That's not how it works and both you and the enlistee know that. They can and do send you anywhere to kill anyone they say for whatever reason they say.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Translation: "That is correct Klang, I have no proof that Bush lied. I am expecting you to just accept my assumptions as fact".

Emphasis Mine. Please read my original quote.

Cooperating when you feel like it is not really cooperating.

By "Iraquians" I assume you mean Saddam, right?

His pride is irrelevant. Why should we care about his pride? It was not a request...it was an ultimatum. The ultimatum was that WE had to be satisfied he did not have WMDs and was not trying to develop them. Period.

You are actually mitigating Saddam's non-cooperation via his "pride"?? Gimme a break.

Had he given full cooperation, the process would have been much shorter. Humiliation is irrelevant. We gave him to opportunity to cooperate...IMO we were not really obligated to do even that.

Saddam's ties to terrorist groups are not even disputed by most liberals. Are you making the claim that Saddam had no ties to terrorists?

Common enemies make strange bedfellows. And Saddam at least gives lip service to Islam.

If their goals are parallel, it is not unreasonable to assume they would cooperate. They are not answerable to the masses in the way that our elected representatives are.

Oh yeah...because it is wrong for us not to take despots at their word. Obviously he was telling the truth. We are idiots for assuming Saddam would lie about anything. We should have just ignored his interference with inspections and accepted his word.

In the opinion of a majority of Americans and their representatives, it was necessary for our nation's defense. What criteria are you using to determine when it is "necessary" if not the decisions of our elected leaders?

Such a promise was never made. Another example of how liberals put words in people's mouths. There is no such thing as an "implied promise". It is somthing you made up. Either it is an implication or it is not. You cannot make a promise by implication.

Then tell us what criteria we should use. Who gets to decide when it is necessary if not our elected representatives? Should they conference PJO34 in on every decision to make sure it is correct?

You know, you're right, the government can send the military anywhere to kill anyone. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't break the promise I believe exists between the government and the people who choose to serve. People serve to advance their lives and to serve their country. If we are comfortable with the idea that our military is little more than a bunch of killers who we can send anywhere to kill anyone for any reason or no reason, then our country is different than we have been taught to believe.

I believe the implied promise exists and Bush violated it.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

I dont accept that there is any such promise. Implications do not = promises. in effect, you are putting words in Bush's mouth; he never broke any promises in the way you are describing.

It is unreasonable to hold people accountable based on percieved "implications". If you give me money, and you believe I implied that I will pay you back, but I never actually said I would pay you back, I am not obligated to pay you back.

Then you need to convince people to elect different leaders that share your view. Right now the majority does not agree with you that we did it for "no reason".

Please tell me how we determine when these implied promises exist. I would like to hold liberal politicians accountable to these "implied promises" in the future. What are your criteria for determining when implied promises exist?

I suppose if one interpreted the Constitution a certain way, you could find an implied promise in the language "a common defense" not simply "war." that in itself could be considered an implied promise in general that troops will be used only when absolutely necessary for defense.

It just gets down to what you consider to be defense, and defense of what. The nation under immediate and imminent invasion from an opposing force? Securing democracy around the world from dictators who threaten it, thereby protecting the Constitution itself? Defending our national interests by removing governments who, by continually breaking treaties, require a constant military presence and monitoring in that area?

__________________
lambaste me not

For the record, a timeline of what the administration and its allies said they knew about Saddam's WMD, and when they said it. See what I mean about WMD's and there importance? Secondary my butt.

[i]"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." -- Colin Powell, February 24, 2001

"He's been a menace forever, and we will do -- he needs to open his country up for inspection, so we can see whether or not he's developing weapons of mass destruction." -- George W. Bush, August 7, 2001

"I don?t think it matters if Saddam has been implicated [in 9/11]. He has weapons of mass destruction. The lesser risk is in pre-emption. We?ve got to stop wishing away the problem." -- Richard Perle, November 21, 2001

"Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked." -- Tony Blair, April 10, 2002

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." --Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -- Bush, September 12, 2002

"I didn't hear it [the Iraqi Foreign Minster's speech at the U.N.], but let me guess: 'The United States is guilty, the world doesn't understand, we don't have any weapons of mass destruction.' It's the same old song and dance that we've heard for 11 long years." -- Bush, September 19, 2002

"Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." -- Bush, October 7, 2002.

"He has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes." -- Blair, September 24, 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." -- Ari Fleischer, December 2, 2002

"I took our message of peace and freedom to countries around the world. I want them to understand the nature of the man who runs Iraq is the nature of a man who doesn't tell the truth. He says he won't have weapons of mass destruction; he's got them." -- Bush, December 3, 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." -- Fleischer, January 9, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." -- Powell, February 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." -- Bush, February 8, 2003

"He has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Cheney, March 16, 2003

"We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years -- contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence-Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd." -- Blair, March 18, 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified." -- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." -- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

"We did not want this war. But in refusing to give up his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam gave us no choice but to act." -- Blair, April 10, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." -- Bush, May 3, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming." -- Powell, May 4, 2003

"I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." -- Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program." -- Bush, May 6, 2003

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction." -- Paul Wolfowitz, May 9, 2003

"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." -- Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003

" We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories ... we?ve so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." -- Bush, May 30, 2003

"I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program." -- Bush, June 9, 2003

"I believe that we will find the truth, and I believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." -- Rice, July 13, 2003

"Extensive work remains to be done on his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. But these findings already make clear that Saddam Hussein actively deceived the international community." -- Bush, October 3, 2003

"We are seeking all the facts. Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." -- Bush, January 21, 2004

"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere (Laughter and applause)... Nope, no weapons over there. (Laughter and applause.) Maybe under here. (Laughter.) " -- Bush, March 24, 2004

Tim Dickinson thanks CounterPunch, the BBC, zFacts.com, and Rotten.com.

I got this list from
(Posted Jan 13, 2005)http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...region=single7

My source may not be as authoritative as the bastion of conservatism (sarcasm) you used, but here goes.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/demquotes.html

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

Wow.. thats a lot of stops.

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

They didn't know what they were talking about either I'd say...

But isn't Clinton our ex-president? Or is he still very much in office in your own little world? Aren't we talking about Bush taking us into Iraq and not what Clinton didn't do?

That whenever a fervent Bush supporter lacks a real argument, they play the ever-faithful Clinton did (or didn't) do such and such. The vast majority of the time anything Clinton-related is irrelevant to the discussion.

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"