"Bush's War of Choice", more are using this terminology.

The war on terror. The global war on terror. The Long War. Call it what you want, several newspapers and pundits are now correctly calling it what it is: "Bush's War of Choice".

What does this term, "War of Choice" mean? On the surface it suggests that Bush wanted a war, and that's the only reason we are at war.

It is certainly isn't a war of neccessity, Iraq never attacked us.

Let's all call this war what it really is, and not allow them to give it a noble name or paint it with red white and blue, and declare it's for freedom and democracy and security, it's just a war that our president wanted, he chose it.

THIS IS BUSH'S WAR, not America's.

Cheney and Rummy and daddy Bush.

have the bigger stick.

Date: 6/18/2006 8:12:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: NotfooooldbyW
To: countdown@msnbc.com, executive-editor@nytimes.com, hardball@msnbc.com, KOlbermann@msnbc.com, letters@washpost.com
CC: cohenr@washpost.com, colmes@foxnews.com, froomkin@washingtonpost.com, helent@hearstdc.com, imus@msnbc.com, larisa@rawstory.com, milbankd@washpost.com, nightline@abcnews.com, oreilly@foxnews.com, president@whitehouse.gov

To the Newsmedia: This is not a request to be published it is a request that the matter of Amir Al Saadi's wherabouts and the facts surrounding Al Saadi's involvement in Iraq's peace initiatives be investigated. Break the silence on this matter, Please!

NotfooooldbyW 06/16/2006: Looks as if Rumsfeld was concerned about the wrong regime "CHOOSING WISELY"

Secretary Rumsfeld Live Interview With Infinity CBS Radio 11/14/2002 Narrator: Live from our nation's capital, this is Infinity Radio Connect, American Security. A coast-to-coast interactive conversation with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld 11/14/2002: Saddam Hussein needs to understand that the choice does not rest in Washington, it does not rest in New York; it rests in Baghdad. For the sake of peace, let's hope that the Iraq regime chooses wisely.

(about 40 days later) FOX NEWS - 12/22/2002: Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

Kroft 11/14/2002: There are many questions, and I would like to ask the first one, if it's all right. U.N. weapons inspectors are preparing to go to Iraq very shortly and begin searching for evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. What do you expect them to find, and what happens if they don't find anything? Is Saddam Hussein off the hook?

Rumsfeld 11/14/2002: Well, we know that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. And we know he has an active program for the development of nuclear weapons. I suppose what it would prove would be that the inspections process had been successfully defeated by the Iraqis if they find nothing.

NotfooooldbyW 06/18/2006: So if the inspectors "find nothing" it only will prove the Iraqis have outsmarted the UN inspectors. The Iraqis are still guilty. I'd like to ask Rumsfeld the same question had President Bush taken Al Saadi's offer and sent 2000 CIA agents into Iraq to look for themselves. "What happens if 2000 CIA agents on the ground in Iraq find nothing?"

Rumsfeld's speculated response would have to be: It proves that even our CIA has been successfully defeated by Iraq because if CIA agents find nothing on the ground in Iraq themselves, we still had to disarm Iraq the hastily put together invasion route. I'd been planning it since 9/11/2001 at 14:45 Eastern Time and nothing was going to stop it. Nothing! Get it?