Sunday January 11, 2009, 7:44 am
DING - DONG - THE WITCH IS DEAD!!!!! And all it took was an act of Congress? Of course Bush being forced into agreeing to the settlement with Iraq helped. Now - Can we get the hell out of Afghanistan before it's too late? There really is no right war, in a few rare situations nation's must protect their people - but our invasion of Afghanistan just does not fit that scenario. Yes, I do know why we are there, and the history. Big mistake Obama - very big mistake.

Sunday January 11, 2009, 10:14 am
Yes, you said it best, "There really is no right war, in a few rare situations" Thank you Kit.

Sunday January 11, 2009, 11:38 am
If Bush is one thing, he's consistent in his grabbing of extra-constitutional powers, and now he's even trying to limit Obama's future power over troops with this US/Iraqi committee under SOFA.

Of course the war has always been ILLEGAL from the start by violating the UN Charter. Regardless of whatever Congress did after their spinectomy doesn't change this. Yes Kit, let's get the hell out of Afghanistan! Except maybe building some schools and hospitals, which should have been the stategy in the first place. Obama shouldn't continue with this folly.

Sunday January 11, 2009, 12:34 pm
Bu$h invading a sovereign country was ALWAYS ILLEGAL

Sunday January 11, 2009, 3:14 pm
Illegal invasion is not war. It is genocide.

Sunday January 11, 2009, 8:55 pm
Glad others see things my way too.

Sunday January 11, 2009, 11:11 pm
Check out the Geneva Convention (which the U.S. signed off on). Wars of agression are illegal. Hence, the war on Iraq was illegal since day 1.

Hopefully, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al will be held accountable someday!

Monday January 12, 2009, 12:15 am
The "War on Terrorism" has always been a false flag kind of war. Number 1, we are not at "war" with any nation. At best Al Qaida was a group of criminals. Why the U.S. ever acknowledged them as equals and declared war on them is beyond me. Unless, Bush didn't understand the definition of "war" perhaps. Hopefully, Barack Obama will take a fresh look at the situation.

Monday January 12, 2009, 7:06 am
this war was based upon lie after lie after lie and was never legal...however GWB and others might try to spin it.

I never understood the idea of a 'war on terrorism' as surely it is the job of any country to prevent acts of violence against its people...this is not a war but it was an act of punitive aggression by the USA over 9/11...or that was the excuse any road.

Monday January 12, 2009, 7:54 am
When people are under attack, it is the job of their government to protect them. Just after 9/11 many of the middle eastern countries offerrd their help, even Saudi Arabia put a price on bin laden's head. We (Bush and adviser's) turned this offer down, and the rest is history. I will never understand the American mind set that unless WE solve the problem it can not be solved. Just as before and after Katrina - Cuba offered to give us help---gee we sure didn't need any there now did we? It would seem that a WAR ON TERROR is (correct me if I am wrong) a war on an idea not on a country, therefore what good does it do to invade a country? What is there to win in Iraq or Afghanistan? Is freedom and democracy a disease that can be "spread" - or is it an idea, better yet an Ideal? Live it honestly and others - should they see merit will want to follow.

Monday January 12, 2009, 11:06 am
"War on Terror" is a war on a TACTIC. "War on Poverty" is a war AGAINST THE POOR. "War on Drugs" is a war against PLANTS, for heaven's sake! Cannabis {Marijuana}, Opium Poppies, etc.
In actual fact, you can't ever possibly root out and kill every last user of what we define as "terror" tactics; you can't destroy and eliminate every last weed we choose to call "evil" {or its users}; that's the ONLY way these so-called "wars" could be regarded as finally OVER.
This leaves the door wide open to mass environmental destruction, atrocious genocide, a mindset of "all or nothing" leading to the UNBRIDLED use of aggression, an irrational frenzy. And a PERMANENT state of "war" with no end ever, ever, ever in sight. {Which is very useful for the power structure CONTROLLING an acquiescent population; as is demonstrated in the novel "1984".}

This whole mindset of a so-called "war" against this, that, and the other, has to be PURGED FROM OUR VOCABULARIES if we are to stop the belligerent, mindless, and limitless use of power and naked aggression by the American government.

Obama should be smarter than that. He is very aware of the dynamics and the meaning of words. One can hope he'll be able to change, by judicious use of words among other things, the militaristic mind-set so many have become accustomed to.

Monday January 12, 2009, 12:16 pm
Just 8 more days & Bu$h wil be gone for good! :0)

Monday January 12, 2009, 12:20 pm
The war on drugs brings in a lot of money for so called "black ops" operations. I have noted that although decriminalization and fair tax have been the number one and two issues, even above the economy and health care, the answer is that Obama does not favor legal marijuana or the fair tax. Frankly I don't a damn what he favors. This web-site was supposed to be to discover the wants and needs of the people of this country. And as all duplications are deleted, I would say that a vast number of people are asking him to put aside his personal likes and dislikes and for once - YES FOR ONCE have a president that actually represents our desires.

He has also received so many letters and notes against Afghanistan that one would think he might consider that people are fed up with wars. Most particularly those people who cause us no harm.

Monday January 12, 2009, 3:26 pm

the article said:
"Bush is trying to fill the legal vacuum with the new Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) he signed with the Iraqis. But the president's agreement is unconstitutional, since it lacks the approval of Congress. Bush even refused to allow Congress access to the terms of the deal. By contrast, Prime Minister al-Maliki followed his constitution and submitted the agreement for parliamentary approval. While the Iraqi parliament debated its terms, leading members of Congress were obliged to obtain unofficial English translations of texts published by the Arab press.

Bush defends his extraordinary conduct by claiming that it is traditional for commanders in chief to negotiate status of forces agreements without congressional consent. But the Iraqi agreement goes far beyond anything in the traditional SOFAs concluded with close to 100 countries since World War II.

Indeed, it goes far beyond any sensible interpretation of the president's power as commander in chief. For example, the SOFA creates a joint US-Iraq committee and gives it, not the president, broad control over the use of American combat troops. It thereby asserts the authority to restrict President Obama's powers as commander in chief throughout most of his first term in office. But under the Constitution, no president can unilaterally limit his successor's authority over the military.

This defective agreement cannot serve as a valid substitute for the congressional authorization that Bush so casually allowed to expire on December 31. It is up to Congress to authorize continuing military action. Gaining the consent of a foreign power simply isn't enough."

Scuse me people who is supposed to be on that committee George Bush or who ? Does this mean what it sounds like--- that another entity/ government? would have control over our troops there or did I misunderstand something here-This cannot be allowed! No other committee /government can be allowed to have control over our troops-that's it they are truly insane and have managed to brilliantly come up with a way to steal our armed forces and place them under another command. Whose army will our army /armed forces become?

Monday January 12, 2009, 4:06 pm
You are correct Faith, this SOFA leaves much to be desired and it would be possible, should the Iraqis consent, to renegotiate for better terms for both the US and the Iraqi government. Currently we have somewhere between 80 and 115 SOFA agreements in effect, however the attempt to usurp the powers of Congress and override an in coming president are contrivances of Bush, and not found in the historical references I have found so far.

Monday January 12, 2009, 4:28 pm
It's another sneaky Bush side-step that requires one think in circles if they want to understand it. I think the magic word is "combat"... if our troops are engaged as "combat" forces, then all of the above criticism applies. However, if our troops are "advisory" forces, then a whole different set of rules COULD be applied. Regardless, we didn't belong there in the first place, and I'm trusting Obama to get us out as quickly as is safe to do so. That being said - we'll have a presence in Iraq for a very long time, if for no other reason than to protect that HUGE embassy. Such a waste - all of it. Glad to hear Pelosi might be interested in pursuing charges against Bush Admin. We'd better! If not, there are numerous governments waiting in the wings to take it to the Hague.

Tuesday January 13, 2009, 1:08 am
Am considering turning the "Impeach Bush Now" group, which I co-host, into an ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WAR CRIMES group. That is if the members and other co-hosts agree. Impeachment, unfortunately, thanks to Pelosi, never got "off the table". Maybe NOW, tho, more COURAGE will be shown and these CROOKS, TORTURERS, WAR CRIMINALS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESTROYERS will be FINALLY brought before the Bar of Justice!!!

Sunday January 18, 2009, 6:58 am
Recent news offers the very real possibility that the "war on terrorism" was nothing more that a contrivance of our own government as a tool to promote "American" global "interests".

It is quiet likely that we have allowed our government to run wild with illeagal activity and abuses of power. The trail of victims can be found inside and outside our borders. There are more than a few that have manipulated our government and its agencies to promote their own personal interests. It seems we can add to that list violations to our founding principles and abuse of our constitution.

No more? I quess that is up to us. There appears to be an opportunity to take the reins back with a new administration. It is on us to keep it clean. Lets do our part, be vigilant and keep our representatives with their feet to the fire.

Clean up, remain positivly focused and move forward. Yes, we can.