On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:36:37 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> blake wrote:
>
>> you think the war in iraq and eavesdropping on citizens (a felony, by the
>> way) were *good* things, and *i'm* naive? please.
>
> I'll address those in reverse order, since the answer to the second one is
> fairly short:
>
> 1. The claim is that no wiretaps were authorized on U.S. citizens. If that's
> true it would technically not be a breach of any citizens' rights. Is it
> true? Doubtful, but that's how the authorizations were granted.
>

but they were freely authorized *when one person in the conversation was
overseas*. there is really no doubt now that citizens were illegally
surveilled. don't forget that in 2004, some of the aspects of the program
were so outrageous that ashcroft, comey, mueller (not exactly civil
liberties fanatics) and other top DOJ officials threatened to resign *en
masse* if they continued.

> 2. Under the terms of Iraq's surrender following the liberation of Kuwait,
> Iraq was not supposed to militarily engage any reconnaissance or search
> operations, nor to impede the U.N. inspectors in any way. Hussein's regime
> violated the terms of its surrender EVERY SINGLE DAY, and I personally
> witnessed it. Some of those violations are cited in the Wikipedia article on
> Operation Southern Watch. (I was a daily participant in that operation.)
> Regardless of the existence or nonexistence of WMD, that fact alone
> justified the war: If you fail to abide by the provisions of your surrender,
> then in essence you haven't surrendered at all, and the war should continue
> until you REALLY surrender.
>

i don't care if there was a bogus *casus belli* or not. the question was,
do you think those were both good things for the united states? it is to
laugh.

your pal,
blake