Oh, and since I can't let anything go:
The peace movement was right -- and still is -- about Iraq.
The fact that the Bush Administration was lying about virtually every justification for invading Iraq was something any inquiring reporter could have exposed months before, not after, the invasion began. No ties to Al-Qaeda. No weapons of mass destruction. No danger to U.S. security. Dated, wildly exaggerated, or simply forged intelligence. An invasion that was illegal under any and every conceivable legal authority. And peaceniks have continued to be right: the anonymous (and, in the U.S., almost entirely unreported) death of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Many thousands more, including U.S. soldiers, will die from the radioactive munitions. And now the countrys being looted by the same bullies who overran it. Saddam isnt the only government leader who deserves to stand trial."
1. The "peace" movement has almost never been right. About anything.
2. There is no evidence that the Bush administration lied about anything....anything at all. There are some questions..."where are the weapons", "why is it taking so long", "why were there so many different reasons given", "why did they focus so much on WMD when there were a million other reasons to go in".....but there is NO EVIDENCE.
3. No Ties to Al-Qaeda: That can't be proven either. We know there were ties to other terrorist organizations. We know Saddam made payments to suicide bombers. But he had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda? Please. We may not know for sure, but the evidence surely doesn't point in the direction of there being "no ties".
4. No WMD: That's not really true either. We have found components. We have found hard evidence of intent to develop them further. We haven't found the weapons, which concerns me as much as it does you. We have found loads of WMD related items, gas masks, etc. Again, this is a valid question...but to come out and say there weren't any or aren't any WMD...that's off base.
5. Intelligence: Show me where you can prove that the Bush Administration knowingly lied about any intelligence. Show me.
6. Illegal Invasion: Again, show me how this statement is supported. Show me the international law the prohibited invasion. Show me the congressional act or part of the Constitution that prohibited it. Bush got Congressional approval. The UN had declared the "serious consequneces" would follow if Iraq did not comply with inspections. Are you telling me they DID comply? Please. And what else would "serious consequences" mean, given that we'd already tried sanctions, inspections, more sanctions, limited military strikes, and then...wait for it...more sanctions?!?! The old "this war was illegal" line is a favorite...but it has no basis in fact.
7. Unreported Deaths: Show me. Someone has to know.
8: Risk to US military: What is the point here? Is there risk? Yes, of course.
9. Country being looted by bullies: So we're there for the money? Unlikely and unsupported...as is the whole article. If we wanted cheap oil, we would have simply PURCHASED it. It would have been one hell of a lot easier than invading, pouring $100 Billion into a war and reconstruction, losing hundreds of lives, and spending years there straightening out the goddamn mess that the regime made the country...don't you think?
Try thinking before you post. We don't have to agree, but don't take some left-wing, Anti-American propoganda rag and splash bold faced print all over the place proclaiming your ridiculous opinion is justified and vindicated.