Which Republican is next?

In other words, you're saying that Bush didn't give Congress all the intelligence information that was available to him. I agree with you. That's way our representatives who voted for the war shouldn't be critized for changing their minds now when it has become obvious that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place.

Bush has withheld a lot of information from the American people. I don't think the fault has been bad intelligence so much as a very poor evaluation of the available information by this administration. Bush wanted to invade Iraq as Wolfowitz had argued 10 years earlier. He was just looking for a good excuse. 9/11 was that excuse.

 

Name the "communists in congress" with proof, please. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I should have said, new socialist leftist communist wannabe's, afraid to reveal their true intentions for America. </font>[/QUOTE]I repeat. What's your proof?

 

When a baby is dedicated to God in my church the mother and father are asked if they will protect him and teach him the faith. Then the church is asked if they will support the parents in bring up the child in a Christian environment. Therefore, you could say that it takes a group, the congregation, to bring up a child in the faith. Do you claim that this is "communist" as well?

 

I don't think there will ever be a consensus about the wisdom of invading Iraq. We are all doing nothing more than butting our heads against a wall to think that our side's arguments will carry the day on the subject. What we all need to do is learn our lesson from this situation and the next time, regardless of who the president is and regardless of which party he/she is from(Democrat, Republican, or whatever), we must all address with much, much greater skepticism the reasons given for military action and demand much more convincing proof. </font>[/QUOTE]The problem is that I believe this has happened before. Another thread provides an article on the Gulf of Tonkin incident which dramatically esculated our involvement in Viet Nam. I also think there's a good chance that Roosevelt knew in advance about Pearl Harbor. How many more of these do we have to accept before doing something about it? I think entering WW2 was probably inevitable and Pearl Harbor simply hastened U.S. involvement. But what if the Gulf of Tonkin affair had been exposed? Maybe we would never have gotten involved in VN in a significant way. Think of the positive effect that would have had on our country. Kennedy was even approached with an idea to blow up a U.S. airliner and blame Cuba to get support for an invasion.

I just can't get arould Wolfowitz and the rest of the think tank crowd (which includes most of Bush's high advisors) broadcasting the desire to invade Iraq throughout the 1990's and evn saying that it would take another Pearl Harbor-like event to get American support for the invasion. They took this request to GHW Bush and to Clinton and were rejected but found a willing supporter in GW Bush. Somewhere you have to draw the line and I say it's right here.

 

I would say that a baby dedication service is a completely unscriptual event, but that's another thread. But it is pimarily the parents job to raise their kids, and should answer only to God for the way they do it. The congregation has no say.

And you know that's not what Hillary means, so the comparison is silly. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, the Bible says you're wrong. Jesus himself was dedicated to God.

Luk 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. Luk 2:22 And when the days of her puri-fication according to the Law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present [him] to the Lord. Luk 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.)