Did He Plan It?

[Ash Wednesday]

Is is not disturbing that many Catholic leaders were vehemently outspoken in opposition to a war which was a matter of prudential judgment, while remaining silent on issues such as abortion and contraception?

I couldn't have said it better myself.

With that being said, with regards to the press raising questions about the President's timing and whether or not he planned to invade Iraq before 9/11 --

I honestly don't CARE if Bush planned attacking Iraq sooner than 9/11. I could care less about the timing of it all. It's called BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOREIGN POLICY. Bush had, and still has, a certain policy and way of approaching things, whether we agree with them or not. I don't think he came into the White House and suddenly changed as a man overnight. He is who he is, and he probably came into office with a certain philosophy about how things were supposed to be done from day one.

If Bush hadn't planned the war before 9/11, people would criticize him for being an opportunist and using the events of 9/11 unfairly for his advantage.

I didn't agree with the Iraq war, myself. People can question his foreign policy, I have no problem with that. But the question of WHEN he planned on invading Iraq to me is a pointless question.

Edited January 14, 2004 by Ash Wednesday

[Pio Nono]

JMJ

1/14 - First Wednesday

Regarding jrndveritatis' implied statement (this is to clear up possible confusion, not an attack on jrndveritatis ) about John Paul II's opposition to the war in Iraq, I just want to make it clear that no one wants war; however, at the outset of the war, a columnist from the New York Times asked the Papal spokesman what the Pope's stance was on the war with Iraq. The spokesman simply replied, "The Pope is not a pacifist."

Yours,

Pio Nono

[jrndveritatis]

dittoes on that Pio Nono.

[hyperdulia again]

"I am tradition."---Pius IX

[JP2Iloveyou]

Does it not matter that Saddam was executing thousands of civilians?

Does it not matter that Saddam was building WMDs (no sane person would deny this, even if we haven't found any, what did you expect, Saddam to leave signs pointing to the weapons?)

Does it not matter that Saddam was in violation of numerous UN resolutions, including a resolution issued the previous year authorizing the use of force if Saddam did not resolve these violations?

Does it not matter that Saddam was paying homicide bombers to massacre Israeli men, women and children?

I guess not. I guess it was just an evil, unintelligent spoiled kid from Texas who likes war and wants oil.

Of course Bush was not thinking about the responsibility laid upon his soul for the protection of the United States. He of course was not thinking about the price of inaction, and the risks it would pose to American civilians.

I guess it doesn't matter that France and Germany opposed the liberation of Iraq because they had lucrative contracts with Saddam. I guess it doesn't matter that Russia was selling technology to Saddam.

Oh please.

Is is not disturbing that many Catholic leaders were vehemently outspoken in opposition to a war which was a matter of prudential judgment, while remaining silent on issues such as abortion and contraception? (Please note, I am not referring to JP2 here. He obviously speaks out against the evils of our day.) Is it not a travesty that some Catholics vote for pro-abortion candidates in violation of clear moral principles, thereby endangering their eternal salvation?

Great post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, for those of you who keep wanting to talk about Bush and the DP, understand that under Texas law, the governor has very little, if any, say in the matter. This is not a dictatorship. In this country, and the states that make up this country, we must operate within the rule of law. The law in Texas is that the governor has no say regarding punishment. This is usually not the case, but, as I understand it, it is the case in Texas.

[foundsheep]

Great post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, for those of you who keep wanting to talk about Bush and the DP, understand that under Texas law, the governor has very little, if any, say in the matter. This is not a dictatorship. In this country, and the states that make up this country, we must operate within the rule of law. The law in Texas is that the governor has no say regarding punishment. This is usually not the case, but, as I understand it, it is the case in Texas.

The Governer does have the power of the mighty pardon to Life in prison.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

The Governer does have the power of the mighty pardon to Life in prison.

Actually in Texas, the governor does not have the power to pardon anyone from death row unless that inmate has been recommended by a particular committee. The governor cannot just decide to pardon someone.

[megamattman1]

I really don't know much about the issues in Iraq beyond the rhetoric but I do have some questions or ideas that could be responded to.

1.) Some people argue that we could have attacked many other countries that are oppressive (north korea?) but we chose to attack Iraq. Just something to consider. Iraq has been a threat in the past though so I can see the rational for attacking. This and some of the other points is where the oil stuff comes in whether it's true or not. So I can see the possibility of the oil rationale since I like to play devil's advocate so much. Any other ideas I'm missing?

2.) Whether or not the war was just, he didn't seek more diplomatic help considering time seemed to be on his side since inspectors were currently searching. Or he at least seemed to not deny that he knew that the falsified information was truly false. Just that he did the right thing. Even if the war was just, this is where some people reach the conclusion that it he took advantage of the WTC situation if the implications are true.

3.) I haven't heard any parallels to the WTC and Iraq yet. I think he took advantage of the situation unless he truly believed in the false information in which case he should be more adament about that instead of curtailing around it.

4.) Also, weren't the inspectors were currently inspecting? Again this is only important if he knew about the falisified information or not.

5.) Also no weopons of mass destruction were found. Of course he may have hid some or most likely would have made some. Sadam did need to go.

But does all these factors justify the means to our end? Again it'd help if he were more straighforward with the falsified info so we can at least think we know what's true and what's not. If he did this the only one of my points against him would be that he took advantage of the WTC situation. I think all these factors is why JP2 was publicly proactively against the war at the onset. I haven't heard of that comment from the pope's friend but Sadam did need to go and it's hard to tell what's true so I think that's why he's reluctantly for it.

[jrndveritatis]

What falsified information? I have yet to see hard proof of falsification.

If you are talking about the uranium in Africa, the last I heard (I could be wrong) the Brits were standing by that intelligence.

Agreed that Bush should openly say that he believed that report rather than hedging around it, but, hey, he is a politician.

As for using the WTC for his advantage, it is possible. But I personally am inclined to believe that Bush seriously cares about defending this nation and that Sept. 11 revealed even to him the need to do that more drastically.

[megamattman1]

I can't really see why he doesn't just admit that he thought the info was true. Since that's they only way I would think the war was just. The very reason that it was just and he is curtailing like a politician.

It'd only make sense for him to be more adament about the info! Maybe he's holding to his morals not to lie because he thought the war was justifed without the information yet decided to use the false information as a means to his end.

Of course I'll have to see if the false info really exists or not. There's so much hoopla out there it's not funny. But still wonderin why he not more adament.

Of course this would implicate him lying to the American public so this would only work if he thought that that course of action would be justified. But that begs to question why he doesn't just extenuate the lie and be more adament? Maybe he's tired of lying and just wants the public to catch on that it was going after Sadam bc he's ruthless regardless of the information. Kinda conspracy theroist I suppose but I'll consider it considering his lack of straightforward behavior regarding the info.

Maybe that it's just his personality showing through that he doesn't care whether or not there was information was true since Saddam needed to go. It doesn't mean it didn't exist or that he didn't believe it, but just goes to show what he really holds above all else and he wants us to know that. That's not very politically savvy but if he's doin it for this reason.. while I don't agree that all that mattered was that sadam needed to go.. I wouldn't mind as much as long as he's honest.

Maybe I'm just thinking too much?? I'm just trying to figure out why he isn't more adament about believing the very information that made the war just, in my eyes, to begin with.

[megamattman1]

I asked a friend (though biased as he is anti-Bush) and he said that England admits to the info. But he also says that they never claimed anything concrete.

He also said, I suppose that makes it make sense, Bush just acted as if it were concrete although it never really was. (if this is true of my friend) And that's why he's not more adament about admitting and saying that's why we went to war because of the info.

If it's not true what my friend said then I'm still upset he won't be more adament about it, but like I said in my last post it all depends on why he's not being adament which is hard to tell. :wacko:

[foundsheep]

Actually in Texas, the governor does not have the power to pardon anyone from death row unless that inmate has been recommended by a particular committee. The governor cannot just decide to pardon someone.

My bad, I was thinking of here in California. Thanks kilroy. :cyclops:

[megamattman1]

I've been thinking about his so I want to put down what I have found and believe.

1.) My friend could be right and he lied about the info and doesn't want to draw attention to it if England is saying that they never said anything concrete.

If my friend is wrong, he'd logically want to promote that he thought it was true if they said it was concrete so...

2.) He never really thought it was true when they said it was but just wanted to go after Sadam. In which case this is showing that he didn't care about the the weopons and didn't care about the very thing that I think made it just.

3.) He thought it was true and doesn't want to draw attention to the fact it didn't produce any true findings. So he meant well, but he's overlooking the very thing that made it a just war just to be a good politican. Which I don't like, but like Jim said, hey, he's a politican. But then I personally don't think this is a good political move, so either onea my others theories is true or he's doin bad politics.

Also he said that there were connections to the WTC, correct? That was false as far as time is showing. Or if he didn't say that (what's true??) then he just used the spirit of the WTC to help in his attack, regardless of what's true of my three points regarding that.

What do you all think?

Edited January 16, 2004 by megamattman1

[Winchester]

I think it was spontaneous and romantic.

[ironmonk]

First... we can't see his heart, we should not judge him.

Second... instead of listening to Hollywood and their bias opinions (to the point of lying), let's look at the facts. It's easy to make someone look bad on film, taking bits of his speeches out of context. They have to trash Bush to make themselves look good - this should be a sign....

And for those who say that Bush was "just a c student" at Yale, unless you've went to Yale or Harvard, or another Ivy League school, you don't have much room to talk... and it you haven't been to college, you've got no room to talk.... Another thing that's kind of funny, they never mention his MBA from Harvard...

Who's Smarter? by Cindy Osborne

The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid" , "morons", and "idiots". Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.

So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid", "ignorant" , "moronic" leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:

President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other than Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about his I. Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to URBANLEGENDS. COM and see the truth.)

Vice President Johnsonville brat Cheney: Earned a B. A. in 1965 and a M. A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capital Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.

Secretary of State Colin Powell: Educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U. S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country.(Note: He retired as Four Star General in the United States Army)

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: Attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U. S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U. S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U. S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77.

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge: Raised in a working class family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U. S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U. S. House, and was overwhelmingly re-elected six times.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice: Earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph. D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U. S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J. P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she resides in Washington, D. C.

So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their educations and background:

Barbra Streisand : Completed high school Career: Singing and acting

Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade. Career: Singing and acting

Martin Sheen: Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton. Career: Acting

Jessica Lange: Dropped out college mid-freshman year. Career: Acting

Alec Baldwin: Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal. Career: Acting

Julia Roberts: Completed high school. Career: Acting

Sean Penn: Completed High school. Career: Acting

Susan Sarandon: Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. Career: Acting

Ed Asner; Completed High school. Career: Acting

George Clooney: Dropped out of University of Kentucky. Career: Acting

Michael Moore: Dropped out first year University of Michigan. Career: Movie Director

Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School. Career: Acting

Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School. Career: Acting

Mike Farrell: Completed High school. Career: Acting

Janeane Garofelo: Dropped out of College. Career: Stand up comedienne

Larry Hagman: Attended Bard College for one year. Career: Acting

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders.

These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed, by freedom-hating terrorists, while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing Republican sits in the White House.

Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE, FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities.

So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"? I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him clout?

The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!

It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them.

Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH

God Bless,

ironmonk