Get ready for Irag-gate.

[Technosoul]

The democrats are now in the cat seat and they feel they were voted into office because Americans are unhappy about how President Bush and the white house staff handled the Iraq war as well as the (other) war on terrorism.

And so soon the hearings and the investigations will start up, taking center stage in newspapers. Investigations into possilbe criminal activity related to the war and the reasons for the war in Irag, and how the war was conducted and handled, and who knows what all? Some republicans support a white investigation of the White House concerning our involvment in Iraq.

Are you ready for Irag-Gate. Or will it be the Halliburton-Irag Gate. Hmm?

We had Watergate under Nixon.
The Iran-Contra gate under Reagan.
and now It is Bush jr's turn.

Rumsfield and others who worked with President Bush Jr are "old hands" at such "Gates" because they have already been through the other ones.

This will dominate the rest of the Bush term before the next Presidential election, no doubt.

[Compugasm]

Pppfff. I think it will be all for show, and nothing really comes of it. Anyhow, I don't watch news, so I probably won't hear about the farce unless volconvo mentions it.

[Praxius]

If the Democrats actually want to keep their power, then they're gonna have to show that they got a pair. They'll do what the US public wants..... find who to blame, and lynch the bastard(s).

Now how far will they go this time? I think you guys are in for an interesting year, lol.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Technosoul Are you ready for Irag-Gate. Or will it be the Halliburton-Irag Gate.

I am afraid no-Gates this time.
Democrats would have to share that policy (along with outcomes) as well.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Rainbow I am afraid no-Gates this time. Democrats would have to share that policy (along with outcomes) as well.

The newly elected Democrats would not have to share in Bush's wrongdoings as they were not in office at the time.

Once the war was underfoot the Democrats had no control over how Rumsfield and Rice officated the plans for the actions taken that were rather unproductive.

It is true that many leading Democrats orignally supported the war in Irag because they were told by Bush and his staff that soon Irag would be nuclear ready to attack the USA and we did not want another Bin Laden to emerge with real weapons of distruciton. England reported also that their research suggested that Iraq had some sort of secret nuclear program that was only months away form being ready for deployment. And the Democrats were swayed to believe that the United Nations was not acting fast enough to approve enforcing their demands for Sadam to "show and tell".

In other words, the Democrats were given false information and were deceaved about the potential for Iraq to be a short-term threat, and this followed close on the heels of the shock and awe of the 911 world trade center distruction. Most of us Americans were also fooled by the phoney reports presented as evidence by President Bush and his staff about Irag.
As well as those coming from England.

Now the Republicans wish to say that the Democrats believed it was wise to go to war based on the same data that President Bush believed in. But that is where we must investigate. Did Bush really believe those unconfirmed reports or just using anything (even missleading photos taken by a spy plane) to push for this war under protests from many U.N. members.

Did the Vice President create data that would "look good" so that Americans would support the war while his company Halliburton was granted full overview of the oilfields (which they had prepared to do years in advance of Bush being elected to office).

We did not orginate the war because Sadam killed some Kruds after they attacked him (in his car) and attempted to kill him. The trail came much later after Bush found out he was not guilty of hiding weapons of mass distruction, as a way to ease the outcry that the reason for the war was not acturally justified by confirmed data.

So no, I do not think the Democratic party had taken part in the creation of that "poor information" and related deception of it's useage. They will not need to share the "outcome".

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Technosoul The newly elected Democrats would not have to share in Bush's wrongdoings as they were not in office at the time.

I think you had better start following political statements made by Democrats, especially with concern to the U.S. Foreign Policy.
Whether Democrats want and/or want not to make some changes to the U.S. Foreign Policy, it seems to indicate some minor ones only.

Exception :
- new conditions and/or events
Other than that, everything goes its "normal way".

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Rainbow I think you had better start following political statements made by Democrats, especially with concern to the U.S. Foreign Policy. Whether Democrats want and/or want not to make some changes to the U.S. Foreign Policy, it seems to indicate some minor ones only. Exception : - new conditions and/or events Other than that, everything goes its "normal way".

So what are you saying? That we will have the same old same old stuff happening. We will have a Irag Gate but that the investigation will not punish anyone at the top of the heap in Washington (perhaps a lower "aid" only)?

That Bush Jr will retire just like Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. did after they had their "gates".

With a full pardon.

You might be right about that, no wonder Bush Jr is so confident.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Technosoul we will have the same old same old stuff happening. We will have a Irag Gate but that the investigation will not punish anyone at the top of the heap in Washington (perhaps a lower "aid" only) ?

#1
It looks that way, with some minor changes.
We have to pull out U.S. military personnel from Iraq. There are differences on political and administrative solutions, including technicality.

#2
I do not know the future, Technosoul.
Nothing indicates it would take place, so far.

[Chris]

oh geez, I fixed your other thread and just now realized it may have been intentional. sorry.

[gallo]

I'm not too sure that there will be an Iraq-gate. We already pretty much know that we are involved in a civil war in another country because we overthrew the government. But it wasn't done to make a profit or because of intentional deciet. It was because of pure stupidity. It may be deplorable, but it isn't criminal.

And now, Dubya admits that his "stay the course" policy is wrong and he comes out with another strategy. This time it's "finish the job." And how do we do that? We send in more and more troops.

And while my brothers and I were serving (my older brother was shot down over the highlands of Viet Nam, and my younger brother was over run in a assault) Dubya had daddy pull strings to get him into a closed reserve unit. And then Dubya didn't have the balls to even complete his obligation by attending meetings.

This is the leader of our nation who sends our children into combat. By the way, my son is an Army staff sergeant, so don't give me any crap about supporting our troops.