"The real question is why do Democrats continue to oppose the war in Iraq despite the fact we know Saddam had connections to al Qaeda and was determined to attack American interests?"

answer: because Iran posed a more dangerous threat all along, and our position in dealing with them now has been weakened by the stretching of our fine military.

answer: because Saddam was in a box, and hadn't hurt anyone in years. "He gassed his own people" yea. . . 1988.

answer: because the invasion of Iraq has interfered with the president fulfilling his promise to catch bin Laden, who now says " I don't know where he is, I just don't spend that much time on him"

talk about a flip-flop!

Saddam was not in a box and was not being fully contained.

Please tell me what you think he was doing with the $20 BILLION he received from the oil for food program.

Hmmm......

Wait I thought the talking point you guys were using now was Iraqi freedom?

And Why does Bush keep denying he said Al Qaeda was connected to Iraq?

answer: because Iran posed a more dangerous threat all along, and our position in dealing with them now has been weakened by the stretching of our fine military.

Posted by: dav at April 25, 2006 08:45 AM

Last time I checked, we had between 15,000 and 20,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan (which is directly east of Iran, for those of you who geographically challenged). We also had about 150,000 battle-tested troops positioned in Iraq (which happens to be directly west of Iran). Add to that several carrier groups stationed in the Middle East and operating bases throughout the region, and I would say we are positioned quite nicely to take offensive action against Iran.

I would also remind you that, as we did with Iraq, any offensive action would begin with pinpoint aerial strikes against targets in Iran. Much of Iran's military capability would be destroyed before any US serviceman's foot hit Iranian soil. In fact, with the incapacitation
of their military it would not surprise me if the millions of Iranians who oppose the Islamist rule in Iran, took to the streets and overthrew the Islamists.

answer: because Saddam was in a box, and hadn't hurt anyone in years. "He gassed his own people" yea. . . 1988.

Posted by: dav at April 25, 2006 08:45 AM

Tell that to the 50,000 - 100,000 Iraqis that his regime was murdering each year. Oh, wait...You can't. He and his henchmen killed them.

answer: because the invasion of Iraq has interfered with the president fulfilling his promise to catch bin Laden, who now says " I don't know where he is, I just don't spend that much time on him"

Posted by: dav at April 25, 2006 08:45 AM

Yes, we need to capture or kill OBL. But he is only a small part of the global War on Terror. You need to look at the big picture, if your mental capacity can grasp such a concept. We are trying to kill or capture terrorists where ever we find them, while support the emergence of democracy in countries that have only known dictators and terror.

It sounds like you advocate that if we caught or killed OBL, the war is over. We got our man. All of our troops can come home. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There are dozens of terrorist organizations. OBL was the leader of one of them. Even if he is caught or killed, the war will go on until the terrorists are all killed or come to the conclusion that their cause is hopeless. I'm praying for the later.

The terrorists started this war. The United States is the only country on Earth with the military might and moral clarity to fight this fight. We will finish this war and the terrorists will be defeated. With or without your help.

I hope that Bush continues to say this.

It only servers to reinforce the idea, for a strong majority of Americans, that the man is out of touch.

I agree Bush made the right decision and I am proud of his response to terrorists. We do not have a traitor in office like we did with Clinton.

The fact that President Bush has not been able to catch Osama bin Laden will be the legacy of his failed administration.

hahahahaha, no Ash. In your twisted liberal universe maybe. But in reality, his legacy will involve liberating two nations and transforming totalitarian regimes into Democracies, and spreading freedom and liberty across the Middle East.

Hmm, maybe we should take a look at some history here...

Let's look at the world when Bush took office in 2001. Afghanistan was a "sanctuary" for terrorists. Pakistan was the biggest proliferator of nuclear weapons and was evolving into a terrorist state. The Saudi's were funding al-Qaeda, Iraq was a huge problem. Libya had a strong program for developing nuclear weapons. Terrorism was expanding in southeast Asia. Thank you President Clinton!!! It's too bad that you were too busy getting oral sex in the oval office!

Now. Look today. Afghanistan and Iraq are pro-American democracies. Pakistan AND India are allies of the U.S. Libya has disarmed. Syria has withrawn from Lebanon after increasing pressure from President Bush. al-Qaeda has been greatly weakened. Free elections have happened repeatedly in Lebanon, and democratic movements have been detected in Syria. Egypt's President Mubarak, has let an opponent run against him, before he ran unopposed. FINALLY! A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT LIBERALS THINK! FINALLY! A PRESIDENT WHO HAS THE BALLS TO STAND UP TO ISLAMO-FACISM! FINALLY, A PRESIDENT WHO WANTS TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY AND REPUBLICS, NOT SOCIALISM!

President Bush's legacy will be carrying on our Founding Father's firm belief that everybody yearns to be free, and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are GOD given rights. President Bush's actions have led to democracies, where WOMEN can vote, where little girls can go to school, where women can even run for political office! And the best part about that is, women are winning! President Bush and our troops have given hope and a bright future to those who were only familiar to TORTURE and oppression before 2003. Keep going President Bush, just keep doing what you do, IT IS THE JUST THING, AND THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

The fact that the democrats have hated this countrys policys and tryed to derail the war at every turn has weakend us to the point that our country is not taken to be a strong leader and no one would trust us with thir secrets or trust us to stand by them if the going gets tough. If Iran is not stoped its because of the fear of the polls not the fear of thir war machine.

Blame Clinton, blame the liberal media, blah blah blah. The same old tired mantra of thr right. How about "the dog ate Rove's plan" or "We are turning the corner". Are you a comedy writer Republican A?

I believe the statement

"FINALLY! A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT LIBERALS THINK! FINALLY!"

Really should read:

"FINALLY! A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT ***AMERICANS*** THINK! FINALLY!"

Another classic wingnut line:

"Now. Look today. Afghanistan and Iraq are pro-American democracies."

Really???? Are the insurgants we are fighing, foreign, terrorists or just pissed off Iraq citizens?

By any measure the war in Iraq is a failure. We have no allies in the war on terror, we have dilluted the armed forces and spend 10 billion a month - for WHAT???

What is the difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam.

"Iraq are pro-American democracies."

What color is the sky in your world, RepAf? How many democracies can you name that has daily car bombings and a civil war?

Bush just can't catch the guy that masterminded the attack on us. So what is a pseudo bully to do? Why attack a weak opponent (Iraq). Slight of hand.

Ash,

Why don't you answer Mark's question: "why do Democrats continue to oppose the war in Iraq despite the fact we know Saddam had connections to al Qaeda and was determined to attack American interests?" Why are you trying to deflect every thread to "Bush hasn't caught OBL yet" (Oh, by the way, President Bush will never catch OBL, but some member of our military or that of the coalition of nations fighting terrorism will)?

Why are you libs continually dodging questions we pose to you? On another thread, I rebutted each of "muirgeo's" claim of "scandals" that will bring down the GOP, and challenged him to rebut the issues that will spell the continued minority status of the Dems, but I guess he isn't up to the challenge. On another thread I asked for examples on how liberals would fight a better War on Terror, but all I got was deflections.

The liberal rank and file are no different than their leaders, no plan, no agenda (except for obstruction), no hope.

This is a ridiculous whitewashing of facts which will be understood eventually to be yet another nail in the coffin of the republican party, thanks to President Bush and all who support him. For all practical purposes, 70% of the entire United States utterly despises flip-flopper, Rumsfeld-supportin' George W. Bush. Wise up, ye demons. You're never going to recover from this administration's utter failure in the Middle East.

"why do Democrats continue to oppose the war in Iraq despite the fact we know Saddam had connections to al Qaeda and was determined to attack American interests?"

Could be because every other day cons and admin keep saying we went into Iraq for different reasons...at one point it was WMDs, then it was to liberate the Iraqi's...all the while Chaney says:

"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Then....after the fact, information comes up that Iraq DID meet with al Qaeda, but still had nothing do do with Sep. 11, as Chaney said.

maybe the 70% of American's who oppose the war will be proven wrong in the future, maybe not. but at least we're questioning an admin that keeps tripping over itself instead of blindly following like you do.

on another thread I asked for examples on how liberals would fight a better War on Terror, but all I got was deflections.

-the 'War on Terror' has been going on for thousands of years...all you cons have this idea that a bunch of guys who hate America decided one day a few years ago to start a 'war' Face it, people will always hate us and those who have the means will try to attack us and our allies..what do we do about it? NOT WASTE TIME, RESOUCES and LIVES fighting in Iraq...the only way to curb the threat is have allies around the world who will help fight terrorist instead of supplying them...We had the world on our side, there was a huge opening for a true global push to stand against terrorists...then we went into Iraq with no clear reason or goal...the rest of the world RAN away from us....and here we are, waiting to see what comes next insead of controlling what comes next.

Opus,

I will agree that "the only way to curb the threat is have allies around the world who will help fight terrorist instead of supplying them..." Unfortunately, we also need allies right here at home, and the Democrats (with a few notable exceptions) have been opposing our efforts in Iraq for the past three years. They have done this even though many of them voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 (in fact the Senate vote was unanimous), and the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force passed in 2001 (once again, unamimously in the Senate) and 2003. Have you read them? You should. They clearly spell out the many reasons Congress authorized the use of military force to liberate Iraq and remove the threat Saddam posed to the world.

If the left has a problem with the laws they helped pass authorizing the President to take the actions he took, they need to repeal these three law. If they can't or won't, then they need to shut up and get behind the War on Terror, rather than obstruct and undermine our efforts.

To me, it is morally repugnent for the Democrat Senators and Representatives to have voted to authorize the use of military force, then constantly criticize the President for using that authorization. That is why liberals can never be allowed to be in charge of national security again, unless they return to the days of Harry Truman, Scoop Jackson, and JFK.

As for the countries that cut and ran when we decided to do what they did not have the moral courage to do, I have two comments. (1) Did you really think we could count on the French, Germans, or the Russians? They were all accepting kickbacks from Saddam or were supplying them with prohibited weaponry. (2) If you discount the duplicity of the trio named above, many of the other countries who did not lend their share of support did so because of the dissent exhibited by the Democrat Party. If the Dems had gotten on board the War on Terror, most of the other countries would have as well. I blame the Dems for poisoning the waters, not President Bush's actions.

Opposing the war in Iraq, and opposing it's handling and execution, are two different things.

Kind of like Dissent and Treason, another fine line conservatives hate when their backs are against the wall.