Q U E S T I O N

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?

The resolution to invade Iraq was based on faulty Intel that proclaimed that Saddam was working on a reconstituted bio/chemical weapons program, investment in "yellow-cake" uranium from Niger, and ties to 9/11. All of which has been discredited and acknowledged by the President as being non-existent. Even those that assisted the Vice President write the NIE for Iraq in 2002 testified to Congress that the Itel. was "FIXED".

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?

Or is it, as the pro-BushCo's say, that Saddam resisted the UN Security Resolutions time and time again, so America took it upon itself to invade and throw Saddam out of power. If that IS to be true, then what says the UN on the matter? Then What says the AUMF of 2002 on the matter? Why is the Administrations claims of the necessity to wage war IN Iraq different today than they were last year, the year before, and the year before that which was different all together from the original reason, the "OFFICIAL" reason, the "LEGAL" reason given to Congress and the world back in 2002?

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?

The terrorists that Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, and Bush claim we need to fight in Iraq so as to not "have to face them here in America" arrived there only when America showed up on the scene in early 2003.

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?

And for The Administration to assert that those of us that question their leadership and goals of fighting ideologies and tactics with bodies and bombs, as being far removed from patriotic and closer to fascist supporters/sympathizers, need I remind you that tyranny IS a prerequisite for a fascist administration to denounce and label us as unpatriotic. The "DECIDER" and his minions are telling America to "SHOVE IT" and deal with it. That the voice of the people doesn't matter that much to him and that our occupation in Iraq and the Middle East will continue until the "JOB" is done.

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?

What is this "JOB" and what is this "FREEDOM AGENDA" and what is the "PLAN FOR SUCCESS" and what does this "SUCCESS" look like? Why is it "NECESSARY" to build permanent military bases in Iraq? Why is it "NECESSARY" to build the largest Embassy on the planet in Iraq? Why do the Iraqi people have to import crude oil when they used to be the top producer of crude?

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?

What is an "ISLAMO-FASCIST" and how does it differ from a "CHRISTIAN-FASCIST"? What is Fascism and how does it differ from a corporate controlled Government that uses belligerent foreign policy to mandate it's need for a global hegemony? How does Fascism's use of a unifying focus to rally Nationalism and pride around a common enemy and goal differ from what the current Administration's policy of governance is?

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ - STILL?

Sending to Murray or Cantwell?

BOTH

I might add the question...What legal right did we have to invade Iraq, and what legal right now exists to remain in Iraq? Are they using the "we broke it so we bought it rule"? Since Amnesty has stated they will charge Bush with war crimes, it might be interesting to see how Addington would respond to his Constitutional interpretations in this matter. No doubt they are already working on it. I'd also be firm in asking what they personally intend to do about resolving the situation and what legal justification they are using.

Oops, a foopaw. Strike that "we" in the above. Who's this we anyways. I know better than that. I'm not in the "we" category, I didn't invade Iraq and never supported it.
Make that "you", so it is directed at the villians themselves.

I did. In the second paragraph. I wrote

"Or is it, as the pro-BushCo's say, that Saddam resisted the UN Security Resolutions time and time again, so America took it upon itself to invade and throw Saddam out of power. If that IS to be true, then what says the UN on the matter? Then What says the AUMF of 2002 on the matter? Why is the Administrations claims of the necessity to wage war IN Iraq different today than they were last year, the year before, and the year before that which was different all together from the original reason, the "OFFICIAL" reason, the "LEGAL" reason given to Congress and the world back in 2002?"

Excellent Letter Max.

I hope you don't get a pair of form letters in return.
Would you be willing to send it to the editor of the Seattle Times?

What do you mean "FORM LETTERS"?

And as sending it to the Times. I should. YES!!! I will.

Right, that's good. It may be easy for them to just admit they were duped by bad intelligence for the initial invasion. If they feel pressured with a legal justification for continued actions, it puts them on the defensive and disallows a pure moral argument. We can't cut and run isn't a legal argument. Cival war might break out if they leave isn't a legal argument. Ideologies aren't legal arguments. Handing war powers over to the exectuvive branch and having no oversight in the aftermath is a failure on Congress' legal responsibilities. I think the more it can be couched in a legal argument, the more effective it could be. Forcing them at an individual level to own up to their legal responsibilites might even cause a brain cell or two to fire. Colussion with a war criminal ought to cause a few of them to rethink their future actions. One would hope. The less abstract the questions, and the more personal the questions, the more willing they should be to respond or take action. There's a whole lot of "shoulds" in there. Reality may be something totally different.
I guess I'm speaking more in general than to the individuals you are speaking of, who may have been on the right side of this all along (not sure). It would be more effectively used against the warmongering righties than those against the war. If, however, they are in favor of staying the course, they should be able to provide you with a legal justification for doing so.

I guess I'll throw this out there as well. I was a speech communications major, so I still look at things in that light. There are speeches to inform, to persuade, and to cause action to be taken (actuate), so letters are more effective if they take the form of one of those, rather than mixing them. So the meat of a letter should cause the reader to either be informed, persuaded, or to take action.

trinharder,

I look at that paragraph in real simplistic terms. Where are we at now and what is the current argument/position posed by the pro-war side? And now that we are four years out from the resolutions adoption and almost four years out from the presentation to the UN Security Councel, the reasons given going back through time have morphed. We are now engaged in a war where the enemy that the Administration paints for us is a different enemy than when they originally painted for the world four years ago.

Now, many people will say, "We broke it, we buy it." However, if we broke it, we need to know what we broke and who broke it before we can begin to correct course. And right now, the Administration doesn't want to correct course, instead, correct the deffinition of why we are in Iraq. Sure, we broke it. We broke it before we ever got there by buying the lies.

Eventually we will have to leave. The biger question of when, will be answered as soon as we know just why we went there in the first place. Lets see...

The LEGAL arguments:

WMD'S = nope not there... (be sure to check under Bush's desk. Really)

Uranium/nuclear development = nope

ties to alQaeda & 9/11 = nope

The consequential reasons:

Remove a tyrannical oppressor that murdered his citizens

Quell the 'Insurgency'

Install a democratic Government.

Hold elections

Build an Iraqi military

Quell the rise in 'sectarian' violence

Hold another election

Train an Iraqi military

Fight the terrorists there and not here

Freedom Agenda

While the consequential reasons may hold some validity, the reasons why we went into Iraq were based on lies. And at some point we have to start to repair the damage we've done.

Good point. Thanks.

Trying to mix logic with politics is kind of like trying to mix oil and water. You can try all you want, but in the end, they do not mix.

We will be in Iraq as long as it is politically expedient to do so as dictated by the powers that be.

OK, what (IYO) does this mumbo jumbo mean?
Is it another way of saying letter writing is another pointless waste of time?

Absolutely.

Figures