TCS Daily

You Say You Wanna Resolution?

By Alan W. Dowd - February 12, 2007 12:00 AM

The Senate and House are expected to pass resolutions this week condemning President Bush's plan to deploy an additional 21,000 troops in and around Baghdad. Congress, of course, has every right to take this step. But that doesn't mean it is right to do so.

At this writing, the 535 Members of Congress have introduced no less than 55 bills about Iraq, many of them directly related to the troop-surge plan. Some of the proposals seek to express a "sense of the Congress," which is to say, they would have no force of law, no teeth. (We will get to those in a moment.)

Elsewhere in the Congressional paper pile, there's a bill promising a "New Direction for Iraq." There's another outlining a "Comprehensive Strategy for Iraq." There's one unapologetically and un-embarrassingly demanding a "Safe and Orderly Withdrawal from Iraq." There's one that vows to "Protect the Troops and Bring Them Home." Another calls for redeployment of US forces from Iraq. There's one labeled the "Iraq De-escalation Act." In fact, there are lots of bills that use the term "escalation," purposely tinged, as it is, with the dark shadows of Johnson and Nixon.

One of the more straight-forward and potentially consequential proposals, from Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) would repeal the measure that authorized President Bush to go to war in Iraq in the first place. (Even if one disagrees with his ends, Congressman Farr deserves credit for his clarity, consistency and conviction.) Many of Congressman Farr's colleagues apparently have forgotten, but perhaps you remember it—the resolution that 296 House members and 77 Senators supported; the resolution that Senators Reid, Clinton, Kerry, Hagel, Snowe, Biden, Rockefeller and so many others rallied around once upon a time. Among other things, that resolution:

- Recalled that Iraq entered into a ceasefire agreement with the United Nations and promised to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs, and to end its support for international terrorism;

- Concluded that Iraq posed a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security by "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;"

- Pointed out that members of al Qaeda were known to be in Iraq, and that Iraq continued to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations;

- Noted that Congress had already authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;"

- Asserted that "Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups, combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions, make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;" and

- Explained that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 "expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

In other words, this was not an undeclared war. This was not a case of the President committing troops without prior approval, as so many presidents have done throughout American history. There was no bait and switch. And if there was, sizable majorities in the House and Senate were right in the middle of it.

Back to those "sense of the Congress" resolutions. They are generally feel-good measures allowing Congress to take a stand on this or that issue of the day—displeasure with TV violence, shock over genocide in Sudan or Rwanda or Bosnia, support for Christmas displays or the liberation of Iraq, sadness over some luminary's death, concern over a president's foreign policy.

Indeed, several Senators, probably a majority, have expressed a desire to express their disagreement with the troop surge (which, it pays to recall, is already well underway). The problem is they don't all agree on how to express that sentiment. Some Senators don't like that "escalation" word. Some say the surge is "not in the national interest of the United States." Some want to put the Iraqi government on notice. Others support the new policy without reservation. Still others sensibly note that the same Senators who oppose the troop surge just voted 81-0 to confirm Gen. David Petraeus to take over as commander of US forces in Iraq.

According to Gen. Patraeus, "the additional forces that have been directed to move to Iraq will be essential." A Central Command press statement adds: "Petraeus said he would not be able to do his job as commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq without the additional 21,000 troops President Bush has pledged to Iraq."

But less than a fortnight after confirming the general and wishing him Godspeed, the Senate's anti-surge bloc wants to hamstring his mission with a non-binding rebuke of the President who outlined that very mission. If that's not Orwellian enough, consider how the anti-surge bloc somehow claims that the rebuke is at once meaningless (vis-à-vis our troops and our enemies) and momentous (vis-à-vis the direction of the President's foreign and defense policy).

Like it or not, the real sense of the Senate was expressed when it voted overwhelmingly to confirm Gen. Petraeus and thus implicitly endorsed the President's plan, just as the real sense of the new House majority is expressed in the fact that it has not yet—after more than a month in office—mustered the will or votes to stop funding the war it ostensibly opposes.

Alan W. Dowd is a senior fellow at Sagamore Institute for Policy Research.



Surely the fact that the original Senate resolution was based on bogus data is relevent
I mean, all the citations about Iraq support for Al Qaeda and ""continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations," is stuff we now know was ginned up by (especially) Cheney and Rumsfeld.

We know that contrary indications were ignored or downplayed. We know that when U.N. inspectors went into Iraq and were finding nothing, even though they had cooperation, we invaded rather than allowing the inspection to continue.

> There was no bait and switch.

No; there was misuse of intelligence data. But now that we know that the threat was hyped, and the resulting war was an unnecessary disaster, it's not appropriate for Congress to take steps?

Putting it in the most direct terms: the White House was totally wrong in 2002. Why are they right now?

the only thing bogus, is your opinion
The data has been gone over by at least three seperate commissions, both in this country and in England.
None of them have found what your paranoid friends are trying to see.

No bad logic.
In supporting a General, but not the plan.

Good military leadership deals with what resources they have, but more importantly, if they don't have enough to do the job the must protest and ultimatly walk away if the have to.

He sounds like a good guy, I trust him to do the right thing no matter what.

Sorry, this is simply wrong - but please bring your quotes
But you never have any, do you??

Planet Earth calling.
What commissions are you talking about?

Just making up stuff on the internet, because you can hurts us all.

commissions or reports that don't back up what you say include a long list
The 9/11 commission
The Kay report
The Duelfer report
The recent Senate report on Iraq/Al Qaeda relations
U.N. inspector Mohammed ElBaradei's February 2002 (i.e., pre-invasion) report on Iraq nuclear weapons.

So please say, what commissions you're talking about, and quote them accurately, with urls or other ways that allow verification of your citation.

If you can't do this, please stop wasting everyone's time

On escalation
The strategy of escalation failed when we got to this point in the Vietnam debacle, coincidentally also four years into the struggle. Back then we had the draft, so we rushed a half million GIs into the country.

They failed to bring the desired results. What likelihood can we expect that sending 21,500 troops into a similar situation will bring about success?

The administration's transparent strategy is a pathetic one-- somehow hang on until 2008 and let the next administration take the hit for "losing" Iraq (and by then, no doubt, Iran).

Most of the public has finally awakened to assess the situation. They see it as a no-win game, and want the troops home now. Their most popular leaders are those advocating a cutoff of funds. And for a variety of reasons, I doubt we will see that happen.

So please keep on doing what you're doing, guys, while expecting different results. The peasants aren't yet marching on Washington with pitchforks and torches. So you must be still sitting pretty, presiding over a Global War that's not going too badly.

Mark the Great?
Mor like Mark the Lesser.

ok... but
Lemuel, though i agree that the resolution cited is on shaky ground at best, the real teeth of this argument/article is in the last two paragraphs - by approving Petraeus in the manner they did the Senate implicitly gave backing to the administration's surge plans, whether they agree with that analysis or not, its hard to deny the logic of such a deduction

I'm not so sure
In terms of "implicitly giving backing," what alternative was there? The president's the commander in chief. Congress can cut off money, which was what was finally done in Vietnam, but that's an extreme measure. What's clear is Congress has extremely good grounds for distrusting the political backers of this war - but that's no reason for questioning Petraeus competence and honesty. I do hope that Petraeus will speak truth to power if he sees a dead end.

i guess to me it was the manner in which he was approved, what was it 80 some odd - 0, and this *after* he said he supported the Bush escalation plan, saying he *needed* it to go into effect when every other military strategist is laughing at the plan - doesn't seem to fit with the level of competitence i would expect/demand of such a position (a level of competitence, which, in all fairness, the General has displayed, but that makes it seem like he just rolled over on this one for the president, again, not very reassuring)

and just for those interested individuals
yep, public edumacation strikes again, i realize i can't spell (competitententintly) ;)

Here's General William Odom's view
Read it & weep:

The role that US military forces can play in that conflict is seriously limited by all the political decisions the US government has already taken. The most fundamental decision was setting as its larger strategic purpose the stabilization of the region by building a democracy in Iraq and encouraging its spread. This, of course, was to risk destabilizing the region by starting a war.

Military operations must be judged by whether and how they contribute to accomplishing war aims. No clear view is possible of where we are today and where we are headed without constant focus on war aims and how they affect US interests. The interaction of interests, war aims, and military operations defines the strategic context in which we find ourselves. We cannot have the slightest understanding of the likely consequences of proposed changes in our war policy without relating them to the strategic context. Here are the four major realities that define that context:

1. Confusion about war aims and US interests. The president stated three war aims clearly and repeatedly:

* the destruction of Iraqi WMD;
* the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and
* the creation of a liberal democratic Iraq.

The first war aim is moot because Iraq had no WMD. The second was achieved by late Spring 2003. Today, people are waking up to what was obvious before the war -- the third aim has no real prospects of being achieved even in ten or twenty years, much less in the short time anticipated by the war planners. Implicit in that aim was the belief that a pro-American, post-Saddam regime could be established. This too, it should now be clear, is most unlikely. Finally, is it in the US interest to have launched a war in pursuit of any of these aims? And is it in the US interest to continue pursuing the third? Or is it time to redefine our aims? And, concomitantly, to redefine what constitutes victory?

2. The war has served primarily the interests of Iran and al-Qaeda, not American interests.....

continued at:

Oh, and before we escalate - why not finally armor the humvees?
The Army is working to fill a shortfall in Iraq of thousands of advanced Humvee armor kits designed to reduce U.S. troop deaths from roadside bombs -- including a rising threat from particularly lethal weapons linked to Iran and known as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFP) -- that are now inflicting 70 percent of the American casualties in the country, according to U.S. military and civilian officials.

The additional protection is needed for thousands of U.S. reinforcement troops flowing into Baghdad, where these devastating weapons -- used primarily by Shiite fighters -- are particularly prevalent, the officials said.

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
KnoxViews | News and views of the community by the community
Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs

Full List of Blogs (18 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On | On the web

Save & Share Article What's This?


U.S. Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan lack more than 4,000 of the latest Humvee armor kit, known as FRAG Kit 5, according to U.S. officials. The Army has ramped up production of the armor, giving priority to troops in Baghdad, but the upgrade is not scheduled to be completed until this summer, Army officials said. That is well into the timeline for major operations launched last week to quell violence by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, which the U.S. military now views as the top security threat in Iraq.

Ginned up intellegence
Back during the Clinton administration the same claims were being made verbatum by many high level administratiion officials and legislators from the Democratic party that now recant their opinion. This is on record. Do a Google search and type in your favorite anti war Democrat or Republican.
The MSM and the anti war crowd has led a somewhat effective disinformation campaign themselves. They have glossed over any good news or pictures from Iraq. They are using the exact same tactic as was used during Vietnam, not to mention the same old anti war crowd.
They claim to support the troops and not the war. This is their code word for, they do not support either and want to appear compassionate toward the troops.
I read about the Disabled Iraqi war veteran that got spat at during the last anti war protest. Then there is Arkin the supposed military expert on NBC that was a member of Greenpeace and Amnesty International before becoming a "military expert" trashing our troops in the blogesphere and getting away with it.
Democrats love social programs that buy votes from the recipients not wars that spread freedom and kill terrorists. It is all about money to them, they have no honor, that is why they are called politicians.

Sorry, it went way beyond that - but please share your suppressed 'good news' about Iraq
First, we have documented Bush administration efforts to embroider and cherry pick the most alamring information, while suppressing contrary views. The stuff about Al Qaeda links to Iraq were almost entirely due to this, and have proven to be unequivocally fictional

But second and much more damning -- we had UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq looking for WMD, and not finding them. In February, the nuclear inspector, Mohammed ElBaradei, unequivocaly found the Iraq had not active nuclear weapons program, none. He said so. Cheney said ElBaradei was 'mistaken."

>I read about the Disabled Iraqi war veteran that got spat at during the last anti war protest

Oh really??? Where did you read this? And if you have lots and lots of good news about Iraq being suppressed by the evil MSM, why not share it? You mean attacks aren't up? You mean people by the millions aren't trying to get out of Iraq? You mean oil production or electricity production is going up?

In this period of technological wizzardry, we have the internet with an unlimited source of information from all slants. You can Google search and get every perspective immaginable.
We all create our own political realities, some based on fact and some based on " cherry picked information" or disinformation. It depends on where we are the most comfortable.

Sources and liars
I am most comfortable with factual information backed up with documentation, specifics, real sources, coming from people who have names and address, not web handles.

Please document the spitting case in this fashion.

When Is A Bill Is Not A Bill?
Mr. Dowd -
In the US national legislative system, bills are proposals intended by the author(s) to become federal, national law, and must be agreed to in every detail between the two legislative bodies before they are sent to the President for his concurrence.
Many of the things you point to in your piece are in fact resolutions. These devices can range from a proposal for how each respective body, House and Senate, will function administratively (H. Res.; S. Res.), or how each will conduct other routine matters, up to a joint expression of how the two bodies feel about a given matter (H. J. Res.; S. J. Res.). They can call attention to something, be a form of praise or recognition, a call to action aimed at the Executive Branch of our government, or even a statement of objection or condemnation by both legislative bodies.
Which letter, H or S, comes first has to do with which body authored it and to which it pertains.
Laws, if signed by the President, or allowed to become law with out signature or enacted over a Presidential veto, become the law of the land - - - subject to subsequent legal rulings on Constitutionality, and as a practical matter as a function of how aggressively or assiduously they are enforced.
Resolutions are a sense and consequent expression of a majority of those present and voting opinion and nothing more. They neither bind legally not do they even have the force of moral or ethical suasion, as much as the legislators would wish for them to have or be percieved as having - - - something the parliamentry favoring members wish were the case in their never ending struggle for summa cum pares status with the Executive Branch.


me too
Same here. Just like Joe Friday said, "Just the facts maam".

But you can't document the story about the spitting?
Where did you hear it? Why did you believe it?

Why announce the buildup to that world either, why not do it queitly and unexpectadly?

Also upgrades take lots of time. Production rates, etc. Perhaps we need to get Iran out of the Frag Bomb business?

Remember the Sherman tank?

Peace Democrats
The democrats never change. Just like in the Civil War when they met with the south to defeat Lincoln. They meet with Iran to defeat Bush. Joe Kennedy supported Hitler and Teddy the drunk wanted to meet with Andropov to oppose Reagan. The party of peace is really the party of appeasement and capitulation.

It is pathetic.

War know-nothing
Sleep it off and come back when you have something to say on Iraq beside "yes sir Mr. Bush sir."

I don't write history
Go buy a history book.

No, you misrepresent it for your small-minded partisan political end
Go buy a history book about Nixon making a secret deal with the S. Vietnamese government to get them to pull out of peace talks, to help get Nixon elected.

Where and why
Fox news was my source and they had an interview with the veteran that it happened to. He was leading a counter protest in uniform.
I knew the MSM would not touch the story as not to upset their viewership. I know from having served during the Vietnam era that there are many in the peace movement that are overtly hostile to our troops and military. Their actions do not suprise me but they do trouble me.

You need a date, a time, a reporter, a name
And the spitting story from Vietnam era is notorious for lack of documenttion. There's a book on it, The Spitting Image, by Larry Lembke:

One of the many funny things is that the police were never called for a spitting incident - either by the veteran allegedly spat on, to break up a veteran insulted by the insult taking on the spitter.

It is all in what you wish to believe
I was never spat on which is a good thing for potential spitters but was subjected to hostile remarks and many dirty looks. At one protest we were assigned to keep protesters from stopping business at the pentagon, we had baggies of *****, urine, rocks, and anything else they could find thrown at us. They filled the baggies up right in front of us. They never got the chance to spit anything but blood and teeth after that. The DC mounted police assisted with their dispersment.
As for him not calling the police, he did not need to because he spat back. I am sure that even with his disability, he could have made a good showing of himself with the likes of the protesters.

I think they should debate....
I think they should debate where the line is between honest dissent and "providing aid and comfort to our enemies" (in case you don't know, that is the Constitution's definition of "treason").

How about Lincoln
Huh, why did they try to negotiate with the South? How about Teddy trying to negotiate with the USSR?

Admit it Lemming, you demand defeat so that you can say "I told you so". Better red than dead right?

No, it's about what's the truth
The Pentagon demonstration is documented, and your account is accurate.

But the spitting story on the Vietnam vet is always a guy coming back from duty in an airport who gets accosted by a hairy someone who spits at him. Except you can't find a confirmed instance of it happening.

As for the Fox story - without him calling the cops, or another witness vouching, it's just his word. And maybe he spat first - there a a lot of stories, well vouched for, about people who spat at people demonstrating against the vietnam war.

I see, the Democrats of today stand for slavery??
I'm not accusing all Republicans at all times of treachery and defeatism. But instead of focusing on what's actually happening and has hapapened in Iraq, all you can do is spin off hate speech against democrats, all democrats, any democrats, anytime. 40 percent of the country, all traitors and defeatists. Give me a break. Give youraelf a break.

No, not all, the party
How about the politicians in WA mouthing off? Murtha? Schummer, Teddy the Drunk? Who elected them ehh?

How about the Imamn that gave the speech to the DNC? Not a peep of dissent from Ivans party. I simpy point out the historical facts of YOUR party and it is hate speech.

Hey if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck?

The funniest thing is to watch Hillary trying to back track on her record.

So what do the politicians do, talk of non-binding resolution? How spineless is that? Cut off funding and lets see how well that sits with the voters.

You don't need an audience, you just need a mirror
As far as who elected candidates, voters elected them. Maybe you'd be happier in a country with differenct voters. You don't like Democrats? Vote against them. But you're not going to convince anyone not converted with this kind of hate-filled fact-free mudball barrage.

History is cruel.
Yeah, historical evidence is pretty hateful.


I take it you're against a resolution
Fine. that doesn't make the people who are either wrong or unpatriotic.

I disagree
I think it emboldens the enemy and sends the wrong message. It is thus unpatriotic. You people seem to think you can have you ckae and eat it to. If they want to end it then cut off funding. If not then get behind the mission. Either way.

This resolution crap is nothing but pandering to voter bases while doing nothing but harm to our troops in the field.

I have immediate relatives in the absolute thick of this so I have legitimate concerns. Lots of mistakes have been made. Among them is being to PC in this conflict and the politics being played with peoples lives.

Thank you for expressing your opinion
If you can define the enemy in this sentence, we might be able to talk:

>I think it emboldens the enemy and sends the wrong message.

Who exactly is the enemy. Don't say, "the people attacking American troops." Who are they?

> have immediate relatives in the absolute thick of this so I have legitimate concerns

I have a very good friend in the thick of it who is disgusted by the stupidity.

>Among them is being to PC in this conflict and the politics being played with peoples lives.

If the Bush administration was "PC" please explain how. YOu mean, admitting the stuff at Al Ghraib was wrong? Not carpetbombing the country? What exactly do you mean?

There is a excellent article on how Al Queda (or however they spell it) blew up the Golden Mosque of Sumerra (same issue with spelling) with the goal of starting the sectarian violence. They in fact have succeeded. In a large part Iran is both funding and supply arms to the terrorist. Until we are willing to deal with Iran (who has a active nuclear wmd program) this is all moot. Bush is impotent now due to the unrealistic expectation that once Hussain was history the handover would be easy. I am not sure that anyone would have thought otherwise.

The stupidity you mention is a lot due to the political paralysis in this nation. We have reach a point where we are likely unable to ever execute any war effectively, be it nation state or terror groups.

In any event, we are there and now we have some obligation to leave a stable nation lest Iran move in and create yet another theocracy.

My relatives theory is for us to pullback and concentrate on stopping Iran from importing weapons and then let them fight it out. I also know he has stated that CNN and the MSM news is full of BS.

I don't have all the answers. I do know that in large part all this postering is not helping both the moral and the situation. Certainly any opponent can see how the politics plays out and hampers the efforts. It seems to me we need to give this thrust a chance and shut up and see what happens. If it fails, and it might, then OK, we were wrong. However, to sit there and openly initiate failure before it has had any chance SOLEY for political gain is not only wrong it is absurd.

Don't fret, I suspect we will be pulling out by fall.

PC, yeah the Abu Graib thing was way over blown. Sure it was wrong but torture? The press made a mountain out of a mole hill. It is typical though of the MSM.

Al Sadr should have not been allowed to rise. We could have prevented many of the issues by having a harder line on the current government and insisting they cut bait.

Yes, I think we were so worried about world opinion that we have prolonged this.

Think about it. Do you really think in 1944 the nation would have passed resolution condeming the war or D-Day?

If you make up your facts, everything fits together
The point is not that our declared enemies are dangerous and enemies. we all know this.

The question is how to fight them effectively.

>Bush is impotent now due to the unrealistic expectation that once Hussain was history the handover would be easy. I am not sure that anyone would have thought otherwise.

Hello???? Bush's father thought so. That's why after the Kuwait war, we didn't go to Baghdad. Not knowing this, just by itself disqualifies you from posting on this topic.

> Do you really think in 1944 the nation would have passed resolution condeming the war or D-Day?

Why in the world would we have??? The war was just, pushed on us, and we were winning.

Lem - Document your sources for "Cherrypicking" and "suppressing"
You claim that there is "documented Bush administration efforts to embroider and cherry pick the most alamring information, while suppressing contrary views. The stuff about Al Qaeda links to Iraq were almost entirely due to this, and have proven to be unequivocally fictional"

Where is this documented? What is the source for this cherry-picking and suppression? I don't mean opinions from the NY Times or Ted Kennedy either. I think you need to provide documentation, specifics, real sources, coming from people who have names and address who were suppressed, and original documents from were cherrypicked intelligence was taken?

If you can't then your claims or just fantasy.

In eric's world, nothing is real until it is reported in the NYT.

It is what we wish to believe
I would like to give the vet the benefit of the doubt. It is hard for me to do the same for protesters, I have never been one or been associated with protesters except in the performance of my duties. I fully agree with their right to peaceful protest.
I just have an aversion to spitters. I was critical of the Vietnam vets' actions when he spat tobacco in Fonda's face at a book signing. I found her actions arguably treasonous during the Vietnam war, but would never spit on her or anyone else. That was grounds for corporal punishment for children in my family.

I understand
At one time that may have been true for the most part. Now they seem to have a fairly obvious agenda. They went from "All the news thats fit to print", to where they are now and that is sad.
Eric seems like an intellegent and thoughtful person to me even though I do not concur with some of his sources or their agendas.

No, it is not 'what we wish to believe'
I happened or it didn't. I was reported accurately or it wasn't. Whether it was someone whose politics you agree with or not doesn't change the facts. Which is what decisions (about wars, for example) have to be based on.

the cherry picking story to come up with an Al Qaeda link is documented in detail
It is the subject of a recent report by the Inspector General of the Defense department. The cherry-picker was Douglas Feith. Here's an overview:

Here's the key language:

>"The IG's report found that there was no support for the Pentagon's claim of a "mature symbiotic relationship" in all areas between Iraq and al Qaeda.

>"No one in my office ever claimed there was an operational relationship," Feith said on "Fox News Sunday." "There was a relationship."

Feith is doubletalking at warp speed, bu the facts are against him.The IG report is at least the third to point out that Iraq did not support Al Qaeda. The 9/11 commission and a report by the Senate Intelligence committee came to the same conclusion.

Doubling back to why the accusation was made by the Pentagon, we come back Feith ignoring contrary information and emphasizing stuff that fitted the (wrong) idea: cherry picking.

You have an official source that says the intelligence was accurate & appropriately analyzed? By all means brin git.

In Mark's world, nothing is real at all
He makes up facts on the spot, as he needs them, out of thin air.

To Mr. Dowd
As a Staunch Conservative Christian Republican I want more than a Resolution, but honesty from you?, I consider you, nothing but a liar; maybe getting paid, to repeat the lies that once flowed right and straight out of the Whitehouse from the mouth of George W. and his bunch of liars, especially Rumsfeld, eager to cover his behind, who once was in bed with Saddam?

Please, I will not respond to anyone other than Dowd? Were the inspectors truly given all the time, which, if I remember correctly was also a UN resolution? We have now a USA President that dreams, thinks, speaks and acts just like all Emperors of the past, as more and more tactics of despots are being used to try to rule the world, or so it seems to me!

Last word
With that, you may have the last word. I see no reason for further comment. Peace be with you.

TCS Daily Archives