Supreme Court Upholds EPA's Ability to Govern Global Warming 9-0

[Scooter]

I read today where the United States Supreme Court, in a 9-0 opinion upheld the right of the EPA to govern greenhouse gases. I know there are strong feelings here, but when a bunch of Bushies legal lap dogs now let the EPA off the leash, this indeed is a slippery slope.

Legal control over global warming appears to be headed your direction. Just another reason to thank the Bushies legal lap dogs for this.

[Sponsored Links]

[flatfloor]

I thought it was 5-4 but what I can't figure out is if you think this is good or bad. :scratch:

[dl]

Well the evening news called it a big loss for the Bush administration. The lawsuit was brought by the car manufacturers against California's new emissions standards claiming that California didn't have the authority to regulate CO2 as "pollution" as Arnold has been pushing. Bush has been backing Detroit which doesn't want to clean up any more.

Correction: the supreme court case was actually 11 states (including California) suing the EPA. The other case I mentioned above was put on hold pending today's outcome.

- DL

[Scooter]

Good or Bad?

I distort--you decide.

Seriously, I think we have to have a government solution to a national problem that companies and individuals won't address--clean air and greenhouse gases.

The Bush legal lap dogs turned on their master.

[flatfloor]

Scooter, if China, Russia and India don't clean up their act, which is the stated objection from GWB, what good is it going to do?

[MHI]

One of the biggest reasons products are made overseas is because of EPA regulations.

Last I heard, the earth rotates. What happens everywhere else, will end up over here. Why bother.:)

[Scooter]

This has to do with air pollution as well. Maybe you like living in a pig stye, but the State of Massachuttes didn't and sued. S.Ct. upheld their right to sue, and compel the Bushies to do something about air pollution.

At least in this context, it is a regional problem.

[Shaughnn]

if China, Russia and India don't clean up their act, which is the stated objection from GWB, what good is it going to do?
Re-write that as "If my neighbors all take craps in their front lawns, which is the stated objection of my real estate agent, what good is it going to do if I stop doing it also?
The arguement is exposed for the silliness that it is. Doing "right" has never ever ever been dependant on what everyone else is doing. That's why they are called "leaders" and not "lemmings".
Shaughnn

[Scooter]

Pretty much whatever George Bush is for, I'm against. He may have had a couple good ideas in his Presidentcy, but screwed up pretty much everything he has tried to accomplished. But considering the guy lost money in every business venture and has been a complete failure, does this surprise anyone?

So if he's against the ruling, then I'm for it.

Al Gore--a distinguished Vetern that volunteered for VietNam and served with distinction; stellar Vice President, and Academy Award winning filmaker and distinguished author. I'll bank on Al anytime against the likes of George Bush.

[HS345]

Hi Scooter,
G.W. Bush has dropped the ball, many times, I'll give you that.
But, what is amazing to me, is your unabashed support for a hypocrite like Algore.

Carbon tax "credits", which funnel money into an investment firm owned by Gore, multiple large dwellings, private jets, just to name a few.

Please know this, I have nothing personal against you, Scooter, I enjoy reading your posts (about tile), and I'm sure you mean well.

There is hypocrisy on both sides, and I wish people could learn to be a little more open minded, instead of just blindly jumping on the partisan band wagon.

I am praying for you brother.

BTW, I grew up in San Diego, and most of my familia still lives there.

[Bri]

I don't see why I shouldn't believe smoking is bad for me...even if that info comes from a smoker. ;)

[Shaughnn]

Bri,
Because, just like with alcoholism and other addictions, there are compelling motivations to deny that there is a problem until the problem has grown to affect everyone else in your life.
I recently learned from the "X Prize" people that the original Model-T. built by Henry Ford got about 24 miles per gallon of gas. How many of us are driving vehicles, 100 years later, that get less mileage per gallon? The original diesel engines could run on cooking oil back in the 1930's. What happened that it's only now getting the notice it has? Is it because "rock bottom" is soaring into our collective view????
The glacier which feeds the Ganges River is receeding at a rate of 20 meters per year. At that rate, the volume in the Ganges will drop by 2/3 in the next 10 years, and with it the surrounding water table. That's over 400 MILLION people without fresh drinking water in the Ganges basin alone. It's measurable, it's predictable and without brave choices made by the most conspicuous consumers in the history of human kind, it's also inevitable. Not too worried about a bunch of East Indians??? How about your waterfront property in Florida. How fast are you going to be able to put stilts under it as the coastline encroaches around the world? Now, imagine weather cycles so chaotic that American farmers are not able to accurately predict when to plant. That's going to produce much lower yields and bankrupt even more of the few farming familes left here in the United States.
Forget about stranded Polar Bears and the vanishing Maldive Islands for a moment. IF global warming continues, that snow mobile in your garage may just become obsolete and the price of your delivered pizza might just become outrageous. If you can't get aroused by the plight of others, at the very least you should be able to be outraged by the inconvenience to your own gluttonous self. :)
With love and affectation,
Shaughnn

[Scooter]

Greg you said: But, what is amazing to me, is your unabashed support for a hypocrite like Algore. Actually, his name is Vice President Al Gore, not algore. I think algore is a mathematical forumula, like an algorithm. Seriously, I just think George Bush is an idiot, and there are few people in this world that could have governed worse than he has--a stupid war that sucks up American blood and money without foreseeable end; a callous attitidue to our Vets, opposing full medical care for National Guard, even though they have turned into full time soldiers; the partisan rancor, calling anyone who disagrees with him as a traitor; his constant lies about the WMD, Abrhamoff, and Alberto Gonzalez, and yes, his blind igornance of facts. Yesterday, he sent Cheney to Rush "the drug addict" Limbaugh where Cheney repeated the Al Quaeda connection to Iraq a couple of times. Today, the Pentagon issued a 112 page Report stating, for the 3rd time, there was never any connection. Whats up with that? They just lie. I think Ann Coulter would make a better President--at least she's honest.

So, yes, Vice President Al Gore or Ann Coulter would be a better choice in my book. I am so discusted about the mess he has gotten us into I could scream. :bang:

Greg, you said There is hypocrisy on both sides, and I wish people could learn to be a little more open minded, instead of just blindly jumping on the partisan band wagon. You know, if you look over my posts from 2001-3, you will see that I fully supported Bush. Why don't you do a search of Iraq, Bush, and the War in the spring of 2003, and look at my posts before you tar me with something like that? Now, I tell you, I feel betrayed by Bush, and feel like an idiot, having supported him and his pack of lies. I am NOT partisan. Do I feel strongly that Bush, Cheney, and Dumbsfeld are a lying sacks of crap and have destroyed this Country? Yep. But I think you are equating a strong personal opinion and a sense of betrayal with "partisan politics" and hypocracy.

If you don't think this moron is the worst President in the last 20 years, then you must be part of the 25% of Americans (his base) that actually believes the crap he is selling.

Oh, and by the way, I actually don't fault him for his current lies about the Iraq war. If he told the truth (Iraq is a mess, there is no military solution, the Iraquis simply won't make the political sacrafices to enable the country to self govern, and without an Iraqi political solution, no amount of trooops for any period of time will solve this problem), then he could not justify the troop level, the combat deaths, the money, and his decision to go to war. People like Bush do not admit mistakes. So I understand. America is a very forgiving Country, and I think if he leveled with Americans, they would understand, but that's not Bush's thing.

Anyway, the point of this all is that pick an idiot, any idiot, Ann Coulter, Scooter Libby, Charley Rangle, Al Sharpton--any of them could not have screwed up this country as much as George W. Bush has.

[Oldrem]

Many people tend to have short, selective memories. Clinton was handed a rising economy - and destroyed it in 7 years. The stock market crash of March 2000 - nearly a year before Bush took office - is in most part why the American economy took a dump and has been slow to recover.

Lies about WOMD? Long before Bush - Clinton, Albreight, Pelosi and many leading Dems ALL touted that Iraq had them - all agreed Sadam had to be removed. Most supported the war until it became unpopular in the liberal media - then turned coward rather than offering intelligent solutions.

[MudMaker]

I try to understand the Liberal mindset. No offense. I really have a difficult time with it.
The idea is if the school bully takes your candy one day, you bring more for him the next day to make him happy because ya know taking the same amount of candy won't satisfy him the following day...
I've heard some Liberals say: I'd give Saddam all the money he needs to help put his country back in shape.. When asked when would you stop? The answer was never... See I can't relate to that, if the school bully takes your candy one day - be prepared the next day for the battle royal...
The fight in Iraq is not over. Our presence there gives us intelligence that we would never get if we were not there..
I get the guys and gals are dying in Iraq.. but ask them when they return if they want to go back and the answer is Hell Yes... Are we making a difference? Hell Yes...
You can't measure the success of a War by measuring our casualties..
By the way, I have lots of Liberal friends - we just never talk politics... :)

[MudMaker]

Charley Rangle, Al Sharpton

President Rev.Al Sharpton.....
Or would that be Rev President Al Sharpton.........Now that has a ring to it..
Where would the country be if he had been Pres for the last few years?

[Scooter]

Al Sharpton.........Now that has a ring to it..Where would the country be if he had been Pres for the last few years? Uh, lets see. We'd have civil liberties, we'd have honest politicians that didn't commit crimes, we'd have honest prosecutors, not the political hacks that the Bushies substituted in so as to avoid further prosecutions of corrupt politicians, we'd have 3,000 more Americans alive, 30,000 more un-wounded Vets, we'd have Vet Hospitals that actually worked, we'd have pollution laws that didn't reward the polluters, we wouldn't be in Iraq, and we probably would have caught OBL.Oh, and we wouldn't be one trillion in debt.if the school bully takes your candy one day, you bring more for him the next day to make him happy because ya know taking the same amount of candy won't satisfy him the following day...Oh, you mean like how we treat Maliki and King Fasal? Yeah, Maliki promises tons of stuff would happen by January or we would be outta there. He doesn't do it. Instead he hires Shiite death squads to plant IED's to kill us. Does that bother us? Heck no. We make nicey nice, and give him more money, to buy more bombs from Iran to make more IED's to kill more troops. We continue to prop up the Saudis when they publically announce that America doesn't belong in Iraq and we are the bad guys. Does that bother us? Heck no, Fasal controls a corporation which pays GHBush Sr millions a year as a director, and presumably will follow suit with GWBush. We can't publically criticize his public criticism of us, because it would affect the pensions. The fight in Iraq is not over. Our presence there gives us intelligence that we would never get if we were not there.. Ask General Patreus. He stated no amount or army, no amount of bombs, no period of time will solve the problem over there until the Iraqis cut a deal with the Sunnis. That never happened, hasn't happened, and won't happen until we get out. Dude, this is a civil war, do you not see this? I get the guys and gals are dying in Iraq.. but ask them when they return if they want to go back and the answer is Hell Yes. This is eposodic. My wife and I average 3-4 packages to Iraq a week, and have been doing this since 12/01. At least on the enlisted man level, they are sick of it, and do not want to go back. Maybe you are talking to different people then I am.Are we making a difference? Hell Yes... On this we agree. It used to be a country with electricity that operated 4-6 hours a day, now it is down to 2-3 hours; It used to be a country in which the "Green Zone" was a pleasure palace of fabulous restaurants, embassies, nightclubs, and specialty shops selling everything, including liquor, clothing, and cars, now its an armed camp where between 25-100 people die in bombings every day;It used to be a country where people could drink the water, now it an open sewer; It used to be a country that had less than 5% unemployment, thanks to Dumbsfeld, he, with a stroke of a pen, created 1.5million unemployed pissed off Iraqis, who remain so; It used to be a country that had a thriving work force, repairing the infrastructure, now Kuwaiti subconstractors working for Halliburton do all of this, further pissing off the population; It used to be a country that could defend itself and provided a counter-balance to Iran, a true axis of evil, now Iran has more influence in Iraq than we do. Yeah, we sure made a difference. You can't measure the success.... No, but I can see failure when I see it.

[MudMaker]

Scooter,
You're readin too many comic books...

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/updates/jan07/iraq_fs02_010807.pdf


My wife and I average 3-4 packages to Iraq a week, and have been doing this since 12/01.
Thank You for your service... We donate so that soldiers can make telephone calls home...

[flatfloor]

we'd have honest politicians that didn't commit crimes,

Scooter, I never thought you were naive but that statement takes the cake, no dishonest Dems? Please, you just destroyed any credibility you had.

[HS345]

Scooter,
If you want to get technical, his name is Former Vice President Al Gore. You know, the one who lost the 2000 election to the biggest moron, idiot, BBQ jockey, Havard, Yale graduate, second term, PRESIDENT George W. Bush.

I am glad to know you are NOT partisan though, I feel much better. :shake:

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
Scotter's being honest here. I remember whe *I* was calling the lead up to the invasion of Iraq a fraud and Scooter was gung-ho to point out what a misguided pansy-ass I was being. He's had an epiphany about the current administration but that isn't changing his voter registration. Try taking him up on his challenge to read through his posts from two years ago and you'll quickly see why you might owe him an appology for calling him partisan. His sentiment rings soundly of a man betrayed. Of someone who has put his trust into the hands of authority only to have them proven corrupt. Scooter's pointed out on numerous occasions the high level of regard he holds for ALL service people and has been sending care packages to American service personel since the beginning of deployment. As a veteran of the war in Viet Nam, he's aware of their needs and equally aware of the importance of having the support of your nation while at war.
No body has been called "baby killer" during this war. No body has criticised the soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines in this conflict. All of the blaaming fingers have always been pointed squarely at the leadership in the White House and it's sinister lapdogs. Even the spectacle of Abu Ghriab, which the President's people tried to foist onto the service personel, has always been blamed on the deliberate direction of Donald Rumsfeld. There is no partisan fist-pumping going on here. People are just pissed off for their own reasons, and even the FOX polls admit that number has breached 60%.
So, lay off Scotter, please and please lets all stick to the issues rather than stooping to personal jabs and opinionated accusations.
Thanks, :)
Shaughnn

[HS345]

Shaughnn, Scooter,
My sincere apologies if I offended anyone, that certainly is not my intention.

As you can see in my original post in this thread, my purpose was to have a civil dialouge with Scooter.

Please know this, I have nothing personal against you, Scooter, I enjoy reading your posts (about tile), and I'm sure you mean well.
I am praying for you brother.

BTW, I grew up in San Diego, and most of my familia still lives there

I just find it interesting that Scooter holds up the likes of Al Gore, and Al Sharpton, as beacons of morality. NOTHING could possibly be further from the truth.

The definition of partisan taken from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

Again, if I was wrong in my assesment of Scooter, I apologize.

I also find it interesting, that Scooter chastised me for the slightly off-handed and minimally insulting term "Algore", yet he continues to make dispariging remarks like "Dumbsfeld".

Additionally, I never said ANYTHING about Scooter's support for, or against, the troops. I praise him for that support. I was also unaware of his service in Viet Nam, let me thank him here and now for that service.

No body has been called "baby killer" during this war. No body has criticised the soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines in this conflict
I beg to differ, Sir, perhaps you have not read any of the far left wing blogs, or incoherent ramblings of the mainstream punditry. Just do a google search of Pat Tillman, for starters.

Sincerely, Greg

[Shaughnn]

Greg,
I don't read any blogs. I personally feel that blogs, especially idiosyncratic blogs, offer very little to the social discourse. The only value they serve is that the weight of thier "mob interest" forces commercial media interests to devote resources to topics which they might otherwise choose to ignore or place little emphesis on. Blogs, especially idealogical blogs, "preach to the pews" and that's never been a fertile ground for honest conversation.
The "far left" is just as ludicrous as the "far right", so their contributions aren't relevant to our social conversation except as a bold, and sometimes frightening, reminder of how broad or narrow our views have become. Pat Tillman and the controversial revealations about his death are a perfect example of why blogs and bloggers are useless as referance material. I can choose to *use* Pat Tillman's case to argue for a continued deployment by pointing to his selfless patriotism. I can use it to expose the duplicity of the White House and it's callous disregard for the service men and women who are thrown into the maw of war for their own private gain. I could even use Pat Tillman's death to rail against income taxes here in the United States and the absence of bicycle lanes in major American cities, if I cared to. But, when held up to the candlelight of honest discussion and debate, most of those positions might loose some of their edges, if not errode completely.
Scooter did not hold up Al Sharpton as any sort of exemplory figure. He used Al Sharpton in a comparrison to PResident GEorge Bush, and said that Sharpton would have done a better job. I read that as saying that even a worthless media-whore race-baiting blowhard with no real political agenda except the advertisement of himself would be a better choice that the current occupant of the White House. Do you disagree? :)
Donald Rumsfeld was an appointee. Al Gore was an elected vice-President and Senator. Decorum describes the defferance allowed for each, and while I personally dislike the namecalling which others choose to engage in when speaking about public figures, it's not prohibited here or anywhere else (to my knowledge).
Have a happy Saturday, :)
Shaughnn

[HS345]

Shaugnn,
Mostly valid points.
I think I may have a new found respect for you. :cool:

Scooter did not hold up Al Sharpton as any sort of exemplory figure. He used Al Sharpton in a comparrison to PResident GEorge Bush, and said that Sharpton would have done a better job. I read that as saying that even a worthless media-whore race-baiting blowhard with no real political agenda except the advertisement of himself would be a better choice that the current occupant of the White House. Do you disagree?
I do disagree, but isn't that the point of these debates?

Take care Shaugnn, I look forward to debating with you in the future.
You have a nice Saturday as well. :)
Greg

[Scooter]

However, the fact remains that Shaugh is a misguided pansy-ass. Always has been, always will be. :D

And Greg, I am not "a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance." Indeed, I've switched horses. I used to have a "blind, prejudiced, and had unreasoned allegiance" to our President, and now I realize I was wrong. Me and about 60% of the Nation.

"I just find it interesting that Scooter holds up the likes of Al Gore, and Al Sharpton, as beacons of morality. NOTHING could possibly be further from the truth." No I don't--read my post Greg. What I said is that anyone, Ann Coulter, Scooter Libby, Al Sharpton, anyone could have done better than Bush. I guess you disagree. Whats up with that? Feeling a little defensive today?

As far as "algore" I was making a joke about your obvious typo and said so. Sheesh. Lighten up dude, or switch to de-cafe. Yeah, I call Rummy Dumbsfeld. Sorry--but it is so right. Of all the dozen books I've read on this war, all point their finger at this boob for the making the crucial mistakes in the ramp up and execution of the war and the failure to plan for "after." Do you disagree?

Really Greg, I am OK debating you, but you need to read my post and not distort it and twist into some partisan shape that fits your mold.

I just think at this point in time, we have screwed this whole thing up so bad, that it can't be fixed--not with an extra 20,000 troops or 200,000 troops. Our Army is broken. There is no end in sight and even General Patreus stated last week that unless and until the Iraqis make political deals with the Sunnis, no army of any size, staying there for any period of time, with any weapon system, can fix this problem. I see no future there.

Today, El-Sadr (the Prime Minister's main supporter) announced that he wants to kill all Americans and called for the bombings of all of us. Great. Just F'ing Great. We throw money at Maliki and this is what we get. Our Army had the CS surrounded in 2004 and Dumbsfeld called them off, at the request of Chalabi, who was our darling from 2003-2004, who is a pro-Iran Shiite. Yet another mistake of Rummy, the good idea fairy, as we used to call guys like him. Shoulda taken the Sugar Frosted F'tard Sadr out.

I am so pissed at this latest development I could scream!

[HS345]

Hey there Scooter,
I did start out trying to have a civil dialouge with you, then it sort of morphed into Shaughnn sticking up for you, and me explaing myself to him.
I've apologized to both of you, not sure what else to say. :shrug:
I will consider your deeecaaaaffff suggestion though. :twitch:

Shoulda taken the Sugar Frosted F'tard Sadr out.
Glad to see we agree on something.

[Scooter]

Greg, you do not "owe" me an apology. I have a thick skin, and take nothing personal.

Can I ask some pointed questions of you?

1. What do you think of the casus belli in Iraq, e.g., the reasons for the war. Are you comfortable with the idea that the US could take faulty dead wrong intelligence and base an entire war on it? Do you feel the slightest bit disappointed (angry, upset) at our leaders for ushering in this war on this basis? Or is the war justified on other grounds?

2. What do you think of President Bush's war planning e.g., less is more ("shock and awe"), fewer boots on the ground? Was that a good strategy?

3. What do you think of former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's handling of the post war operations, specifically the disbanding of the Army, his handling of de-Bathification, and the Abu Girhab (sp?) prison scandal? Do you think he should have be fired sooner, or should he still be at the post?

4. Are you comfortable with the strategy of having an Iraqi in charge (Maliki) who has close ties to el Sadr, who has been, is and will always be calling for the death of Americans, even though we "liberated" his country? How do you feel about Bush's handling of that leadership issue?

5. Do you really think we can "win" this war without Iraqi Shiite political conssessions to the Sunnis? If the answer is "no", then how long should we stay in Iraq?

I've tried to frame these questions in as neutral language as I can. But an answer to these would help me understand your position better.

[HS345]

Hey there Scooter,
Greg, you do not "owe" me an apology. I have a thick skin, and take nothing personal.

Can I ask some pointed questions of you?
Glad to hear it, and, yes you can.
1. What do you think of the casus belli in Iraq, e.g., the reasons for the war. Are you comfortable with the idea that the US could take faulty dead wrong intelligence and base an entire war on it? Do you feel the slightest bit disappointed (angry, upset) at our leaders for ushering in this war on this basis? Or is the war justified on other grounds?
Whether or not the intelligence was faulty, or dead wrong, is not the issue. Every intelligence agency on the planet was in agreement. Could we afford not to act? I don't think so. I personally am not convinced that the intelligence WAS wrong. Sadaam had umpteen U.N. resolutions and years of non cooperation, to conceal whatever he was doing. Is it not at least somewhat plausable, that wmd could have been moved, or relocated? So, on that basis, I am not upset at our leaders for taking us to war. And war WAS justified on that and many other basis'.
2. What do you think of President Bush's war planning e.g., less is more ("shock and awe"), fewer boots on the ground? Was that a good strategy?
It was an excellent strategy.
3. What do you think of former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's handling of the post war operations, specifically the disbanding of the Army, his handling of de-Bathification, and the Abu Girhab (sp?) prison scandal? Do you think he should have be fired sooner, or should he still be at the post?
I think the post war handling of the war was terrible, and Rumsfeld should have been fired sooner. Having said that, I think Rumsfeld did what he thought was right, and is a good man. His hands were tied by his Boss (G.W.), due to intense pressure from the left wing media's unrelenting bashing of the Bush administration. As for Abu Girhab, that was another thing blown way out of proportion by the media. A few low level scum bags that got caught placing underwear on guys heads etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, in the military, the people in command are responsible for what their charge's do. These people have been properly punished.
4. Are you comfortable with the strategy of having an Iraqi in charge (Maliki) who has close ties to el Sadr, who has been, is and will always be calling for the death of Americans, even though we "liberated" his country? How do you feel about Bush's handling of that leadership issue?
No, and this is one of those instances I was talking about Bush dropping the ball, big time.
5. Do you really think we can "win" this war without Iraqi Shiite political conssessions to the Sunnis? If the answer is "no", then how long should we stay in Iraq?
Probably not. As for how long we should stay in Iraq, I don't know. I don't see how we can leave right now, with the mess we've made of things. We should have learned our lesson in Viet Nam, polititicians are terrible war "strategery-ists", and they should let the Generals fight the wars, once the decision is made to take our brave, fighting men and women, into harm's way.
We have the most powerful military in the world, if we're not going to utilize it as such, than we should not fight wars. Unfortunately, if that's the case, then this once great republic is not long for this earth.

[Scooter]

Naturally disagree with you on Item Nos. 1 and 2. I'm not surprised though; it seems the right sees a need to defend and not admit a mistake on No. 1; and still think that a high tech army and air force, without a large number of boots on the ground, can conquer and defend a country.

I think at the end of this, you'll come around to my point of view on Issue No. 2, that a Colin Powell strategy of out-numbering your opponent close to 2-1 or the standard military ratio of 3-1 would have been the proper course of action. Thats OK, I have about 650 days left to prove my point.

I doubt I'll ever convince you and the 30% Bush Base of the flaws of your analysis on Issue No. 1, and won't try here.

We'll talk again in about 650 days. Stay tuned.

[HS345]

Scooter, If a mistake were made on your item No. 1, then the left is just as much to blame as the right. Most of the left wing leaders were in agreement (with the exception of maybe, Dennis Kucinich), regime change in Iraq was necessary. It is the left who is not intellectually honest enough to admit that they WERE on board.
I never said a war could be won by a high tech army and air force. I said the initial plan of "shock and aw(e)", was, and is, a good one. As evidenced by the quickest overthrow of a regime in the modern history of warfare.
After that, I agree with you, 2 to 1 boots on the ground, would have been better.

Who said this, in the run up to the 2004 election? If you do not think Sadaam poses a threat with nuclear weapons, then you should not vote for me.

[Scooter]

Who said that?

Probably everyone.

But the point is really this--Oh, as an aside, you should read "Fiasco" the book on the ramp up to the war--very interesting reading. If you even suspect the war plans were bungled, you'll really be pissed off after reading that.

But the point is this--no one, not a single candidate was strongly advocating a pre-emptive full scale military action against Saddaam, save and except George Bush. The "Fiasco" book makes it crystal clear, based on Pentagon documents both pre and post 2003 that the no fly zone and embargo by President Clinton worked incredibly well, so well that we didn't realize it until about 2004 how well it really did work.

I don't entirely fault the CIA for getting it so wrong, as much as I fault President George W. Bush in not telling the Congress in the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) given to the Congress prior to the 2003 invasion, that the casus belli was based, in large measure, upon the alleged confession of an Iraqi held in a German prison, who was a notorious drunk and had priors of exaggerating stories for rewards or to feed his own measure of self importance. This informant, affectionately called "Curveball" was the source of 80% of the WMD "intelligence". The CIA never interviewed him and only took digests from the German Secret Service who also stated he was unreliable.

That crucial fact was in the unabridged NIE given to Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld. The abridged version (missing that information) was given to Congress.

Essentially, Bush cooked the books on intelligence, spoon feeding Congress the drunkard's story but leaving out the fact that he was a drunk moron who couldn't be trusted. I just don't think we as a Nation should have gone to war on the one-sided story. If we are asking 120,000 soldiers to place themselves in harms way and basically destroying an entire country, we need the whole truth and some carefull deliberation before doing so.

On the heels of 9/11, the cooked books and the President's speeches made it crystal clear to me at least, that we had not a moment to waste. Unless we attacked Iraq then and there, we were at grave risk. So he sent Colin Powell, one of the most respected Administration Members to the UN to accuse Iraq of WMD; and Saddaam denies it. Who ya gonna believe? Bush or Saddaam? Sadly, Bush was lying and Saddam was telling the truth. Incredible, wasn't it?

Thats my take at least.

You are free to disagree.