Talk:Citizen groups ask Congress to file formal "Resolution of Inquiry" against Bush
Alright! Bring this idiot down!!!
Especially considering this: Widow's Bush Treason Suit Vanishes in Blink of Media Eye: http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/soc.culture.australian/msg12359.html
A better link: http://nhindymedia.org/newswire/display/369/index.php
my view 
By focusing on WMD's as the primary cause, Bush succeeded in intimidating the other countries that we will likely attack next. So far, this policy paid off big time in the case of Libya. Not a single bullet was fired, and Libya gave up their WMD program. If you think life is bad now, wait until America gets nuked. And yes, this will happen regardless of what we do. We can become the kindest liberal pussies in the world, and it will not stop the attack that is coming. I predict it will be a pakistani nuke that is sold to terrorists, after Musharrif is out of power. I predict that we will nuke Iran in response, because of their lack of cooperation, and our inability to figure out who did it. If you think life is bad now, wait about 10-20 years. The future is very bleak. Nuclear weapons and human nature can not coexist. As for saddam, he admitted he wanted the Iranians to think he had WMDs. Saddam was a thug who did not know how to play the game of geopolitics, or else he would not of acted the way he did all thru clintons term. He never considered the next president looking back on what's transpired, and deciding to take him down, what a FOOL. Doing troop movements up to Kuwait on the same day that Clinton is to be impeached, forcing Clinton to do either nothing (bad) or bomb Saddam (bad). What type of crap is this from an unelected dictator who lost a war to us then broke the cease fire that ended the war? We must uphold our hard earned reputation if we are to have peace, my grandfather and uncle did not die in previous wars so we can become wimps who weak dictators can successfully challenge. Dont forget, when asked if they thought Saddam had WMDs, Germany, France, Britain, America, and most of the others said yes. When you factor in saddam as a person, and his recent actions, the decision was made by Bush to take him down. Dont think Bush chose WMD as a way to sell it to the public, because he doesnt need public approval to take military action. Think about that for a second, there is no vote, it's an executive decision. The only question is how to deal with Iran and North Korea and Libya, and probably a few others. They answer is to get as much political leverage as possible as a byproduct of taking down saddam. If we find WMDs, great. If not, who cares, it's saddams fault, not ours, and now the other problem countries know we are serious about WMD. Now Libya surrenders BEFORE the fight occurs, and lives are saved. Ignoring the fact that his missiles' range were also a violation of the cease fire agreement, and even if we KNEW he didn’t have WMDs, taking down saddam WAS justified, morally and legally. Break a cease fire agreement, and the war is back on. This was a continuation of the first Gulf war, not a new war. This is what happens when an unelected thug becomes a player on the world stage, and doesn’t know how to play the game: he loses. The memo you mention is probably real, welcome to politics. Politics is as dirty as a game as warfare and law and medical and others. The Iraqis are feeling the pain of having a tumor cut out of their body. Good tissue got cut out with some bad, some blood was lost, an infection (jihadis) is being fought. They are healing and will be healthy in the future.
- Wikinews:How to edit a page says that the talk page is "...where Wikinews users make more detailed comments about the article."
- Article talk pages are for discussion of the article itself, rather than the issue that the article is about. If you think the article is biased, or contains factual errors, or has relavent information missing, then please discuss it here. Other conversations should be had elsewhere. - Borofkin 07:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)