Pointing out the U.S. alliance with Israel is hardly antisemetic [sic]. It's just a fact. Why you're trying to tar this woman with the politics of personal destruction is much more offensive. George W. Bush started and perpetrates an illegal, immoral war. Cindy Sheehan is calling him out on it.

That's that. Go ahead and smear her if it makes you feel better, but the facts won't change.

George W. Bush started and perpetrates an illegal, immoral war.

Oh, really?

In 1991, Saddam Hussein agreed to abide by a list of demands to create a cease-fire situation in the first Gulf War. He violated those terms literally thousands of times by targeting U.S. warplanes in the "no fly" zones over the past decade. Any one of those violations was a legal justification to resume warfare.

The Unitied nations issued no less tna 14 resultions that threatened Saddam with violence if he didn't agree to show us the WMDs that he claimed that he had at the end of the Gulf War. We didn't have to prove that he had WMDs; he had to show what he did with the ones he claimed that he had. To this day he has not, and therefore, he stands in violation of more than a dozen resolutions, the latest being UN 1441, which was just one more legal justification for the use of force.

Those are our several thousand legal justifications for going to war against Saddam according to international law, as much as it pisses of Kofi Annan (who actually had the balls to call the invasion illegal, even when he knew it wasn't. I wonder if he was pissed about loosing the oil-for-food gravy train?).

Domestically, Congress had access to the exact same intelligence data as the President, they reviewed it, and passed a resolution to go to war. The data turned out to be wrong, apparently, but the resolution was legal.

there is no doubt about the "legality" of this war, though the idea of legal and illegal wars seems to be idiotic in the first place.

As for teh moral component...

In his reign of terror, Saddam Hussein twice invaded other countries, sparking wars in 1980-88 and 1990-91 where well over a million people died. He used WMDs repeatedly in the Iran-Iraq war, and against his own people in 1991.

He committed human right violations against civilains too numerous and too gross to list, and salted Iraqi earth with mass graves. He pockets billions of petro-dollars while letting his people starve in the Oil-for-Food scandal.

...And you have the balls to say a war to depose him is immoral? For shame. The only immoral thing about deposing Saddam Hussein is that it wasn't done far sooner.

As for Sheehan's flippant blaming of the Jews for her son's death, I think it sounded better in the original German.

Hoolie is definitely screwy. Sheehan didn't merely point out the US alliance with Israel, she said that the neocon agenda was being advanced by the mind rays of the JOOOOOOOS. You know, those mind rays from Jewish women that killed Arafat.

"Well, then, the Jews poisoned him somehow, you know, the Jews can do things like that, dude".

That's what my friends the Palis told me, man.

Earth to Moonbat: The neocons are on to us. We've got to come up with a better story. "Uh, ok, dude, I think the bones of the earth have been damaged somehow by all that testing. Testing sure hurts my bones, dude. How's that, man?"

There were no WMDs. No one really knew if there were WMDs. I thought there were WMDs especially after Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, and George W. Bush told me there were WMDs. Iraq was on the fucking ropes, y'all, we swept into the middle of their puny military like a hurricane.

And now we're nation building. Maybe everything'll turn out peachy. Maybe Iraq will become the world's next great democracy. I doubt it, but I can allow for the possibility. Hell, Vietnam required a great deal of nation building on the part of the authorities, and they're doing great.

You can style your 14 resolution arguments and claim brotherhood with the Iraqis who are striving for peace, and there are oodles of them. But the fact remains that George W. Bush took us to war on a lie. He did not have rock solid evidence. There were doubts-a-plenty in intelligence circles. George W. Bush took us to war as part of a larger gambit - for what? He'll tell us when he's damn good and ready? To fight terrorism?

We're creating terrorists every day in the fundamentalist Arab world through the conduct authorized at the highest level of government, and you know it's true

Iraq is the largest miscalculation since Custer rode up that hill. The Extreme Battle Against Global Terrorismists inflates the conflict, as evidenced by the rapid increase in terror attacks across the globe.

As you can see, I could go on and on.

I'm glad I ended up at this blog, and I appreciate that you're part of a global cacophony trying to make sense of the world.

Screwy, people like you must have "rock solid" evidence for evryting, and that is why you never accomplish anything. We went to war on the evidence that Democratic Congressmen and Senators agreed was enough justification. WMDs were just one element.

Your response to terrorism is to be nice to them, to appease them, to give then what they want. Congratulations! For all your moral cowardice, they'll kill you last.

Immoral war? What the hell does that mean? Is there such a thing as a moral war? What kind of hair-splitting slieght of hand spin artist starts crying about how one war is immoral, as if there were other wars that were moral? That just screams political agenda. Congratualtions Hoolie, you've just fallen for the oldest trick in the book - relativism.

"As you can see, I could go on and on."

Yes, Hoolie, I see that you can. It just doesn't get any more convincing but repetition.

Tob