Mark,

That was 1995. We invaded in 2003. Any correspondence in between then? You are so desperate to give a reason for 2,500 dead soldiers, the 15,000 with missing limbs and many more with long term mental illness. Not to mention a trillion dollars diverted away from the American economy to be paid back by your children.

No...... your guilt will NEVER go away or be explained away by such silliness. At some point you'll need to fess up to the wrongness against our troops and your very own children you have committed and continue to support. Only then will you have a chance of feeling like a whole man...or a true Christian....now you must just feel like a shell of a person...that's sad.

Back inthe 80's Rumsfeld met with Saddam. Saddam is basically a terrorist because of the 1995 meeting.
So..... that means Rumsfeld is a terrorist too!

Back inthe 80's Rumsfeld met with Saddam. Saddam is basically a terrorist because of the 1995 meeting.
So..... that means Rumsfeld is a terrorist too!

(sigh ) Jeez how utterly dense is the left lately. I cannot believe an American would write words that naive after 9/11

I pity you.

Muirgeo,

You think even if we knew this in 1995, that lame excuse for a president would have gotten his **** out of Monica's mouth and done something? I think not. He is as weak as the UN. We should have gone back in their during the 90s when US planes were fired upon (act of war) while patrolling. You are just expressing your ignorance and lack of understanding of the situation in Iraq to beleive we should not be there. I am proud of President Bush's decision to remove that sadistic dictator and liberate Iraq's citizens. Now that more evidence has surface regarding his intent on WMDs and collaborations with AQ, I feel more confident in the mission and in the President. Your comment that by supporting the decision to liberate Iraq does not let me feel like a "true Christian" is very wrong. In fact, I am a Christian who feels better knowing that the citizens and children of Iraq will not be sent to Saddam's torutre programs and will have a better life now that he is no longer in power. Yes the United States and Iraqis payed and continue to pay a heavy price, but it is worth it. While my heart and prayers go out to the heroes fallen and wounded, I hope they and their families understand this too. Obviously, you do not, for that I pray for you - hope you can one day feel like a whole man.

This was in the 9/11 commissions report, which concluded there was no working relationship between AQ and Iraq.

Good Morning Moonbats!!! Missed your smilin faces....

What's up with that censure impeachment idea? I'm writin my democratic congressman to get them onboard with the idea. Great idea huh, it wasn't mine but vero's doin it and it does sound like a sure way to help the democrats out of office.

I think you ought to take some time and do the same thing. You have excellent arguments in your posts, and you disprove all documentation coming your way for a large variety of reasons. If we all do it together, maybe we can convince some running democrats to slow down and vote censure, or vote impeachment. What do you think guys?

Can't we work together for a change??

I agree, still no proof of any connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Wrong!

As far as the flawed 7-11 Commission is concerned, they stated that they were not charged to look at any connections between 9-11, Iraq, etc. Moreover, they would not have had any access to most, if not all of these documents, since they reported in early or mid 2004.

muirgeo, Matt is the one who posted the article, not Mark.

SOL, There you go proving my point that libs don't know how to make comparisons. You're basically saying:
Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 is THE SAME AS Rumsfeld met with Saddam Back in the 80's.
Critical thinking will show you that they are not equivalents and that you have made a bad comparison.

Vero... do you understand sarcasm?

ND, that comment goes for you too.
Sarcasm. Look it up.

Considering all of the "e-ink" this site expended just the other day defending the Bush administration's plans for the invasion of Iraq -- prior to 9/11 -- as "contingency planning" -- it seems a little silly that we now find an 11-year old meeting between some obscure Iraqi official and UBL on the subject of a television show as "proof" of Iraq's collusion in the attack on the World Trade Center.

Something tells me that there exists a gap in the level of evidence that some at this site require to "prove" that a crime has been committed.

I guess that torture unit (and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon) just exposed by the NYT will get the benefit of the doubt too?

"Vero... do you understand sarcasm?"

yeah, and that wasn't it.

Not even close

That is truly, what the left believes. That Rumsfield and Bush are the world's #1 terrorist, 9/11 was staged, and that OBL is just a poor misunderstood farm boy just trying to get along with everyone. Besides 9/11 was Americas’ fault and those folks deserved to di.

You can deny, deny and deny, but that doesn't make it so. if it quacks, walks and looks like a duck it isn't a sarcastic Platypus.

Now that most Americans no longer believe in the war, now that they no longer trust Bush and his Administration, now that the evidence of deception has become overwhelming (so overwhelming that even the major media, always late, have begun to register indignation), we might ask: How come so many people were so easily fooled?

The question is important because it might help us understand why Americans--members of the media as well as the ordinary citizen--rushed to declare their support as the President was sending troops halfway around the world to Iraq.

A small example of the innocence (or obsequiousness, to be more exact) of the press is the way it reacted to Colin Powell's presentation in February 2003 to the Security Council, a month before the invasion, a speech which may have set a record for the number of falsehoods told in one talk. In it, Powell confidently rattled off his "evidence": satellite photographs, audio records, reports from informants, with precise statistics on how many gallons of this and that existed for chemical warfare. The New York Times was breathless with admiration. The Washington Post editorial was titled "Irrefutable" and declared that after Powell's talk "it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."

It seems to me there are two reasons, which go deep into our national culture, and which help explain the vulnerability of the press and of the citizenry to outrageous lies whose consequences bring death to tens of thousands of people. If we can understand those reasons, we can guard ourselves better against being deceived.

One is in the dimension of time, that is, an absence of historical perspective. The other is in the dimension of space, that is, an inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are penned in by the arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, superior.

If we don't know history, then we are ready meat for carnivorous politicians and the intellectuals and journalists who supply the carving knives. I am not speaking of the history we learned in school, a history subservient to our political leaders, from the much-admired Founding Fathers to the Presidents of recent years. I mean a history which is honest about the past. If we don't know that history, then any President can stand up to the battery of microphones, declare that we must go to war, and we will have no basis for challenging him. He will say that the nation is in danger, that democracy and liberty are at stake, and that we must therefore send ships and planes to destroy our new enemy, and we will have no reason to disbelieve him.

Salvelinus,

Perhaps I'm missing something. I don't remember any writer for Blogs for Bush claiming that there was collusion between Iraq and OBL regarding the 9/11 attacks. They are pointing out that there is ample evidence of cooperation between Iraq and various terrorist organizations.

I fail to see why any tie between Iraq and OBL is necessary to justify Iraq being a target in the War on Terror. Iraq had a history of attacking neighboring countries (Kuwait and Iran), using WMD (Iran-Iraq War and against the Kurds), failing to abide with the 1991 Ceasefire and 17 UN Resolutions, firing at US and UK aircraft patrolling the UN mandated "No-Fly" zone, was training a variety of terrorist organizations at Salmon Pak and other sites, was paying $25,000 to suicide-bombers families. The list goes on and on. Add to the list that the official US policy (signing into law in 1998 by President Clinton) was regime change in Iraq and that Congress specifically authorized military action against Iraq.

I do not understand why the left has a problem with the US liberating 50,000,000 people being oppressed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't you believe in human rights? Don't you believe that women should have more rights than existed in pre-liberation Iraq and Afghanistan? Don't you believe the murder, rape, and torture under Saddam and the Taliban should be stopped?

The typical answer from the left is why don't we intervene in Sudan or Rwanda? Maybe we should. But Sudan and Rwanda were not firing at US and UK aircraft, were not persuing or using WMD, were not in violation of ceasefires and UN Resolutions, and were not harboring and encouraging terrorism. That's why Iraq required direct intervention, while the situations in Sudan, Rwanda, Iran, and otherwhere require a different solution.

A-10, you can't have it both ways here.
In one paragraph, you question if we are for murder, rapes, torture and if we have a problem with liberating people being oppressed.
In the very next paragraph, you say Maybe we should go into Sudan and Rwanda, but they were not firing at US aircraft.

If you are going to say the Iraq war was worth it for freeing these people, you can't change the argument for the other two and say... yeah, but...

No. You can not have it both ways.

Moonbats, bow down facing mecca 5 times a day. For we have been a wicked country, and deserve to cut & run and lose this war. (By the way --- I saw some specially designed jeans on yahoo).

Censure Bush, Impeach Bush, you are on your way to a total withdrawl and we can then raise taxes after he's out of office. Pay down the debt and return to the good ole days of yester-year when Clinton had/was? blown up into a bubble economy where everything was "peachy keene" and we just shot a few missles into the air (pretending to do something), while they and their oil for weapons program also thrived (everybody was winning).

We have tortured, and been the scourge of the earth forever, and now see the errors of our way. In fact we stole this land from the indians, gave them alcohol, put them on reservations, then stole the oil out from under them and put it in a trust fund because everyone knows a drunk indian couldn't be trusted with that oil money. Then we stole that trust money too. Clinton and all them democrats were completely innocent, they were off doing other 'private' things and did not know what happened.

Now I feel better, time to go practice my praying. Wonder if I need to study my genealogy more so I can figure out where to go back to, since we're really illegal occupiers of America. Iraq does look like a good place, but I think Ireland/Wales/England may be where the family came from. Do they also need to pray all the time there too?

muirgeo,
I guess you saw the numbers from 1980, more US soldiers died under moonbat Jimmy Carter in 1980 without a war than died in Iraq in 04 or 05! Ditto for military deaths under Slick Wily without any war!

Don't remember that? Well it wasn't reported by the MSM either. However, Rove will in 06 and 08. Regards.

(sigh)

u civilians still don't get it.

name one time in world history please, just one, wherein a HUGE invasion army was assembled, then NOT used.

once our invasion army was assembled...(stop the chattering & hand-wringing please & repeat after me)...

THE WMD BECAME IRRELEVANT!

(sigh, again)

A-10,
Read the bloody post -- "No connection?" (and thousands of previous posts at this site on the subject of UBL and Iraq). I realize that your Dear Leader denies ever linking UBL to 9/11, but then he only speaks before crowds of soldiers who wouldn't dare question his veracity. Bush has consistently tried to tie Saddam, UBL and 9/11.

Actually, the way I understand it, the Iraqis were not "firing" on American and UK aircraft, but rather painting them with fire-control radar -- which is considered to be reason enough to eat an antiradiation missile.

The MTV generation does not understand that digging up, translating, and analyzing all the documents and materials we captured takes time. The left made up it's mind in the complete absence of facts and refuse to re-evaluate. This is normal for them.

Their ide of "debate" is nonsense chants (they USED to complain about the "Bush Economy" - not anymore though) and catch phrases. Few if any can be pinned down on any facts. By the time you dig your way though their crazy chants and outright lies they have moved on to the next lie. Defeat against terrorists is apparently OK so long as it leads them back into power.

Oh boy! We really can "believe" the useless 9/11 commission, that was stuffed by dems and rinos that there was "no connection" between the murderer saddam and the murderer ben laden. We forget that our planes were being fired on by the loser of the Desert Storm Campaign while laden's troops were flying planes into the trade center.

Salvelinius, you understand wrong. They were often painting, and more importantly "locking" our aircraft with fire control radar. This was indeed the most common provacation. It is universally understood as a hostile act and will generate a hostile response. It is the equivalent of pointing a gun at a police officer and then looking surprised when he shoots you.

However, they frequently fired on the aircraft as well. Nov. 27 2001: "To date, Iraq has fired anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles against Coalition aircraft on more than 1,050 occasions since December 1998, including more than 420 in this calendar year. Iraqi aircraft have violated the Southern No-Fly Zone more than 160 times in the same period. "

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/iraq-011127-centcom01.htm

The fact that you would prefer not to remember certain things does not alter history.

The 9-11 Commission did not do any in depth focus on any relationship between AQ, Bin Laden, and Iraq. The Commission heads even said so. In addition the 9-11 Commission report appears to be seriously flawed since they omitted pertinent information, such as Able Danger, the Jamie Guerlick wall, etc.

The United States Senate on Friday, October 11, 2002 voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions 660, 678, 687 and 1441 that deal directly with Iraq, Saddam and the WMD’s!. A few hours prior to that vote, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. That’s over a 2/3 Congressional majority! Therefore the President was joined by 373 members of Congress in his decision to invade Iraq, not to mention the various resolutions by the United Nations over a 12 year period, specifically resolution 1441 giving President Bush unanimous authority to use whatever force necessary in Iraq. Then they gave Saddam until March to comply, a deadline he blatantly ignored (so much for diplomacy). If they hadn’t given the President and the Congress of the United States this authority, the coalition of 35+ nations could not have participated!
The misguided ideology that President Bush acted alone against the wishes of the World is patently absurd. The people that the World and the United States (2/3 majority remember) acted against were the radical Islamic terrorist nations that have hated us since the beginning of the 20th Century. The other groups of people acted against were the nanny-state, matriarchal, socialist, thumb-suckers that can only counteract an intelligent conversation with a battle of semantics, never any facts. Are the two or three of you assigned by your radical leftist, liberal bloggers to make fools out of yourselves or do you accomplish this as independent idiots?

1SGT
The archive that you cited is a US military PR (provided by an organization that provides mercenaries for the Iraq war). It may be accurate it may not be. Since it does not even mention the use of fire-control radar as a "threat," I'm guessing that it is lumping all incidents as "firing" and probably counting tracers from an AK-47 as "air-defense artillery."

Also, in the run-up to war, it is known that "Coalition" aircraft (UK in particular) intentionally provoked incidents as both excuses to fire on Iraqi positions and to gain intelligence about them (I believe we've been doing the same thing in Iranian airspace lately). The Air Force, in this case, is not an automatically credible source.

Sick of Lies,

I'm not having it both ways. I'm saying that we were 100% correct in enforcing the UN Resolutions and the Ceasefire that Iraq violated. Not to mention liberating 50,000,000 from oppression. I'm also saying we probably should have interceded in Sudan and Rwanda. But that was on another president's watch, not President Bush's.

I see that you failed to answer the questions I posed to you: Are you for murder, rapes, torture and do you have a problem with liberating people being oppressed?

Salvelinus,

I think there is a connection between Iraq and terrorists, including OBL. No, I know there is a connection. There is documented proof and eye-witness accounts of meetings between al-Qaeda and the Iraqis. I'm not convinced that Iraq provided material support to the 9/11 attacks. However, if some of the 2,000,000 documents being translated provide a connection, I'm willing to consider them as proof.

Unlike those on the loony-left, I like to deal with facts, not emotions. You on the left think that official reports citing facts are not to be believed and are propaganda. Its difficult to have a rational discourse with someone who questions all facts. I suppose you also believe that the sun revolves around the earth and sets in the east.

So A-10, you obviously support a "Shoot First Ask Questions Later" mentality. Who cares about a reason as long as we can prove it was ok after the fact? That is quite a policy you advocate.

Do you really need me to say that I don't support those things? Don't be a fool.
So answer me this... there are still plenty of oppressed people in the world. Are we going to go liberate them?

Hell of an argument sick. I suppose you are against locking up child molestors since we can't catch them all.

Mark, why do keep trying to prove what the president has long ago stopped trying to prove? More importantly, what difference does it make at this point. We are in Iraq, like it or not. We can not "cut and run", like it or not. Which means we will be there for a long time to come as per the president himself. What I would like to see is a plausable exit stratagy. The way I see it, we will be waiting way too long for the Iraqis to be able to take over security of their country to be palatable to the American public. This will result in a "Vietnamization policy" exit stratagy (a la Nixon) for "some future pesident", regardless of political affiliation and the results will be the same. I truly hope that I am wrong on this one.

The Democrats and their MSM propaganda machine are allied with Bin Laden.

Sick of Lies,

No I don't support a "shoot First, Ask Questions later". You seem to convieniently forget that the US action to inforce the UN Resolutions and Ceasefire violations had the backing of the US Congress and UN Resolution 678 and 1441. Both the Congressional Authorization and UN Resolutions have a laundry-list of reasons to use military force. You also convieniently forget that President Bush gave Saddam and his henchment plenty of time to comply, or leave Iraq, but they choose to stay and fight.

Yes, there are plenty of people being oppressed throughout the world. The Charter of the UN is to help those people. It is also the policy of the US to support actions to free them from oppression. I'm saying that the left is always comparing Iraq to other situations, when the circumstances are different. We should do what we can to help stop the oppression. But when we have a country which is in violation of UN Resolutions, UN Resolutions promise consequences for failing to abide with the Resolutions, we have Congressional Authorization and the Iraqi Liberation Act (signed by President Clinton), they have know ties to terrorist organizations and are supporting terrorists, have and have used WMD, and are a threat to supply WMD to the terrorist organizations, we need to act. And we did the right thing by liberating Iraq and removing Saddam from power.

If the left would support our efforts in liberating Iraq, the terrorists would soon give up. They are only continuing to fight and kill innocent Iraqis because they think, through the US media, they can sway public support and force us to leave Iraq so they can resume their reign of terror. We were morally right to liberate Iraq, and we are morally right to remain until the Iraqis can stand on their own.

Think of it this way. The current Iraqi government was elected by the Iraqi people, men and women alike (there are women serving in their parliment - where they were prohibited from before). If they demanded that we leave immediately (they won't because they know they are not ready to provide for their own security), we should consider it. But you do not see them asking for us to leave. The left's plea for our withdrawl is contrary to the wishes of the Iraqis. So why are you demanding it?

One reason: it would result in failure in Iraq, which would damage the Bush presidency. That is the basis for everything the left does and says. It dosen't matter if the President's actions are authorized by Congress, by the Constitution, or if they are the morally and ethically right thing to do. If Bush is for it, you and the left is against it.

Parker,

I think you are wrong. The Iraqis are taking over more and more of the security of their own country each day. They currently are responsible for over 30,000 square miles of Iraq, up from 10,000 square miles a year ago. The number of trained battalions is continuing to grow. At the same time, the number of US troops deployed to Iraq is about half of what it was 3 years ago.

As more Iraqi Security Forces are trained and take over responsibility of Iraqi territory, more US troops will come hope. That is the stated, published plan. Check out the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

A-10, let's just take a look at your points.

a)"If the left would support our efforts in liberating Iraq, the terrorists would soon give up."
--- You tell me honestly. If the stated reason for going into Iraq was to liberate them, would we be there right now? Absolutely not.

b)"...they have know(n) ties to terrorist organizations and are supporting terrorists..."
--- That is debatable.

c)"...have and have used WMD, and are a threat to supply WMD to the terrorist organizations..."
--- I'll give you that they used them some years ago. I believe no WMDs were found and I believe there was no evidence he started making WMDs at the time.

d)"They are only continuing to fight and kill innocent Iraqis because they think, through the US media, they can sway public support and force us to leave Iraq so they can resume their reign of terror"
---Also debatable... unless you have actually asked the Terrorists yourself. Just because the Administration claims this, doesn't mean it is true. If you want to just parrot the Administration with no fact, then I claim that the only reason this violence is still going on is because there is a religious civil war going on.

e)"The left's plea for our withdrawl is contrary to the wishes of the Iraqis."
--- I believe there was a poll of Iraqis that overwhelmingly wanted us out. Also, the left is not saying to flat out withdraw. What most of us are asking for is some semblance of a plan. Any parameters that would lead to pulling out OVER TIME. We can't just keep going with the status quo. Tell us what would make this a success so we can start brining people home.

I do believe we have some new players in this blog, and I thank God. Moonbats, you've had your asses handed to you. And I see Wanker made a token appearance. What's up, Wanker, aka It's Imperialism, Stupid? As usual, your post is meaningless--go chase some little boys, jerk!

The moonbats are on the run--the MSM has been exposed this week, thanks to Laura Ingraham, and they're smarting. Life is grand, and I hate libs!!!

When Bush gave his delusional speech, he totally shows that he is detached from reality. "We're going to help the Iraqis build a strong democracy that will be an inspiration throughout the Middle East, a democracy that'll be a partner in the global war against the terrorists."

Has no one told Bush that the Iraqis cannot even agree to form a government? The day before Bush's delusional Cleveland speech, Iyad Allawi, the former prime minister of one of our make-believe Iraqi governments, said that in Iraq the casualty rate from the sectarian strife is so high that "if this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

The day of Bush's utterly delusional speech, Patrick Cockburn, present on the scene in Irbil, Iraq, gave a much more truthful account of the situation. Writing in CounterPunch, he reported:

"Iraq is a country convulsed by fear. It is at its worst in Baghdad. Sectarian killings are commonplace. The scale of the violence is such that most of it is unreported. Unseen by the outside world, silent populations are on the move, frightened people fleeing neighborhoods where their community is in a minority for safer districts. There is also a growing reliance on militias because of fears that police patrols or checkpoints are in reality death squads hunting for victims."

Not a word of this reality from America's delusional president. The fantasy Iraq that Bush painted was only his warm-up. He went on to tell his Cleveland audience that America could not be safe unless Iraq was a democracy. What a weak, pitiful, vulnerable place Bush's America must be. Unless a small, devastated Middle Eastern country is a democracy, America cannot be safe. Who in the Cleveland audience could possibly have believed this utter nonsense?

Bush told his audience that "the security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people, and we will settle for nothing less than victory." What victory is he talking about? Despite the huge sums of dollars paid by the Bush regime to all the leaders of all the factions, Iraq cannot form a government.

Without victory, Iraq will be "a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation." Alas, there were no terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded the country and drew them in. The problem our troops face in Iraq is not terrorists, but resistance fighters, "insurgents" in the Bush regime's parlance. Democracies lack the dictatorial, extralegal powers to suppress terrorists. That is why Bush is destroying civil liberties in the U.S. Under Saddam Hussein, there were no terrorists and no insurgents. Bush is modeling his no habeas corpus, torture-prone, all-intrusive government on Saddam Hussein's.

The security of Americans has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq. Iraq cannot overthrow the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, and American civil liberties. Iraq cannot illegally spy on American citizens, declare them to be "suspects," and detain them forever without warrant or charges. Iraq cannot put American critics of the Bush regime on "no-fly" lists.

The real dangers to Americans reside in the neocon Bush administration. This delusional warmonger administration believes it has the power and the right to dictate to Muslim countries their political and social institutions. This extraordinary arrogance and hubris breeds opposition where there was none. The world is not going to obey Bush and a handful of stupid neocons.

In his speech, Bush told Cleveland that "the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was a difficult decision." That is a lie. Bush's first treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, and a number of others have reported that Bush came into office intending to remove Hussein. The head of British intelligence told the British Cabinet that Bush first decided to go to war and then created the reasons to justify his aggression against Iraq.

"Before we acted," Bush told his audience, Hussein's "regime was defying UN resolutions calling for it to disarm. It was violating cease-fire agreements, was firing on American and British pilots which were enforcing no-fly zones." Gentle reader, think what Bush is saying. As Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, a fact that Bush has acknowledged, how could Iraq possibly have been violating UN resolutions calling on it to disarm?

What cease-fire agreements is Bush talking about? It was U.S. and UK planes that continued to fly over Iraqi territory and bomb Iraqis.

Americans need to understand that terrorists are responding to America's behavior, or misbehavior. The only successful way to stop terrorism is to alter our behavior. America is not God. It has no right, and it certainly lacks the power, to impose its will on the world.

The Bush regime cannot lead the world to democracy by tearing democracy down at home. Not since Abraham Lincoln have American civil liberties been so threatened as by the Bush regime. America even has an attorney general, a vice president, and a secretary of defense who believe in torture. How do they differ from officials in the Third Reich or Stalin's KGB? Anyone who believes in torture is not an American. That person is outside our tradition. Yet people who believe in torture who occupy our highest offices.

When Bush and all the other wacko's get the mote out of their eye, then we can instruct the Middle East.

Deleted - Obscenity

It's going great on blogs for bush. It seems bad, because all people ever look at are the comments, and thats the focus of the MSM, but the stories are going great, as are profits from advertising and more and more blogsforbushians are living better lives, free of opression and torture. They are better off since our invasion. We are making progress.

Well, Stupid.
After slogging through your entire diatribe, I finally came to the part where the 3,000 victims of 9-11 got what they deserved; “terrorists are responding to America's behavior, or misbehavior.”

That, and “he totally shows” demonstrate that we are in the company of a sophomoric, callow ignoramus. Please, offer up you liver to transplant into someone that’s not brain-dead.

The Demorats are on the defensive for several reasons:

First, the large, anti-war protests on the third anniverary, did not materalize. They were disappointing in turn-out.

Second, the Demorats got painted as being against the Patriot Act and the NSA Wiretap. They need to censure bush and pass legislation banning wiretaps on the enemy. Its time for put up or shut up.

Third, the MSM accomplices got exposed about their negativety and slanted stories on Iraq.

Fourth, the Demorats are against border security on immigration. The radicals, Reid and H. Clintune, indicated that they will block any actions to strengthen immigration/border security.

Rathaven

The sad fact is that innocent people usually die for the sins of the policy makers. The leaders are well protected and as we saw during 9-11 were herded off to secure locations.

Steve - Pretty cool huh... We're getting lots of moonbats here, while their leaders are running away from the debates and issues the moonbats want. As I heard one of the democratic leaders say

"So there I was, all alone, facing all of the republicans. I started driving in circles, until I had them surrounded, and then I escaped in the confusion."

Sick of Lies,

Lets take a look at your responses:

a)"If the left would support our efforts in liberating Iraq, the terrorists would soon give up."
--- You tell me honestly. If the stated reason for going into Iraq was to liberate them, would we be there right now? Absolutely not.

Yes, we would. Do you think that we would be able to defeat the Iraqi military, re-form their military, re-build their infrastructure (which was in terrible shape after years of neglect), and be out of their in a few months. Remember, we are still in Germany, Japan, and Korea and those wars ended 50-60 years ago.

b)"...they have know(n) ties to terrorist organizations and are supporting terrorists..."
--- That is debatable.

You may debate it. But then you won't accept facts. A number of well-known terrorists sought and were given safe-haven in Iraq. Saddam was paying $25,000 to the families of suicide-bombers. Terrorists were trained at Salmon Pak and other terrorist training camps. The document being translated show the many ties between OBL and other terrorists organizations and Iraq.

c)"...have and have used WMD, and are a threat to supply WMD to the terrorist organizations..."
--- I'll give you that they used them some years ago. I believe no WMDs were found and I believe there was no evidence he started making WMDs at the time.

You can believe what you want, but WMD have been found. Sarin, mustard gas, 55 gallon drums of precursors buried in ammo dumps. In Iraq's 15,000 page declaration to the UN, they admitted to producing thousands of tons of various types of WMD. They failed to provide any evidence that 100% of them had been destroyed as required by the UN Resolutions. Therefore, a prudent person would deduce that if they had x amount of WMD and could not account for it all, some probably still exists. That is not a chance we can take. Iraq was not probably producing WMD when the liberation began. However, clear evidence shows that he retained the ability to immediately resume production, and was planning to do so as soon as the UN inspectors left. Both the ability to resume production and the plans to resume were violations of the UN Resolutions.

d)"They are only continuing to fight and kill innocent Iraqis because they think, through the US media, they can sway public support and force us to leave Iraq so they can resume their reign of terror"
---Also debatable... unless you have actually asked the Terrorists yourself. Just because the Administration claims this, doesn't mean it is true. If you want to just parrot the Administration with no fact, then I claim that the only reason this violence is still going on is because there is a religious civil war going on.

There are a number of intercepted communications between terrorists that show that they are trying to sway public opinion. This is not coming from the administration, which obviously you do not believe anything that they say, but from the terrorists. There is violence going on because terrorists who were already in Iraq have been joined by terrorist from other countries in an attempt to prevent the establishment of democracy in the ME. They realize that if democracy takes hold in the ME, their reign of terror is doomed.

e)"The left's plea for our withdrawl is contrary to the wishes of the Iraqis."
--- I believe there was a poll of Iraqis that overwhelmingly wanted us out. Also, the left is not saying to flat out withdraw. What most of us are asking for is some semblance of a plan. Any parameters that would lead to pulling out OVER TIME. We can't just keep going with the status quo. Tell us what would make this a success so we can start brining people home.

Yes, a poll of Iraqis overwhelming want us out, but not until the Iraqi Security Forces are able to defend their nation on its own. There is a plan. Check out the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. It details the plan you are looking for. It defines success. How we will pull out over time. Oh, wait. Never mind. It was put out by the administration, so you won't believe it.

Sick of Lies....Rumsfeld met him in the 1980's...when our enemy was Iran. Iraq was Iran's enemy...the enemy of our enemy is our friend.

Are you lefties really this dense?

You may recall a time in history where the Japanese weren't our friends either. And hey, I'll be if you look real hard you might that we had a scrap or two with the British in the past.

In other words, you might find this shocking my beautiful friends on the left, but yesterday's enemy can be tomorrow's friend. Having said that, Iraq was most clearly our enemy in 1995 and not in 1980.

But remember, it's you guys that said Saddam had not ties to terrorism or Al Qaeda in particular...oh how completely wrong you guys were...again!

Shipley

Didn't that wonderful 9/11 commission also have an entire section on Able Danger...oh wait, they still haven't addressed that.

Please Tom, the 9/11 Commission is hardly the final answer on this stuff. In fact, we know that there are about 20,000,000 documents yet to be decoded and translated so how can the 9/11 Commission be the final word?

Are you guys on the left open to anything, or is your mind fully made up despite what evidence may be uncovered? That is the true question.

My guess is that you are as close minded as you accuse your political enemies of being, and isn't that damn ironic.

Can the lefties on this board PLEASE, PLEASE answer this question for me. This is day five now that I've asked this.

WHY would Hussein bother to bury his air force in the desert? If the pictures and stories are true, which no one says they are not, then why why why why is not only possible but likely plausible he did the same thing with WMD?

Please, you guys can't even answer this...I'm asking nicely...please answer.

Link below

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp

"Not since Abraham Lincoln have American civil liberties been so threatened as by the Bush regime" - It's Imperialism, Stupid!

'Stupid', how many Japanese-Americans of 1942-45 would agree with your simple argument?

I'm not the steve who does the peace thing, thats the steve who does the peace thing. You've never noticed that we are two completely different people so I thought I would tell you, you seem to think its a jab to keep saying that...

Warriornation,

I remember your post from the other day. Those on the left, most of which have no experience with the military, will not take the time to do any simple research on the capabilities of WMD. Nor will they accept the possibility that Iraq's WMD could be either hidden or moved out of the country.

They do not realize, nor will they accept, that a thimble-full of sarin can kill hundreds. A suitcase-full can kill tens of thousands. They would rather take the word of a murdering, insane dictator that he didn't have any WMD (when he had previously admitted he did, and used them), than the word of administration officials.

As I said earlier, it all boils down to the fact that they hate President Bush. They cannot accept they he defeated the "inventor of the internet" and a "genuine war hero" in the last two elections. They cannot accept that his foreign policy decisions have liberated 50,000,000 oppressed people in Iraq and Afghanistan. That Libya has renounced WMD. That other countries in the ME are inching towards democracy. That cannot accept that his tax cuts have increased tax revenues, created 5,000,000 new jobs, generated four plus years of GDP growth, and both low unemploymenta and low interest rates. They cannot accept that this man, with a degree from Yale and a MBA from Harvard, has outsmarted every ploy of the left. He has withstood slander, fabricated stories, lies, distortions, a totally-biased MSM, and he still keeps on track, leading the free world.

They all have their sights on 2008. With their accomplises in the MSM carrying their defeatist message, they hope that Iraq turns for the worse, so the GOP's chances in 2008 are diminished. They hope that the economy, which is booming, goes sour. They obstruct each and every initiative that the President supports. They have no plan, yet they accuse the Bush administration of not having a plan, when, in fact, the plans for Iraq have been well publicized.

All of their arguements against the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan are 180 degrees opposite of what they profess. They say they are the champions of human rights, except when the violator of human rights is in our cross-hairs. Have you heard one cry of outrage by the left about the murders being committed by the terrorists. No. They blame the US. Have you heard one protest of the rapes and tortures by Saddam and his henchmen. No. Once again they blame the US and claim we are doing the torturing.

The hypocracy of the left would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Warrior nation, because we were watching Iraq very closely and if someone had been burying something the size of a football field then we would have noticed. I supposed everyone could have each gotten one individual weapon each, then buried it randomly, but then we would be hearing both stories and have found at least a single one.

Warrriornation, you are the dense one. Iraq became the enemy when it was no longer obliging American interests. America turned a blind eye and deaf ear in 1988 when Saddam gassed the Kurds.

But all this is just smoke screen crap. In the global economy America had and wanted a strong viable presence in the Middle East. With Iraq centered between Iran and Syria and with the third largest oil reserves in the world that would give America serious leverage with the growing economy of China. American hegemony is what Iraq is about, not freeing the Iraqi people from an evil despot.

9-11 was the catalyst for Bush and is neo-con doctrine to attack Iraq. The Bush propaganda machine was well oiled. By the time the invasion of Iraq began, most of America believed that Saddam was involved with 9-11. We all know now and even from Bush's own mouth, that Saddam was not involved with Bin Laden or 9-11.

So believe that Bush was only thinking of freeing Iraq from the clutches of Saddam. Sleep tight with you ignorance.

And Keefer at leat your consistent. Ignorant as ever, but consistent.

That's is really stupid, stupid, saying that are liberties have been threatened more now that at any time since the Civil War. Say that to the Japanese-Americans (especially), German-Americans, and Italian Americans. The Japanese were interned. A lot of property owned by German Americans and Italian Americans were ceased, such as Joe Dimagio's family's boat, and we had perhaps the mother of all no-nos, Wiretapping without a court warrant.

A-10, That was a really good post. I totally agree with your assessment.

Stupid, Do you know what hegemony means? If you were an American patriot who loves the United States of America, then you would be all for American hegemony. I disagree with you on this: America believed that Saddam was involved with 9-11. Only the left seems to be confused about this. I remember the first time I heard a leftist talk about a connection between Saddam and 9/11 and I thought it was a silly misunderstanding. The administration never talked about such a thing, and here you are still writing about it. Saddam had a connection to terrorists, but he did not (so far as anyone knows) have a connection to the event of 9/11. Now you have been corrected so I don't expect that you will go on with this "Saddam was involved with 9-11" foolishness anymore.

BTW: The UK Daily Mirror was right when it stated on its cover "How can 59,054,987 people be so DUMB?" I still get pleasure from the irony that it was 59 million people who voted for Kerry and 62 million that voted for Bush.

Steve

Why would they have to bury them all in one area the size of a football field? And how do you know how large it would have to be?

We cannot in our own country identify Mexicans building a tunnel from their country to San Diego about a mile long why on earth would we be able to know everything that is going on in Iraq? They could have easily just built a tunnel under one of their plants and buried them there. Who knows.

You didn't answer his question, however. Why would they bother to bury their air force? And if they did bury it, which is absolutely conclusive, why is it so hard to imagine them also burying other weapons systems?

Stupid

Yes, I don't disagree when Iraq became an enemy. That isn't the point though is it. Some idiot was comparing Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq in the early 1980's as the same as Bin Laden and Saddam in 1995.

Surely even you can understand the difference? In fact your own timeline of 1988 suggests Iraq wasn't an enemy of the USA when Rumsfeld visited.

You guys really do struggle in the logic category.

Carry on.

Salvelinus
"The archive that you cited is a US military PR (provided by an organization that provides mercenaries for the Iraq war)." Ummm, no. Global Security is a private company and provider of information and analysis. They do not provide 'mercenaries'. I assume you are confusing them with outfits like Blackwater and Triple Canopy. They are pro-military to be sure so you're probably right and they can't be trusted. Here's an article from the NYT discussing the attacks during Clinton's term. Non-partisan enough for you?

"Also, in the run-up to war, it is known that "Coalition" aircraft (UK in particular) intentionally provoked incidents as both excuses to fire on Iraqi positions and to gain intelligence about them." Absolutely correct. Since coalition aricraft were legitimately enforcing the UN No-Fly Zone, what's your point?

The NYT link omitted in the previous post:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/081399iraq-conflict.html

Sorry