Dmenocrat: You are making me tired, you stupidly said;

What you’re really saying is that it’s better for the Iraqi’s to die for our war then us or that it is better to send men and women into a war zone without adequate training or equipment (or even enough troops for that matter). Your fallacy that you believe that this strategy is working when clearly it is not, overall terrorist attacks worldwide are up (oh, wait..those aren’t American soil attacks so they don’t count).

I never said nor implied it is better for Iraqi’s to die, for our war. A. I said as an unintended consequence of our desposing Saddam, Al Queda used our presence there to fight America, and as a sad fact of life Iraqi’s are dying there and yes, I prefer Americans be spared that unfortunate fact of war on our homeland. B. It was our war, we won it fast and clearly, so we had enough troops and they were well enough trained to win and despose Saddam; since then, since Al Queda decided to wage war there it has been Iraqi’s war of independence, with a great deal of American support to be sure; but it is mostly Muslims killing Muslims, and if Iraqi’s better assisted us in routing out Al Queda and stopping the secular violence, most Iraqi deaths would be reduced to a very low number.

Yes my grossly ignorant, liberal, socialist friend terrorism is up all over the world, but why? IRAN! SYRIA! AL QUEDA! These groups have used this time to launch an all out war of terror to prepare the world for the Mahdi and global Islamic rule. They have been aided and abetted, given aid and comfort, and encouraged every step of the way by the Demoncrat Party, the American MSM and their European allies. The Demoncrats and the MSM to defeat Bush and gain power for themselves, and the latter group because they make money off Islamic countries and they are weak sister, craven ingrates and enemies of the United States just as dangerous to America as Al Queda.

If you want this battle to defend the traitorous Demoncrat Party, let’s get it on! You sad, low creatures on the Left do everything possible to cause a major America defeat to our Islamic enemies in the field and to crush Bush out of your insatiable lust for power; and if and when we do lose, you blame the President that you chose to destroy. It might seem clever, but I think you are all worse enemies of liberty and America than all the Islamic terrorists in the world.

Two obvious truths.

1) Iraq is the central front of the Global War on Terror. It’s better to fight them there than anywhere else.

2) If we leave Iraq giving Al Queda and their allies (Hezbollah, ABC, CBS, The New York Times, Democrat Party, Hamahs) will be all the more emboldened to contine to attack us and our allies.

IT IS ALL THE PRESIDENT’S FAULT, HE SHOULD RESIGN IS DISGRACE.

GREAT IDEA!

Then Dick Cheney will straighten things out run as an incumbent and we’ll have eight more years of good things.

Demoncrat: All your fallacious charges about Bush aside, what you cannot deny is the treason of the Demoncrat Party during our time in Iraq; they have knowingly, for wholly partisan purposes given emotional aid and comfort to the enemy, encouraging them to hold on and the Demoncrats and their MSM and European allies would hand them the victory.

Before you make asinine, baseless charges against the President you must be able to offer solid, objective documentary evidence or appear like just another sad victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Sorry, but you are wrong on all counts. Opinions of those who are not involved do not carry much weight. Know your enemy. We failed in WW II to know the evil of the JAPS and to a lesser extent the NAZIs. Today we face similar evil in the form of Muslim facists. The locals in Iraq are rising up against these evil men who would impose their religious law on the entire country.

Democrats: Clueless About War In Iraq

First, I hate to correct you Rob old boy…

…but the last four words are redundant!

Yes…of course…all of this is the media and the democrats fault since they were the ones who trumped up the intel on WMD, they fired the Iraqi Army and the Bathists, they sent in too few soldiers, they picked a country with centries long sectarian conflicts, they tortured at Abu Gharib, they locked up innocent bystanders in Gitmo, they pulled men and intell sources from Afghanistan right at the moment of isolating Al Qaeda…and on and on. The fact is Bush f’d up the whole thing and he and you, should never forget that.

Doubly over-excessively redundant.

Demoncrat: The United States Congress, including virtually every Demoncrat authorized the war in Iraq – Bush did not and could not have gone in alone, and many of the current Demoncrat Party made even more extreme speeches encouraging an invasion than did President Bush, all I might add using the same Intelligence Data that was available to the President. As to the intelligence data, how could President Bush skew it when virtually every intelligence agency in the world reported virtually the same data, and Tony Blair, a Liberal would not have agreed to go into Iraq if his evaluation of all this data was not identical or nearly identical to that of the President.

Now pay attention carefully: With all that intelligence data, had it proven true and Saddam used it to attack Israel, American interests or given it to any terrorist group with a resulting loss of life your comrades in Congress, the Demoncrats would have insited he be impeached for malfeasance of office in violating his oath to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic.

You are defending the indefensible! That is the traitorous Demoncrat Party.

“What do you think would have happened had all of America and Europe shown a fierce determination to win this war against Islamic terrorism together with America, leaving no stone unturned and no doubt in Al Queda’s mind that we would not shrink from our duty to defeat them? Surely, at least they would have crawled back in their caves, allowed a cooling off period and tried easier targets closer to home.”

I can answer that…Iraq would NOT have happened..that’ what.

I agree that Saddam Hussein’s regime had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks (the Bush administration has never claimed any such thing).

It is difficult to find a direct claim by Bush linking the two things, but the intent was clearly there. In many of his early speeches on the case for war in Iraq, Bush repeated mentioned 9-11, often in the same sentence as he mentioned Saddam Hussein.

Regardless of whether this was an intentional deceit, the affect was that the American people (Republican and Democrat alike) began to believe the two were linked. At the height of the hysteria, in 2003, polls showed 70% of Americans believed there was a connection.

And it’s not an idea that has easily shifted. Last month a NewsWeek poll showed a figure of 41% still believe Saddam’s regime had direct involvement in 9/11.

I was unable to find a breakdown by Democrat vs. Republican, but it would be interesting to know, and it can be reasonably assumed that those who believe are more likely to be Republican, as such a belief would help justify the invasion of Iraq.

Whatever the case is, it shows that there are a lot of clueless people out there – some of them are Democrats and some of them are Republicans.

But I’d point out that Saddam was heavily involved with international terrorism before we invaded his country.

One must assume that you are speaking here of Saddam’s support of Palestinian militants (who you may choose to label terrorists). I believe that he did indeed do this. It’s relevance to the US is spurious though.

Let us not forget that one American administration after another has given money and weapons to those who fight for things that were perceived to be in American interests.

Sometimes these have been guerrilla groups fighting in South America (I am sure that those they fought considered them terrorists).

Others, such as what was to become the Taliban, were armed and trained to fight Soviet occupiers.

Or how about members of organized crime, paid to assassinate Castro.

And sometimes they are sovereign countries, such as the regime of Saddam Hussein who was given money and arms for his war against Iran.

Providing material support to groups who support your beliefs is a dirty and dangerous business, but as much a despot as Saddam was, he was by no means at the forefront of the methodology.

Put a sock in it, boy, or else you’re outta here like sh*t through a goose.

LOL, I’ll have to remember to use this quote more often.

It is difficult to find a direct claim by Bush linking the two things, but the intent was clearly there.

I disagree. I think it’s only fair to hold Bush accountable for the things he’s actually said. So if he hasn’t actually said that Saddam was involved in 9/11, you can’t tell me he really meant to say that.