Did the American Government really lie?

[sixpacktr]

Interesting, even among our own people there are those that deny what the Lord has done to protect us. But those days of protection are quickly coming to an end. We were given a golden opportunity to repent and return following 9/11, and we have squandered it. And we do have enemies, real enemies that wish the overthrow the the US, and many of them reside in the halls of power. Is Pres Bush pure? No, but he has been right on in this matter of fighting those that would enslave us. This is just as dangerous as anything during the cold war or the war on Nazism was, except now we have those that equate treason with free speech. And those that think that this is all Bush's fault and that they can't wait until he leaves are naive at best, stupid more probably.

As I said earlier, the processes that have been put in place are working. I don't care if AlQaeda is killing people in other areas. Why? Because that is up to their gov't to protect them. I only care that I'm being protected, because that is my gov't's job. I thank God everyday for those that have served bravely to protect me over here, and have put life and limb on the line for me. This farce that 'we support the troops, but will criticize everything our President does' is the epitome of putting 10 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag. Can't have it both ways. The children of Ishmael are just waiting, WAITING, for us to do another Vietnam and pull out because of the libs and traitors in this country that do not wish it well. They are heartened and know all thsy have to do is wait it out. The North Vietnamese have admitted that they nearly surrendered but were bolstered by the likes of the Jane Fondas of the world that openly criticized, and the images that were flashed across the world of the anti-war protests.

What we need is another Captain Moroni to clean out the traitors that are rejoicing at the difficulties we are having, and in fact are fueling them. But, the BOM is just a story that has nothing to do with our time....

[FlaviusHambonius]

sixpac you said:

"We were given a golden opportunity to repent and return following 9/11, and we have squandered it."

That seems to be the pattern over the ages-- A crises happens--people humble themselves--look at what's really impotrtant in their life--provide service to one another--neighbors helping one another etc. Then the immediate crises tends to fade, and people usually go back to their way's--whatever their ways might be.

sixpac said:

" Is Pres Bush pure? No, but he has been right on in this matter of fighting those that would enslave us."

I think the only way they can enslave us is the terrorist cells that are in this country to reek havoc upon us in all sorts of ways--I don't think we had to travel across the globe to start a war (Iraq) based on missinformation--which in my opinion was known to be missinformation by the current administration.

sixpac said:

"This is just as dangerous as anything during the cold war or the war on Nazism was"

In my opinion a completley different war--I think we knew a little of the mindset of the Russians and Hitler---They wanted Global domination--The Ruskies didn't want to be blown off the map with nuclear weapons anymore than we did--Hitler on the other hand if he would have got his hands on the Atom Bomb, would have undoubtably used it (my opinion) I beleive the 'Extremists' on the other hand would destroy us at all costs, even if it means they or their homeland go up in dust to acheive their means.

sixpac said:

"And those that think that this is all Bush's fault and that they can't wait until he leaves are naive at best, stupid more probably."

No, I don't think this is all George W. Bush's fault. I was for him the first time around, not the second time around, and yes I can't wait until he's gone--it's been said he has the most secretive administration of recent history--if not of all history.

Now does that make me naive and stupid? Maybe, but unlike W I can say 'nuclear' instead of 'nucular'--I can also say 'terrorists' instead of 'terroristsssss'

sixpac said:

"As I said earlier, the processes that have been put in place are working."

You must be talking about the 'surge' something McCain likes to pat himself on the back about. If the troops would not have been taken out of the townships and cities where they already had it under control, only to be moved somewhere else, they would still be under control, as it is they have to go back in and reclaim it-- more lives, more bloodshed.

sixpac said:

"I don't care if AlQaeda is killing people in other areas. Why? Because that is up to their gov't to protect them. I only care that I'm being protected, because that is my gov't's job."

Really? Why didn't the gov. of Afghanistan step up to the plate and protect the Afghan people from the taliban or go kill AlQaeda troops who were training in their country.

As to your comment's about caring only about yourself and the American govt. protecting you-- The 9/11 commission said the U.S. government failed miserably.

sixpac said:

"I thank God everyday for those that have served bravely to protect me over here, and have put life and limb on the line for me. This farce that 'we support the troops, but will criticize everything our President does' is the epitome of putting 10 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag."

As I do. My Dad who is 91 had a front row seat at Pearl Harbor, and the battle of 'Midway' the battle of 'Iwo Jima', 'Guadacanal' among just a few and was heading out of Okinawa when the first A-Bomb went off over Hiroshima.

My brother also served during Vietnam. I missed Vietnam by a couple of years and served in the Army from 77-80 during peace time. So as you can see I do 'Support the Troops' I just do not have to support the president 'in everything he does' and have earned the right to 'criticize' the President, If I so feel inclined to do so.

On the other hand, 'W' was kept out of Vietnam by his Daddy and Cheney never served in the military--but yet send so many young men to their deaths because of a war on 'missinformation' and on a war that could possibly go on for years-- That's what I call the 'epitome of putting 10 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag" as you called it.

sixpac said:

"The children of Ishmael are just waiting, WAITING, for us to do another Vietnam and pull out because of the libs and traitors in this country that do not wish it well. They are heartened and know all thsy have to do is wait it out."

I prefer to call them 'Muslim Extremists' I would hate to put all of Ishmael's children in the same boat--but I get your gist.

What are they "waiting out"? A chance to have a civil war later rather than sooner--it seems rather unavoidable--just putting off the inevitable--just my opinion--who knows maybe they will all play in the same sandbox someday--don't hold your breath.

sixpac said:

"What we need is another Captain Moroni to clean out the traitors that are rejoicing at the difficulties we are having, and in fact are fueling them. But, the BOM is just a story that has nothing to do with our time.... "

And all this time I thought Captain Moroni was for Liberty. I don't think anyone is rejoicing at the difficulties of war, even the traitors as you call them--Bloodshed and the loss of life is never worth rejoicing over.

And by the way I thought the Book of Mormon has everything to do with our time, in fact was written for our time!

Take Care,

HB

[hethathathears]

Wow- really cool- conspiracy theory and everything. Both sides did a really good job presenting. And the truth is out there somewhere in the middle. I can see from reading a lot of your Blogs that many of you could have done a much better job of running the country than young Gorge. Now me personally, I don't think that I'm that smart. I think that when the war was originally packaged, it was a war on terror. Did we need a war on terror? Doing some quick totalling, over the last 20 years, more than 9,000 Americans have been killed due to terrorist activity. And 10's of thousands have been injured. Maybe just a quick list...

April 1983 Beirut Embassy 63 Killed

Oct 1983 Beirut Marine Barracks 241 Killed

Dec 1984 Kuwait Embassy 16 Killed

Feb 1993 NYC World Trade Center 6 Killed and 1,000 injured

June 1996 Khoba Towers 19 Killed and 243 injured

Aug 1998 Nairobi and Kenya attacks 263 Killed and over 5,000 injured

Oct 2000 USS Cole 17 Killed and 39 injured

9/11 World Trade Centers 3,467 Killed and 2,127 injured

Are all of these Bushes fault? I don't know, because in life, I am up in the bleachers, a spectator to what is happening in the world. But one thing I do know, America hasn't done a lot before President Bush to stop or deter terrorism. And this just isn't going on in America, it is all over the world, and nobody is seeming to do anything. As far as judging Mr. President George and Cheney, I might leave that judgement up to my God, because he is better at judging people than I am.

I think that after 9-11, if it was up to me, and I knew that Afghanistan was harboring known terrorists, I would have done the same thing as President George 41. I mean after all, I have millions, and millions, and millions of Americans I'm responsible for. I mean, What would you do?

And what about Iraq, Ol Slick Hussien. He has a history of bombing his own people, and now their are terrorist camps in his country breeding little terrorist as well as large ones as well. What would you do? No matter what was done, millions would applaud while millions would condemn.

Wasn't that Joseph's legacy as well. He did his prophetic thing, and thousands pinned him as a fraud and a charlatan, while thousands if not millions claim him as an inspired man of God.

And are we safe? I think that we are in the quiet before the storm period. If what I hear is true, the Mexican gang MS-13 has been smuggling Al Qaeda members and Hamas members at 25,000 a pop, and my guess is that they are not coming in to flip burgers. I think that in an Osma Bin fashion, one day the checkered flag will come down and we will be up to our necks with dirty bombs and suicide bombers, Yes, even in America. Is it all Bushes fault. Maybe. All I know is that I and my family need to live like there will be no tomorrow. I can only say, I'm glad it's not me that is running the country.

Edited June 23, 2008 by hethathathears

[RachelleDrew]

Now I wanted to put my arm to the square and call down fire from heaven for having such a disrespectful attitude about our amazing President that has done so much for the American people. /QUOTE]

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[MarginOfError]

apologies in advance...I'm kind of talking to two people at once here.

It will take time for people to realize just how good of a President George Bush was.

Funny, people said that about Jimmy Carter, too. Still waiting.

Unfortunately for you, Bush's legacy is going to be put in the history books as, "Well, he wasn't Gore, and he wasn't Kerry." When that's the best you can say about the guy, you really don't have much going for you. (by the way, Skip, lay off all the secret combination stuff. Your rantings make it pretty hard to take you seriously)

With all due respect, I'll have to disagree with you on some things. But don't worry, I'm also going to disagree with Skip on a lot of things. You both seem to be fairly fanatical in your opinions.

You are correct when you say that we have not had as many attacks on American soil thanks to our troops being in Iraq and Afghanistan. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If you move the war onto the enemy's home court, of course there will be less action on your own--that result is arithmetical. Now please note that I never said I was opposed to being in this war, but opposed to how it is being managed. If we're going to sit over there in a mismanaged, politically minded war, then our troops really aren't doing anything than serving as decoys to satisfy our need for safety. Now, I don't know about you, but I have a big problem with the idea of our troops routinely getting killed simply so that you and I won't. However, if they want to go in and fight this like a war, crush the enemy, and seize all their assets, and accept the inevitability of civilian casualties (you know, like you're supposed to do in war), then I'm all for it. So, I see two solutions to this problem that would make me happy:

1) Realize that under current management we're not going to succeed over there and pull out our troops, thereby letting the place devolve into mayhem.

2) Decide to fight this like a war, and go in and win.

Either solution works for me, so I really don't care which gets implemented...but the status quo simply won't do.

Next, yes, it would be nice if people realized that a lot of the terrorism stuff is something that could have been handled (and should have) during the Clinton administration. They dropped the ball. But the fact that Clinton made that really bad decision doesn't change the fact that the whole thing has been poorly managed under the current administration.

[Guest User-Removed]

apologies in advance...I'm kind of talking to two people at once here.

Funny, people said that about Jimmy Carter, too. Still waiting.

Unfortunately for you, Bush's legacy is going to be put in the history books as, "Well, he wasn't Gore, and he wasn't Kerry." When that's the best you can say about the guy, you really don't have much going for you. (by the way, Skip, lay off all the secret combination stuff. Your rantings make it pretty hard to take you seriously)

With all due respect, I'll have to disagree with you on some things. But don't worry, I'm also going to disagree with Skip on a lot of things. You both seem to be fairly fanatical in your opinions.

You are correct when you say that we have not had as many attacks on American soil thanks to our troops being in Iraq and Afghanistan. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If you move the war onto the enemy's home court, of course there will be less action on your own--that result is arithmetical. Now please note that I never said I was opposed to being in this war, but opposed to how it is being managed. If we're going to sit over there in a mismanaged, politically minded war, then our troops really aren't doing anything than serving as decoys to satisfy our need for safety. Now, I don't know about you, but I have a big problem with the idea of our troops routinely getting killed simply so that you and I won't. However, if they want to go in and fight this like a war, crush the enemy, and seize all their assets, and accept the inevitability of civilian casualties (you know, like you're supposed to do in war), then I'm all for it. So, I see two solutions to this problem that would make me happy:

1) Realize that under current management we're not going to succeed over there and pull out our troops, thereby letting the place devolve into mayhem.

2) Decide to fight this like a war, and go in and win.

Either solution works for me, so I really don't care which gets implemented...but the status quo simply won't do.

Next, yes, it would be nice if people realized that a lot of the terrorism stuff is something that could have been handled (and should have) during the Clinton administration. They dropped the ball. But the fact that Clinton made that really bad decision doesn't change the fact that the whole thing has been poorly managed under the current administration.

By all means...Let's stop everything, everyone is doing to just to make you happy....:roflmbo:

BTW...Take the iPod out of your ear...your ravings might make more sense...

[MarginOfError]

By all means...Let's stop everything, everyone is doing to just to make you happy....:roflmbo:

See, now you're catching on. Now if we can convince a few more billion people that that's what we should do, the world will be in good shape. ;-)

[Islander]

apologies in advance...I'm kind of talking to two people at once here.

Funny, people said that about Jimmy Carter, too. Still waiting.

Unfortunately for you, Bush's legacy is going to be put in the history books as, "Well, he wasn't Gore, and he wasn't Kerry." When that's the best you can say about the guy, you really don't have much going for you. (by the way, Skip, lay off all the secret combination stuff. Your rantings make it pretty hard to take you seriously)

With all due respect, I'll have to disagree with you on some things. But don't worry, I'm also going to disagree with Skip on a lot of things. You both seem to be fairly fanatical in your opinions.

You are correct when you say that we have not had as many attacks on American soil thanks to our troops being in Iraq and Afghanistan. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If you move the war onto the enemy's home court, of course there will be less action on your own--that result is arithmetical. Now please note that I never said I was opposed to being in this war, but opposed to how it is being managed. If we're going to sit over there in a mismanaged, politically minded war, then our troops really aren't doing anything than serving as decoys to satisfy our need for safety. Now, I don't know about you, but I have a big problem with the idea of our troops routinely getting killed simply so that you and I won't. However, if they want to go in and fight this like a war, crush the enemy, and seize all their assets, and accept the inevitability of civilian casualties (you know, like you're supposed to do in war), then I'm all for it. So, I see two solutions to this problem that would make me happy:

1) Realize that under current management we're not going to succeed over there and pull out our troops, thereby letting the place devolve into mayhem.

2) Decide to fight this like a war, and go in and win.

Either solution works for me, so I really don't care which gets implemented...but the status quo simply won't do.

Next, yes, it would be nice if people realized that a lot of the terrorism stuff is something that could have been handled (and should have) during the Clinton administration. They dropped the ball. But the fact that Clinton made that really bad decision doesn't change the fact that the whole thing has been poorly managed under the current administration.

With equal respect, I disagree with your position. Sometimes, in order to preserve your way of life, in order to ensure that current or future enemies know where you stand and to what extent you are willing to go to defend yourself, your country and your love ones; someone has to die. In order for those that fear to know they can count on you, somebody has to die. There will be blood and that is the price to pay for freedom and for ones ideals and principles. At some point you have to be willing to sacrifice for what you hold to be true otherwise is empty rhetorical pomp.

Men write history but it is re-written every so often. G.W. Bush may or may not be the best president. But one thing is clear, you WILL NEVER know what it is to make a decision in those circumstances. ALL of Europe thought they could negotiate with Hitler and avoid the war. One after one most of Europe fell without really much of a struggle. They allowed evil to germinate and flourish unopposed while claiming to preserve peace. Check out your history. America resisted for 4 years to enter the war. If it wasn't for those who died to contain evil the world you live in would be a very different world. Monday morning "quarterbacking" from your living room is always interesting. But, do not forget, you were not there.

You already made up your mind in regards to the current state of affairs so I think my post may not be very relevant to you. I just thought I put something out there to consider for those that are not sure what to think with so many loud voices.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Islander

[sixpacktr]

MOE,

I agree with you that the war should have been fought better. We have reached a point where, because of our technology, we think that we can have a bloodless (at least on our side) war, and the fact is that you need 'boots on the ground' to make it last. The surge has been a huge success, and it is too bad that it took so long to implement it. Who's to blame? Pres Bush or Congress? Hmm, that's a toughie. Given that after the initial sweep in and destruction of the Iraqi dictatorship the shrill cries from the left and traitors of this country seemed to domininate all discussion. My personal opinion is that Pres Bush should have given them all the Bronx cheer and put more troops in earlier, wiped out Sadr and some of the others, and we'd be done with it. Instead, he tried (and we wanted) to fight this on the cheap, lob a few bombs (like Clinton) and hope to scare them.

I stick by my claim that someday GW will be regarded as a great President, because he did take on the terrorists. Pres Lincoln was roundly criticized throughout most of his Presidency for everything that could go wrong, but now we call him the 2nd greatest if not our greatest President, because he preserved the Union. And his detractors have ended up on the trash heap of history. Much like the Messiah Barack, Billary, Pellosi, Brother Reid, and others will.

And Islander. right on. None of us have had to make those tough decisions, based upon the info available. So easy to criticize when the most important decision most of us face during the day is what to eat that night, or whether to watch Jeopardy or Wheel of Fortune...I'd wager if you gave some of the people I noted above the reins of power they'd make about the same decision, because their rantings right now are so absolutely inane that no one in their right mind would actually believe the BS (Barbra Streisand) flying out of their mouths...

[MarginOfError]

I think, Islander, that we agree more than you imply by your post. I do think that preserving our freedoms and our families will require that someone dies. My issue with the war (in its current state) is that we're not doing the killing (not enough anyway). If we're going to be over there, let's fight a war and win it (which usually requires stomping your enemy into the ground). But if we're not going to have an aggressive campaign to win, then I'd just as soon not have our troops there. Essentially, let's do it right, or let's not do it at all.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I am stunned to the point of disbelief that NONE of you said ANYTHING about the Constitution.

Pres. Bush has violated it (along with Congress) on nearly every front. In fact, I cannot point to a single action that WAS in accordance with the Constitution during his administration, other than the date / time / of the 2 inaugurations and the oaths...

Good President? When GOD himself has declared that ANYTHING more or less than the Constitution "cometh of evil"?

Give me a break!

[drjme]

The other day I went to the gym so I could maintain my "I'm too sexy for my shirt look," when I overhead a party of four lament about the evils of the American Government and the wicked and incompadent Bush administration. They went on to voice that the Bush administration should be brought up on charges for crimes against humanity for the evils inflicted on the Iraqi people. They went on to say that the American Government lied to the American people about there ever being Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and that the hole thing was so that we could get our hands on oil.

Now I wanted to put my arm to the square and call down fire from heaven for having such a disrespectful attitude about our amazing President that has done so much for the American people. But I have found that this kind of thinking has permeated through out the entire world. I began to question, that maybe I was just a simpleton for believing that President Bush did an OK job. I would say that in some things, the good President has fumbled the ball, like border security and drilling for oil, but I think that as far as Iraq and Afghanistan, he was pretty much right on.

I mean, one of the qualifying issues of if the Iraqi war was valid was if there were weapons of mass destruction when we arrived and did we find them. The answer was no. But then again, if the Police Department went to a known drug dealer and posted a note that said, in 3 weeks we are going to come and search your house, and if we find any drugs, we will arrest you and put you away for life, wouldn't you think that the dealer would be smart enough to remove all of his drugs and paraphernalia. The same was true with entering Iraq. There was Lot's of notice given. Lot's of Senate subcommittee meetings. Lot's of preparing.

One of Saddam's generals even admitted when he defected that they loaded up the weapons of mass destruction and sent them over to Syria. He even gave dates and methodes. I thought the truth was already out, and yet years after, the liberal media is still staying that the America Government lied. Another fact, didn't Saddam use Chemical weapons on his own people in Halabja, March 16, 1988. If I was to paste and clip an article from the Internet, the article read-

Saddam Hussein is the first world leader in modern times to have brutally used chemical weapons against his own people. His goals were to systematically terrorize and exterminate the Kurdish population in northern Iraq, to silence his critics, and to test the effectiveness of his chemical and biological weapons. Hussein launched chemical attacks against 40 Kurdish villages and thousands of innocent civilians in 1987-88, using them as testing grounds. The worst of these attacks devastated the city of Halabja on March 16, 1988.

The question is, did he use every last drop on his own people and there just wasn't anymore, or did he have barrels and barrels of it, but he just loaded it all up on planes for future use.

Or is it just me and the rest of the world is right? What do you think?

unfortunately, The rest of the world is right. There were no weapons of mass destruction found. none. The war was based on a lie and yet you're troops are still there.

I agree with JBS on what your constitution says about war. Do some study on it.

These replies that are pro-bu$h are all the typical morbot replies. You try to justify 'the burning of the constitution' while also claiming it is a Divinely inspired Document.

My issue with the war (in its current state) is that we're not doing the killing (not enough anyway)

Are you serious??????? you're not LDS are you???

[JohnBirchSociety]

If we are fighting a Constitutionally declared war (we currently ARE NOT) then we must kill the enemy until they surrender unconditionally, or are destroyed.

That's the unfortunate aspect of war, and why we try to avoid it, and why ONLY CONGRESS can declare it.

If fight we must, then we must FIGHT. No "Rules of Engagement"...

Hitler would have LOVED "Rules of Engagement"....

Friends! Again, WHAT OF YOUR CONSTITUTION?

[JohnBirchSociety]

The other day I went to the gym so I could maintain my "I'm too sexy for my shirt look," when I overhead a party of four lament about the evils of the American Government and the wicked and incompadent Bush administration. They went on to voice that the Bush administration should be brought up on charges for crimes against humanity for the evils inflicted on the Iraqi people. They went on to say that the American Government lied to the American people about there ever being Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and that the hole thing was so that we could get our hands on oil.

Now I wanted to put my arm to the square and call down fire from heaven for having such a disrespectful attitude about our amazing President that has done so much for the American people. But I have found that this kind of thinking has permeated through out the entire world. I began to question, that maybe I was just a simpleton for believing that President Bush did an OK job. I would say that in some things, the good President has fumbled the ball, like border security and drilling for oil, but I think that as far as Iraq and Afghanistan, he was pretty much right on.

I mean, one of the qualifying issues of if the Iraqi war was valid was if there were weapons of mass destruction when we arrived and did we find them. The answer was no. But then again, if the Police Department went to a known drug dealer and posted a note that said, in 3 weeks we are going to come and search your house, and if we find any drugs, we will arrest you and put you away for life, wouldn't you think that the dealer would be smart enough to remove all of his drugs and paraphernalia. The same was true with entering Iraq. There was Lot's of notice given. Lot's of Senate subcommittee meetings. Lot's of preparing.

One of Saddam's generals even admitted when he defected that they loaded up the weapons of mass destruction and sent them over to Syria. He even gave dates and methodes. I thought the truth was already out, and yet years after, the liberal media is still staying that the America Government lied. Another fact, didn't Saddam use Chemical weapons on his own people in Halabja, March 16, 1988. If I was to paste and clip an article from the Internet, the article read-

Saddam Hussein is the first world leader in modern times to have brutally used chemical weapons against his own people. His goals were to systematically terrorize and exterminate the Kurdish population in northern Iraq, to silence his critics, and to test the effectiveness of his chemical and biological weapons. Hussein launched chemical attacks against 40 Kurdish villages and thousands of innocent civilians in 1987-88, using them as testing grounds. The worst of these attacks devastated the city of Halabja on March 16, 1988.

The question is, did he use every last drop on his own people and there just wasn't anymore, or did he have barrels and barrels of it, but he just loaded it all up on planes for future use.

Or is it just me and the rest of the world is right? What do you think?

ANOTHER BIG QUESTION:

Why did we (Donald Rumsfield comes to mind an his visits with the horrible Sadam) supply IRAQ with Chemical Weapons?

Hmmmm....seems those things come back to haunt us...

As I've often remarked, we have the absolute best enemies money can buy....

[MorningStar]

Why do people conveniently forget that Clinton said there were weapons of mass destruction too? He did order Iraq to be bombed for a few days when my husband was in the Air Force and every year right around Thanksgiving, he was on stand by to go to the Middle East because Saddam was being a pain about letting in the inspectors. I remember too having to write a paper based on Clinton's comments about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I think that was the year I graduated - 1993. I don't think anyone lied about there being weapons of mass destruction - they were mistaken. There's a difference there. And it was believable because of the horrible things Saddam did.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Why do people conveniently forget that Clinton said there were weapons of mass destruction too? He did order Iraq to be bombed for a few days when my husband was in the Air Force and every year right around Thanksgiving, he was on stand by to go to the Middle East because Saddam was being a pain about letting in the inspectors. I remember too having to write a paper based on Clinton's comments about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I think that was the year I graduated - 1993. I don't think anyone lied about there being weapons of mass destruction - they were mistaken. There's a difference there. And it was believable because of the horrible things Saddam did.

WMD's or not. Lies or not, the facts / question before us as LDS members who believe in a divinely inspired Constitution and the form of government it was designed to foster (Constitutional Republic) is this:

Are we fighting a war that is declared (the only means available to enter into war) by Congress as mandated by the Constitution?

Answer:

NO

Therefore, according to the mandate of GOD in the D&C "it cometh of evil"...

There is no "loophole" to this. WE MUST FOLLOW the Constitution or we are doomed in our efforts (however noble they may be).

We will not win the "War on Terror" because there is no "war" as declared by Congress.

[MarginOfError]

Just for the sake of devil's advocacy:

Hasn't Congress authorized every request for more money to fund the war? Isn't there an implicit statement of support for/declaration of war in that action?

Reframed another way, if the majority of Congress agreed that Bush had violated the Constitution, I guarantee we'd be looking at impeachment hearings. The fact that we haven't implies that more people in Congress support the war in principle (or at least did), but did not do so vocally because of political expediency. But they can't take the Constitutional issue too seriously becauce Kucinich just put out a bill for impeachment and he's being laughed off the floor. Perhaps they didn't want to support the war openly so that they could pin the blame on someone else if it failed. Now there's a good way to enter a war.

Now, before the beatings begin, let me get out my suit of armor.

[sixpacktr]

Satan is non partisan...He used the GOP to persecution and drive us from America...He used the GOP to place whore mongers in control of the Utah Territory...He used the GOP to strip us of our rights.

The GOP wasn't founded until the early 1850s, so they didn't drive us from the US: that was the Democrats and the Whigs. And when the US gov't came in 1857 to take control of the 'Mormon problem' the GOP still wasn't in control. They gained control under Lincoln in 1860.

So, not 100% true. But you are right about Satan being non-partisan. Both the Dems and the Repubs later on have pursued votes at the expense of the Mormons. Even as late at 2008.

[Moksha]

The GOP wasn't founded until the early 1850s, so they didn't drive us from the US: that was the Democrats and the Whigs.

So the Republicans are latter-day Whigs. They still don't cotton to Mormons.

[Guest User-Removed]

The GOP wasn't founded until the early 1850s, so they didn't drive us from the US: that was the Democrats and the Whigs. And when the US gov't came in 1857 to take control of the 'Mormon problem' the GOP still wasn't in control. They gained control under Lincoln in 1860.

So, not 100% true. But you are right about Satan being non-partisan. Both the Dems and the Repubs later on have pursued votes at the expense of the Mormons. Even as late at 2008.

When examining LDS History, you'll note that the GOP was the party that brought the greatest amount of grief to the Church. Before the GOP it was the Whigs and some Democrats...I'll be happy, should you need the references to list every GOP sponsored Bill that harrassed the Church.

I'll gladly cut and paste President Garfield inaugural address where he attacked the Church.

[Guest User-Removed]

So the Republicans are latter-day Whigs. They still don't cotton to Mormons.

Richard Wright and Greg Prince in their seminal work on David O. McKay write of an experience that happened early in McKay's life.

When the Federales forced Utah to abondon their unique 2 party system and go with either GOP or Democrat, there were meetings held throughout Utah of the Priesthood. In these meetings, the chapel was usually divided down the middle with one half becoming Democrat and the other half becoming Republican.

President McKay's Father returned from one of those meetings sick...and he explained to his family that he sat on the side that became GOP, and he was ashamed of it and wondered aloud how he was ever going to be able to show his face in public again...as a Republican...

From that....................to UGLY baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabies:roflmbo:

[Islander]

Friends, history is not destiny. There were good and bad people in both parties throughout history. Not one party had a monopoly on fairness and justice. Politicians (most) are a self-serving breed interested in survival at the polls. So, whatever works to their advantage and contributes to their political capital account that they will use and do.

It is quite difficult to stake a position, make your philosophical base known and be a successful politician. You will be a 1 term "politico" which is not worthy given how much money it takes to get elected. Revisionism is a fun sport but it does not have great intellectual value looking forward, IMO. The parties of the 1800's are no longer in existence. Mitt, contrary to his better judgment and in clear incongruence with the teachings of the church, supported the first same sex marriage initiative in the nation!!! So, it goes to show that what drives the political class is not necessarily principles all the time.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Islander

[Guest User-Removed]

The GOP wasn't founded until the early 1850s, so they didn't drive us from the US: that was the Democrats and the Whigs. And when the US gov't came in 1857 to take control of the 'Mormon problem' the GOP still wasn't in control. They gained control under Lincoln in 1860.

So, not 100% true. But you are right about Satan being non-partisan. Both the Dems and the Repubs later on have pursued votes at the expense of the Mormons. Even as late at 2008.

sixpactr...my recollection of Utah and US history is entirely correct. While I did not list a time line or offense after offense...The Utah Territory was punished far harsher at the hands of the GOP, than it was by either the Whigs or Democrats.

Actually...I see where I posted something...and it was late, where I jumble together the GOP and driving us from America. Clearly, that is incorrect. BUT...You cannot argue that it was the GOP who vociferously persecuted the Utah Territory leading up to Statehood?

[sixpacktr]

No, I won't argue that. As I said, both parties used the Mormons as a crux for garnering favor/votes in the rest of the country. Just as they do today.