forcing Mideast reform is good and necessary, and that it fits very well with another necessity: the war on terror.

I think the American public does not fully realize the dangers or risks of allowing terrorist orgs and the states that support them to continue unchecked. In the absence of pre-emptive action, we could very well wake up one morning without New York City, LA, Chicago, D.C., Boston, Houston, and Miami. At this point I think the biggest threat is for nuclear bombs to be smuggled into our ports and detonated in the harbors while still on ships. And we can't remain sitting ducks, even with increased defensive measures in place: the only true defense is to take out the orgs and their state sponsors. Otherwise it is just a matter of time until we fall prey to the next major attack. Also, the role of state sponsorship of terror should not be underestimated, nor the degree to which it enables and arms terrorists.

I think much of the American public is not capable of piecing all this together, nor is it sufficiently informed to do so. So while the public may not realize what I suspect are some of Bush's other reasons for the war, they also do not realize the necessity of the war to the full extent, either. Just my opinion.

[ACPlayer]

partial deception -- hmmm, the art of the spin. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and
smells like [censored], it must be a lie.

Do you believe that it is a good idea to be selective about what and how our president presents things to the public. That used to be referred to as "pulling a clinton". But, I suppose you dont mind an administration being ambiguous as long as you agree with the position. It is not the lies of Clinton you minded just the type of lies.

It is not OK to lie about receiving a blow job, but is OK to lie about going to war.

Regarding at least one consequence of consequence to the partial deception: getting any chance of cooperation from the rest of the world has all but disappeared, increasing the risks of N. Korea etc.

Repeat after me: The American People Are Not Stupid. Elitist Attitude Are Dangerous.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, I suppose we should make a public case against Iran and Syria too, but that may come after the election.

The rest of the world, with a very few exceptions, is incredibly lame or actually has opposing interests. So I don't think we should try too hard to get their cooperation anyway--it just makes us look like we're begging and gives those like France more time to plot their thwarting tactics. So if we decide we must invade Iran or Syria, don't look for a long drawn-out attempt to win UN approval this time around--I think Bush learned his lesson already about taking that route.

[adios]

"It is not OK to lie about receiving a blow job, but is OK to lie about going to war."

Apparently Clinton was lying about the Iraqi threat as well in your estimation:

TRANSCRIPT: CLINTON ON PREEMPTIVE AIRSTRIKES AGAINST IRAQ (http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/clintoniraq.htm)

From the release in 1998:

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons," Clinton said in a December 16 statement from the White House.

Clinton said the results of UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler's report to UN Secretary General Annan regarding Iraq's non-cooperation with UN weapons inspectors were "stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing."

Clinton said that Iraq has failed to cooperate in four out of the five categories set forth.

"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance," Clinton said.

"In halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the President said. "We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspections system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region."

"If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people," Clinton said. "And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we are acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

[ACPlayer]

Aah, and now we have the art of diversion. Duck the question and say something else.

[adios]

Diversion? Hardly. Clinton essentially gave the same reasons for bombing Baghdad as Bush stated in describing the Iraqi threat. You're the one that's accusing Bush of lying about the Iraqi threat and if he's lying Clinton's statements are lies too. The point is that Bush and Clinton were enumerating long standing US policy regarding Hussein, inspections and WMD's.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Diversion? Hardly. Clinton essentially gave the same reasons for bombing Baghdad as Bush stated in describing the Iraqi threat. You're the one that's accusing Bush of lying about the Iraqi threat and if he's lying Clinton's statements are lies too. The point is that Bush and Clinton were enumerating long standing US policy regarding Hussein, inspections and WMD's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well done Tom, ACPlayer is doing his best to emulate Cyrus, and Chris Alger by utilizing their subterfuge and obfuscating tactics but you are keeping him on the straight and narrow.

[ACPlayer]

As I recall the arguments at the time of that bombing:

-- This is all about distracting the public from what is going on in the White House.

Other republican statement, relevant to this discussion, during the clinton years (which I by the way agree with): we should not be Nation Building.

My point is that you were distracting from the point I was making, which was it is horribly bad, impeachable offense, if Clinton lies about a sexual picadillo but OK by you when Bush lies and sends our kids off to be killed. Even the ultra radical MMM has grudgingly agreed that there is some deception on the part of Bush around the Iraq issue. In your posts, you have not even struck me moderately radical.

I am not debating whether starting the war was misguided or not. That is pretty much obvious to anyone with a half open brain.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, if you would change your description of me from "ultra radical" to "ultra rational" I think you would be far more accurate /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Also, I don't think Bush lied, I just think he enumerated only some of the good reasons for war with Iraq. There were other good reasons too.

[ACPlayer]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

And then there is lake woebegone "where all the children are above average"

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam Hussein could not be accurately described as an Islamic extremist

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If you re-read my post you will see that I never actually said he was an Islamic extremist. I don't think your the only one who misinterpeted my post so I will attempt to clarify here.

Islamic extremist attacked us, and if we want to fight them in thier backyard instead of our own, we needed to put troops in thier backyard. Iraq happened to be right smack in the middle of Suadi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. Saddam, happened to be the dictator of that country. Saddam also happened to be a secular enemy of the United States that oppressed the majority of his country's population. These circumstances made Iraq the logical choice to invade if our goal is to fight the islamic extremist in that region of the world, and have a sizable military force that we could use to influence the behavior of certain governments in the region. Iraq is to us, what Luxumbourg was to Germany; just a stop over to our final destinations.

Stu

[Chris Alger]

Probably the reason that such a high percentage of the 500 million or so people that live "in that part of the world" are constantly crashing planes into skyscrapers. Of those that do, you're quite right: very few of them experience any "guilt or remorse" over what they've done.

[ACPlayer]

In that part of the world, many are brainwashed to believe the we are evil and need to be destroyed. They grow up to be adults capable of throwing big cluster bombs onto us from planes, slaughtering thousands. They can do this with out any guilt or remorse because they have warped sense of morality.

Extracted from Iraqi text book circa 2011

[Stu Pidasso]

Chris,

I did not know that a high precentage of the 500 million "that live in that part of the world" were terrorist. I thank you for enlightening us on that point. We can always can on you to provide meaty facts.

Your a bright person who seems to have a lot of knowledge about the middle east and terrorism. Could you tell us about how many people it would have taken to plan, fund, train for, and execute the terrorist operation that occurred Sept 11, 2001? Surely this number unremorseful, morally warped people is many multiples of the 19 highjackers died committing their crime.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

ACPlayer,

If Saddam, Bagdad Bob, and the Baath party were still in power in Iraq. I would agree with you 100%. Except, I'm sure they would also have added to the text that it was the Americans who gassed the Kurds.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
If we really want a beachhead in the cultural war, we should take Saudi Arabia and all their oil. We could find plenty to justify that.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we ever get Iraqi oil production to maxium capacity, we will not need Saudi oil. When that happens we will be in a much better position to effect change in that country. We will be able to make military threats with the ability to carry them out whithout crushing the world economy in the process.

Stu

[ACPlayer]

Here is more on lying. Again, without debating the merits of the war, the question is: is it acceptable for the administration to provide provocative mistruths and half truths to send Americans into battle. Now I am assuming that the President and his henchmen felt that they could not meet their objectives (what ever they were, as they are still all over the map with them) without these lies. However, is lying from the white house acceptabe? Would it have been acceptable if Clinton had been doing the lying? Does the fact that there is no eminient danger proved or unearthed so far bother you even one little iota? A slight misgiving? Or is this all about a load of testosterone and full speed ahead!

It is a sad year from me, when at the age of 68 I have to agree with Ted Kennedy.
Iraq Policy Bashed (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/09/politics/main572278.shtml)
War a fraud (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KENNEDY_IRAQ?SITE=KMOV&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT )

_______________________________
Bush Administration Spends Week Retracting Assertions about Saddam's
Threat
to the U.S.

The Bush administration this week backed away from three major
rationales
for going to war in Iraq last March, undermining its assertions that
Hussein's Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and its
allies.

September 11th
As recently as Sunday, Vice President Cheney, claimed that on the
question
of Saddam Hussein's involvement in September 11th, "We just don't
know."[1]
But within days, both President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld
each
admitted there was no evidence that Hussein had any connection. On
Wednesday, Bush maintained there was "no evidence" that Hussein was
involved.[2] Two days later, Rumsfeld, said, "I've not seen any
indication
that would lead me to believe that I could say that."[3]

Yet in March, Hussein's possible involvement in the terrorist attacks
garnered support for the war from many Americans. At the time, the
widely
reported meeting between 9/11 planner Mohammed Atta and Iraq's security
chief in Prague a few months before the attack was found by the CIA not
to
be credible.[4]

'Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons Program'
Recently, Cheney backed away from the assertion he made three days
before
the war began, that the strongest reason for going to war was that "we
believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."[5] But
the
International Atomic Energy Agency reported two weeks before that ,
"There
was no indication of resumed nuclear activities."[6] And six months
later on
Meet the Press, Cheney said simply, "I misspoke."[7]

Weapons of Mass Destruction
This week, Rumsfeld reversed earlier statements claiming that the U.S.
knew
where Iraq's weapons of destruction were located. When asked why the
weapons hadn't been found, this past Tuesday Rumsfeld said, "What do
you
mean? You're talking about a country the size of California."[8] Yet
months
ago, just two weeks into the war, Rumsfeld said, "We know where they
are.
They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south
and
north somewhat."[9]


Sources:
1. Meet the Press, NBC, 9/14/03.
2. Remarks by the President After Meeting with Members of the
Congressional
Conference Committee on Energy Legislation, 9/17/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1167753&l=5426
3. Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General
Pace,
9/16/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1167753&l=5427
4. "Bush Team Stands Firm on Iraq," Washington Post, 9/15/03, p. A1.
5. Meet the Press, NBC, 3/16/03.
6. The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update, 3/7/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1167753&l=5428
7. Meet the Press, NBC, 9/14/03.
8. Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General
Pace,
9/16/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1167753&l=5427
9. This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC, 3/30/03.

____________________________________

[Wake up CALL]

ACPlayer a question if I may. Why is it that when a democrat says something that is later to be proved untrue or innacurate he was mistaken but when a republican does the same thing he was lying? I am just trying to reconcile the difference and need your help.

Quote by Teddy Bear:

"Kennedy said a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office showed that only about $2.5 billion of the $4 billion being spent monthly on the war can be accounted for by the Bush administration.

"My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops," he said."

When asked to elaborate Teddy refused to answer but his staff said who was responsible was unclear. Later it was "leaked" that Teddy Bear had been referring to the US paying for the transportation cost of bringing Allied troops into Iraq. Hardly bribes even using a full stretch of your imagination.

Our Teddy Bear really cares about the American people considering he:

Earlier this year, he supported a Democratic amendment that would have delayed most of the president's proposed tax cuts, and most spending increases, until the administration provided cost estimates for the Iraq war. The amendment failed.

[ACPlayer]

Because we Republican should hold ourselves to a higher standard for one reason. You just used a standard Democratic tool BTW by posting this non-sequiter to the post I made, which questioned lying and deception in the white house.

I dislike all democratic politicians, but one of them (i really dont care which one -- well i do if Gephart get the nomination I may just move to the Cayman Islands) is getting my vote next year.

[ACPlayer]

Earlier this year, he supported a Democratic amendment that would have delayed most of the president's proposed tax cuts, and most spending increases, until the administration provided cost estimates for the Iraq war. The amendment failed.

Well, this is a matter of opinion, and even though he is wrong about it, he is entitled to it and entitled to push it through. There was another thread earlier where someone (sorry, my memory is not very good), questioned some woman about her influencing the Masters. In that I argued, hopefully successfully, that we cannot and should not stop her from doing that -- it would be wrong to do. Again, the content of her argument is irrelevant --- but her right to do so is not.

It is troubling to me, the recent --i'd say last 10 years or so -- trend that some republicans have of labelling Democrats bad or treasonous or uncaring because we dont agree with the content of their message. If everyone in the country was Republican (or Democrat) the country would not benefit. Communism is a great example of a movement that disintegrated due to the lack of a good opposition and only one set of voices and is a great example of why a vibrant and strong 2 party DEMOCRACY is very desirable.

[adios]

Talk about a diversion, your post is the epitome.

Clinton:Bush Iraq Mistake Understandable (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/6361595.htm)

Ted Kennedy is a scum bag.

Edward Kennedy's Chappaquiddick Accident (http://www.gfsnet.org/msweb/sixties/chappaquiddick.html)

From the article:

"The accident was not reported until eight hours after the car had sunk to the bottom of the river. On the following Monday, Kennedy was charged for leaving the scene of the accident. In Massachusetts, a manslaughter charge is always given when someone leaves the scene of a deadly accident."

The friggen guy should have been charged with vehicular homicide at the very least.

[ACPlayer]

How does one start at a critical question of self examination about doubts about the activities of our administration and end up digging up dirt on a mutually agreed to scumbag?

My question about serious disquiet that I feel about the use of deceptive salesman-ship, resulting in sending American boys into combat (and risking thousands of non-american lives) stands unanswered.

Unless of course our body politic has disintegrated into "I am not as bad as you".

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Because we Republican should hold ourselves to a higher standard for one reason. You just used a standard Democratic tool BTW by posting this non-sequiter to the post I made, which questioned lying and deception in the white house.



[/ QUOTE ]

WOW!! I did all that non-sequiter stuff? I sure never meant to do anything but ask a question. It didn't really have much to do with the white house specifically. Next time I'll either PM you or start a new thread.

[adios]

"How does one start at a critical question of self examination about doubts about the activities of our administration and end up digging up dirt on a mutually agreed to scumbag"

Not much digging to do for that. Common knowledge and why shouldn't Kennedy have to answer for it? If he's such a scumbag why are you using what he said to support your arguments?

"My question about serious disquiet that I feel about the use of deceptive salesman-ship, resulting in sending American boys into combat (and risking thousands of non-american lives) stands unanswered"

That's your opinion which you pass off as fact. That facts are that US policy regarding Iraq WMD's has been more or less what Bush and Clinton stated. Notice that Clinton called it a mistake. If Clinton really wanted to discredit Bush all he'd have to say was that we eliminated them in 1998. Clinton didn't do that.

[ACPlayer]

I guess you finally answered my question in a round about fashion. My reading of your responce:

"You have no misgivings about Presidents using deceptive practices to achieve their goals. "

I wonder how you would feel if a future president used deceptive practices to achieve his goals where you did not agree with those goals, or for that matter vehemently disagreed with the goals?

[adios]

Not what I said at all. What I said was clear at least in my mind and apparently to a few others as well.

[MMMMMM]

"Communism is a great example of a movement that disintegrated due to the lack of a good opposition and only one set of voices and is a great example of why a vibrant and strong 2 party DEMOCRACY is very desirable."

Really?

I always thought Communism disintgrated because it was based on an unsustainable illusion.

Of course, that doesn't entirely stop the new (or old) crop of idealistic suckers from being enchanted by it.

[ACPlayer]

Well, communism had a number of fatal flaws. ONE of which was that there was no place for a strong opposition. Democracy REQUIRES a strong opposition to sustain itself, atleast IMO. The context of my comment being that we need a strong and vibrant opposition to avoid excesses.

When Congress handed over the power to take the Iraq decision to a single strong group it abdicated its responsiblity. Senator Byrd's speech on the floor relating that decision to our separation of powers was truly a fine piece of oratory.