Condi Rice for VP? (Page 2) chronology: Interesting and well chosen Post Dave. I thought you meant 'illegal' under International Law, the Iraq war is still a matter of contention as to whether it was legal or illegal by International Law. The points you raise about whether the Iraq liberation was legal under American Law are, on the first glance at your Post, challenging. But can you explain this similar example? Congress withdrew the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1973, this effectively ended any U.S. mandate for war in Indochina. Using the same rules you are applying to Mr Bush, then why has there never been any demonstrations about the 'illegal' war in Vietnam, which it presumably would have been after 1973? Did Mr Obama's bombing of Libya follow the 'letter of the Law'? was Mr Reagan's invasion of Granada 'legal'? was Mr Clinton's bombing of Serbia 'legal'? You see where I am going here Dave. You single out Mr Bush, as if the President somehow acted 'illegally', but the President acted in keeping with White House standard procedure in his Iraq liberation. Would you not agree that the constant use of 'illegal' for the Iraq war, is both selective criticism of Mr Bush, and presumably more politically motivated than by any sense of desire for 'justice'? If three men are driving with a automobile tail light out, and one Guy gets stopped 10 times and asked why his tail light is out and the other two are never stopped once, that is a fair case for saying you are being discriminated against. If you are constantly accusing Mr Bush of something other recent Presidents have done, and never once referring to them, we can only assume Dave, you have a fair amount of prejudice against the President.  Great2012: she is the most criminal after bush and if she get the VP ,she will swim all the sea alone and destroy us again , please mit stop from picking this evil woman chronology: Davidk14. Don't hold your breath waiting for a rational answer from great2012. These people are driven by collectively held passions which they think validates the delusional wrongs they suppose Mr Bush's White House of. Just because they are passionate and indignant over the wrongs they accuse others of, does not give any credibility at all to their accusations. Great2012 may think Mr Saddam's 'Project Babylon' in 1995 was to build a super-gun to declare peace on American Peacekeepers protecting Kurds at the time. Why else would Mr Saddam want a 600mm Super-gun?
Great2012: she lied about the Uranium transported from africa of iraq and it was proven to be false and she lied about the time and cost of the iraq war as well as she still claim the war was a war of neccesity over a choice and she do not find any nuke in iraq, american need center right leaders not far right leaders like her who are a wimp . do you want to go on say all the evil job she has done all over please , you want to defnd bush what a surprise a texan right wing person her, despite i completly hate this killer obama i think he kill people by making sure he will kill terorrists and he can justify that but also he is the most dangerous person , and if he get elected i am sure he will dismantle russia and china and creat more problem on the next 30 years but mitt is just a flip floper too , American public need to go to school on how to put their vote in december cocacolacowboy27: Condi Rice is an excellent choice for a leading role in the president's cabinet, whether as VP or any other position. These people claim she has lied, but can not offer true proof, only slanted left wing media reports which tell part of the story. I know, I am in the media. Mrs. Rice came from the projects to the capitol. She worked hard and grew up with nothing. She sacrificed to get where she was, and is. She is nothing, if not a hard worker and dedicated person. Personal opinion: I like Bush, yes he made mistakes, but do you think you could handle a budget of Trillions of dollars? Do your current bills get paid on time every time with the small budget you handle now? As far as the war...so you have enemies? Have you always in every instance been able to work out your differences in a diplomatic way? At least in your personal life, you can avoid your enemies. When in an office like our president, your enemies come to you. You handle them as best you can, and hope that America will remember you are human. IMPORTANT NOTICE: I live in Texas, I am not from Texas. I moved here 2 years ago, so dont give me the "good ol Texas boy " speech. Bush was at the very least a moral man, who was never caught screwing his interns, nor was he closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood (radical muslims, not peacable ones), nor was he guilty of associating with ACORN (known to be engaged in voter fraud), oh yeah! He has a Birth Certificate. Not a bad guy GeraldTheGnome: I'm not for her or against her, I just want politicians to serve the people rather than themselves. dave3974: WHEN the history of our age comes to be written it is now clear that two staggering mistakes by British governments were our invasion of Suez in 1956 and the war in Iraq in 2003. And they bear startling similarities. In each case the target was an Arab dictator. In each case the man was built up by a British prime minister into a huge and world peace-threatening monster when neither was anything of the sort. Gamal Abdel Nasser was a vague and aggressive demagogue. He had unilaterally taken over the Suez Canal Company in which Britain was a majority shareholder. In short, he had nationalised the canal. But he never threatened to close it and Egypt was perfectly capable of operating it. He was an impeccable enemy of imperialism and of Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam Hussein was cruel as Satan and had already perpetuated several horrors on his own people as well as invading Kuwait in 1990, provoking a short but horribly expensive war. If ever there was a moment for the West, with Arab allies, to finish the job and topple him, that was it, February 1991. But the West chose to stop advancing at the Iraqi border and let him stay in power. Did our Secret Intelligence Service get the picture of Iraq absolutely wrong, or did it lie to its own prime minister? The answer is: neither By the by, he too loathed and suppressed Islamic fundamentalism. And one other thing. Both insane adventures, in 1956 and 2003, were surrounded by Establishment lies. But those in 1956 were rapidly exposed and guilty prime minister Anthony Eden resigned in disgrace. What a jaw-dropping contrast in these days of supposed greater openness, with what has happened since Tony Blair sent 179 British soldiers to die in Iraq on a tissue of lies. Since it was revealed, just four months after our March 2003 invasion of Iraq, that every single justification was untrue, there have only been two questions worth a light. Did our Secret Intelligence Service get the picture of Iraq absolutely wrong, or did it lie to its own prime minister? The answer is: neither. The SIS told Blair very precisely that it had no evidence Saddam Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction. It could not prove he did not have them either. But that was not what Blair, like Eden, wanted to hear. He only wished to hear what confirmed a scenario for war he had already decided upon. Since the Iraqi disaster was finally exposed as exactly that, there have been five inquiries. The first two were House of Commons select committees. But so huge was the Labour majority that both committees were packed with Blairites. Then came the Hutton Report – a complete whitewash by an Establishment creature chosen for the job. Fourth was the Butler Report. Now Robin Butler is a very upright man indeed but as a former Cabinet Secretary he’s a civil service mandarin to his bootstraps. Mandarins speak mandarinese. Lord Butler tried, obliquely, to reveal what had happened. But he dared not say the blunt truth: Blair lied. Now we have the Chilcot Report. Sir John knows exactly what happened and is prepared to say it but he needs the documents that prove his findings. The papers proving Blair promised George Bush he would throw the British armed forces into the service of the Neo-Con White House. And the papers showing the SIS did not lie to him and that he duped his own Cabinet plus the House of Commons with his “beyond doubt” assertion about WMDs – which he made up. Now a Conservative Attorney General, supported by a Tory Prime Minister to both their shame, have decreed those papers will be suppressed for decades yet to come. (Edited by dave3974) dave3974: it shows that she has been hanging out with some dodgy people , and it is aknowledged that blair is aliar GeraldTheGnome: When a politician is around another politician or around someone like them then they are always around dodgy people. All politicians are liars also, I agree with that.  (Post deleted by staff ) GeraldTheGnome: I believe you, thousands wouldn't but I believe you. Did you see the movie The Matrix ? The blue pill or the red pill ? (Post deleted by staff ) GeraldTheGnome: Yeahhhhhh. Global Warming doesn't explain cooling down in certain parts of the world in the last 10 years but this isn't about that so-called 'Global' situation. Well the Matrix etc is as true as the following - YouTube YouTube | Politics Chat Room 69 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
