Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 680441" data-attributes="member: 2189">Pickup,Have you heard about <a href="http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/49647" target="_blank">this?</a> In England, this issue has been building to the point of an <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8488572.stm" target="_blank">official inquiry</a> and in talking with friends over there, this thing is really farther along towards the boiling point than it is over here. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100317105117/http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/29/iraq/index.html" target="_blank">Glenn Greenwald </a>made this issue from the British perspective and point of focus in his yesterday&#039;s Salon column. And I don&#039;t expect some version of this in America with Bush being called to answer because Obama and the democrats are now fully complicit in not only Iraq but in actually expanding the war and the war state. Sad in the Bush years they were so right to now jettison those principles to turn and be so wrong.&nbsp; One is only left to determine the issue was a convenient tool to use for the moment and nothing more.Obama&#039;s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022700566.html" target="_blank">promise</a> is fast approaching that August 2010&#039; deadline and there&#039;s <a href="http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/30/us-general-claims-iraq-pullout-moving-forward/" target="_blank">good reason </a>to question the odds of fulfillment on this one too. Not that he&#039;s given us any reason to &quot;HOPE&quot; he&#039;s good on his word.I just can&#039;t see where someone whose further esculated the so-called &quot;war on terror&quot; is about to retract and re-consider one of the major lynchpins for ever going to war in the region to begin with. His committment to the <a href="http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/01/28/the-state-of-the-empire/" target="_blank">old status quo </a>should now be completely obvious to all whether they admit it or not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 680441, member: 2189"] Pickup, Have you heard about [URL='http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/49647'][COLOR=red]this?[/COLOR][/URL] In England, this issue has been building to the point of an [URL='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8488572.stm'][COLOR=red]official inquiry[/COLOR][/URL] and in talking with friends over there, this thing is really farther along towards the boiling point than it is over here. [URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20100317105117/http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/29/iraq/index.html'][COLOR=red]Glenn Greenwald[/COLOR] [/URL]made this issue from the British perspective and point of focus in his yesterday's Salon column. And I don't expect some version of this in America with Bush being called to answer because Obama and the democrats are now fully complicit in not only Iraq but in actually expanding the war and the war state. Sad in the Bush years they were so right to now jettison those principles to turn and be so wrong. One is only left to determine the issue was a convenient tool to use for the moment and nothing more. Obama's [URL='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022700566.html'][COLOR=red]promise[/COLOR][/URL] is fast approaching that August 2010' deadline and there's [URL='http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/30/us-general-claims-iraq-pullout-moving-forward/'][COLOR=red]good reason[/COLOR] [/URL]to question the odds of fulfillment on this one too. Not that he's given us any reason to "HOPE" he's good on his word. I just can't see where someone whose further esculated the so-called "war on terror" is about to retract and re-consider one of the major lynchpins for ever going to war in the region to begin with. His committment to the [URL='http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/01/28/the-state-of-the-empire/'][COLOR=red]old status quo[/COLOR] [/URL]should now be completely obvious to all whether they admit it or not. [/QUOTE]

Verification