Yes, it should. But I don't think it will be, and if it is, I don't think it will change much at this point in time. Sadly, people lie and aren't picked up on it at all, and yet we're holding onto a lie that's 6 years old. I think you might be missing the point though: what else has he lied about?

Once someone has shown a disposition toward dishonesty, you have to question the veracity of everything else they say. For instance, his repeated statements that Iraq is key to the war on terror even though several members of his administration helped to craft a 90-page document which stated that Iraq was key to American imperialism one year prior to 9-11. Food for thought.

I think you might be missing the point though: what else has he lied about?

No, no I got what you were saying. I was talking about that instance. I don't think we should trust many people, but our President is one person we should. Everyone lies no matter how big or small, but you're right, it's just interesting what else he may have lied about. I trust him because most of what he says is true, but I always have parts to disagree with him about, as I'm sure you do also.

My biggest beef with Bush is that I believe he puts his loyalty to friends above the good of the nation. Rumsfeld was a liability to our efforts in Iraq, but he did not sack him until much too late.

I don't think we should trust many people, but our President is one person we should. Why?
This isn't a monarchy. Bush wasn't appointed by the grace of god. Our leaders are human and corruptible. If they lie, and are caught lying, they should not be trusted. Where does accountability fit into your worldview?

Personally? I don't trust our politicans and our leaders as much as I'd like to( if at all). They are mere humans like us, and like us can lie and be tempted. I have some faith in Bush, and hopefully he'll be able to make good on any lies he has said. So, yes, Bush ( and other leaders) should be held accountable for their lies and how they deal with them.

By the way, this is great talking with you. Normally people don't bother to ask my opinion, they just think of what mine is and bash it. You don't, and that it is very respectable.

Kal Onasi: That is the point of Kavar's corner and part of the rules concerning debate. If it were mindless bashing, it would be considered flaming and against the rules. Here in Kavar's corner, we listen. We don't have to necessarily agree with it but we will listen.

Don't put words in my mouth. Please. He only was taking what you said. Don't get bent out of shape. Sometimes your own wording puts the wrong idea in.

It is due to the fact of "security, security, security" chant I hear all the time that I make the conclusion that people want it. Is that truly the majority or is it the minority? I can tell you for certain that at least in my neighborhood there are some things about security that we wouldn't agree on. It could be that the minority with the greatest chance of being heard is screaming it.

To explain. Our definitions of privacy has changed for a long time. Security cameras exist so that we feel a culture of fear. I shouldn't have to walk around and have this "viewscreen" indicating that at any given moment, in any public place, someone may be watching me...that's part of the 1984 criqitue, you know? The constant surviallance. Worse in Great Britian as well.Aren't you becoming a little paranoid? Some measure of security is necessary because we are a culture that prizes possessions and we do what it takes to protect them. For some it is money, for others it may be something priceless like a painting or rare jewelry. For those things, we employ security measures to protect them whether it is a security vault or survelliance cameras. Another thing, are survelliance cameras really a bad thing? After all we use them in convenience stores and they have helped catch the bad guys who robbed the store. Makes me wish that the restaurant I worked at had a camera when we got robbed.
I do think that there has to be limitations on it though. The warrantless wiretapping that just got passed is something that I don't agree with. We have the privacy rights for a reason and we squabbled to get them when the points came up in trial cases before the Supreme Court. If we truly valued privacy, then we would protest against it. I know it has already been signed and all but we still have the rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution one of them being freedom of speech.

He only was taking what you said. Don't get bent out of shape. Sometimes your own wording puts the wrong idea in.

Okay, yeah. Sorry for the, um, confusion that I make via my statements. I'd probraly be best off backing away from what I said.

Kal Onasi: That is the point of Kavar's corner and part of the rules concerning debate. If it were mindless bashing, it would be considered flaming and against the rules. Here in Kavar's corner, we listen. We don't have to necessarily agree with it but we will listen.

I'm well aware of that. Just because it's the point, it doesn't mean people abide by it and always do it. If that were the case we wouldn't need laws and rules ;)

The point is that if our objective was to end tyranny and bring peace and democracy, then we should be just as involved in Darfur as we are in Iraq. But Iraq just happens to be oil-rich (moreso than Sudan, which isn't even in the top 20) and considered by many military policy think-tanks to be key to influencing the middle-east.

The fact is that N.Korea, Iraq, and Iran were all identified as threats by PNAC in September 2000. A year later we have 9/11 and then 18 months later we're at war with Iraq under the pretenses of terrorism. How convenient.

amen to that!

Nope I am definitely not a Bush supporter, but here is my 2 cents.

Well, a few things of note:

1) If we are trying to end Tyrany in some other countries, mind as well do in in the ones we can benefit from.

2) I can see fighting back(or even revenge) is justified, but extending the said actions to entities weakly related to the incident is going a bit too far.

3) Dying for the freedom of your own country is one thing, doing so for some other dude's country is a whole different thing. Doing it for profit(not your own) is just a bad thing.

4) Starting a war on more than one front is not a good idea either.

5) Sometimes money can be better spend internally, there are lots of things that needs fixing.

6) Maybe there is a time to pull out and let people dealt with their own problem, we have certainly done enough. And while unfortunate, getting into a civil war between people-with-religious-sects-as-an-excuse is never a good idea. Especially true when both sides considers your viewpoint to be "evil".

Iraq. His steadfast determination to attack Iraq no matter what has earned him and his country great resentment.

Tyranny as defined by Webster-Merriam is an oppressive power exerted by government; a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force. Full definition here (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tyranny).

That I'll give that Saddaam was a tyrant but is anyone else who doesn't agree with our ideas of western civilization called a tyrant?

That would depend on what qualifications you would feel make a tyrant. Gassing of the Kurds for example, or Palestinian children being used as suicide bombers.

Tyranny as defined by Webster-Merriam is an oppressive power exerted by government; a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force. Full definition here (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tyranny).

That I'll give that Saddaam was a tyrant but is anyone else who doesn't agree with our ideas of western civilization called a tyrant?


Ideals might be a better word. There are no doubt a lot of ideas w/in the span of western civilization" that could probably be labeled as repugnant.

As to Bush, I think he's failed the country in many ways. The border policies of this government (though I don't think Gore/Kerry would have differed that greatly in the end) are detrimental to the nation. He's still trying to fight this war on the "cheap" and he's not vetoed almost anything in his whole tenure so far either. It's in some ways like Johnson's guns'n butter approach.