"...I can fight terrorists ‘til the cows come home, but I have no idea how to fight hatred of America, especially when it comes from Americans."

That's why we're here! As someone so aptly named us, we of the "keyboard brigade" are doing our best to point out the lunacy and defeatism that we also see every day. We support the troops. We support the President. We support America as she struggles against the islamofascists. Together, with our brave troops doing the heavy work, we will succeed DESPITE the rantings and wailings from the Hollywood elite, DESPITE the constant drumbeat of anti-Americanism and defeatism from the drive-by media, DESPITE the socialist-infested "educators" in this country who depend upon their brainwashing techniques to mold the coming generation into what they perceive as the desirable citizens of tomorrow.

Thank you for standing in harm's way and taking the fight to the enemy. I, for one, am eternally grateful. It appears that too many people stateside have forgotten what happened to this country on September 11, 2001. They are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the enormity of the struggle before us, choosing instead to focus their rage and hatred against President Bush and - by proxy against the troops - as they fight for our cause.

We of the keyboard brigade will do our best to counter the negativity and arguments that could otherwise turn this country against its best interests.

"Terrorists as the real victims, even heroes! Americans as the enemy of Democracy! Americans are racist! American’s hate gays! Americans hate Muslims (admittedly this one is a stretch, but it is not lost on the locals)! Americans want to impose a Christian Theocracy on Britain (also only by implication)!"
Movies like Top Gun, Air Force One, and Die Hard are hardly pro-terrorist.
Perhaps someone could list a few of these movies. Syriana does not a propaganda campaign make.

As for higher education, let us not forget that most of the stalwarts of the Republican Party are graduates of these same universities. If anyone takes anti-American values away, it is because they were willing to accept them.
Universities are situated in towns, which are also frequented by students. A foreigner gets more information about America and Americans from strolling around and talking to people than he does from an ivory tower rant by a professor. His treatment by fellow students and others determines his feelings towards America.

Have you read some of the other stuff on his site?

There is an idea that I have been mulling around for some time now. Unfortunately, I am not so sure what is right.

The great ideological conflict today has three aspects: pre-modern, modern, and post-modern. Drawing the line between pre-modern and modern is fairly easy. I believe that we could, without a whole lot of controversy, say that Hobbes and Locke are the fathers of Modernity. The line between Modern and post modern is a little hazier. Perhaps it is Hegel, perhaps Rousseau, however the real birth of post-modern though is definitely with Marx, and Nietzche.

Positively riveting!!!! I had no idea you guys were such effite intellectuals! My opinion has of this site have changed. Anyone for a rousing debate of Nietzche? Michel Foucault?

Hey- I was the 427th visitor of all time!

Mark, almost two thirds of Americans do not approve of what Bushco is doing there. Why do you address the question to "lefties?" Just more vitriol from the right.

Regarding your question: "Just how does the American soldier fight the enemy and fight the perception among the enemy that a substantial portion of his own people hate what he is doing?"

These are the unavoidable consequences of waging an unpopular war. People are not in favor of the war and they criticize the war and the administration.

It's the soldier's job follow orders and to do what he is told, like the professional that he is. His job is not to consider US and world opinion, the media or anything else other than his marching orders - even if he is a active general. Soldiers aren't there to deliberate poilicy or weigh public opinion - that's the job of the civilian leadership.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You folks on the right have been trying to use our noble troops as a "human shield" against criticism of your failed, unpopular policies since the war began. Please stop it. It doesn't honor the troops to wage war. The war isn't right because of the troops. Criticizing the war isn't criticizing the troops.

extramedium,

But it doesn't help anyone to harp on and on about how you don't support the war when nothing can be done about it in the present. So the war is more unpopular now than it was when it started...big deal. That's what happens with wars, people get tired of them after a prolonged period of time. But to constantly bring up talking points that not only offer no solutions for improving the situation in Iraq, but rather quite possibly damage it, is not the best way to discourage enemy morale.

Criticizing events in the war---exaggerating the bad news and ignoring the good---is not constructive criticism. It's called selective recognition of facts, and the perception that Americans feel that Iraq is uncurable through this selective recognition surely bolsters the spirits of those who don't want Iraq to be cured of its current violent infestation. Incessantly calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq without any care about the fate of the Iraqis themselves shows the enemies that America is too worried about looking after its own skin to care about saving others.

Ya know i almost took this seriously until i came across "even the Chinese Communist People's Daily", then it became pretty clear the author is completely uneducated. China is not communist.

I'd have the soldier give pause of his criticism of higher education. First I don't think it's as slanted as he would have you believe. Second had we listened to many of our intellectual elites rather then our reactionary leaders he would not be over their in the first place. Finally, it is higher education that invented the ceramics in his bulletproof vest, his night vision goggles, his laser guided weaponry and the cloaking devices in our radar invisible planes.

muirgeo,

"Finally, it is higher education that invented the ceramics in his bulletproof vest, his night vision goggles, his laser guided weaponry and the cloaking devices in our radar invisible planes."

I thought that it was widely agreed upon that politics isn't exactly talked about much in the strict sciences. Political jibber-jabber is more openly conveyed in social sciences---psychology, world studies, modern history---than the others. I suppose the assumption that the entirety of higher education is poisoning the minds of young people is incorrect. It is only those who teach social classes that do it. Most science and mathematics classes are too busy getting actual work done to be bothered about politics.

Dear Soldier,

What you're saying is true. Critics of the mission who say it was wrong put you in harms way. But much of the criticism your hearing about doesn't say that you're mission was wrong. It's that it has been conducted on the cheap. The men and equipment needed to finish the operation weren't given to you. And, quite frankly, as evidenced by our continuing deficit spending, having this war financed by the Chinese, making them stronger, economicly and militarily.
General Zinni has written recently, and General Shukashvilli said before the war(He was publicly reprimanded by "Rummy" and dismissed soon after as head of the Joint Chiefs.)that more troops needed to be committed for post war reconstruction efforts.
A few hundred thousand more troops needed to be committed to this effort. If it is too late to do so without significant political damage to the Republican party, don't blame the media. Bush was the one who decided that the mission was accomplished with the toppling of Saddam.
He needs to get honest with the American people. Commit the troops, and raise the taxes necessary to pay for their deployment over there.
As a taxpayer I want the war concluded successfully, and I am prepared to pay for it. Who stands with me?

I’m with Small Town on this one. What films are we talking about?

His whole observation smacks of Rushspeak. I personally do not believe that the civil war would end if dissent stopped today. No one is for terrorism. Others, like myself, are against the occupation, but not for stopping terrorism. If anything, the fact that OBL is still alive, and mocking us is far more damaging than anything that is coming out of academia.

muirgeo,

He is over there for several reason, none of which have anything to do with "reactionary leaders" ignoring "our intellectual elites", unless you consider the vast majority of both the United States Senate and House of Representatives, who passed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in 2001 and in 2003 against Iraq, "reactionary leaders". He is over there to combat terrorism, whose adherents have vowed to distruction of western civilization. He is fighting the terrorists over there, so he doesn't have to fight them in your backyard. He is fighting them so that they will not repeat the horrors of 9/11. And don't give me any crap about Iraq having no connection with 9/11. So what if they didn't. Saddam was one of the leading supporter, financer, and harborer of terrorism. He vowed to strike at the US and our interests throughout the world. Leaders from both sides of the aisle publicly stated he must be stopped, even with the use of military force.

Your claim of the ultimate wisdom of the "intellectual elites" is also a farce. Are these the same "intellectual elites" who fawn over Fidel Castro, a brutal dictator who is responsible for thousands of Cuban deaths and has driven tens of thousands to risk their lives to flee his oppression. Or Hugo Chavez, another corrupt, brutal dictator. Or any other of the socialist/communist/marxist dictators?

The author was not criticizing higher education per se, he was pointing out that many professors have used their pulpit and access to a captive audience to spread anti-American propaganda (does Ward Churchill ring a bell). He is pointing out that rather that using their influence to turn more visiting foreign students against the US, these professors should be pointing the good the US is doing, and has done, in the world. And it is slanted. You hear about the abuses of their position almost every day.

But you being a good liberal hater of the present administration, you will immediately jump to the defense of those who are working to undermine our efforts to defend America.

I've mentioned this before: if you want to criticize, fine, but tell us your viable plan to fight terrorism throughout the world. We are eagerly awaiting your "intellectual" response.

It is a sad commentary that there are those who would ignore the sacrifices of our professional army and,as well,choose to philosophize in favor of terroristic views espoused by our very own professors in US universities. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but what we've forgotten about is being constructive in the way we use it. The question really is, do we want to fight terrorism there, or simply withdraw, retreat from the needs of Iraquis who do want to be liberated and see a new government emerge, or fight'em here on our own soil. If you, lefties, as the soldier here puts it, want your withdrawal, I suggest you get ready for a 9/11 incident that will make the first one look like child's play. This country is torn apart thanks to the division caused by Democratic obstructionism. Aren't we all Americans living on the same soil? Shouldn't we be supporting the executive branch too? This aint no Vietnam we're dealing with people. These Muslim extremists want to destroy civilization as we know it! Wake the hell up! Thank you soldier you don't hear it enough.

extramedium,

What I wonder these days is just how long you on the left will keep up with the concept that the liberation of Iraq is a failure...you've been proclaiming it a failure since about 6 days after the start in 2003, and each time yet another milestone of victory is reached, your shrieks of "failure" just get louder...for crying out loud - we'ev had elections, we've got a national unity government, we've got the Iraqi army taking over from the Coalition forces, we've got Iraqi police getting better and better, we've got an Iraqi economy starting to thrive...if this is failure, then what is success?

You see, what the soldier is writing about is not criticism - it is stupid criticism. Criticism which doesn't seek to be helpful, but to be harmful - the primary target of the stupid criticism is, of course, President Bush, but the "collateral damage" is our soldiers, who have to fight longer and harder - and at much increased risk - because some dunderheads in the United States are so determined to hate Bush that they'll call success, failure...

A10, wrote: “unless you consider the vast majority of both the United States Senate and House of Representatives, who passed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998..”

Where in the act does it call for an invasion and an occupation of Iraq? The recommendation calls for financial and training support of dissident groups and further assistance to promote democracy in the event of a change in government. The only section that even remotely calls for military action, on the part of the US government, is under section 2 (which is historical in nature):

(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public
Law 105–235, which declared that ‘‘the Government of Iraq
is in material and unacceptable breach of its international
obligations’’ and urged the President ‘‘to take appropriate
action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws
of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations.’’

“Appropriate action” does not mean invasion and occupation.

As far as the authorization of military force, please read that as well. The use of military force was granted as an option of last resorts. As we now know, Bush was determined to invade by the summer of 2002. That was before negotiations with Saddam or the reinstatement of the weapon’s inspectors.

Appropriate action” does not mean invasion and occupation.

Why?
Because you said so? The official policy of the US has been regime change since 1998, fool.

The authorization for use of military force is just that; an authorization for use of military force. Damn, you’re stupid!

Bane, you ignorant slut:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and.."

“(A) ..continued treat posed by Iraq..” Tell me Bane, what threat did Iraq pose?

Second had we listened to many of our intellectual elites rather then our reactionary leaders he would not be over their in the first place.

Yeah, we tried this--for twenty years! Maybe you want a prayer mat, morongeo. I don't...

Barney,

Wasn't the premise that the document was written on that Iraq's weapons manufacturing and possible trading was the threat to the United States? Wasn't that the premise that we went to war on?

Actually, that’s what the UN wrote in Resolution 1441, “Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,” What’s the matter Barney, the UN isn’t authoritative enough for you?

I know moonbats conveniently forget, but Saddam was in “material breech” of this resolution, and the first time he fired at US aircraft patrolling the no fly zones he had declared war with the US.

Kiwi wrote:
"Ya know i almost took this seriously until i came across "even the Chinese Communist People's Daily", then it became pretty clear the author is completely uneducated. China is not communist."

HELLO!? 1949? Chairman Mao? The Gang of Four? The Little Red Book? Tianamin Square Massacre?

HELLO?????

dbogdan,
You don't understand, Communism is wonderful; none of what we know as communist was really, really communist. It's not the form of government that's wrong; it's the people that tried it that were wrong!

I don't know about you, but I've been hearing this crap since I was in college in the 1970's.

Bane, "What’s the matter Barney, the UN isn’t authoritative enough for you?" no the UN is not. Are you some French loving liberal?

What was the material breach? Did you find some WMD that everyone else missed?

Did you sleep through the last 14 years? Resolution 1441? Resolutions 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284, 1382? Iraq must comply? Allow unrestricted access? Prove weapons were destroyed? A “full final and complete disclosure”? File biannual declarations? Comply with UNMOVIC? Comply with IAEA? Not take threatening acts directed against any representative or personnel of the UN?

The IAEA for one held that Iraq was in material breech, read the resolution. What part of that don't you understand?

The "material breach" cited by the United Nations was that Saddam Hussein failed time and again to prove to the world that he had dismantled his weapons of mass destruction. We KNOW that he had them when he gassed the Kurds. We KNOW that he had them when he used them against the Iranians.

During Gulf War I, in the surrender terms, he agreed that he would comply and let the UN Inspectors in and show them that he was systematically and completely destroying these WMDs. Instead, he played the "who's got the bean" game for a while, then restricted the number of places that they could search, and then kicked them out of the country at one point.

That sounds like a "material breach" to me...

Granted, it doesn't appear NOW that he had any left by the time we came in with guns drawn. But history shows that he had them right up to the beginning of Gulf War I, but that's not the issue. The UN declared him in material breach BEFORE we used our option of last resort to force his hand on the issue.

Baloney2000,

You truely are a moron.

"Tell me Bane, what threat did Iraq pose?"

For the 10,000th time: Iraq admitted they possessed WMD. They used them against the Kurds and during the Iraq-Iran War. The did not show proof, as required by the Ceasefire of 1991 and the 17 UN Resolutions, that all WMD, all WMD programs, and other prohibited weapons systems had been destroyed. Evidence of WMD programs and prohibited weapons systems were discovered by the UN Weapons Inspectors. They were declared in "Material Breach" of the UN Resolutions. That does not mean Saddam gets a slap on the wrist and gets sent to bed without dinner. "Material Breach" means that you broke your promise and all bets are off and we return to the state of affairs prior to the Ceasefire agreement.

Further, Iraq was in violation of the Ceasefire and UN Resolutions, and committed an additional act of war, by targeting and firing on US and UK aircraft patrolling the UN mandated "No-Fly Zone".

Further, Iraq was known to harbor terrorists, provide training to terrorists, and to pay terrorist's families $25,000 for suicide bombings.

Finally, Bane doesn't need to tell you about the Iraqi threat, Congress has already done so:

Section 3 of the Joint Resolution for the Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Case Closed. Congress specifically authorized the President to use the military against the "continuing treat posed by Iraq" and to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Game. Set. Match.

As directed by Bush and 1441, Iraq provided over 14,000 pages of documentation regarding their WMD programs, allowed complete access to all agreed upon sites for weapons inspectors, the IAEA concluded (before the invasion) that Saddam did not have any type of nuclear weapons program (all uranium and equipment were accounted for).

After three years of searching, no one has found any evidence of any material breach in regards to WMD.

Barney,

Wasn't there some clamor directly before the invasion about how Saddam was not letting the weapons inspectors into certain areas that they should have been able to go to? Weren't there also numerous reports of civilian, non-UN vehicles crossing the borders directly before and during the time of inspection?

Given a huge majority of soldiers like this one still, to this day, believe the Iraq war is payback for 9-11, means they are actually fighting a three-front war, one in Iraq, one at home, and one phantom war they've been suckered into fighting based on a lie. That is the war that cannot be won, because victory itself cannot be defined in a ficticious scenario. If Saddam had any 9-11 connection at all, there may be terms for victory. But according to Bush himself who said just last month "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said – at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein." And Rice's statements to Blitzer who asked "Did Saddam Hussein and his regime have anything to do with 9/11?

SECRETARY RICE: Saddam Hussein, and we have said this many times, as far as we know, did not order September 11, may not have even known of September 11."

This soldier is fighting phantoms. No wonder he's frustrated.

Blarney, muirgeo, and the rest of the liberals who frequent this and other blogs,

You all clearly exhibit the ultimate hypocracy that is today's Democrat Party.

You claim to be the champions of human rights, yet you viciously attack a President who has orchestrated the liberation of 50,000,000 Iraqis and Afghans who had previously endured daily rapes, torture, mutilation, and murder by their governments.

You claim to be the champions of women's rights, yet you criticise on a daily basis an administration that has freed millions of women from bondage in the hands of the Taliban and other repressive governments. Women who are now
free to walk down the street without fear of being stoned to death for walking in public unaccompanied. Women and girls who can attend schools and institutes of higher learning, where they previously were banned. Women who can now vote and, amazingly, can be elected to positions within their governments.

You claim to be the champions of the rights of children, yet you openly advocate the killing of unborn children, right up to the moment of birth.

You claim to be the champions of the poor and downtrodden, yet you fight against allowing schools of choice so the poor and downtrodden can escape the failing public schools you control. You continue to criticize the President for the rise in the number of Americans who fall below the poverty level, yet you refuse to accept responsibility for the failures of the liberal $7 trillion dollar "War on Poverty" for the last 40 years.

You claim to be the protectors of our Bill of Rights, expecially First Amendment Rights, yet you advocate the suppression of Christians' Freedom of Religion and denounce anyone who points out the hyprocracy of the left.

You claim the present administration is suppressing dissent and is guilty of censorship, yet your message is proclaimed loudly on the Senate and House floors, broadcast daily on all major news networks, printed on the front page of virtually all major newspapers and news magazines, and through Hollywoodm into our homes and movie theaters.

You claim to be strong on National Defense, yet you call for censure or impeachment of the President for authorizing intelligence agencies to intercept the communications of our terrorist enemies. The same foreign intelligence intercepts that have been authorized by all Presidents back to 1978 and have been found to be Constitutional by at least five Federal Courts. For years you have fought to cut defense spending and have damaged the morale of our military by your criticism of their Chain-of-Command.

You claim to support the troops, yet your leaders call them torturers, baby killers, and compare them to the Nazis, Pol Pot, and Soviet Gulags.

You claim to support the War on Terror, yet your highest ranking Senate member gleefully proclaims that "We killed the Patriot Act", the most important tool in our arsenal to combat terrorism within the United States.

You claim the President "rushed to war" in Iraq, yet ignore the fact that Congress had passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 making regime change in Iraq the official US policy.

You claim the Presidnet lied about the reasons for using military force against Iraq, yet you ignore the fact that Congress passed two separate Authorizations for the use of Military Force which clearly described the rationale Congress used in authorizing the use of military force against terrorism and Iraq.

You had no problems when a President with a "D" after his name committed US combat forces in Bosnia and Kosovo, without Congressional approval, without an "exit plan", and where US troops are still being deployed, yet you condemn a President with a "R" after his name who commits US forces after two Congressional authorizations.

You claim that we have lost the war in Iraq, yet ignore that it was a stunning military victory with remarkably low loss of human life, we have allowed for three national elections to be held, a Constitution has been adopted, a government representing all three ethnic factions has been seated, an army of over 130,000 strong has been built and trained from scratch and is taking over responsibility for more and more territory each day, a police force of over 100,000 had been organized and trained, and the economy is flourishing.

You champion those, who have taken an oath of secrecy, who "leak" classified information which damages our national security, yet you criticize the administration when it declassifies information and authorizes it to be released to counter documented lies.

You claim the recent tax cuts were done to benefit the right, yet ignore that millions with low income were taken off the tax rolls and some were given tax rebates, even though they never paid taxes. You claim that the rich should pay a greater share of the tax burden, yet ignore the fact that they already pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden and the tax cuts increased the percentage of the tax burden they bear.

You decry the "obscene" profits of the oil industry, which are actually a 5-8% profit margin, yet say nothing about drug companies' 18% profit margin or banks' 16% profit margin. You scream for a "windfall profit tax" on oil profits, yet ignore that all corporate taxes are ultimately paid by consumers, which means gas prices will rise, rather than fall.

You demand an energy policy that weans us from the dependancy on foreign oil, yet block drilling in proven oil reserves in ANWR and offshore.

You want alternative energy sources, yet block wind farms off Nantucket because it would despoil a certain Senator from Massachusetts'view.

You proclaim all of the President's plans and policies to be failures, yet you propose no plans of your own, claiming it is your job to obstruct.

You accuse Executive Branch of exceeding its Constitutional authority and creating a monarchy, yet say nothing of the Judicial Branch legislating from the bench.

You claim that the President and his cabinet are incompetent, yet excuse a mayor and governor who failed to use all available resources to evacuate their citizens from the path of an approaching Category 5 hurricane. You claimed that this President was slow to provide federal assistance for Hurricane Katrina, yet ignore the fact that federal assistance arrived sooner that for Hurrican Andrew, the previous record holder for the most destructive US hurricane, or for the four hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004.

You claim that the President and his administratio is racist, yet ignore that he has appointed more minorities to more higher positions within the administration that any other President in history.

I could go on, and on, and on, but you get the message. You are hypocrites. But what should we expect from a political movement that thinks morality is relative, that any end justifies the means, and that anyone with conservative views is the reincarnation of Hitler.

You know, the attitude of the soldier who wrote the cited passage reminds me perfectly of a very insightful piece another author (and Vietnam vet) wrote about the world-view of the military vis a vis the press.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm
[click on left-hand link for "Soldiers and the Press"]

Honestly, I've no idea what the soldier you cited is on about when he says

"I realize that educators and filmmakers fear that they could be perceived as propagandists of America. But right now they are viewed in America as propagandists for Islamofascism, and is that any better?..."

Ummmm....could you perhaps cite examples of poopular culture or scholarship that could be perceived in such a way? To make this accusation without backing it up really is just so much "Rushspeak" as another poster put it.

Just like the soldiers described in the article I linked, this guy apparently takes the view that anything less than cheerleading for the war and the military is either unpatriotic or propaganda for the other side or both. Dude, that's just not the way it works in a free country. With that attitude, I'm sure he would have nodded approvingly at the Afghan war coverage Pravda offered in the 1980's.

"If the media and academia are so worried about losing the freedoms that America provides for them, is it too much to ask that they do their part to defend them, by telling the world how great those freedoms are, and what they need to do to get them?"

I say this as a former Army officer and OIF vet: the military is not the only entity engaged in the defense of American freedoms, and simply having every sector of American society actively supporting the war in Iraq [or meet whatever measure of fidelity that the author has in his head] would not make the freedoms we enjoy any more secure. In defending freedom, the military's primary purpose is to stop any foreign power from militarily usurping our internal sovereignty, and thus curtailing the freedoms we love.
Now, what external power currently poses this threat to us? Excepting a massive nuclear exchange, no external power currently has this ability. So, then, what threat do the so called fringe "Islamofacists" really represent to America? They may have the capacity to kill some of our citizens, but it is only we as Americans that truly have the power to destroy our freedoms.
How do we protect against this possibility?

The two most important insititutions we have to protect our freedoms from an internal threat are the rule of law and a free and indpendent press. If you accept that information is power, it follows that the press represents the most important check against the government's natural monopoly of information.

Soldiers can defend territorial integrity, but they can't keep a democratic country free by themselves.

Isn't it funny how a comment on the nature of higher education in America gets the Usual Suspects scurrying around?

Barmy still thinks the Iraqis let the inspectors go wherever they wanted to go? Good. That's no more insane than most of the stuff he spouts. No less insane, but no more.

The Hick makes some points, but infortunately, they are very bad points. Name a politically shaded movie made in the past six or eight years that has an unapologetic admiration for America or its military. One that has not had an evil conspiracy by an evil American government, or an evil conspiracy by an evil American military, or an evil conspiracy by an evil American (gasp!!) CORPORATION!!!!

That's not even mentioning the fictional dreck Michael Moore puts out, which Hollywood fawningly calls "documentaries" and showers with awards.

So what if some have Ivy League degrees and still ended up intelligent and aware? ie; Republicans. Having a background of American history, having an American family smart enough to point out the crap when Junior comes home with questions about what he was taught last week, having some perspective, can make it easier to overcome the bizarre falsehoods taught in American universities today. What is a foreigner supposed to think?

Do a litle reading about what is being taught these days, hick. How Japan did not really attack Pearl Harbor but was just defending itself against evil American agression, how America deliberately infected blankets with smallpox and gave them to Indians to commit genocide (guess there weren't any levees in the Old West) and so on.

Read how professors punish conservative, or even just inquisitive, students who question the radical leftist dogma. Read how the concept of "free speech" does not extend to anyone but liberals, as they fight to keep conservative speakers off campus and conservative teachers out of the classrooms.

Academia is full of America-hating, America-bashing teachers. It is intellectually bankrupt, and morally corrupt. Or do you admire Yale's position of not admitting any of hundreds of highly qualified American students in favor of admitting, and paying for, and paying to, an offical of the Taliban?

I had not thought of the number of foreign students in America, or of the impact of the lies and distortions of American adademia on them. The article is on point.

Blarney2000,

Every time you post a comment, you reveil your complete lack of knowledge about Iraq and your irrational hatred of President Bush and the leadership he haas provided in the war on terror.

Some facts for you to chew on (From the British House of Commons debate on 13 Mar 2003):

In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its weapons of mass destruction. The declaration, when it came, was false: a blanket denial of WMD programs.

After initial inspections, in March 1992, Iraq admitted that it had previously undeclared weapons of mass destruction, but it said that it had destroyed them. It gave another "full and final declaration".

In October 1994, Iraq stopped co-operating with the weapons inspectors altogether. Military action was threatened. Inspections resumed.

In March 1996, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further "full and final declaration" of WMD was made. By July 1996, however, Iraq was forced to admit that declaration, too, was false.

In August 1996, it provided yet another "full and final declaration". Then, a week later, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. He disclosed a far more extensive biological weapons programme and, for the first time, said that Iraq had weaponised the program—something that Saddam had always strenuously denied. All this had been happening while the inspectors were in Iraq.

Kamal also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in the 1990s. Iraq was then forced to release documents that showed just how extensive those program were. In November 1996, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles that could be used for weapons of mass destruction. A further "full and final declaration" was made. That, too, turned out to be false.

In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites. In September 1997, yet another "full and final declaration" was made—also false. Meanwhile, the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, the existence of which had always been denied by the Iraqis.

In October 1997, the United States and the United Kingdom threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the inspectors. Finally, under threat of action in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue. They did continue, for a few months. In August, co-operation was suspended.

In December, the inspectors left. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam's lies, deception and obstruction, with large quantities of weapons of mass destruction unaccounted for.

In 1999, a new inspection team, UNMOVIC, was set up. Saddam refused to allow those inspectors even to enter Iraq. After UN Resolution 1441, they were allowed to return.

When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far-reaching VX nerve agent program; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 ton of mustard gas, and possibly more than 10 times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; and an entire Scud missile program.

Are you still willing to claim "no one has found any evidence of any material breach in regards to WMD".

Thruout history ,there have been people who have stepped forward to save mankind from total
extinction . President Bush is one of these That is doing what it takes . When the people in America Elected President Bush ,the democrats
went off the deep end because they want to be the power brokers and they lost and the result is that they are willing to give the country to the terrorists than to work with our President for
the good of our nation . THeir only interest is to show President Bush in a bad light and want to dismantle his cabinet For their own agenda .
The Republicans need to stand firm or we could find ourselves in the same predictament as France or even worse ,like china or Iran.
World history is full of nations that disappeared when they were divided .

Are you still willing to claim "no one has found any evidence of any material breach in regards to WMD".

Posted by: A-10 at April 26, 2006 10:59 PM

A-10,

Some facts;

- We were never attacked by Iraq
- None of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq
- There were no major Al Queda training camps in Iraq
- Saddam was not supporting Al Queda
- Saddam was not involved in 9-11
- Iraq had no significant WMD
- Iraq had no way to attack Americans
- The insurgency in Iraq is almost all home grown with only about 5 % belonging to Al Queda
- Iraq was contained and a non-issue over ten years since the first Gulf War
- You have supported the wasting of hundreds of billions of US dollars that could have been spent better at home
- OBL runs free and our president doesn't think about him anymore.
-You have supported the unnecessary death and maiming of over 20,000 of our troops for absolutely no positive gain in the WOT accept to make people like yourself feel a little safer when you go to bed and to make a lot of war profiteers rich that Harry Truman would have tried for treason

-Oh and the 9-11 Commissions Report says conclusively the Clinton administration was not "handed Bin Laden" on a platter" ; thats silly right wing propaganda.

The way to stay safe from terrorist is to protect the homeland and support covert operations to root out other cells of Al Queda

The democrats have recently put forward two bills to secure our ports. One to increase the number of inspections of shipping crates and another to check each crate for radioactivity...both were snuffed by the do nothing Republicans....they are failing us miserably on the WOT. Stop making excuses for their complete ineptness. You and they are endangering our soldiers and our country.

"- We were never attacked by Iraq"
Irrelevant, since no one has claimed such.

"- None of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq"
Also irrelevant.

"- There were no major Al Queda training camps in Iraq"
But there were known training camps, however. I don't know how one classifies what is "major."

"- Saddam was not supporting Al Queda"
That is debatable, especially with the release of recently declassified documents.

"- Saddam was not involved in 9-11"
Directly, no. Indirectly? Maybe.

"- Iraq had no significant WMD"
Significant is in the eye of the beholder. Iraq did violate the law.

"- Iraq had no way to attack Americans"
Unless they were Americans abroad, or they attacked American interests in the area.

"- The insurgency in Iraq is almost all home grown with only about 5 % belonging to Al Queda"
Irrelevant to the point A-10 was making.

"- Iraq was contained and a non-issue over ten years since the first Gulf War"
This is not a fact, but an opinionated stance on the issue.

"- You have supported the wasting of hundreds of billions of US dollars that could have been spent better at home"
Again, not a fact, but a speculation.

"- OBL runs free and our president doesn't think about him anymore."
Yes, I suppose he's free to run in his mountains and coordinate absolutely nothing.

"-You have supported the unnecessary death and maiming of over 20,000 of our troops for absolutely no positive gain in the WOT accept to make people like yourself feel a little safer when you go to bed and to make a lot of war profiteers rich that Harry Truman would have tried for treason"
How can you tout this as a fact? You're not omniscient, you don't know the global effects this will have on the future. Stop making assumptions.

"-Oh and the 9-11 Commissions Report says conclusively the Clinton administration was not "handed Bin Laden" on a platter" ; thats silly right wing propaganda."
The 9-11 Commissions Reports has been verified as overlooking some of the more important details and documents. A faulty source of information, so it's not verifiable fact.

I apologize for the double post, my finger slipped. [fixed. -b4b]

To make this relevent, it is the very practice of making assertions and dressing them up as facts, like what muirgeo has done, that makes mainstream liberal outlets a dangerous tool.

mun13f mentions,

"Now, what external power currently poses this threat to us? Excepting a massive nuclear exchange, no external power currently has this ability. So, then, what threat do the so called fringe "Islamofacists" really represent to America? They may have the capacity to kill some of our citizens, but it is only we as Americans that truly have the power to destroy our freedoms."

Are you therefore reaching the conclusion that since the fringe Islamofascists may have the capacity to kill only some of our citizens, that's OK? Tell that to the families of the close to 3,000 people who perished on September 11th. If it were someone in your family that was killed, how would you feel if someone told you, "Don't worry about it. It's not really a big threat. They are, after all, only fringe Islamofascists, and it only resulted in a few deaths. We don't really need to go after them."? And at what level do you think we ought to take the "fringe Islamofascists" seriously? You imply (or I infer) that the 3,000 killed on September 11th was an acceptable level. How about 30,000? Or should we just shrug our shoulders until the number reaches 3,000,000 in one fell swoop? Let's not forget that, among these "fringe Islamofascists" is the nation-state of Iran, headed by a rabid reincarnation of Adolph Hitler. He makes no bones about what he wishes for Israel and America. And his nation seems hellbent on gaining functional access to nuclear technology.

You are correct in stating that the bigger threat to our freedoms might come from within. Given an increasingly dumbed-down population, given an increasingly turned-off population, given an increasingly less-informed population, given an increasing sector of our society that depends on the government to solve all of its problems with an entitlement attitude, we should all be worried about what lies ahead of us. Too many people are willing to look the other way when their freedoms are being eroded as long as they get their "gubmet check" on time.

I agree in principle with the statement made further on in his post that,

"The two most important insititutions we have to protect our freedoms from an internal threat are the rule of law and a free and indpendent press. If you accept that information is power, it follows that the press represents the most important check against the government's natural monopoly of information."

However... I feel compelled to point out that - in my opinion - while the rule of law is arguably under attack, it is painfully obvious that the "press" we're currently left with is anything but free and independent. The drive-by media has time and again clearly shown that they are nothing more than the mouthpiece of the Demublican party. They have a clear agenda which is weighted heavily toward the left/liberal point of view. Whatever counterbalance they allegedly offer to the government's "monopoly on information," it has a corrosive effect upon the body politic, because more often than not, they come across to the the average American as having an axe to grind.

Are you at all familiar with Pew Research Center for the People & the Press - a polling thinktank that regularly engages in questioning the public about its perceptions on the media? Every couple of years, it polls the American public about their perceptions of the media. With evergrowing margins, they find the American public distrusts the media to bring them unbiased reporting. There is a clear estrangement occurring between the target audience of the drive-by media and the disseminators of information. Of course, I have very often posted my caveat on this blogsite to watch out for "poll results," because the result of polls is often pre-ordained. I personally participated in one such poll a few years back, and gave my honest opinion on all the questions that were posed. Were the questions weighted? I don't really remember...

The real "antidote" to the governments "natural monopoly" on information is the rise of the new media: blogsites, Internet News sites, and the rapid rise of technologies that disseminate the information contained therein at the speed of light to wider and wider audiences. Unfortunately, the flip side to that coin is that because the "speed of light" effect of the Internet, things can often be terribly mis-reported, but by the time the "actual truth" about the subject in question comes to light, the damage of the original "untruth" has already been done. Just like the NYTimes posting an factual "correction" on page E34 to a story that was originally misreported on the front page, people are likely to miss the followup.

Thanks for your comment, though. It is obvious that you put a great deal of thought behind your posting...

On September 11, 2001, we were no longer Republicans or Democrats, black or white, poor or wealthy. On that day we were Americans. On that day and for months after, we would have done anything our leaders asked of us. What did our President advise? Handed the greatest opportunity for leadership since Pearl Harbor, George Bush alternated between telling us to buy stuff and visit Disney World, while spooking an anxious nation in to a war against people that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. How different might it have been, had George Bush followed in the footstep of FDR or John Kennedy? What might have transpired had he chosen to spend that costly endowment of unity differently? We'll never know. And here we are.

Right now one of the best examples of corporatism is happening with the huge corporations wanting the congress to pass a law that will ultimately result in fewer choices and a controlled internet.

THis very open internet is at risk of being controlled by corporations and the congress is willingly going along.

Again another great example about how big corporations are for open and free markets but they are for markets they control with the help of government.

see;

http://civic.moveon.org/alerts/savetheinternet.html

OOPs make that:

Again another great example about how big corporations are NOT for open and free markets but they are for markets they control with the help of government.

muirgeo,

With all the lies and deceptions put forth by "Move On" for the past five years, you have a lot of gall citing them as a credible source.

I don't understand why you liberals are so bent out of shape over Iraq. It is but one front of the Global War on Terror. The fight is also taking place in Afghanistan, in the Phillipines, throughout Europe as intelligence agencies and law enforcement detect and arrest terrorists, within the financial circles as terrorist funding organizations are identified and disrupted, etc.

I would challenge you to look back to the summer of 2000 and take a snapshot of the world and then compare it with now.

In Iraq, Saddam continued to obstruct the UN Weapons inspectors. His secret WMD programs still existed. He was targeting and firing at US and UK aircraft as they patrolled the No-Fly Zone. He was skimming billions off the UN Oil-for-Food program, money that was intended to provide food and medicine. He was bribing the French, Germans, and Russians in order to end the sanctions. He was purchasing prohibited weapons systems and technology. His henchmen were murdering an average of 100 Iraqis a day. He was paying the families of Palistinian suicide bombers $25,000 each.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban was oppressing the countryside. They were actively supporting al Qeada and other terrorist organizations.

Pakistan was a center of terrorist activity and an active nuclear technology blackmarket was flourishing. They were also flexing their nuclear muscles at India.

In Libya, active WMD programs were working to produce biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

In Lebanon, the Syrian occupiers were oppressing the population and harboring terrorists.

The entire Middle East was a vast swamp of terrorism.

In the US, secret teams of terrorists were plotting to fly airplanes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and the Capital or White House.

Now fast forward to today. 75% of al Qeada's leadership has been killed or captured along with thousands of their underlings. Democracies are emerging in Iraq and Afghanistan. 50,000,000 people have been freed from oppression. Truely free elections have been held. The rape and death rooms have been closed. The governments will never be a threat to supply terrorists with WMD. Libya has renounced its WMD quest and has invited in the UN to certify their disarmament. Syria has withdrawed its troops from Lebanon. Pakistan is now a partner in our fight against terrorist and is no longer threatening India with nuclear destruction. Women's rights are growing throughout the region. We have had no further terrorist attack on US soil and dozens of terrorist cells have been discovered and captured here and abroad.

Sure there have been bumps in the road. Sure over 2,000 brave US troops have died in the fight against terrorism and to bring freedom to a region that has only seen centuries of turmoil. But we have made huge progress. To deny it would be intellictually dishonest. But I expect that from a liberal.

Did you even bother to read what I posted yesterday at 10:28 pm?

muirgeo,

Although Omega Destructor debunked your earlier statements, I'd like to add a few comments:

"Some facts;" - Don't you mean "some opinions which are not based on facts"?

- "We were never attacked by Iraq" - If you ignore firing at our aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zone (an act of war), or planning strikes against US interests (as documented in the captured documents)

- "None of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq" - So. This isn't about 9-11. This is about ending terrorism throughout the world.

- "There were no major Al Queda training camps in Iraq" - Except for the ones at Salman Pak, Samarra, and Ramadi
- "Saddam was not supporting Al Queda" - You know this for certain. We have documented proof that he harbored several of their leaders and met with others.

- "Saddam was not involved in 9-11" - So. The 9-11 attacks were some of many attacks against the US and the West. So were the 1991 WTC attacks, the Khobar Towers bombing, the African embassies, and the USS Cole. We are fighting terrorism worldwide, not just the one who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks.

- "Iraq had no significant WMD" - I suppose most rational people would consider the 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far-reaching VX nerve agent program; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 ton of mustard gas; and an unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons to be "significant". But then, you are not rational.

- "Iraq had no way to attack Americans" - And we thought that 19 terrorists with boxcutters had no way to commandeer three airliners, and crash them into the WTC and the Pentagon, killing over 3,000, causing hurdreds of billions of dollars of damage to our infrastructure and economy. You don't think Saddam didn't look at the smoldering pile of rubble at Ground Zero and instantly think of new ways to strike at the US?

- "The insurgency in Iraq is almost all home grown with only about 5 % belonging to Al Queda" - While some of the other 95% are Baathists from within Iraq and some others are radical Islamists from within, a vast majority are terrorists from any one of dozens of other terrorist organizations from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and elsewhere.

- "Iraq was contained and a non-issue over ten years since the first Gulf War" - I guess if you consider obstructing the UN Weapons inspectors, continuing his secret WMD programs, targeting and firing at US and UK aircraft as they patrolled the No-Fly Zone, skimming billions off the UN Oil-for-Food program, bribing the French, Germans, and Russians in order to end the sanctions, purchasing prohibited weapons systems and technology, murdering an average of 100 Iraqis a day, and paying the families of Palistinian suicide bombers $25,000 each being "contained" and a "non-issue", I guess you're right.

- "You have supported the wasting of hundreds of billions of US dollars that could have been spent better at home" - You see us "wasting of hundreds of billions of US dollars", I see us investing in a stable Middle East where terrorism cannot flourish. Even if we wouldn't have decided to fight a War on Terror and leave us open for further attacks (like the previous admininstration did), who is to say the money would be better spent at home. Most of the money spent on the War on Terror would still be spent on the DoD in personnel costs. The additional funds earmarked by Congress for the War on Terror would not be available for use on other liberal experiments, like the failed "War on Poverty" which has cost $7 trillion dollars over the last 40 years and we still have poverty. Oh wait, I forgot, that too is President Bush's fault. He has been secretly in control of the US Government since he was about 20 years of age.

- "OBL runs free and our president doesn't think about him anymore." - I guess if you consider living in a cave in the mountains, eating goat meat, and constantly worring about a Maverick missle interrupting your peaceful existance "running free", you're right. President Bush is probably right that he is not preoccupied with OBL (certainly not to the extent that President Clinton was), for President Bush sees that the War on Terror extends beyond OBL, and while you can kill or capture one man, that does not end the fight.

-"You have supported the unnecessary death and maiming of over 20,000 of our troops for absolutely no positive gain in the WOT accept to make people like yourself feel a little safer when you go to bed and to make a lot of war profiteers rich that Harry Truman would have tried for treason" - See my post above on the gains we have made in the Global WOT.

-"Oh and the 9-11 Commissions Report says conclusively the Clinton administration was not "handed Bin Laden" on a platter" ; thats silly right wing propaganda." - Oh, and the 9-11 Commission had all of the information before they issued their final report. Like the "Able Danger" information, the documents that Sandy Berger stuffed in his socks in a pathetic attempt to keep damaging evidence from the Commission, and the 2,000,000 documents from Iraq. I'm positive that their investigation was complete and unbiased (Was that Jamie Gorlick I saw sitting on the Commission? The same Jamie Gorlick that erected the wall between the law enforcement and intelligence communities). As for "silly right wing propaganda", we have President Clinton's own works on tape saying that we were offered OBL, but we had no reason to hold him. How noble of him. We had no legal reason to hold an internationally known terrorism leader that was responsible for plotting against the US and killing thousands worldwide? What a pathetic attempt to cover his a**.

Did they teach you to disregard reason, logic, and documented facts when you went through medical school, or have you incurred a serious head injury that you're not telling us about? Because your "facts" are actually just opinions that have no basis in fact.

congressive gives us yet another example of the lib use of invented "fact" so support an unsupportable theory.
"Given a huge majority of soldiers like this one still, to this day, believe the Iraq war is payback for 9-11..."

Oh, yeah? Where did you get this figure? One of your brilliant sources, no doubt.

You admit that at least one administration official agreed that Sadaam was probably not involved in 9/11---you quoted her. "SECRETARY RICE: Saddam Hussein, and we have said this many times, as far as we know, did not order September 11, may not have even known of September 11."

The President repeated, over and over again, that we did not associate Sadaam with 9/11---yet a local talk radio host brushed that off with "OK, so he CASUALLY mentioned that A COUPLE OF TIMES....he was still trying to convince us it was really Sadaam". (The Dem crystal ball at work.)

Now congressive is trying to tell us, oh so authoritively, that "a huge majority" of soldiers are as stupid as this talkie.

It fits in with lib simple-mindedness to think (if one can use that word in this context) that terrorists are very linear, organized, folks. That if a terrorist belongs to ABC group in Libya he cannot, WOULD NOT, operate with DEF group in Iran. Belonging to Hamas means one could not possibly contribute to Hezbollah. Belonging to the Taliban means automatic disqualification from working with Al-Queda. It's a simple world, for simple minds.

But we have to acknowledge, and deal with , Pan-Arabism. The libs see it, they just deny it or, more likely, lack the ability to see its significance. On one hand they argue that the terrorism of 9/11 could not have had any input from or relation to Sadaam---two different countries, dontcha see? But on the other hand they point out how how many terrorists from other countries have flocked into Iraq to kill Americans. (And, as it turns out, other Muslims.) Terrorism is fluid, it is fungible. If one group has a great bomb-maker and another has lots of money, they will both work with a third, if the goal of killing infidels is met. This claim that Sadaam did not belong to Club Osama is just plain goofy.

But the point of the thread is, how so much of so-called education is really indoctrination in Anti-American attitudes and beliefs. And the point was made that this occurs mostly in the softer studies----math and science are pretty isolated from this phenomonon, and even business classes are more separate. But don't forget the Colorado high school GEOGRAPHY teacher who used his class to propagandize against George Bush. He did not bring up specific issues and explain his opposition to those issues---that is too much a conservative approach. No, he just tossed out a slew of psuedo-facts, linked together to create the (false) illusion of relativity and relevance, and then fell into the Bush-as-Hitler rant. Geography?

Guys, I'm a lefty. I've also served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I gotta tell ya, the enemy's perception of my countrymen's support for the war doesn't have much to do with anything. I did what I needed to do. Politics don't have much value outside the wire.

JS,
Thank you for your service.

JS,

Thank you for your service.

I think you are mistaken on a certain point. Certainly, when you are actually engaged in battle with the terrorists (or doing any of the other common duties associated with it), then what some editorialist is saying in the New York Times doesn't make much a difference plus or minus, but in the larger sense, it does.

The terrorist you might be fighting in Iraq is fighting you because he thinks he can win - part of the reason he thinks he can win is because his terrorist masters tell him that the Americans are divided and weak; that while the soldiers he faces in Iraq are hard as nails, the country which backs them up is flabby and ready to quit...so, keep fighting.

As a soldier, you certainly know that the morale is to the material as three is to one because you have experienced it first hand - it is spirit which keeps a man at his post, not his weapons...all the weapons in the world are worthless without the spirit to use them, and high spirits can make a weapon out of just about anything.

Just FYI, when I refered to the Chinese Communist People's Daily, I meant that it is an organ of the Communist Party, which it is. That was not a commentary on the economic organizition of the People's Republic of China. I may make a commentary on that at some time.

I have to agree with JS in part and disagree in part. The perception problem lies not with the enemy and not with perception of the support of the war. It is the general populaces perceptions of Americans in general as lazy, ignorant, and racist (to pick a few popular statements I hear). They see us as somehow different from them. This is what fuels the insurgency's staying power. We will always have isolated nut jobs, but they are more able to recruit from a population that is ignorant of America and her real values, which are not Britany Spears and Exxon (no offense to either intended). Our real values are higher than that and you see them at work every day in churches, soup kithens, and on the floors of our legislative assemblies.

For link to the actual article from the People's Daily please see the original post. Link above.

- "We were never attacked by Iraq" - If you ignore firing at our aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zone (an act of war), or planning strikes against US interests (as documented in the captured documents)

)))No significant attack that threatened our countries safty.

- "None of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq" - So. This isn't about 9-11. This is about ending terrorism throughout the world.

))))There was no significant terrorist threat from Iraq.

- "There were no major Al Queda training camps in Iraq" - Except for the ones at Salman Pak, Samarra, and Ramadi

)))Speculative

- "Saddam was not supporting Al Queda" - You know this for certain. We have documented proof that he harbored several of their leaders and met with others.

- "Saddam was not involved in 9-11" - So. The 9-11 attacks were some of many attacks against the US and the West. So were the 1991 WTC attacks, the Khobar Towers bombing, the African embassies, and the USS Cole. We are fighting terrorism worldwide, not just the one who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks.

))))We can't win this wart by attacking every country that may harbor terrorist.

- "Iraq had no significant WMD" - I suppose most rational people would consider the 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far-reaching VX nerve agent program; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 ton of mustard gas; and an unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons to be "significant". But then, you are not rational.

)))Whatever...not a threat...no way to deliver it...never get rid of this stuff world wide...need to protect the borders.

- "Iraq had no way to attack Americans" - And we thought that 19 terrorists with boxcutters had no way to commandeer three airliners, and crash them into the WTC and the Pentagon, killing over 3,000, causing hurdreds of billions of dollars of damage to our infrastructure and economy. You don't think Saddam didn't look at the smoldering pile of rubble at Ground Zero and instantly think of new ways to strike at the US?

)))

- "The insurgency in Iraq is almost all home grown with only about 5 % belonging to Al Queda" - While some of the other 95% are Baathists from within Iraq and some others are radical Islamists from within, a vast majority are terrorists from any one of dozens of other terrorist organizations from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and elsewhere.

- "Iraq was contained and a non-issue over ten years since the first Gulf War" - I guess if you consider obstructing the UN Weapons inspectors, continuing his secret WMD programs, targeting and firing at US and UK aircraft as they patrolled the No-Fly Zone, skimming billions off the UN Oil-for-Food program, bribing the French, Germans, and Russians in order to end the sanctions, purchasing prohibited weapons systems and technology, murdering an average of 100 Iraqis a day, and paying the families of Palistinian suicide bombers $25,000 each being "contained" and a "non-issue", I guess you're right.

- "You have supported the wasting of hundreds of billions of US dollars that could have been spent better at home" - You see us "wasting of hundreds of billions of US dollars", I see us investing in a stable Middle East where terrorism cannot flourish. Even if we wouldn't have decided to fight a War on Terror and leave us open for further attacks (like the previous admininstration did), who is to say the money would be better spent at home. Most of the money spent on the War on Terror would still be spent on the DoD in personnel costs. The additional funds earmarked by Congress for the War on Terror would not be available for use on other liberal experiments, like the failed "War on Poverty" which has cost $7 trillion dollars over the last 40 years and we still have poverty. Oh wait, I forgot, that too is President Bush's fault. He has been secretly in control of the US Government since he was about 20 years of age.

- "OBL runs free and our president doesn't think about him anymore." - I guess if you consider living in a cave in the mountains, eating goat meat, and constantly worring about a Maverick missle interrupting your peaceful existance "running free", you're right. President Bush is probably right that he is not preoccupied with OBL (certainly not to the extent that President Clinton was), for President Bush sees that the War on Terror extends beyond OBL, and while you can kill or capture one man, that does not end the fight.

-"You have supported the unnecessary death and maiming of over 20,000 of our troops for absolutely no positive gain in the WOT accept to make people like yourself feel a little safer when you go to bed and to make a lot of war profiteers rich that Harry Truman would have tried for treason" - See my post above on the gains we have made in the Global WOT.

-"Oh and the 9-11 Commissions Report says conclusively the Clinton administration was not "handed Bin Laden" on a platter" ; thats silly right wing propaganda." - Oh, and the 9-11 Commission had all of the information before they issued their final report. Like the "Able Danger" information, the documents that Sandy Berger stuffed in his socks in a pathetic attempt to keep damaging evidence from the Commission, and the 2,000,000 documents from Iraq. I'm positive that their investigation was complete and unbiased (Was that Jamie Gorlick I saw sitting on the Commission? The same Jamie Gorlick that erected the wall between the law enforcement and intelligence communities). As for "silly right wing propaganda", we have President Clinton's own works on tape saying that we were offered OBL, but we had no reason to hold him. How noble of him. We had no legal reason to hold an internationally known terrorism leader that was responsible for plotting against the US and killing thousands worldwide? What a pathetic attempt to cover his a**.

Did they teach you to disregard reason, logic, and documented facts when you went through medical school, or have you incurred a serious head injury that you're not telling us about? Because your "facts" are actually just opinions that have no basis in fact.

Posted by: A-10 at April 27, 2006 10:25 AM

)))))Bottom line is you're NOT gonna win the WOT by invading one country after the next. A better safer long term plan is through covert operations and improved security at home...and better diplomacy.

)))No significant attack that threatened our countries safty. - True, but as the 19 hijackers proved on 9/11, terrorists can easily make a WMD out of some boxcutters and an Boeing 757. What could they do if Saddam provided them with some of the chemical or biological weapons he had?

))))There was no significant terrorist threat from Iraq. - Funny, Congress seemed to think there was when they passed the Authorization for use of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Or did they gat fooled by the sneeky President Bush?

)))Whatever...not a threat...no way to deliver it...never get rid of this stuff world wide...need to protect the borders. - You make me laugh. Do you really believe that it would be impossible to sneak a suitcase full of VX or Sarin into the US and use it in an attack on the US. Hundreds of thousands could die in one attack. I will grant you one thing, however, we do need to better protect the borders. The recent diversion of $$$ from Iraq and Katrina to fund more Border Patrols is a step in the right direction.

Did you giv