Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Aug 16, 2006.
i wonder if it'll do any good.
Poor reporting here. Lamont is not anti-war. He's anti-Iraq war. There's a world of difference, though I'm sure many pro-Iraq-war Bush supporters are more than happy to let the MSM continue to describe Lamont as antiwar.
Now, as for the Times article -- much of this is the same criticism leveled at the Bushies over Iraq: namely that this isn't a crisis, no proof of WMDs, no plan for what happens after we overthrow the government beyond "we'll be greeted as liberators".
Hopefully this level of rebuke will give the public pause. It certainly won't stop the True Believers in the Bush administration from pushing for another disastrous war.
Iraq wasn't a crisis either until...
I'm anti-war. Nothing to be ashamed of.
I wish I saw that 60 minutes interview with mahmoud ahmadinejad It seemed rather entertaining. Plus he has a blog now so maybe if we need some intelligence...
I'm not saying it's anything to be ashamed of at all, although personally I'm not totally anti-war myself.
Anti-war has specific connotations here. It implies that one would not go to war under any circumstance.
Bush's rhetoric tries to make it sound as if bombing and invasion are the *only* options, just like Israel's recent Lebanon adventure.
Think we'll be in Tehran by '08?
Yeah we will be in Iran and the Neocons will use it as a excuse to keep George or should I say Dick in Power.
Ha! Silly zim. Um, no. That was the plan all along, from what we've heard. Move from Iraq to Syria to Iran. Even after they've screwed up Iraq and never did finish up in Afghanistan, I'm afraid they're still going to try. Approval ratings be damned.
Then I guess sticking your hand in a running garbage disposal wouldn't be a crisis either.
Just really poor judgement.