Previewing the State of the Union Address > FreedomsWatch

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Previewing the State of the Union Address
By Eric Livingston :: 17 Comments :: Email to a friend

President Bush will deliver his final State of the Union address on Monday night, and is expected to focus on areas where he has been able to achieve some measure of bipartisan support or legislative advantage over liberals in Congress.

The Economy: Amid the current scramble in Washington to offer an effective stimulus package for the American economy, this will no doubt be a central issue to the President's remarks. There has been a large amount of bipartisan cooperation on the issue, with the White House working closely with Congressional leadership to quickly pass a package that works. There are, however, differences in plans between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans would like to offer tax rebates only to those who already pay federal income tax, while Democrats want to send cash to those who don't pay federal taxes in the first place. Freedom's Watch supports an economic stimulus package that will put money back into the pockets of Americans who paxes. Its not a "tax rebate" if the recipient doesn't pay taxes to begin with.

FISA: With current FISA authorization ending just four days after the speech, Bush will certainly make the case for Congress to fully reauthorize this foreign intelligence program with a provision providing immunity to telecommunications companies that provide information to law enforcement at the government's request. Senators Reid and Dodd, and many of their liberal counterparts, have expressed their opposition to FISA legislation currently being debated; with this program being a necessary part of our national security operations, this will no doubt be a heated debate in the coming days. At Freedom's Watch, we recognize thta this legislation is vital to our national security, and do not believe that companies that cooperate with our government to keep Americans safe should be punished for doing so.

Iraq: With the surge now (almost) universally recognized as a winning strategy in Iraq, the President is sure to point out the gains in the security situation on the ground and highlight recent political accomplishments by the government in Baghdad. General Petraeus is expected to testify before Congress before late spring, and with an additional Iraq budget supplemental fight on the horizon, this will provide a prime opportunity for the President to make his case to the American people that this is a cause worth fighting for. Freedom's Watch will be engaged in that debate, supporting our troops and their mission.

Ratification of Trade Agreements: With pending economic agreements between the United States and Panama, South Korea, and Colombia, President Bush will emphasize the need for the Senate to ratify these treaties. The biggest legislative battle is expected over the Colombian agreement - the White House sees this agreement as helping a key ally against the extremist government of Venezuela led by Hugo Chavez. Colombia is one of America's staunchest allies in the region, yet liberals are ready to reject this critical trade deal because of objections by Big Labor - a perfect example of putting the interests of their biggest contributors over the interests of the economy.

For more information on what is expected in Bush's final State of the Union address, read this article in The Hill. The address will be televised on all major broadcast and cable news channels next Monday night at 9pm ET.

Comments

By Old GI @ Friday, January 25, 2008 1:24 PM

Afghanistan and Iraq:
RESPONSE from Old GI

My unit was mobilized in 2003 in support of this Operation and no distinction was made between Afghanistan and Iraq on the war on terror by the military. The intelligence at that time supported by Congress and the Administration were NOT divided!
The only lies told were a spin created by the liberal media and later the Democratic Party in attacking President Bush a couple years after the attack on our Country! I know, I was there and made it a point to remember...
This political mentality is so selfish by the Dem’s (in my opinion) that they would endanger our entire national security just so they can maintain power in our Government. If you remember this is the main reason why Sen. Joe Lieberman had to move to become an independent.
I take it rather personally you addressing me in such a manner as telling me to keep my wars straight being propagandized, in addition to that the statement you made about the good old days and some soldiers... For your information friend; I am one of those soldiers that were treated by what you call substandard care, and it saved my life!!!
I wish activist like yourself would get off your soapbox and be willing to make the SACRIFICES an average troop makes everyday and not just talk about it!

You are correct: I make no distinctions between different fronts on the war on terror, and really do support our troops despite political disputes!!!!!!!!!!!

By Old GI @ Friday, January 25, 2008 5:18 PM

Keeemosabe,

Might I respectfully suggest that you join up with MoveOn.Org instead of FreedomsWatch.Org...?
They all are also "Bush haters" and your views might be more acceptable to them than to people that support our President, his actions, and our troops such as this organization does.
I don't object to a different opinion than my own, but kindly restrain yourself from attacking the President and his administration here as their are far better blogs to do that on than this one.
The State of the Union "blog" is not a place to be attacking the President, even if you disagree with him on the issues.
But than that’s just my opinion and I know you did not ask for it; but just maybe you can see my point?

By sammybarts @ Sunday, January 27, 2008 9:49 AM

I constantly wonder where liberals get thier facts. The wars in Iraq and Afganistan have cost roughly 600 billion. check the budgets at the library of congress online. Liberals have hated President Bush since 2000. Nothing will change this. Saddam was a murderous tyrant and had to go. Plain and simple. He played games with bureaucrats from the IAEA and diplomats with the oil for food scandal. These games led him to one place. The gallows. Iran, Libya, and N. Korea got the message. When Iraq becomes stable and democracy and capitalism prevail, Bush will accomplish something that kings and emporers have not been able to do...bring personal freedoms to Arab people. The left knows this and they despise the thought.

By keeemosabe @ Sunday, January 27, 2008 2:24 PM

Response to Sammybart, point by point:>>>>>>>>>The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost roughly 600 billion. check the budgets at the library of congress online. <<<<<<<< You take that number from the past, n as though the Iraq spending is over. But no righty wants that to be the end number...you want to occupy and pull strings there forever. And rebuild a country at the same time and wail about food stamp, education and healthcare expenses here. Do you suppose continuing an occupation for 10 to 100 years may cost anything additional? Do you think propping up the Iraqi military for many years even in years of primarily internal struggle might add to your cost? What if Iran and Iraq start fighting, would we need to spend anything to keep Iran at bay. Do you suppose rebuilding the country might cost something? I'd guess it will cost many times more than the spending to recover from the Katrina hurricane which Bush is loathe to spend that money on. >>>>Saddam was a murderous tyrant and had to go. Plain and simple. He played games with bureaucrats from the IAEA and diplomats with the oil for food scandal.<<<< So it is the job of the US to clean up all the world scandals?...To be the world's policeman? Our enemies would love to put us to that task, chasing our tails around the world exhausting our military and our resources and our prestige doing that. The world is too big and we have too many enemies to do that. We must operate smarter by setting our enemies against themselves. So you got your big prize with Saddam...and forgot about bin Laden (Bush, "And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.") >>>>>>>>Bush will accomplish something that kings and emporers have not been able to do...bring personal freedoms to Arab people. The left knows this and they despise the thought.<<<<<<<<That's the old righty trick of claiming to know the thoughts of other people, and then projecting it to the worst possible outcomes. What else is new? What I see is they have waged war for thousands of years and will remain happy to do so, with us if we continue to engage, or with each other, which I prefer. You like the prospect of "forever war" to make them think or be like us....and they will be happy to oblige, by fighting, not by rolling over to the Bush/neo-con, point of view.

By sammybarts @ Sunday, January 27, 2008 5:02 PM

keeemosabe

I guess you are right. People want to live under tyranny. And as far as the occupation of iraq, I guess president Maliki, and iraqs' parliment, is a figment of my imagination. I guess I'll just give up reality alltogether and jump over to the ideology of the left and hope everything works out. We should pull all our naval ships off the waterways and stop protecting trade as well, Lets give China or Venezuela a chance.

By sammybarts @ Sunday, January 27, 2008 6:51 PM

and who determines this agenda....YOU. If President Bush did anything illegal AT ALL he would have been impeeched! FACT! You truly have no idea what you are talking about and just spew liberal hatred. Quid pro quo... get real. The situation in iraq will get better and the iraqi's, the middle east, and us will become prosperous from it. then we can get to the liberal social agenda's you, reid and pelosi want oh so bad. But for now your just gonna have to sit back and watch cause freedom is on the march. And Billary will never get the white house so I look foward to another 8 years of liberal hatred without a factual base.

By WAYNE @ Sunday, January 27, 2008 7:43 PM

i have to wonder what the real reason was why Fred Thompson gave up the run! I wonder if it had more to do with the childish behavior that is so much a part of this election, or if it is more the American people and how easily they are mislead by those wishing to win the office! Maybe a little bit of both. But, I can't say as I blame him. America is in a mess and this election, and the results of this election will either make us, or break us. I can't say I would wish to run either...a definite failed system, and we the American people are being hurded like cattle to the slaughter of America!

By keeemosabe @ Sunday, January 27, 2008 11:30 PM

Reply 3 to Sammiebursts. I can feel the hatred now as your fingers quiver over your keyboard. Why do you pretend to lament hate? It served your side so well during the Clinton years. Now you are reacting in your usual reactive way to when the left pointed out the hate of the right. So you have learned from your politicians to do the Orwell thing and turn it around. And also to attack the strengths of you opponents like when the war veteran Kerry was attacked by those who wanted an AWOL president and a ChickenhawkCheney VP in the Whitehouse. And when Max Cleland, the triple war amputee had his patriotism questioned by a guy with many draft deferments and it was eaten up by those rednecks in Georgia. This is rich! And now you continue that legacy. And such is the state of the Union. Enjoy your war. Vote GOP... Git yer War fer Free!!!

By keeemosabe @ Sunday, January 27, 2008 11:40 PM

Reply 4 to Sammiebursts: I see what you really hate is losing the agenda due to the war you love so much. Maybe you'll be right... Hillary won't win. Maybe she will, like W be installed as your ruler by the Supreme Court. And maybe too , she will rule like she won the election with a mighty mandate off a huge majority and maybe she too will start an extra bonus war and maybe you will support her like you want the left to support Bush... NO!! Wait (it's only a bad dream you are having.......you know it must be a dream because you would never support President Hillary.

By keeemosabe @ Monday, January 28, 2008 9:53 AM

To Aetius728, point by point. >>>>would be more at home at moveon.org or dailykos.<<< I feel right at home quashing the idiots here, thank you. >>>> Bush saying that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, and then "fuzzy and muddy" the issue was lost on me.<<<<<< W explicitly said Iraq was not responsible for 9-11, but every time they speak re the Iraq war, they justify it by referring to 9-11, using, I guess, that form of subliminal message to imply or impart that mis-info to the morons who believe Iraq or Saddam was responsible for 9-11. Hope that clears up that Agatha Christie mystery for you. >>>>>>> there IS evidence that Saddam had ties with al Qaeda.<<<<<<<< Umm, only if you believe Chickenhawk Cheney’s lies on the subject, (a Proven Liar by the way) Saddam and Osama binLaden were enemies to each other. bin Laden hated how secular Saddam was and Saddam was and would remain at cross purposes with al Qaeda’s purposes and aims. >>>>>>> They also conveniently forgot to investigate many of the opportunities we had throughout the 90's to take out Osama bin Laden, but did not for various reasons.<<<<< And you conveniently forgot to mention how Bush managed to miss bin Laden by under-manning the effort and contracting the capture mission out to warlords in Afghanistan, and how at the funeral of a major enemy combatant, during the Bush years---AFTER 9-11- seen via the remotely operated aircraft hundreds of combatants were only watched, not fired upon. ‘Splain that if you can
.>>>>>>> nobody of any considerable power in the Clinton administration or the early Bush administration was terribly concerned about it.<<<<<<<< Wrong! As Richard A. Clarke, chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Councilsaid, “We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed."[4] Clarke was the only member of the Bush Administration who provided an apology to the family members of victims along with an acknowledgement of the government's failure. He was roundly criticed by conservatives for that apology and for acknowleging the administration’s failure to prevent 9-11. (Apologies are “wimpy”? , I guess) >>>>>>>> did it ever occur to you that this was designed to not reveal sources and methods of gathering intelligence<<<< This adminstration will reveal sources (a la Valerie Plame) when it is politically expedient to do so. .......onto oil and motives....so (per you) we can’t hold Saudis responsible for 9-11 because of our dependency on oil, but we would never try to position ourselves for Iraqi oil? Oh Sure.
>>>>> the enviro-wacko movement and the left over the years who have hampered our efforts to use more of the oil located right here in the USA?<<<<<<<< Umm Let’s see where is the oil and which and who actually prevents oil drilling?Well, enviroS share some responsibility, but last I heard, Florida’s Jeb Bush is against drilling off his coasts...and Arnold in CalifOrnya, protects his rich Santa Barbara buddies from seeing drill rigs, and Alaska seems well represented in Congress by....Republicans for the last 50 years. >>>>>>> inspect every one of them, and the effect this would have on global commerce? It just cannot be done.<<<<<<<< So you would hold speedy trade more important than a nuclear detonation in one of our ports, Say, LA or Phiily or NY or SF or nearly simultaneously? How much would a nuclear detonation(s) slow our trade down Hmmmmm???? Maybe then we could re-evaluate and inspect? Hmmm??? After all, it is always you guys who continually remind us at political leverage points that they will follow us here if we leave Iraq. (as if that would make any difference what they will do. Excuse me, the die is cast) >>>>> I am not familar with the Ken Lay accusations, so I'll skip that<<<<<<<< Of course not, to investigate that could only upset your provincial world view. >>>>> Surely you are aware, however, that Plame was not actually an operative, and her identity was in fact known in Washington circles, as well as that her husband is a proven liar as well.<<<<<<< First, you can dismiss anyone very easily if you just postulate that someone is a “proven liar” Since Bush and Cheney are proven liars, maybe that’s why you get so upset when it is pointed out, and Dems can discount so much as their agenda as so much neo-con liars poker with US foreign policy. It is so easy to use that rational, why didn’t I think to do that before? It is so easy to dismiss anything I would not want to hear that way by that methodology. My would views could never be surmounted in my mind that way. I could be a legend in my own mind. Hmmm!!! So...if seeking uranium is grounds for invading a country........why have we not invaded North Korea already? Or Syria? Or Pakistan> Or India? Or Iran? Hmmmmm????? Why would we focus so intensely on Iraq? Hmmm??? >>>>> Murdoch War Machine comment. That is just loony.<<<<<<< At the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland, News Corp owner Rupert Murdoch admitted that his company (which includes FOX News and the NY Post, among many other holdings) tried to shape the agenda for the Iraq war, in accordance with Bush administration policy. Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer? Asked if News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: "No, I don't think so. We tried." Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East...but we have been very critical of his execution." Those are his own words. Please remember them when you when you watch Fox News in action or remember the “Surrender Monkey” picture in his NY Post as he tried to goad the US into maintaining the most hawkish war posture possible. >>>>>>>Why don't we but the same government in charge of healthcare for all 300 million Americans!?!?!?!?<<<<<<If you tried Medicare I bet you’d like it. Take my word for it, it is AWESOME. Have you ever been to Europe or Canada and spoken about this? I HAVE. They would not trade for our system. They prefer their own system. You speak from theory and pre-conceived notions. They speak from their experience. I personally went to England to get the best hip replacement possible, and got it from the best doctors at ¼ the price of the US and all costs of any complications were guaranteed not to be charged. Try to get that in the US! Fuggetaboutit. >>>>>>>>>>And Iran does not regard us as a threat because of the constant wailing from the left over the idea of us attacking them.<<<<<<<<< You are truly showing your goofiness here. The idea that mental vibes of the left cause Iran to not regard us a threat? Ha! We would not even need to be threatening Iran if Saddam was still their counterbalance. They may even be warring against each other, wearing themselves to exhaustion instead of us grinding our power down to dust. There are better strategies than to strive to be at war with all our enemies. They, with some savvy undercover encouragement, could be helping our cause without even knowing it. As it is, our bonehead pres put that shoe on our foot. Shame. <<<<<<<<<< that the administration deceived congress regarding WMDs. Again, this is laughable (everyone) believed that he had them as well.<<<<<<< Of course, he HAD them. We gave them to him. Remember the Rumsfeld, Saddam photo? Look, Clinton and everyone had SUSPICIONs, but it takes a special (bleeped) to start a war in error. Clinton at least knew that Saddam was boxed in and was a counterbalance to Iran, and did not act on SUSPICION. Only Bush did that. He thought it was (bleeped (a higher power) whispering in his ear, but really it was his neo-con –Zionist advisors who wish to use the US military as the Zionists' proxy-pawns. How sad is that.!?!?!?

By keeemosabe @ Monday, January 28, 2008 10:11 AM

Hold up a mirror. Substitute the word right and you’ll have it correct. Listen to the hatred of your leaders every minute of every weekday when you listen to your heroes and primary sources of misinformation, Lush Rim-BAUGHHHWL, Shawn iNSANITY, Billo Reily, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto and Michael Savage. Enough hate there to fill a nation...and claim their victim hood at the same time. Since you disagree with my assessments at every turn, perhaps you will see my point after the next election... WAIT! Righties don’t respect elections. They prefer to have our country be a Banana Republic, with an strongman at the top who thinks the constitution is something to hurdle instead of to cherish.

By keeemosabe @ Friday, January 25, 2008 12:15 PM

Old GI sez: >>>>This war on terror <<<<
NObody has ever said the war on terror in Afghanistan isn't necessary...that is a figment of fevered and propagandized minds, courtesy of the Murdoch War Machine.
On the other hand, the extra bonus pork barrel Iraq war and occupation was about personal Bushy retribution and oil. Islamo-terrorists came to join the party AFTER we opened the can of worms. Please, let us keep our wars straight. It is too important an issue to muddy up with the usual Fixed News (MurdochWarMachine) generalizations.

I guess some soldiers miss their good old glory days, and want to keep the tradition going even if the wounded must come home to substandard care and denial of their signing bonus benefits if they become casualties and unable to fulfill their "contractual" obligations by getting wounded and having to leave the field. Such is the state of the union these days...........

By keeemosabe @ Friday, January 25, 2008 11:30 AM

I want to hear again how spending by Dems will be thwarted and how spending in general will be reduced for electioneering posturing AND how at the same time spending $$$ 2 TRILLION on a war and Iraq rebuild can be overlooked---not counted as spending if it is his pork barrel war.

That same 2 Trillion would have taken care of any Social Security and Medicare contribution shortfalls for 250 years. Oh well... So much for reality.

By Old GI @ Friday, January 25, 2008 11:49 AM

I hope that the American people will recognize the need to support our troops in the field.
Again the liberal media has created that old anti-war establishment bias, which existed in the 60’s to elect the liberal Democrats to power.
This war on terror is too important to national security to turn into another flower power agenda for the liberal Democrats. To combat his mentality, is why I served in the Army for over twenty years.

By keeemosabe @ Friday, January 25, 2008 2:43 PM

Let's get one thing straight. Being anti-war does not mean anti-soldier. That is a mindset propagated by the Murdoch War Machine. Many ex-soldiers certainly support their friends and military branch and comrades-in-arms, yet properly retain their right and indeed their duty to question whether the decision to go to war was or is the correct one. Our future leaders must know there will be risks and consequences to making poor decisions about wars. Citizens have different obligations toward their gov't than does an on-duty soldier who must follow orders. Citizens have the right and the duty to hold their leaders responsible for poor decisions. I have every right and obligation to decide and voice support or opposition to their decisions about wars, and because I'm a citizen, not a soldier, therefore I do make a huge distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan, seeing we pulled force out of Afghanistan and missed bin Laden to adventure in Iraq, because W said God told him so. I see that Iran is now emboldened to pursue nuclear ambitions now that they don't have to worry about Saddam and seeing that our military is stretched to the point that further adventures are much riskier physically and politically.
You go ahead and choose to believe that Bush and Chickenhawk Cheney kept no secrets from Dems in Congress to win their support. Now that we know how secretive this Administration is about everything, (to the point of illegality regarding 14 months of missing email communication and even and illegal a separate system of secret communications) it is an unreasonable conclusion for me to believe so.

By Aetius728 @ Saturday, January 26, 2008 9:27 PM

Keeemosabe

Lets start at the beginning. First of all, I echo the sentiments that you would be more at home at moveon.org or dailykos.

Okay. The lie you claim was exposed by Bush saying that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, and then "fuzzy and muddy" the issue was lost on me. And here is a shock-there IS evidence that Saddam had ties with al Qaeda, which I have heard the vice president make reference to. I have it saved on one of my computers somewhere, if I remember, I'll post it later. I know this is contrary to everything you think you know, but I assure you, it is true.(I must add, however, that there is no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.) It must also come as a shock that a group of bureaucrats involved in a massive game of CYA-the 9/11 commission, got this wrong. They also conveniently forgot to investigate many of the opportunities we had throughout the 90's to take out Osama bin Laden, but did not for various reasons.

The statement by the President about not being able to conceive of suiced bombers crashing planes in buildings was nothing more than standard mushy political nonsense, similar to what every president says after a catastrophe. Yes, you are correct that we were aware of plots to use airplanes as guided weapons. I would like to have some examples of these plots that had been foiled in other countries. The U.S. became aware in the 90's that the idea existed, but nobody of any considerable power in the Clinton administration or the early Bush administration was terribly concerned about it.

As for not allowing the intel committees to tell the public what briefings that the president had recieved prior to 9/11, did it ever occur to you that this was designed to not reveal sources and methods of gathering intelligence? I know it is in the nature of those on the left to automatically make the worst assumptions about the president, but have you ever thought about alternatives? Also, did the thought ever occur to you that the reason the administration had to remain silent about the hijacker's ties to Saudi Arabia is because we are dependent on them for so much of our oil? That we cannot afford to upset them, thanks largely to the enviro-wacko movement and the left over the years who have hampered our efforts to use more of the oil located right here in the USA? As distasteful as this situation is, that is the way it has to be. Lets move on. Do you realize how many containers and how much other material enters into the U.S. from ports every day? Do you realize how long it would take to inspect every one of them, and the effect this would have on global commerce? It just cannot be done. Their are other things we can do, and are doing, such as installing radiation detectors, and developing systems to identify high risk containers. You are correct in noting however, that such efforts are not proceeding as rapidly as they should.(I am no Bush sycophant)

I am not familar with the Ken Lay accusations, so I'll skip that. On to missile defense-yes, the system was not operational when it was deployed, but this is very different than it not working. My uncle is in the process of rebuilding a classic car. It is not currently operational, but when it is completed, it will work.

I have to research your accusation about the administration leaking Valerie Plame's name.(I assume this is what you are referring to) I am aware of the quote by McClelland. I am also aware however, that Bob Novak, who was the first to publicly write about her identity, has said that his source was Undersecratary of State Richard Armitage. Surely you are aware, however, that Plame was not actually an operative, and her identity was in fact known in Washington circles, as well as that her husband is a proven liar as well. The Senate Intelligence Committee, at the time chaired by a Democrat, actually refuted many of his claims. Specifically, his initial claim that the president's assertion that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger was a lie was false. The intel services of both France and Britain had come to the same conclusion. To this day, the Brits stand by this.

Well, I had thought the though I disagreed with you, you seemed to be sensible until I came to the Murdoch War Machine comment. That is just loony.

How you can know that the president was interested in personal retribution is beyond me. However, your assertion that the war was also about oil is just plain laughable. Why haven't we just taken over Iraq's oilfields by force, instead of devoting as many resources to nation building as we have. Why have many of the first oil contracts from Iraq gone and are going to go to companies from Europe and India and China?(Bet you didn't hear that on CNN. I'll be a nut to-the Clinton News Network! Gee this is FUN!)

You are also correct in criticizing the care our veterans have received. However, this is mainly attributable to the inefficiency of government. Yes, the Bush administration does deserve some of the blame, as it happened under their watch, but the same thing more than likely would have happened under any administration, regardless of who the president is or what party they belong to. HEY, I have a GREAT idea! Why don't we but the same government in charge of healthcare for all 300 million Americans!?!?!?!?

Okay, on to Social Security and Medicare. You are very wrong here. That 2 trillion would not have made that much of a difference. Our governments unfunded outlays due to these ill-conceived programs is in the tens of trillions of dollars.

The next assertion you make that is just begging for refutation is that Iran has been emboldened to acquire nuclear weapons because of the war in Iraq. This is just ludicrous. Iran has had a covert nuclear weapons program since at least the 80's. And Iran does not regard us as a threat because of the constant wailing from the left over the idea of us attacking them. Yes, our ground forces are stretched, but we have the air and naval capability to do serious damage to their nuclear program and military. I should also note that negotiations will get us nowhere. They will continue to string us along and buy time. Mahmoud Ahmadinajad has a serious messiah complex.

Then you assert(I presume this is what you are referring to) that the administration deceived congress regarding WMDs. Again, this is laughable. A little searching will reveal to you that there are numerous statements from members of congress, both Republicans and Democrats, stating that they believed Saddam had WMDs before Bush even became president. As well, the intelligence agencies of the UK, France, Israel, Italy, and Egypt among others believed that he had them as well.

The level of animosity of today's left never ceases to amaze me. No longer content with simply disagreeing, they actually attribute dark motives to all whom they disagree with.

By keeemosabe @ Sunday, January 27, 2008 6:22 PM

Response #2 to Sammy Barts. There are many things the US can and should appropriately do in the world. #1. Choose our wars more wisely. 2. Fire those guys who choose bad wars. 3. Fire those guys who mismanage wars. 4. Put war #1 to bed before proceeding with a new optional pork barrel bonus war. 5. Be a friend to all we can by being the arms dealer in exchange for their barrels, quid pro quo. We can’t offer them much else, it seems, so trade them arms ( a step or 3 below our own) and let them be happy in the security of those arms if they so choose OR let them wear each other down by fighting with each other if they so choose. It’s their country,,, it’s their life. You can’t really control other people—not really. If you think you can, try dealing with a screaming 2 year old tot in a supermarket, which should teach you something about that total control that some people may think they have. 6. Make people take a stake in their own country and security. As it is now they are just using any security our soldiers provide to wrangle advantage of one group over the other. When on group begins to prevail, the US policy has been to switch sides and helicopter to the underdog’s aid. We will be dizzy from changing sides soon.

US citizens would do well to hold their leaders accountable instead of believing that blind party loyalty is “patriotism”. It aint.

Click Here to post a comment