waldo
09-19-2007, 11:59 AM
Or, allow me to flip that coin over for you...
Your side has to playup very wispy feelers in order to trot out yet another failed excuse for a "preemptive" attack on Iraq, against international law and forging a new policy which causes much of the world to mistrust us and view the US as bullies, potentially as dangerous as the real bad guys. Then you have to completely ignore the obvious fact that your own report states Iraq had no hand in attackng the US. Then you have to somehow explain why US policy is so inactive when it comes to attacking the countries which really do have ties to AQ and terrorism, like say, Iran and the Kingdom of the Sauds.
You characterize them as 'wispy'. The intelligence community obviously didn't. No one has ever stated that iraq had any role in 9/11. Why you keep bringing it up as though they did is puzzling. Fair comment on the others. The US does have existing relationships with those countries and they have largeley been cooperative, especially in the intelligence area.
Paranoia is a poor foundation for a Foreign Policy position, particularly when it invokes new privileges which offend so much of the world, makes the president of the US look like he's just fishing for some excuse for war, and turns US State Department figures into laughing stocks throughout international diplomacy circles.
Paranoia? How about reality? The US State as laughingstock can be used on so many fronts it's riduculous. Kinda like the UN eh?
Not in the wrong fight for the wrong reasons, then show oneself to be a fraud, dishonest and incapable of getting the job done.
We can disagree about the former. The latter is a long way from being decided.
Right now we're discussing the people who most influence our position in the world. If the Dems are put into that position, it'll be their turn.
Really? Is that how you regard the various proposals, amendments and bills being put forth by the democratic congress. You don't think they're not trying to run the show on iraq?
Your side has to playup very wispy feelers in order to trot out yet another failed excuse for a "preemptive" attack on Iraq, against international law and forging a new policy which causes much of the world to mistrust us and view the US as bullies, potentially as dangerous as the real bad guys. Then you have to completely ignore the obvious fact that your own report states Iraq had no hand in attackng the US. Then you have to somehow explain why US policy is so inactive when it comes to attacking the countries which really do have ties to AQ and terrorism, like say, Iran and the Kingdom of the Sauds.
You characterize them as 'wispy'. The intelligence community obviously didn't. No one has ever stated that iraq had any role in 9/11. Why you keep bringing it up as though they did is puzzling. Fair comment on the others. The US does have existing relationships with those countries and they have largeley been cooperative, especially in the intelligence area.
Paranoia is a poor foundation for a Foreign Policy position, particularly when it invokes new privileges which offend so much of the world, makes the president of the US look like he's just fishing for some excuse for war, and turns US State Department figures into laughing stocks throughout international diplomacy circles.
Paranoia? How about reality? The US State as laughingstock can be used on so many fronts it's riduculous. Kinda like the UN eh?
Not in the wrong fight for the wrong reasons, then show oneself to be a fraud, dishonest and incapable of getting the job done.
We can disagree about the former. The latter is a long way from being decided.
Right now we're discussing the people who most influence our position in the world. If the Dems are put into that position, it'll be their turn.
Really? Is that how you regard the various proposals, amendments and bills being put forth by the democratic congress. You don't think they're not trying to run the show on iraq?