We're all sick of this crap, knowing it's going to go on for
How many years to come?
Voters elected GWB and they just stand there eating it
The US is up to it's ears in it -
The kids die for what?
There's not a damn thing thing anybody can do about it
You dont need a high school diploma anymore
To join up
The Marines and the Army are not seeking leadership
They need more warm bodies
Kids willing to bet they'll collect a bonus for surviving
The Bonus- they're paying it
Knowing drafting kids from high school would be so much easier
The bucks will come from somewhere
Liberty, democracy- Freedom
For the oppressed and downtrodden
By whose decree?
At what price?
Call me a cynical sonofabitch
Or call me a realist
I'm just looking at what's going down...cc

<blockquote><blockquote>Don't mention it....</blockquote>

I won't then...

</blockquote>

Nope, not worth it...

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

<blockquote>Don't mention it....</blockquote>

I won't then...

---

<blockquote>Yea, it's probly likely that the administration was in a
hurry to go to war. Many people in the army believe this to
be the case as well.

According to the Constitution, it is the legislative branch
that is supposed to declare war, and for the executive branch
to enforce the declaration. That is, Congress determines when
we should go to war, and the President (executive) executes the
decision. This is what the Founders had in mind I think.

With Iraq, it looks like the President was trying to bypass the
process in various ways. It appears that the executive has it the
other way around and that they think that it is they who have this
power instead.

The one exception that I can think of is that there would be an
IMMEDIATE threat that is posed to our security or to the security
of an allied nation. In this case there may not be enough time to
consult the Congress, and military force should be taken because
the executive is responsible for defending our national security.

</blockquote>

It's in the rules, the president on his own authority can deploy troops (IIRC for 60 days), for a limited amount of time. Like everything else in government the rules are largely convoluted, some bordering on ceremonial, and there is always a loop-hole around them.

I didn't need the WMD excuse (IMO that is all it was anyway). I saw a number of good ways for this to play out, and most of those had very little to do with Iraq. The jury is still out on whether they will come to be (some have, but many will take years to happen). WMD was just a populous friendly message.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

Yea, it's probly likely that the administration was in a
hurry to go to war. Many people in the army believe this to
be the case as well.

According to the Constitution, it is the legislative branch
that is supposed to declare war, and for the executive branch
to enforce the declaration. That is, Congress determines when
we should go to war, and the President (executive) executes the
decision. This is what the Founders had in mind I think.

With Iraq, it looks like the President was trying to bypass the
process in various ways. It appears that the executive has it the
other way around and that they think that it is they who have this
power instead.

The one exception that I can think of is that there would be an
IMMEDIATE threat that is posed to our security or to the security
of an allied nation. In this case there may not be enough time to
consult the Congress, and military force should be taken because
the executive is responsible for defending our national security.

Seems inquiring minds want to know about the fabrications which led to the Iraq War.

...troubling questions, indeed.

On May 5th, 88 members of Congress signed a letter that gives the president a chance to explain himself. That letter is reprinted below and is linked in a pdf file below.

May 5, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

*
Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

*
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

*
A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

*
A British official "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."



As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1.
Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2.
Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3.
Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4.
At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5.
Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?



We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

PDF file with all 88 signatures....

Did your Congressman sign this letter? If not... why not?

---

<blockquote>Friday, May 06, 2005

Secret British Memo Shows Bush Tampered with Iraq Intelligence

A top secret British memorandum dated 23 July 2002 was leaked in the run-up to yesterday's parliamentary elections in the UK (which Blair won, though his Labour Party was much weakened by public disgust with such shenanigans as the below). I mirror the memo below, from the Times Online site. It summarizes a report to Blair and others in the British government by Sir Brian Dearlove (This is the press release when he was appointed in 1999). The head of MI6, or the foreign intelligence service of the UK, is known as "C."



"C [Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

_________________________________

........the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Oh dear..... not more proof that things were never as stated.....

Sunday Times May 1, 2005</blockquote>

But then there was this report.

Friday, May 06, 2005

Secret British Memo Shows Bush Tampered with Iraq Intelligence

A top secret British memorandum dated 23 July 2002 was leaked in the run-up to yesterday's parliamentary elections in the UK (which Blair won, though his Labour Party was much weakened by public disgust with such shenanigans as the below). I mirror the memo below, from the Times Online site. It summarizes a report to Blair and others in the British government by Sir Brian Dearlove (This is the press release when he was appointed in 1999). The head of MI6, or the foreign intelligence service of the UK, is known as "C."



"C [Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

_________________________________

........the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Oh dear..... not more proof that things were never as stated.....

Sunday Times May 1, 2005

---