"Something big is brewing - you don't go half way 'round the world for nothing."

51st state?

Tom,

If we were going to get a 51st State, I'd prefer the Bahamas or Jamaica...if we really were the imperialist scum, then we should be conquering the much nicer areas of the world, right?

Why is this bad news? Bush visiting his puppet Prime Minister, the one that he will ask to step down if he starts critisizing the US occupation like his predecessor.

You see, Bush only wants a democracy if the government sees things HIS way. If not, he will push the official out and replace them.

The day will come soon , when the Prime Minister will ask the Americans to leave and Bush will refuse, showing that he always intended to have a permanent presence there.

Did he bring another 'Mission Accomplished' sign with him?

Maybe he wants to start another failed oil business.

Oh....I got it, he wants to turn some corners!

or maybe he just wanted to clear up some 'misunderestimations'

I heard that the pool reporters who flew in the helicopters with President Bush wore body armor, but President Bush and his staff did not. I guess the reporters are better at creating flack than dodging it!

ABC news reported this trip had been planned for some time, but Iraq's new government wasn't told until shortly before he arrived. Now, how could ABC twist that into something more negative? By "wondering why", if the administration has so much confidence in the new Iraqi government, they couldn't let the new government know what's going on well in advance!

ABC could have used it as an opportunity to educate Americans. They could have explained the security implications and other reasons to those listeners who can't think for themselves, but no... they chose instead to subtly plant another negative comment and cut at President Bush.

Liberal biased negative news? Yep!

axis,

You mean the day will come when Iraq treats the United States the way your Canadian liberals have done?

The United States isn't going to "occupy" Iraq, but we are going to have some bases there for quite some time. It's a "mutual thing." We will both benefit. Iraq needs the security and we need can use some bases in that region beyond those we already have. As long as we have bases there, is Syria or Iran going to mount a direct attack on Iraq? Our bases in Iraq can quickly provide support for Iraqi troops against any terrorists, and they will give us quicker access to other potential trouble or troublesome spots!

AAR

Axis....you're Canadian remember? You don't mean anything to anyone.

Oh, when you say HIS do you mean Bush or ROVE, you know ROVE rules the world, ROVE sent Alberto just to show Jebb in his best light, when all is dark
ROVE will show us the way. Axis, maybe you should check under your bed "THEY" might be watching you!

TEO,

Life is not one big "mission accomplished"!

Life, history, and everything about it is a series of "missions accomplished", one after another, day after day. Each accomplishment -- no matter how big or small -- may warrant it's own "mission accomplished" sign or celebration.

The new Iraq government is another "mission accomplished"!

President Bush's successful trip to Baghdad to greet, encourage, and congratulate the new Iraqi democratic government is another "mission accomplished"!

The death of al-Zarqawi is a "mission accomplished"!

The list goes on and on and on.

The inability of Fitzgerald to indict Karl Rove is a "mission NOT accomplished"!

AAR

Bush should be safe and sound in Baghdad if he doesn't stray from the green zone.

Sadly, the average Iraqi citizen doesn't have the same option.

Did he bring his flight suit?

Just another P.R. trick to add to his "good week" as opposed to the BAD YEARS. It won't last long. With jis incompatent staff making statements that curl your toes about the tradagy at Gitmo. What hipocracy that Bush would interupt his almighty vacation to defend a brain dead woman and have staff calling the suicides at Gitmo a P.R. campain, we know where the far right REALLY omes from. Ann Coulter is their real spokesperson. Very few admit it.

AAR,

Are uncounted deaths of Iraqi civilians, 'Mission Accomplished'?

Is a civil war, 'Mission Accomplished'?

How about lack of electricity or water, or security...'Mission Accomplished'?

Lack of government relevancy outside of the greenzone, warlords in control of the police and militia members being integrated into the army...'Mission Accomplished'?

basically, short of scratching his own balls, not much has been accomplished, not least, the mission.

"basically, short of scratching his own balls, not much has been accomplished, not least, the mission."

My goodness arent you the little moonbat ray of sunshine and unsubstantiated statements. Stupidity is forever, ignorance is curable. I pretty sure which catagory you fall into.

Zoot,
I agree. I'm sure he has staff to do that for him.

Mark,

Bush going to Baghdad isn't a bad day for the left. Bush returning to the US is a bad day for the left.

Something big brewing? Doubtful. Dubya has snuck in and out of Iraq before and his numbers continue to tumble.

Mike

it was about time, that the president visits
iraq.

war is bad, everytime. but there
were three successes in this war:

1st: now we know for sure, that there are no WOM.
and thats what many europeans and people in my country just dont understand. they would be happier, if they dont know that. but i think, to have a country nearby the EU, which might have WOM, and is also a dictatorship - thats dangerous.

my theory:
iran - now developing WOM,
if the US wouldnt have invaded iraq:
i know, iraq and iran are enemies, but:
maybe iran would have given iraq materials
for WOM
they would connect against israel, for example
(remember what irans president said about
israel).

2nd: iraqi people are able to vote (even under hard circumstances) but the situation / democracy
is far from "normal life"

3rd: hussein is in jail.

but there are many other topics and rumors
in phantom discussions such as:
- what about that poison gas, germany delivered
to hussein, before he used it against civilians?
thats the scandal.
related:
- the architecture of that reactor in iran,
wasnt it build with the support of the russians
and of course, germans?

TIME magazine should investigate that!

eventually irans president is coming to germany,
to visit the players during football worldcup.
lets see how my country handles this. personally
i would not allow him to enter my country.

Most lefties are laying low this morning. The others are pathetically lame; even worse than most every other day.

TEO,

I'll list "missions accomplished." You, axis, and the LibDims can handle the others.

After all, the LibDims have had a big hand and part to play in delaying those other accomplishments, and in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi citizens and our soldiers by encouraging and providing hope to terrorists through your incessant 24/7 anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-war, anti-military, anti-everything rhetoric and propaganda!

Yep. You handle the negatives. That's where your expertise resides!!!

AAR

Most lefties are lying low this morning, the others are pathetically lame; even worse than most other days.

TEO,

Some Missions Accomplished:

1. Remove Taliban.

2. Disrupt bin Laden's terrorist network in Afghanistan.

3. Remove Saddam.

4. End Pakistan's nuclear proliferation.

5. End Libya's WMD programs.

6. Institute democracy in Afghanistan.

7. Institute democracy in Iraq.

8. Make new anti-terrorism alliances with Georgia, Tajikistan, Djibouti, Yemen, Jordan, India.

9. End Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

10. Force Palestinians to institute genuine democratic government.

11. Prevent any further attacks on US soil (this is an ongoing mission, but its been nearly five years now).

12. Kill or capture thousands of terrorists.

Not a bad list...

AAR,

If the military was given all the money they needed, and all the logistical support they needed, then any failures lie with them or their civilian leaders. But nice try.

Are you saying that us angry lefters are controlling military or Rummy's war plans? Are you saying that the administration somehow makes their gameplan on polls and perception of how a MINORITY of the public feels? Is that it? because i don't quite grasp how you say that WE have caused more death and destruction, above and beyond Bush's share.

Are you saying that guys who are willing to kill themselves would not continue to do so if we were silenced? Sounds pretty much like wishful thinking...infact sounds like a load of horse puckey, what happened to personal responsibility, what happened to your war plan, what happened to bright skies for iraqi freedoms, what happened to the buck stopping with the president?

You scared little boys have screwed things up because you don't understand international politics, and then go blame someone else for your mistakes, well tough luck Buck-o, you make this mess, now own up to it. the media and the MINORITY didn't start this war, but we sure as the hell are gonna finish it for you!

Why are Lefties so obsessed with that flight suit? OK, so a President stepping off a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier deck, wearing one of those pressurized flight suits EVERYONE has to wear on one of those planes, DID present a more manly and dynamic image than McPudgy waddling off a grannycopter in any of his 28 (TWENTY-EIGHT!) aircraft carrier landings. And he was there to congratulate the crew of the Abraham Lincoln for accomplishing their mission, which was translated into the phrase Mission Accomplished. The success of even one mission in Iraq clearly gets your vast pink panties in a twist, or you would not obsess about it so much.

I never cease to be amazed at how much you can dig out of this simple, clearcut, occassion. It's like watching a cow chewing its cud. It keeps getting brought back up for some more mastication, but no matter how much you work it, it was never more or less than a President in wartime flying out to the first carrier to return from that war to tell them "Well Done!".

And I see TEO has discarded all pretense of civility. Guess that delicately described "third eye" of his opens directly into the area I thought it would, based on his recent descent into sister-f**king and ball-scratching. See, give a Lib some time and he will always show his true colors. In this case, very very brown. (And that is a biological observation, not a racial one.)

As for our "observations" from our Canadian Observer, they are as skewed as usual. In fact, there are only a couple of zones in Iraq that are dangerous. Most of the country is quiet, civilized, and perking right along. Schools are being built and attended. Women are working. Water treatment plants and electric generation plants are being built. NOT, as you would have it, REbuilt, after those terrible liberators wrecked them, but built for the first time. The ecomony is improving daily. The terrorists are concentrating on areas where they can get the most press. And, funnily enough, our press keeps working hand in glove with them, giving them the attention and validation they need to keep going.

But AAR and I understand that them that can, do, and them that can't, carp. It's always the non-achievers who whine and moan and whimper incessantly about how those who DO achieve do their work. It's never enough, never quite right, for those who have never tried or accomplished anything in their own lives and have no idea of the complexities of running a business, much less a country, much less a country at war.

poor HR Clinton, bet she broke another lamp today!
you gotta love it!

Jan: We have witnesses to the construction of WMD. We have captured rockets whose only purpose was to deliver WMD. We have found sarin and anthrax, just not tons of either. We have testimony from people who helped ship heavy metal bottles marked with signs indicating poisons or toxic materials, on converted passenger planes flying established and allowed passenger schedules and routes into Syria. We have testimony from scientists who worked on nuclear projects, one of whom led US officers to illegal nuclear development machinery buried in his yard. We have satellite tapes and photos of convoys of tractor-trailers moving across the Syrian border. We have the testimony of a former high-ranking Iraqi that there were carefully established protocols for removing WMD in case of a threat to Iraq, backed by Russia and China---protocols which were enacted. We have traces of WMD in several of the buildings which we knew were factories, with markers to indicate that they were of recent manufacture and not left over from the days before we pulled Sadaam's teeth and turned him into a genial empty suit with no power and no influence.

I'd be interested in knowing more about the "scandals" you listed in your post. BTW, I am confident Ahmadinejad will not visit Germany because he will be arrested for his statements about the Holocaust.

In what part of Germany are you from? I lived in Ramstein for 5 years. Love the country and the people.

This trip might be successful if bush flies onto Iran and reestablishes full diplomatic relations wih them. Or if he allows the Iraqis to take charge of their own country and we pull our troops out. Or both. Peace

Mark, it's a good list, though a partial one.

But it won't matter to the whimperers and sneerers. They live in very small worlds in which they are fed their "news" and opinions, for later regurgitation, by their minders.

They do not go out and accomplish things. My bet is that they don't even try to accomplish things. My bet is that all of the LibLand posters here work for someone else, benefit from the risk and investment of time, money, and energy of others. Some understand and appreciate that concept,, but some simply seethe with imotent rage at the examples of the DOERS, and nitpick at everything.

So axis and TEO and the rest will probably sit in their teeny tiny emotional and intellectual little worlds and sneer at the doers because, to the non-doers, what was done wasn't PERFECT. It wasn't done the way THEY thought it should be done.

It's safe, and evidently quite gratifying, to never get in the race, but to feel like they are doing something by simply darting out to try to shove sticks through the spokes of those who are actually bold enough to participate.

I, for one, am glad we have Peleton One.

Hi Almiranta! I hope you don't mind my using your post about WMD. It is excellent!!

Liberals, and their views, are simply irrelevant. They always have been.

I heard that the pool reporters who flew in the helicopters with President Bush wore body armor, but President Bush and his staff did not. I guess the reporters are better at creating flack than dodging it!

-- Bush and his team all wear bullet proof vests 24/7, its just hidden under their suits

Wow! and clinton didn't even go to the World Trade Center in 1993 after it was attacked by terrorists!! God bless you President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history. And God bless our brave men and women in uniform.

For a 51st state, I nominate Canada. It's close, it's got a lot of oil (and everyone knows that's the only reason we ever go to war) and then we could get axis into a school where he might learn something real about the United States.

Except they no longer need a regime change---they did it on their own.

Speaking of axis and Canada---doesn't their universal health care include psychiatrists? And if so, how can we explain axis?

You mean the day will come when Iraq treats the United States the way your Canadian liberals have done?

-- We diagreed with Bush's policy and protectionism, thats our perogrative as a sovereign nation.

The United States isn't going to "occupy" Iraq, but we are going to have some bases there for quite some time. It's a "mutual thing." We will both benefit. Iraq needs the security and we need can use some bases in that region beyond those we already have. As long as we have bases there, is Syria or Iran going to mount a direct attack on Iraq? Our bases in Iraq can quickly provide support for Iraqi troops against any terrorists, and they will give us quicker access to other potential trouble or troublesome spots!

-- Nope, Iraq is a sovereign nation. If they ask you to leave, you either need to leave 100% or admit that you are illegally occupying a sovereign nation against its will, in which case other nations may choose to get involved and force you out just like Daddy Bush did when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

You have no more rights to establish bases there than you do in china. Iraqis do not want your bases, neither does Congress. Only ones that do are the Bush administration. If Iraq says, ok, thats one thing, stealing Iraqi land and just establishing them there with no permission as you have done is not ok. Neither is stealing 104 acres and building the largest embassy on the planet using monies stolen from allocations to the troops. Bush is spending $600 million on this embassy instead of making sure the troops are taken care of with proper body armour and armoured vehicles and proper food rations.

Life is not one big "mission accomplished"!

-- Especially not when it really embarasses you by having raisen brain announce it when it is not so. You were dancing in the street back in 2002 when he announced it, now its a big embarassment so you try to back away from it and ignore it.

More bad news for neorads ... Kennedy has pleaded guilty to DUI charge.

Almiranta: Perhaps the courts should ask all neorads to be examined just as they did Alex Baldwin.

Yep. You handle the negatives. That's where your expertise resides!!!

-- Ok, that leaves you to handle the incompetance and shortsightedness, thats where your expertise resides!!

Almiranta,

Hitler was a Do'er too

-- All destroyed in 91 and after, and Iraq had them only because Regan SOLD them to him in the 1980's (Iran Contra). No WMD's found upon invasion, just dusty warehouses that once had them before Bush got them in 91

Jan: We have witnesses to the construction of WMD. We have captured rockets whose only purpose was to deliver WMD. We have found sarin and anthrax, just not tons of either. We have testimony from people who helped ship heavy metal bottles marked with signs indicating poisons or toxic materials, on converted passenger planes flying established and allowed passenger schedules and routes into Syria. We have testimony from scientists who worked on nuclear projects, one of whom led US officers to illegal nuclear development machinery buried in his yard. We have satellite tapes and photos of convoys of tractor-trailers moving across the Syrian border. We have the testimony of a former high-ranking Iraqi that there were carefully established protocols for removing WMD in case of a threat to Iraq, backed by Russia and China---protocols which were enacted. We have traces of WMD in several of the buildings which we knew were factories, with markers to indicate that they were of recent manufacture and not left over from the days before we pulled Sadaam's teeth and turned him into a genial empty suit with no power and no influence.

Mark,

1. Taliban regrouping and still there, opium trade still active, warlords still in control, hatred of US occupation still palpable.

2. AQ still fighting Pakis and Afghani forces, still haven't got around to worrying about OBL.

3. The Kurdish went ahead and did that job for us, but thanks for playing.

"By early Sunday – way before Saddam’s capture was being reported by the mainstream Western press – the Kurdish media ran the following news wire:

“Saddam Hussein, the former President of the Iraqi regime, was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace. Qusrat’s team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!”

By the time Western press agencies were running the same story, the emphasis had changed, and the ousted Iraqi president had been “captured in a raid by US forces backed by Kurdish fighters.”

4. AQ Kahn network let who knows what get out into the hands of who knows how many countries and terrorist groups, yet we still coddle a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP, not to mention our backing out of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so much for the American word.

5. Anymore toothless tigers you gonna make stand up for the cameras?

6. Afghanistan is being controlled by militias and warlords who still institute strict religious values on women, and rescrict freedoms, except when they round up their people to vote for their bloc of candidates. Way to liberate a country then leave them to fall back into the same messes...just like Reagan and Bush Sr. did to them in the 80's!

"They are still in power today, despite the facade of Hamid Karzai's democratically elected government in Kabul. Opium production, almost eliminated under Taliban rule, is back bigger than ever, because the warlords need the income. Even the Taliban (who no longer have any conventional tax revenues) are now taxing opium rather than eradicating it in the areas they control. And they will continue to have support in those Pashto-speaking areas because the Pashtuns, some 40 per cent of the population, see the Taliban as their best chance of recovering their traditional dominant role in running Afghanistan"

http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/may/24/dyer/

7. Democracy will hopefully take hold, but as it stands now, the greenzone is about as far as the government of iraq's power extends, with outright civil war, lack of security, and militias controlling the police forces, If you're basing "democracy" on people voting, remember that Saddam let them vote too!

8. great, more pictures and face-time, im sure the press corps is excited...can you explain a world-wide increase in terrorism since our invasion...didn't think so.

9. hey, does Bush get to claim he did everything that happens under his watch? Lebanese kicked the Syrians out on their own, Bush had nothing to do with that, infact I would say the dead politician had more claim to that than anything in Der Leader's administration...what a laugh

10. You're gonna claim resposnsibility for Hamas taking control of the country? go for it!

11. took them 250 years for someone to do it, pretty good odds, keep going, how about instituting ALL the 9/11 commison advice, wanna try that one next?

12. Good, keep it up! Maybe invading a few more countries will make them see the follies of their ways.

Perhaps the fact that we have seen many more times the amount of terrorism alludes to the fact that we are helping to create more of them, ever think about that?

not a bad list...horrible would be my description.

-- You tried to invade before, several times in fact and we beat you back and sent you packing every time. A couple times, it was the militia and civilian than sent you packing.

We didn't get a Regime change, we have a Conservative minority, kept tightly in check by a slim minority and all the other parties left leaning of them. If they get out of line, we can toss them out on their ear and have another election. One of the advantages of the parlimentry system. You on the other hand are stuck with the dumbest president since the US was founded, until you impeach him or he leaves on his own

For a 51st state, I nominate Canada. It's close, it's got a lot of oil (and everyone knows that's the only reason we ever go to war) and then we could get axis into a school where he might learn something real about the United States.

Except they no longer need a regime change---they did it on their own.

Speaking of axis and Canada---doesn't their universal health care include psychiatrists? And if so, how can we explain axis?

axis,

It's Canada' prerogative as a sovereign nation to do what they choose. It's ours as a sovereign nation to do as we choose. Why do you Canadians want to continually meddle in our business. You have enough problems in Canada to deal with for now!

IF and WHEN Iraq wants the U.S. to leave, we will do so!

Have you been paying attention to the news?

The Iraqi government absolutely has not asked the U.S. to leave yet, and in fact, they and most Iraqis do not want the U.S. to leave yet. The last I heard, they asked us NOT to leave! They recognize the need for our troops. If we leave, the terrorists will take over Iraq as fast as our troops depart. No, axis, the Iraqis DO NOT want us to leave. Terrorists and some of their Sunni allies who want to regain power in Iraq want us out, pronto, but the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people in general do not!

How long will Iraq want the U.S. to remain in Iraq and maintain bases there. My guess is for several years. How long have we been in Europe? Our role in Europe has diminished. Our role in the Middle East has only begun!

Will some government officials say publicly that they want us to leave. Absolutely. They must talk to their "base" just like LibDims talk to their base here.

My hope is that Iraq will become and remain an ally of the United States and other democratic nations! I know that would be bad news for the LibDims, but not for America.

Who knows, maybe the new Iraq will be one of the nations which joins the United States in the organization of nations to replace the old and ineffective United Nations!!!

AAR

TEO,

I'm saying again what I have said before.

The LibDims incessant 24/7 anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-war, anti-military, anti-everything rhetoric, propaganda, and hate campaign provides hope, encouragement, and a reason to terrorists to continue killing more Iraqi men, women, children, and American soldiers.

You and the LibDims give the terrorists hope to continue their killings -- hoping and believing that you and the LibDims campaign will be successful and convince Americans to pull out of Iraq and leave it to the terrorists!

How can the terrorists help the LibDims convince Americans to leave Iraq to the terrorists -- why, by blowing up even more American troops, by blowing to bits even more Iraqi men, women, and children.

Did that cause all of the bombings and killings? No, but it has been a significant contributing factor and continues to be. LibDims either don't understand the results of their words and actions... or they don't care. I think it is the latter.

I'll forgo this opportunity to again talk about the damage the LibDim's rhetoric and propaganda have done to America's image, the image of our presidency, and our security and economic interests, and America's influence on the world in general!

Back to your "hero" and role model "Hitler"?

Or is it that you want to equate his murderous regime with Conservatives in your (and axis') continuing efforts to transfer his actions and deeds to those with whom you disagree? More character assassination!

Typical Liberal Tactics!!!

I've got some work to do and errands to run, so you liberals can have it for awhile.

AAR

AAR,

Would the US accept Iraqi bases on US soil?

So what makes you think they want permanent bases on their lands...have you asked them yourself, or are you relying on the word of Bush?

You know as well as i do that even one terrorist attack a year would justify us keeping our bases as close as possible to the petro-spigot forever. Bush is setting up precedent to create a cold-war that will never end, peace just isn't profitable.

What happens when 50 years from now we are still fighting insurgents in Iraq, when can we calim victory...Afghanistan is sliding back into warlord control, were we victorious there?

When do we know we have won the WOT? Do we get a signing of surrender on a ship in the Gulf, do we have to kill every arab male of fighting age? Do we just claim it whenever we want, and it becomes reality?

Interesting.

Bush has now been there twice during the conflict.

Ted Kennedy who calls it a "QUAGMIRE" has yet to be there.

Interesting.

I wonder how Teddy is able to determine it's a quagmire if he's never been there. Maybe Teddy just isn't intellectually curious.

LOL

OH...and Rove not being indicted. Liberals not winning the 50th. DailyKos convention tearing apart the Democratic Party. Bush's poll numbers up 15 points in the last 40 days. Zarqawi dead.

LOL

if we were going to get a 51st State, I'd prefer the Bahamas or Jamaica...if we really were the imperialist scum, then we should be conquering the much nicer areas of the world, right?

Mark:

What's more beautiful than a area with lots and lots of that bubblin' crude? Black gold. Texas tea. Sheet man, get enough of that and you could buy Jamaica.

Steve

Why would we re-establish full diplomatic relations with Iran...your boy Carter blew it with them. Your boy Clinton didn't re-establish them either so why should Bush?

Axis...until you stop killing 350,000 seals in the slaughter it's tough for me to take any of you Canucks seriously.

As for the "dumbest" President comment....is there a test that was taken or is that your opinion? You say you are in your 50's...you obviously saw what Jimmy Carter did. You obviously saw what LBJ did. You obviously saw what Bush's dad did. Not exactly great presidencies.

Now, go slaughter another seal.

Maybe he wants to start another failed oil business.

TEO: No, I think it's a baseball team he has his eye on.

The United States isn't going to "occupy" Iraq, but we are going to have some bases there for quite some time

AAR, I don't want to occupy your house, but do you mind if I keep my Lazy Boy recliner in front of your television? Thanks.

Life, history, and everything about it is a series of "missions accomplished

Thst IS true. But you know that is NOT what Captain Banana Cuckoonut meant on board that ship.

And the flight suit obsession comes from a chickenhawk wearing one to declare mission accomplished (more than 3 years ago) when the nearest he was to anykind of battle was flying over Alabama. It desecrates the uniform worn by true heros that gave their lives, their sight, their limbs in Southeast Asia.

AAR,

you can't answer one of my questions, how cute!

the rest of the world made it clear they didn't approve of what Bush was doing, infact I would say that the major demonstrations and lack of security council approval for the invasion would pretty much guarantee the world didn't condone our actions.

Now, we knew our actions were illegal, infact Richard perle admitted it was so back in 2003:

"But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

So if the world saw our actions as illegal, but we did it anyways, how much more respect can we lose? Our standing is directly linked with our lack of regard for what our neighbors think or need, the US media and MINORITY parties don't pull the strings for every country on the globe...or do they, hmmmm?

You assumptions that the terrorists would just give up because they are facing a unified america is silly, can you show me any modern wars where the enemy somehow backed out because a country was united...did Germany, Japan and Italy back down because they were facing a unified america? What a stupid assumption!

hugs and kisses

XOXOXO

Axis

Go read the speech by Bush on the Aircraft Carrier when "Mission Accomplished" was there. If you can read that speech and still come back here with an honest face and tell us all that he stated Mission Accomplished and that fighting / war was over, then you are a bigger man than I.

Would you like the link? Really, do yourself an honest favor and read the speech because no way in hell was Mission Accomplished ever part of the speech. Nor was there any implication of the kind.

For months on this board you have preached honesty, you have claimed people to be LIARS.

Here's a chance to show what YOU are truly made of.

Are you a man or a Canadian?

Ash...as a resident of Midland, Texas at the time of Bush's failed oil business....there were companies left and right going out of business in Texas during that time.

It was the Oil Bust of Texas from 1979 to 1989 and people were laid off and went belly up all over the place.

Why do you make it personal as if Bush was the only one? In fact good people around the entire state were hit very hard.

Shame you don't have the intellectual honesty to address that.

-------

In fact, no industry – including auto manufacturers – suffered more layoffs in the last recession than U.S. oil and gas producers – nearly 70,000 from July 1991 to July 1992 alone.

And from 1982 to 1992, the oil industry had to cut more than 450,000 jobs – roughly the population of Austin, Texas – according to the American Petroleum Industry.

Most of the cuts came during the bust of the mid-1980s, when crude prices plummeted to $9 a barrel. Then employment bottomed in 1989 and even picked up in 1990, as both independent wildcatters and major producers were lured back into the oil fields by Gulf War-led prices that got as high as $40 a barrel.

But demand proved short-lived, thanks to the sluggish economy, and prices returned to low levels.

Where was the press when independent producers were going out of business and the industry was losing money? There were few such sob stories then.

In 1992, moreover, domestic oil production sank to the lowest level in more than 30 years. And drilling activity hovered around 650 rigs nationwide – down from more than 3,000 in 1982, the industry peak, and the lowest level since 1940, according to Baker Hughes Inc.

Warriornation,

You read the article, but ill share my two favorite parts with you:

"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed"

--Sounds like what it says, but just how do YOU define "major", to me 150,000 troops on the ground, with casualties daily, still not in control of large swaths of the country, and little to no reconstruction underway because of "security" issues to be pretty "major" to me...or was Vietnam a war of "minor" combat operations?

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on."

-- Seems like he is claiming victory in Iraq, am I reading that wrong, or is little relevant military accomplishments to be considered a "victory"?

This is what the folks on the right are good at (I guess they learned well from Clinton), parsing words just so finely as to claim something, and yet always leave the crack of plausible deniability...are you really going to tell me that while he was talking to the NATION on that ship, that he wasn't telling us that the worst in Iraq was over, that we had accomplished our mission, and all that was left now was picking up the pieces and moving on to our next "battle" in the WOT?...yeah yeah yeah I know deny all you want.

Are you a man or a Canadian?

It is ignorant statements like this that assure there will always be war. At least until all the warbonnets kill themselves, Escape From New York style.

it was the Oil Bust of Texas from 1979 to 1989

My mistake: I thought for sure I said baseball team! Oops, I did.

Bush is in Baghdad--good for our President. I like a man who isn't afraid to take risks. Maybe the Bush haters could form a hate club. They could call it the Westcoast/Canadian Satan's Roost. They could join up with the other hate groups and have Reid and Durbin as their leaders. Murtha could be their CEO and Jefferson their CFO. Ted Kennedy could drive. They could show up at funerals and on Air Amerika and Code Pink rallys and spread their Godless rants. Nothing like the loony left to give real Americans the chance to say, "we told ya so".

Uffy,

We told you that you were electing a warmongering idiot...sorry to say "Told ya so"

Oh good, a rehash of "mission accomplished."
For the record, Bush stepped out of an S-3 Viking anti-submarine aircraft, not a "jet fighter." He had no more reason to wear a flight suit than a passenger on a DC-9.

As for his recent trip to Iraq -- I fail to see how sneaking in and out of the Green Zone, like a thief in the night, is a bad day for the left -- I do agree that his returning to U.S. was a bad day for everyone.
As for the president's poll numbers (something I thought all B4B urchins disdain), last night CBS reported that unlike his "bounce" after the capture of Saddam, his numbers actually fell to 33 percent (down from 35 percent in the same poll a month ago) after the killing of AQ's #1 in Iraq.
This guy gets no respect because he has yet to earn any -- by the way, I haven't heard much crowing about the "booming" economy lately at this site, what gives?

AAR, Uffy, Warriornation, etc.

Anyone know how far out of the green zone Bush ventured. Perhaps he was afforded a glimpse of life as an Iraqi lives it, in a war zone, or perhaps he sat down with them for a little taste of reality. Anyone know?

Ash...so you're saying his baseball team was a failed venture...wow, prey tell how you came up with that concept.

Third Eye...we toppled Saddam and major combat operations with us racing into Baghdad in tanks, etc were over. Those are MAJOR combat operations.

I don't see how you can state it any other way. We have thousands of troops in Germany and Korea now...are you saying major combat operations there aren't over because they are still there?

Yes, TEO, Hitler WAS a Doer. Good for you. A gold star for the little Lib in the corner. (The one who reminds me of Kartman.)

I wondered how long it would take for you barking mad moonbats to dig up old Adolph. But you didn't have to, TEO---we already KNOW how empty is your intellect, how vacant is your rhetoric. You don't need to keep falling back on Hitler, or other irrelevant trivia, to convince us. You had us with "TEO".

There was once a silly old joke about prisoners who had been in jail together for so long they didn't even need to tell jokes any more. One would just say "Number 7" and they would all laugh.

You wild-eyed BDS hatemongers would do us all a favor if you would just do the same. You never have anything new to offer, the old tired rants you do offer have been rebutted by fact so often we are tired of going through it over and over again to an uncaring group that finds facts inconvenient and much prefers the delusional fantasy of the Left, and it would spare us a lot of wasted space.

Yes, TEO, we get it. You hate Bush, you hate America, you hate the war, you don't have the blood of innocents on your hands, you know all there is to know about everything that has ever happened, and you are just so......SPECIAL.

And yes, Adolph did get a lot done, and it was bad stuff. So what's your point? That some people who actually DO things do wrong things, so YOU are superior for just sitting on your "eye" and ridiculing everyone else who tries to accomplish anything?

Personally, I think the main reason the Mission Accomplished thing was so hard to understand by the Left was that it represented an alien concept, or a couple of them. The first was in having a mission that was not based on snide, sneering, negativism, and the second was that of accomplishment.

So be proud, ever so proud, of your seat up in the nosebleed section, watching those who are actually involved in doing anything, and high-fiving each other when you "identify" a "mistake". But remember, no matter how much you scream and shout and cut and paste and lie and rant, you still sound just plain ignorant. Or because of, etc.... You think you are right, so go off with axis and steve and maf and your yellow travelers and congratulate each other. You belong with your own kind. You spend so much time here, I'm beginning to think even they find you tiresome and wish that "eye" would close up every now and then.

Canadian Observer...I don't know where Bush went today but he's been there twice.

John Kerry....crickets chirping.

Ted Kennedy...crickets chirping.

Yet both call it a QUAGMIRE and they don't even go there...HELLO!

Sorry ASH, it was TEO that had the stupidity to say "another failed oil business".

Seriously, if you guys are to be taken with any grain of salt wouldn't a few facts along the way be nice.

How's that Karl Rove GUARANTEED indictment going for you today?

Canadian Observer,

Perhaps you could ask those Canadian troops who are helping rid Iraq of the bad guys. Do you think you could ask them and let us know what they said?

Got any really bad neighborhoods in Canada where people don't venture out alone at night? Well we have some here where I wouldn't walk alone at night? Likewise in Iraq.

There's no purpose for the President to walk out and deliberately put himself in danger, even though the LibDims would like to see that. President Bush wasn't there to fight Iraqi terrorists. Our troops and the Iraqi troops, however, do that every day! President Bush was there to meet with some of our "new world leaders" and to encourage Iraqis and our troops -- without the help of the U.N.

AAR

Saliva, you say:
"For the record, Bush stepped out of an S-3 Viking anti-submarine aircraft, not a "jet fighter." He had no more reason to wear a flight suit than a passenger on a DC-9."

Just for the record, did he "pretend" he flew the plane? Were you offended by the location of his exit? Did you realize there was an identified pilot who talked about flying the president but still believe there were some surreptitious efforts to send subliminal messages to the contrary? Just wondering if all Lefties are on the same track...

So you don't approve of Bush's attire. He wore a flight suit on a flight. He wore a military flight suit on a military flight. Now you say he made what....a fashion faux pas? (That would be "foe pah" in LibSpeak.) As what is evidently a qualified fashion consultant, what would YOU have recommended as appropriate attire? A jogging suit? Only if he jogged once he deplaned, I guess. Otherwise wearing it would make him a LIAR. A business suit? But you could carp that the President is no longer a businessman. Jeans and boots? First, it's not a good idea to wear boots on a deck, and second, you all hate him for being a "cowboy" so jeans would be a bad choice. Gee, if only they had asked YOU......

Do ya think maybe, just maybe, there is absolutely nothing the man could have worn that would have made you happy, no form of transportation to the aircraft carrier that you would have approved of, and no speech he could have made that you would not have had a sneerfest about? Do ya think? Because that's what WE think, and that's why your constant carping and whining and sneering and invention of bizarre untruths designed only to make the man look bad are so unconvincing.

You are like the really really ugly guys who keep talking about how undesireable the cheerleaders are, AS IF you can convince anyone you really are better than they are. Losers all, but relentlessly cheering each other on with the repeated claims that losing is really winning. Yes, somehow YOU have been given the great gift of being able to see what others can't---or more to the point, of believing what others can't. because it is just so....goofy.

You are the party with the Crystal Ball, able to discern the true hearts and minds of others. So why did President Bush wear a flight suit? Come on, tell us. Give us the unadulterated LibSpeak truth about why Bush chose to wear a military flight suit on a military flight. You got the inside skinny on this----share. What's the real, hidden, secret, known only to the special guys like you, reason? Because if YOU know it, it HAS to be important, secret, hidden, and SPECIAL...

350,000 seals slaughtered at the hands of Canadians this year.......

Oh the Canadian brutality

Almiranta,

It's so nice that you have fallen back on YOUR A-game, calling everyone else radicals and unintelligent; but you still don't havea ny facts to back-up your assumptions on this war.

Just because we choose not to illegaly invade a nation doesn't mean we don't "do anything". We just prefer to deal wtih the real issues at home. Bush did a whole lot in his dead or alive search for OBL, or has he even remembered why we started this little jaunt across the globe in the first place, to get the bad guy who hurt us...not to topple some tin-pot dictator we coddled for decades for cheap oil...or has your goldfish memory span blanked that little inconvenient truth?

You can think anything you want about me, but the truth is that the time of the warmonger is over, you are a dying breed, still sniffing the air for something to justify your admiration for the bomb. Peace is an anathema to you, because you can't figure out how to survive if you don't have another bogey-man to hate.

So since you have fallen back on the age-old tactic of ignoring reality so that you can crow in false accomplishments, I will end this with a tip of my cap to you, and an apology if i hurt your feelings regarding my crass statement of yesterday.

Go with God(s)
XOXOXO

Why did the pilot of Bush's plane wear a flight suit? Why not a T shirt and cutoffs? Why not a NY Yankees uniform? Why not a smart little pastel ensemble from Lands End? Why not plaid golf slacks?

TEO,

Perhaps you can tell me why you think we need Iraqi bases on U.S. soil.

The United States has had bases throughout Europe, South Korea, Japan, the Middle East, and other areas of the world for years. Did you know that? Do you know why we have troops there? Do you know how much it costs for us to keep those troops there? Do you know how much the United States spends each year on our military -- the same one that provides or helps provide security for most of the free world?

Do those countries each maintain bases here in the United States in exchange for us providing military security to those nations and the world?

Do you understand why we might want to keep bases in Iraq?

Do you see any benefit to Iraq? Do you see any benefit to the United States?

We won't be fighting insurgents in Iraq 50 years from now or 5 years from now. You know that. I know that. You just want to exaggerate your propaganda by saying that we will be fighting in Iraq 50 years from now. It is the terrorists we are fighting and the ones we do not want to take over that country.

I know you LibDims would like for President Bush to pull our troops so the terrorists would have an oil rich nation to fund their terrorist activities and training, but that would be suicidal for America!

And no, TEO, the United States is not there to kill Arabs as you would like the Arabs to believe. That's just another liberal lie and exaggeration intended to mislead, inflame. and incite your liberal base and any Arabs or terrorists who may be reading your comments.

And yes, TEO, I can think of a reason why we might need or want Iraqi bases in the United States 50 years from now if liberals get their way!

AAR

Warriornation,

You're missing the point.

"Major" combat operations is a pretty broad term, is there something i'm missing in the army field manuel that explains what a "major" combat operation is, does it always have to involve tanks, is that the threshold? What about sustained bombing by aircraft, or actionable service by offshore carrier assets, is that major?

now, if I remember correctly, we didn't have tanks rolling through Vietnam, yet I doubt anyone would classify our operations there as "minor", although a whole lotta bombing runs and squad level anti-insurgency actions might be minor, but I don't think so.

"AAR, Uffy, Warriornation, etc.

Anyone know how far out of the green zone Bush ventured. Perhaps he was afforded a glimpse of life as an Iraqi lives it, in a war zone, or perhaps he sat down with them for a little taste of reality. Anyone know?"

Hmmmm, not sure about that one. I would guess that he made it as far out of the Green Zone as the reporters who tell us how bad Iraq is on a daily basis.

I also believe that it is ALOT closer than you or any of the Bush haters on this site have ever been.

Warriornation,

I was asking a rhetorical question in regards to Iraq having a base here. Don't be silly, you know that.

No in regards to bases around the globe: We provide the bulk of the security for many of the nations of the world, now ask yourself why is that? Germany, Turkey, Japan, England, all these coutnries are able to stand up for themselves, but we keep bases there so that we have quick responses to threats to us or our allies, thats simple, but the question is why WE have taken on the responsibility to upkeep bases and military personel in a post cold war enviroment? Wouldn't it be much more useful to transfer those troops to secure our homeland, which if you remember was why we have entered into this war in the first place.

My point isn't that we should remove every military installation to pull back soldier to here, but that we should be asking is the price worth the gains? Do we need fast reaction forces in Germany or the UK anymore? could we better utilize our military in other spots?

I'll ignore your stupid remark about our intentions with regards to terrorists.

In regards to killing arabs, can you show me where our actions aren't killing arabs? our "collateral damage" doesnt hurt white people, infact 100% of that damage is to arabs, so the reality is that we are killing more people on accident than terrorists we kill on purpose.

Bush DID require a flightsuit.

Another lie from the left. The pilot was Marquette University graduate (my alma mater) Commander John "Skip" Lussier.

There have been some fantastic articles on the entire flight in the Marquette Magazine about what went on, what part of the flying Bush did (he did actually fly the plane for awhile thus needing the flightsuit).

It continues to amaze me that crap the left throws out. And even though this has now been debunked, they will continue to do it just like they do the "failed oil business" and all the other crap.

Bush flies Viking for 20 minutes at over 400mph

Read it and Weap!!! Another left myth totally blown out of the water. This is why you need a flight suit you idiots.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=137897

TEO,

From the PBS Website...

"...Because the often soggy Vietnamese terrain limited their range, tanks did not play a major role in Vietnam. They did, however, provide valuable support to American forces in the south, securing contested roadways and engaging enemy troops."

Our troops use the best equipment that's appropriate for the combat and the war they are fighting. We use tanks in dry areas like desserts. We don't use as many tanks in swamps and rivers.

That's why Kerry, who claims to have been in Viet Nam, said he served on as Swift Boat and not a tank creeping along in the mud and ooze on the bottom of the swamps and rivers!

AAR

We didn't have tanks rolling through Vietnam....I'll have to remind my relatives of the 1st Cav and 81st that were on those tanks that this didn't happen.

Look TEO, you are going to define things in your prism because of your dislike for Bush that is obvious. Mission Accomplished had to do with the ship coming home, not with Bush. He has said from day one this was going to take years and many conflicts, why you guys cherry pick parts of a speech or a sign that had nothing to do with that speech is your issue.

We're in it for the long haul and that has been expressed time and time again at the UN, the state of the union speeches, policy speeches, etc, etc.

No one EVER said this would be easy. Little did we know that in addition to fighting terrorists, we have to fight the soft underbelly of America as well....you guys.

"I heard that the pool reporters who flew in the helicopters with President Bush wore body armor, but President Bush and his staff did not."

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Bush sat in the cockpit of Air Force One when the plane landed at Baghdad's airport after the 11-hour overnight flight, Bartlett said. The president wore a 25-pound flak jacket during the helicopter flight from the airport to the Green Zone, Bartlett said."

Sorry to blow your fearless leader image. It only makes sense...

Warriornation,

You guys are doing a great job fighting the soft underbelly, infact the polls show the soft underbelly to be winning against Der Leader. LOL!!

You still didn't answer my question, was Vietnam, sans tanks, a "minor conflict". Would you consider chaotic, deadly, and sustained squad-level combat over 2/3rds of a country "minor combat"? Now I don't know what the military calls it, but 3 years of this sounds pretty major to me...at what point does it reach "major" combat, only when we bring tanks back in? what about the use of up-armored Hum-Vees with .50 cal turrets and LAWs, in use right now, is that not crossing the threshold of "major" combat?

TEO says:

"It's so nice that you have fallen back on YOUR A-game, calling everyone else radicals and unintelligent; but you still don't havea ny facts to back-up your assumptions on this war."

If you don't want to be called a "radical" then don't talk like one. The extreme positions you routinely put forth ARE radical. Your denial of facts is radical. The depth of your hatred for our President is radical. You refusal to believe anything good about our country is radical. You even used it yourself, talking about your beloved Nani and Papi (or whoever) back in Honduras still promoting their radical democracy---and, given the history of Honduras, the word "radical" in that context is and always has been far far left.

I know you and axis and so on think you are mainstream. But your beloved polls show that you not only occupy a small segment of the farthest left segment of the Democratic Party, you (plural you---radicals) offend and/or frighten many of the moderate Democrats who will make the biggest difference in the next elections.

"Just because we choose not to illegaly invade a nation doesn't mean we don't "do anything".

The first thing you do is redefine the word "illegal". This invasion of Iraq was sanctioned by the United Nations and approved by our Congress. It was based on long-standing precepts of the right to prevent attack and/or provide for national security.

"We just prefer to deal wtih the real issues at home."

Again, that depends on YOUR definition of the "real issues". And YOUR definitions are, like it or not, radical.

YOUR "real issues" are focused on things like Valerie Plame and Karl Rove and what the President wore on an airplane.

OUR real issues are mostly centered on national security, which we think is advanced by neutralizing a major element of foreign terrorism which has been proven, in the past, to target America and Americans.

YOUR "real issues" seem to include the denigration of American troops by calling them torturers and terrorists and committers of atrocities, while ours accommodate the fact that any group of human beings may include some who do not follow rules of law or morality without indicting the entire group, and reject the concept that humiliation and/or discomfort constitute "torture".

YOUR "real issues" seem preoccupied with blanket condemnations of the entire Bush adminstration, which WE find unproductive. We find it hard to understand this obsession with Bush, this determination to find nothing human or decent or good or kind or valuable in any way about the man or a single one of his actions.

"Bush did a whole lot in his dead or alive search for OBL, or has he even remembered why we started this little jaunt across the globe in the first place, to get the bad guy who hurt us..."

I'm guessing you left out a word there, but I think the meaning is clear. And if you think that "getting" one "bad guy" is adequate national defense, then of course you are not going to agree with anything we have done. I'd like to point out that the preoccupation with Osama as the source of all our problems is in direct contradiction to the complaints that killing Zarqawi won't matter because another leader will just arise to replace him. So which is it?

It can also be argued, quite convincingly, that we have neutralized Bin Laden, which is a whole lot better than either killing him or catching him. Right now he is a weakened, frightened, old man, hiding in caves and resorting to sending out tapes to try to retain his former status. Killing him would elevate him to the position of martyr/hero, and catching him would create a whole new set of problems, which have been explained in detail. There are many ways to "get" someone, you know.

"...not to topple some tin-pot dictator we coddled for decades for cheap oil...or has your goldfish memory span blanked that little inconvenient truth?"

See, the far Left always falls back on the fact that, once upon a time, we supported Sadaam. It was a different time, and he represented different things. (And it is proof that politics makes strange bedfellows, referring back to your contention that Sadaam and Osama could never have colluded.) In a perfect world, where we had Do-Overs, we might handle a younger Sadaam differently. But the fact that we once gave him aid in no way negates the danger he eventually became. And this danger has been explained over and over again, by Democrat and Republican alike, by leaders of nearly every major country. I don't need to go into that again. You've read all the speeches, or excerpts from them. You've been made aware that every major political force in this country not only identified Sadaam as a threat, but called for regime change.

So you, TEO, from whatever vantage point you occupy, think you know more than all these people, over all these years, with access to all that information you've never seen. Fine. You feel that you are right and they were all wrong. You identify this man as a "tinpot dictator" who, you seem to imply, was no threat to us. That is a pretty radical point of view, given the facts at hand.

"You can think anything you want about me..."

And I do. I think you may be a very nice person who might even be well-intentioned, but that for some reason, some internal personal quirk, you are more comfortable with a world view that is hate-based, vehemently anti-Bush, and anti- pretty much anything that is not equally anti-Bush. And I think that you need to validate your FEELINGS by attacking those who do not agree. I think you are not just a radical, but an evangelical radical. And I see a lot of hate in your posts---hate for people who believe in Christianity, hate for people who see Bush as good, decent, man with great vision who has, admittedly, made some mistakes, hate for those who are not exactly the same kind of radical that you are. I base these opinions on your writings.

"...but the truth is that the time of the warmonger is over, you are a dying breed, still sniffing the air for something to justify your admiration for the bomb."

See? Just look at the loathing in those statements. It is a tenet of far-left radicalism to revert to these kinds of sweeping allegations. You claim, if I may paraphrase you a little, that anyone who thinks going into Iraq is really just a bloodthirsty "warmonger" looking for anything to justify blood lust. Not a very liberal position, though typically Liberal.

"Peace is an anathema to you, because you can't figure out how to survive if you don't have another bogey-man to hate."

So the Crystal Ball comes out, to discern my motives and thoughts. A little rational thought would show that all of us would much prefer to live in a world where we can fly without worrying about being flown into buildings and turned into human bombs, that we would much prefer to be able to live in, and rear our children, in a world of peace. We simply have different ideas of how to make the world a safer place.

I find it interesting, that projection of hate from the hater onto others, as if his own personal dependence on hatred is universal. Maybe that is why you feel that you are NOT radical,that you represent the mainstream---because you simply don't get it that others are NOT motivated by hatred.

"So since you have fallen back on the age-old tactic of ignoring reality so that you can crow in false accomplishments, I will end this with a tip of my cap to you.."

Whatever that means..

"...and an apology if i hurt your feelings regarding my crass statement of yesterday."

You did not hurt my feelings. I was not even offended, as much as I was intrigued by the inclusion of such a strange and irrelevant comment.

TEO says:

"It's so nice that you have fallen back on YOUR A-game, calling everyone else radicals and unintelligent; but you still don't havea ny facts to back-up your assumptions on this war."

If you don't want to be called a "radical" then don't talk like one. The extreme positions you routinely put forth ARE radical. Your denial of facts is radical. The depth of your hatred for our President is radical. You refusal to believe anything good about our country is radical. You even used it yourself, talking about your beloved Nani and Papi (or whoever) back in Honduras still promoting their radical democracy---and, given the history of Honduras, the word "radical" in that context is and always has been far far left.

I know you and axis and so on think you are mainstream. But your beloved polls show that you not only occupy a small segment of the farthest left segment of the Democratic Party, you (plural you---radicals) offend and/or frighten many of the moderate Democrats who will make the biggest difference in the next elections.

In a TEO-centric world, yes, TEO represents the standard. But not in this one. In this one, you and your fellow travelers are a small minority---with very radical positions.

(Though I speculate that if you were actually to be completely candid, you might respond to specific questions with answers that would place you closer to the center. I find this of many Liberals---that they truly believe in many of the same things that conservatives do. The real difference between us is this determination that Bush is so proufoundly evil, so associated with every problem in the world, that anyone who does not agree is an ENEMY. It is this irrational loathing of a man and all who support him that creates the divide, not necessarily the goals. This is why I keep saying that to conservatives, Philosophy drives Politics, where to the Liberal, it is Politics which dictate Philosophy.)

"Just because we choose not to illegaly invade a nation doesn't mean we don't "do anything".

The first thing you do is redefine the word "illegal". This invasion of Iraq was sanctioned by the United Nations and approved by our Congress. It was based on long-standing precepts of the right to prevent attack and/or provide for national security.

"We just prefer to deal wtih the real issues at home."

Again, that depends on YOUR definition of the "real issues". And YOUR definitions are, like it or not, radical.

YOUR "real issues" are focused on things like Valerie Plame and Karl Rove and what the President wore on an airplane.

OUR real issues are mostly centered on national security, which we think is advanced by neutralizing a major element of foreign terrorism which has been proven, in the past, to target America and Americans.

YOUR "real issues" seem to include the denigration of American troops by calling them torturers and terrorists and committers of atrocities, while ours accommodate the fact that any group of human beings may include some who do not follow rules of law or morality without indicting the entire group, and reject the concept that humiliation and/or discomfort constitute "torture".

YOUR "real issues" seem preoccupied with blanket condemnations of the entire Bush adminstration, which WE find unproductive. We find it hard to understand this obsession with Bush, this determination to find nothing human or decent or good or kind or valuable in any way about the man or a single one of his actions.

"Bush did a whole lot in his dead or alive search for OBL, or has he even remembered why we started this little jaunt across the globe in the first place, to get the bad guy who hurt us..."

I'm guessing you left out a word there, but I think the meaning is clear. And if you think that "getting" one "bad guy" is adequate national defense, then of course you are not going to agree with anything we have done. I'd like to point out that the preoccupation with Osama as the source of all our problems is in direct contradiction to the complaints that killing Zarqawi won't matter because another leader will just arise to replace him. So which is it?

It can also be argued, quite convincingly, that we have neutralized Bin Laden, which is a whole lot better than either killing him or catching him. Right now he is a weakened, frightened, old man, hiding in caves and resorting to sending out tapes to try to retain his former status. Killing him would elevate him to the position of martyr/hero, and catching him would create a whole new set of problems, which have been explained in detail. There are many ways to "get" someone, you know.

"...not to topple some tin-pot dictator we coddled for decades for cheap oil...or has your goldfish memory span blanked that little inconvenient truth?"

See, the far Left always falls back on the fact that, once upon a time, we supported Sadaam. It was a different time, and he represented different things. (And it is proof that politics makes strange bedfellows, referring back to your contention that Sadaam and Osama could never have colluded.) In a perfect world, where we had Do-Overs, we might handle a younger Sadaam differently. But the fact that we once gave him aid in no way negates the danger he eventually became. And this danger has been explained over and over again, by Democrat and Republican alike, by leaders of nearly every major country. I don't need to go into that again. You've read all the speeches, or excerpts from them. You've been made aware that every major political force in this country not only identified Sadaam as a threat, but called for regime change.

So you, TEO, from whatever vantage point you occupy, think you know more than all these people, over all these years, with access to all that information you've never seen. Fine. You feel that you are right and they were all wrong. You identify this man as a "tinpot dictator" who, you seem to imply, was no threat to us. That is a pretty radical point of view, given the facts at hand.

"You can think anything you want about me..."

And I do. I think you may be a very nice person who might even be well-intentioned, but that for some reason, some internal personal quirk, you are more comfortable with a world view that is hate-based, vehemently anti-Bush, and anti- pretty much anything that is not equally anti-Bush. And I think that you need to validate your FEELINGS by attacking those who do not agree. I think you are not just a radical, but an evangelical radical. And I see a lot of hate in your posts---hate for people who believe in Christianity, hate for people who see Bush as good, decent, man with great vision who has, admittedly, made some mistakes, hate for those who are not exactly the same kind of radical that you are. I base these opinions on your writings.

"...but the truth is that the time of the warmonger is over, you are a dying breed, still sniffing the air for something to justify your admiration for the bomb."

See? Just look at the loathing in those statements. It is a tenet of far-left radicalism to revert to these kinds of sweeping allegations. You claim, if I may paraphrase you a little, that anyone who thinks going into Iraq is really just a bloodthirsty "warmonger" looking for anything to justify blood lust. Not a very liberal position, though typically Liberal.

"Peace is an anathema to you, because you can't figure out how to survive if you don't have another bogey-man to hate."

So the Crystal Ball comes out, to discern my motives and thoughts. A little rational thought would show that all of us would much prefer to live in a world where we can fly without worrying about being flown into buildings and turned into human bombs, that we would much prefer to be able to live in, and rear our children, in a world of peace. We simply have different ideas of how to make the world a safer place.

I find it interesting, that projection of hate from the hater onto others, as if his own personal dependence on hatred is universal. Maybe that is why you feel that you are NOT radical,that you represent the mainstream---because you simply don't get it that others are NOT motivated by hatred.

"So since you have fallen back on the age-old tactic of ignoring reality so that you can crow in false accomplishments, I will end this with a tip of my cap to you.."

Whatever that means..

"...and an apology if i hurt your feelings regarding my crass statement of yesterday."

You did not hurt my feelings. I was not even offended, as much as I was intrigued by the inclusion of such a strange and irrelevant comment.

Arrrgggghhhhh!!

Almiranta,

You talk alot and don't say much.

Perhaps you forget that the neo-con view of pre-emptive war is radical, you occupy the opposite 5% of the spectrum you throw me into...welcome aboard skipper!

Our congressional action to invade a nation doesn't mean a hill of beans on the world stage, we can't prove that we were in imminent danger, so anything we pass goes as far as our boarders and not an inch farther, so sorry to burst your bubble, but no, it wasn't legal. The Security Council passed 1441, which allowed for the re-introduction of inspectors to Iraq to verify the destruction of weapons, they were not allowed to finish this job, since america backed out of the later resolution it had put forth, after China and Russia and France were going to veto it, so unless you can prove an imminent threat (which you can't because there were no WMDs and he wasn't massing troops on our boarder) then your theory holds no water. BOOYAH!

even Perle admitted in 2003 it was illegal, and he's your golden boy:

"In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

so...if we werent in imminent danger from Saddam, and the SecCouncil didn't authorize force, who gave us any right to invade a sovereign nation, and no our congress doesn't count, they don't make laws for the world, infact if they said everyone in the world has to wear brown shoes, that law would go as far as international water. LOL!!

We do have differing opinions on how to make this world safer for our kids, but invading nations who pose no threat is not how I see that world unfolding, im sure you're a wonderful woman with the best intentions, but i don't agree with the actions you support, so I will raise my voice, radical or not, in defense of my morals, and I invite you to do the same.

XOXOXOXO

Its funny to watch you lefties today - there you were, just last week, thinking you had the mid-terms in the bag and Rove and Cheney indicted...while you were in Leftwing Fantasyland, however, the real world was going on...We're all having quite a laugh at your expense today.

"Invading nations who pose no threat.."

Once more it must be pointed out that:

- Saddam was obligated to honor the terms of the cease-fire (yes, cease-fire from the first Iraq war. The one where he invaded another nation.)

- He failed to honor those terms by a) Firing on US and coalition planes in the No-Fly zones b) refusing to allow weapons inspections c) not accounting for all his stockpiles of WMD that he himself disclosed he had and was believed to be held by various intelligence sources.

- He subsidized terrorists, including suicide bombers in Israel.

We are also learning more and more how much he was trying to both resume his WMD programs, and his ties to terrorist organizations.

Mark,

I have a laugh at your expense everyday LOL!!

Hermie,

read the UN charter regarding unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation. A single country cannot call "BS" on a nation, Saddam was a bastard, and he deserved what he got, but just because we wanted him gone, doesn't mean you get to side-step the rules. The rules say you have to get security council approval to attack another nation, even one in violation of resolutions, we did not do that, instead we told the inspectors to get out, and went about our merry business. It is vigilantism, which last I checked is still illegal in this country, as well on the international stage.

We had to prove an imminent threat to ourselves before engaging in unilateral action, we used bad intelligence, which showed no collusion between AQ and Iraq and then were wrong about supposed WMDs, so therefore it was illegal, ignorance of the facts does not equate to innocence, that is the rule of law that we pride ourselves on.

"Ash...so you're saying his baseball team was a failed venture...wow, prey tell how you came up with that concept"

warbonnet i'll take that as an apology for your false assumption you made concerning my statement.

"Ash...so you're saying his baseball team was a failed venture...wow, prey tell how you came up with that concept"

warbonnet i'll take that as an apology for your false assumption you made concerning my statement.

Almiranta,

You talk alot and don't say much.

How about giving us the Cliff's notes version of your ramblings?

Parker,

RE: "Sorry to blow your fearless leader image."

That's what I get by listening to a report from ABC news! I wouldn't have thought they could get even that detail wrong!

I switched over to Fox Network News after I heard the breaking news, but didn't get the update.

Thanks for the correction.

RE: "...Bush sat in the cockpit of Air Force One when the plane landed at Baghdad's airport..."

Wow!   That IS news!!!   President Bush in the cockpit of Air Force One as it lands at the Baghdad airport in the face of potential enemy fire and missile attack!

That's even better than landing on the deck of that carrier. Another Mission Accomplished! Now where's that sign?

AAR

Well, Mark, we still have the midterms in the basket.

Hey almiranta, stop wasting so much bandwidth. Crap your long winded circular jerks are bad enough, but to have to scroll through them twice is cruel and unusual.

AAR,

Does that mean I get your seal of manly approval when I drive into Detroit?

LOL!!

3rd Eye...Bush's numbers up 15 points in the last 40 days.

I think he's 2-0 against Democrat challengers for the White House.

Poll numbers in June don't mean squat. Some day you liberals will realize we have things called elections.

3rd Eye...I consider MAJOR combat Operations when we are in BATTLES with armies and are losing hundreds of guys a day.

I do not consider an insurgency where 1 or 2 of our guys are dying a day in a random road side bomb to be major combat operations.

They are tragic events and isolated events. They re not major combat operations. In fact, it's difficult to even identify the enemy in these situations.

So from a military perception, no I would not qualify this as MAJOR combat operations whether it's 2 years later, 10 years later or 50 years later.

"I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message: that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound--with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world."

--Stephen Colbert, hitting the nail as squarely on the head as can possibly be done

TEO,

Why do you think we had all of those U.N. resolutions without a veto?

Why? Because the ENTIRE WORLD knew and believed that Saddam still had WMD!

The U.N. resolutions, which Saddam Hussein failed to honor, plus the fact that the United States believed, following 9/11, that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. gave us all of the legal authority we needed. Do you think that those other countries in the coalition would have followed our lead if they didn't believe their actions were legal and proper?

And what about your friend Saddam? Have you forgotten about him and his actions?

All Saddam had to do was show what he did with those WMD he had when he kicked the U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq.

All Saddam had to do was open up the country to the U.N. inspector and stop playing cat and mouse each time they started out conduct their inspections.

All Saddam had to do was allow those scientists to talk to the inspectors and the U.N. to explain what happened with the WMD.

All Saddam had to do was allow access to those scientists on neutral ground so the U.N. could interview them and determine if Saddam was continuing to develop WMD.

All Saddam had to do was show the world that he was in fact lying to the entire world and did not have WMD.

In a show of good faith, Saddam could also have stopped paying the families of suicide bombers who killed Israeli men, women, and children ...and he could also have stopped killing the Kurds and Shiites ...and he could have stopped declaring war on and invading his neighbors.

He did none of that!

Saddam could have stopped the war -- he did not! Blame Saddam for his troubles!!!

As far as driving through Detroit, I've driven through it many times. As far as walking through some areas alone after dark, do so at your own risk, just like I would advise anyone who visits parts of D.C., Los Angeles, and other large cities!

AAR

(Mark, Matt... Starting to get increasing numbers of those B4B server errors.)

TEO,
Why do you think we had all of those U.N. resolutions without a veto?

Why? Because the ENTIRE WORLD knew and believed that Saddam still had WMD!

The U.N. resolutions, which Saddam Hussein failed to honor, plus the fact that the United States believed, following 9/11, that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. gave us all of the legal authority we needed. Do you think that those other countries in the coalition would have followed our lead if they didn't believe their actions were legal and proper?

And what about your friend Saddam? Have you forgotten about him and his actions?

All Saddam had to do was show what he did with those WMD he had when he kicked the U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq.

All Saddam had to do was open up the country to the U.N. inspector and stop playing cat and mouse each time they started out conduct their inspections.

All Saddam had to do was allow those scientists to talk to the inspectors and the U.N. to explain what happened with the WMD.

All Saddam had to do was allow access to those scientists on neutral ground so the U.N. could interview them and determine if Saddam was continuing to develop WMD.

All Saddam had to do was show the world that he was in fact lying to the entire world and did not have WMD.

In a show of good faith, Saddam could also have stopped paying the families of suicide bombers who killed Israeli men, women, and children ...and he could also have stopped killing the Kurds and Shiites ...and he could have stopped declaring war on and invading his neighbors.

He did none of that!

Saddam could have stopped the war -- he did not! Blame Saddam for the war and his own troubles!!!

As far as driving through Detroit, I've driven through it many times. As far as walking through some areas alone after dark, do so at your own risk, just like I would advise anyone who visits parts of D.C., Los Angeles, and other large cities!

AAR

Warriornation,

Thats why they play the game, see you on the field in November ;-)

on your second point:

If it is sustained damage and KIAs, in a theater which we don't control the battlefields, all the while employing bombing aircraft and armored assualt vehicles, I still don't understand how it isn't "major". In Vietnam you had squad-level fighting consistently for atleast 5 years, and you can't make me believe it wasn't "major" operations

AAR,

you make excellent points for the man being removed, but you forget to answer the simple questions of who authorized us to act on the world's behalf?

NO ONE

you see, as much as you want it to be ok because of the mountain of mitigating circumstance, we still went in without authorization. Whether we thought he was a threat to us or not, we still had to provide proof, and that proof was incorrect, PERIOD!

You aren't allowed to invade a nation without an imminent threat or SecCouncil approval of the actions. You can make up all the excuses you want now, but the point remains that noone authorized out invasion, so therefore in the eyes of the UN (which we are still a member, and therefore still expected to uphold UN charters) it is illegal, no amount of ammendments or resolutions from OUR congress allows us to unilaterally invade another nation, those are the rules of law in which we are fighting to uphold, remember?

TEO,

The U.N. believed Saddam was a threat. President Bush acted in accordance with the U.N. resolutions and Congressional authorizations!

Your whole purpose for continuing to maintain and insist that the war was illegal is to feed your propaganda mill and your attacks on President Bush, the United States, and the United States Military. Your whole intent is nothing more your continued efforts to demean and damage the image of the United States and the President of the United States.

You and the libDims want the U.S. to remove our troops and turn Iraq over to the terrorists so the terrorists can rebuilt their forces and use Iraq as a new base of operations for more attacks on the United States and the rest of the World! I don't think so ! ! !

AAR

I thought Almiranta's essay was absolutely BRILLIANT! Thank you, Almiranta, for "wasting" so much bandwidth. Please waste it as much as you'd like.

Let's see now:

Pretexts of thousands upon thousands of mass graves. Can you say, "lying to get into a war"?

No UN authority to attack another country without any provocation. Can you say, "illegal war"?

No US interests at stake. Can you say, "war-mongering legacy-seeker"?

Attacking civilian targets from high altitude, insuring collateral damage. Can you say, "war criminal"?

This describes Bill and Madeline's Excellent Balkan Adventure. Did the right SCREAM and call the President a liar, war criminal, war-mongering legacy-seeker? No, we have more class than that.

Ash...you ducked the question...was his baseball a failed venture?

Please explain this...it ought to be good.

And I'm sorry for lumping you in with TEO...I mean can you imagine someone confusing you two. LOL

Ash...you ducked the question...was his baseball a failed venture?

Please explain this...it ought to be good.

And I'm sorry for lumping you in with TEO...I mean can you imagine someone confusing you two. LOL

Kimberly,

So class prevents you from standing up for your morals,. huh?

Who are the relativists now?

I love how the right wants to say, "Well, he did it, so that means it's alright that we do it too!" You assume since you start brandishing the "Clinton-Club" that all the bad liberlas will cower back in our corner, well guess what, Clinton was a bad guy too!

Now can we get back to the part where Bush doesn't know how to remove us from an increasingly sectarian civil war? I'd ask for a plan-B, but I don't think there was a plan-A to begin with...but that's my opinion ;-)

AAR,

I feel so naked, you can see right through my actions...

The UN did see Saddam as a threat, but never authorized force being used before we invaded, infact they had authorized more weapons inspections, and then we decided we didn't want to wait any longer, or risk the humiliation of a veto, so we decided to do it OUR way..which by the way, was ILLEGAL!

Iraqi citizens living outside the green zone face constant danger. Why shouldn't the man responsible for the pre-emptive shock & awe strike and the occupation take the initiative of meeting and talking with these folks in their own environment? Visit them in their homes, get to see the conditions they must endure; you know, show some empathy.

I know he hates to hear bad news, but wouldn't an act like that aide in winning the hearts & minds of the Iraqi people?

Flying in, flying out, hiding out in the green zone, doesn't really impress anyone.

Here is what I said warbonnet:

TEO: No, I think it's a baseball team he has his eye on.

He made a sweetheart deal using the family name and stiffed the city of Austin for the land and new stadium. Google it for yourself

Axis: Those WMD facts are from this Gulf War, not the first.

TEO: I did not agree with the decision to go into Kosovo, nor did many on the right. And when it was later discovered that there were no mass graves and that it might have been a mistake, we didn't start screaming, "Liar, war monger, Nazi, Where are the MG (mass graves)?!" That was the point I was making, and I apologize for not stating so at the start of my post. Just wondering ... does calling one a liar, war monger, Nazi make you more morally just than I?

As far as a plan, I've given you my thoughts and you agreed with some of my points. Of course, you didn't come out and say so ... instead just retyped my thoughts using different verbage. And you must have forgotten you stated you did not care about me or my thoughts "one iota". So ... why the change of heart?

We can talk about possible solutions until we are blue in the face. We are not there. We are not military analysts, nor Generals. Will it make a difference if I give you a Plan B? I think not.

Besides, I'd rather give the bandwidth to Almiranta ... she rocks!

XXXOOO

Iraqi citizens living outside the green zone face constant danger.

Wrong. Some citizens do, but let's not paint to broad a brush here.

Let's also get practical. The Secret Service wouldn't let Clinton, Bush, Reagan or anyone else just stroll downtown Detroit either for crying out loud. They certainly aren't going to let a current President go outside the Green Zone.

Let's also not forget Observer that we were attacked by lunatic Muslims before (many times) Bush was even President, before he was even Governor.

350,000 seals culled by Canadians....something to be proud of.

"You and the LibDims give the terrorists hope to continue their killings -- hoping and believing that you and the LibDims campaign will be successful and convince Americans to pull out of Iraq and leave it to the terrorists!" AAR

Then, Bush gives nothing but encouragement to the Janjaweed militia and Sudanese govt. to continue their genocide and torture of relatively helpless people by his insistence, at least acquiescence, that we never even put in in Sudan.

But, I believe in him. Afterall, HE SAYS he means well; and no one who SAYS he/she believes in Jesus and who SAYS he/she really wants to end abortion could possibly LIE. No, no. It was just a mistake that the famous 16 words kept appearing in speech after speech despite the CIA editing it out and conveying its false nature to the most high ups; it's just a coincidence that a body of people who declared a decade or so ago the importance of overthrowing hussein for energy security and geostrategic capital are largely the ones in the highest positions of government at the time that our intelligence operations were at their peak dysfunctionality - leading them to so egregiously miscalculate the state of Iraq's WMD's (oh wait, we know where they are... they're around Damascus... to the north, the east, the south and west); certainly, it was just for a larf when we claimed on the world stage that our cartoon images of two mobile bioweapon labs constituted strong proof that such labs existed; and i'm sure, absolutely sure, that at Cheney's secret meeting with the heads of all the major oil and gas companies when he first came to office they were all discussing ways to improve the lives of the average citizen of the world.

please, i'll be the first to admit that "liberals" say lots of stupid things, like just about everyone (ever seen the documentary, "Journey's with George"), but give up this hate bush hate america s^!+ - to generalize, they only hate bush because they love people so much and they truly believe he is hurting them, on purpose or not. and hating bush, is not hating america, it is natural when you love america, if you truly believe that bush hurts america; and you would be silly to argue that they do not think so.

Can I ask a question of you guys on the left.

Do you want the Iraqi people to succeed in creating a democracy and ultimately living in peace?

Thank you for your answer in advance.

City of Austin...LOL...hmm, and I could have sworn it was the Texas Rangers who played in Arlington. LOL. And to suggest he stiffed anyone, good grief. He's a sports owner and 99% of sports owners have the city pay for the land, stadium fees, etc. With few exceptions that's how it works.

By the way, my background is over 10 years in Sports Marketing including working for a MLB and NHL team. I know a bit about this area of expertise.

Keep coming up with those facts cuz you guys are really flying on all cylinders with them.

LOL

"Invading nations who pose no threat.."

Under whose determination? Besides, I thought you libs were for going into Afghanistan...at least that's what Howard Dean and the boys try to claim.

Neville Chamberlain said the same thing about Hitler.

That's the problem with you liberals, your heads are too stuck in the clouds half the time to realize the enemy that is out there.

Warriornation: I guess CO didn't think flying in a helicopter from the airport to the Green Zone was dangerous enough. I admire our president for risking his life to go to Iraq. Remember when the neorads were all screaming that Bush never goes to Iraq ... and when he does, they scream. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Kim

Apparently they are so busy up there in Canada drilling for oil (they are our #1 net oil exporter) and slaughtering seals (350,000 last year) that they have to comment and bad mouth the USA at every whim.

After all, the last few times the world needed someone to bail them out...we all know they called Canada to do it.

LOL

Kimberly,

No, screaming things doesn't give anyone some sort of moral highground, I was saying that if you feel something was done wrong, and you believe that it has the consequence to endanger more lives, then you are morally obligated to say so, atleast that is my view. So is it wrong for people on the right to claim that what we did was the correct course of action? Ofcourse it isn't, I would want you standing tall to tell your leaders how you feel. My personal belief is that removal of a tyrant was a wonderful thing, and I applaud Bush for going against the "percieved" wisdom that his father followed in not doing it in '91, my gripe is with how he went about it, he used fringe intelligence held together by bailing-wire and bubble-gum.

I wish we could have built a true base of support from Arab nations, used the money we throw all over the place in the ME to get people on the ground who could have actually communicated properly the intentions we had.

What get's lost in the pissing-matches between Almiranta, Warriornation, and I, and the others around here, is that we hold ourselves to this ideal of men governed by laws, but then we go and subvert those laws when we feel it is our best interest, not really caring how people in other countries will perceive it.

Call me selfish, but I regret I can't travel abroad and wave my blue passport around and have it conjur memories of kids liberating death camps, or statesmen standing tall in the face of Apartheid, or instilling awe from the amount of humanitarian help we provide, eclipsing everyone else in the world combined...no, now it conjurs fear, fear that someday a country might stand against the US for their needs and wants, and without so much as a second thought be beaten back into their place for having the audacity to lift their eyes to the master.

I wish we could go back to Sept. 10th, but i know we can't, but I find comfort knowing that deep inside the hearts of people around the world there was still sorrow and pain felt for all us, even in places like Tehran and Jedah. I feel a physical pain when I see a woman who must bury her children because of an errant bomb, and while I understand that mistakes happen, it doesn't mitigate the fear I have that someday, someone's child may use that against us to commit another Sept. 11th...and what will be our response to that...more death...more bombs...when we could have stopped, used our might to feed and comfort a family ravaged by tyranny, and focused our collective empathy to help show why we have gained the mantle as the Greatest Nation in the World, make them see not a warmachine in wait, but that Shining City on the Hill Reagan spoke of.

Sorry if I rambled

WN: I lived in Canada for a few years. Axis and Canadian Observer, by no means, represent all Canadians. Thank God. My father still has a lot of friends up there and they are all extremely happy a Conservative is now in power.

BTW, I think it's disgusting they are slaughtering those poor seals. On a happier note, the Japanese are not eating as much whale as they used to.

TEO,

Do you recall those U.N. resolutions that lead up to the war? Do you recall something to the effect "suffer grave consequences"? Do you understand what that term meant? It meant that if Saddam did not comply with the resolutions, the United States was going to enforce them.

Our build-up to the Iraq war was no secret. We built up our forces in plain daylight and in full view. The world knew where we were headed. That was no secret. Saddam was given deadline after deadline. Saddam was given every opportunity to explain where those WMD were. He refused to provide that information. He did not comply. He was removed!

I guess I missed the U.N. resolution forbidding the United States to invade Iraq. Could you please cite that resolution?

International law does not prevent a country from defending itself, to include a pre-emptive strike on an enemy they believe is a threat to them. We don't need the United Nations to tell us when we believe there is a threat to us!

Do you want American troops to leave Iraq now?

Do you want them to leave Iraq to the terrorists?

AAR

Warriornation,

Yes, I want Iraq to be a shining example of what can be accomplished by letting go of stupid religious hatreds, I want to see the people llok back and say that the past 3 years were the begining of a great age in which conflict was doused with liberty and mutual respect.

I want a world where people look around and find worth in what they have built, so that the mere twinkling of strapping a suicide vest on to kill another human being, evokes a shake of the head, and a doubling of efforts to feed the hungry, clothe the cold, and nurture the sick.

It may be lofty and pie-in-the-sky, but I feel as a citizen of the Greatest Nation on Earth that it ismy responsibility to put all my efforts towards those ends, and anything less is a slap in the face of the men and women who have died protecting my freedoms to do so.

Warriornation

I have no objection in his having an armed escort.
The visit could be unannounced as he did with the Iraqi officials.

But, as Kimberly points out, just flying in a helicopter from the airport to the Green Zone is dangerous enough. Bush has made Iraq a perilous place to be, even for himself.

As regard to the seal hunt. You will get no argument from me. I find this terrible practice highly objectionable as do the majority of Canadians. It is a shameful disgrace that needs to be outlawed. Our Conservative government would win points from me if they put a stop to it today.

AAR,

I've argued the point too much today, man. You know it was done without approval.

The UN doesn't dictate our protection of American life, but it does protect other nations from our intrusion if we cannot prove our imminent safety is in jeopardy, that threshold wasn't reached. PERIOD.

I want a time-frame so that the Iraqi congress gets off its ass and stops letting us play patsy to their leg-pissing and political wrangling, you make a show of good faith that we want them to stand on their own, and they will find a way to do it.

the attacks in Iraq are 95% homegrown, sectarian violence, these are Iraqi vs. Iraqi, us being monkey-in-the-middle isn't solving that. So us leaving is going to make them stop looking at the outsiders as help, and start seeing them as the enemy...that's what I see

CO: You just had to put that jab in there, didn't ya?

TEO: Now that is the TEO that I really, really like. Where have you been? If your posts were more like your last one, people would listen and debate with you in a more civilized manner. :-)

I also feel terrible and have cried many, many times when I hear of Iraqi civilians being killed - not just by errant US bombs but by the cowardly terrorists. I also find great joy when I read blogs from Iraqis who live there. Some want us to leave, most do not. When asked if they are happy that Sadaam is gone, most say, "Yes, and what took you guys so long?"

BTW, I am not happy we still have not put some type of timeframe together for leaving. It doesn't have to be a day, week, or month, but at least give the Iraqis a year!!

I'm sure we will "talk" more tomorrow.

Ciao.

Kimberly,

Yes, I'm man enough to say I've cried for people that I have never met, or will probably ever meet... It's hard to swallow the bitter pill that war exists, and while I know it must be fought, I don't believe this was the time or the place...

Goodnight and peace be upon all of you.
xoxoxo

Observer...Bush hasn't made Iraq a more perilous place. Insurgents and whacko fundamentalists have.

At some point when do you guys stop blaming Bush and actually blame the a-holes that are cutting off the heads and blowing people up?

TEO,

RE: "You know it was done without approval."

Nope. I don't believe that. We had all of the approval we and the other nations needed!

RE: "The UN doesn't dictate our protection of American life..."

Yep. You got that right!

Yes, we will be cutting back our troops before much longer. Our training of Iraqi troops and police are moving forward as planned. Not as fast as hoped, but they are getting there. It would help if so many of them weren't being blown up by terrorists.

We will not be leaving Iraq in the immediate future, however. We will be maintaining some military presence and bases in Iraq for some time to come. How many of each? I don't know. That depends on agreements between Iraq and the U.S. Our military planners and strategists will be assessing those needs and working with Iraq to see if we can reach a mutually beneficial arrangement.

If Iraq doesn't want our military help in the future, we will leave once the terrorists are under control and the threat of terrorist taking over the country is gone or significantly reduced. If we leave, and terrorists are being permitted to use Iraq for training and basing, we will still be in the area and we will return -- from above. Right now, the Iraqi government and Iraqi people want us to remain.

If the terrorists weren't there now, perhaps we could withdraw to our bases and just let them go at it. If they want to kill each other, we can't prevent all of it, just like we can't prevent gangs and others from killing each other here. If I were the Sunnis, however, I would stop irritating the Shiites and stop blowing up their mosques. If the Sunnis aren't doing it, they should turn in the terrorists who are. The days of the Sunni minority running roughshod over the majority are probably over -- at least in the near term.

If it hadn't been for the LibDims encouraging and providing hope for the terrorists, we probably would be drawing down our troops right now. When did the terrorists really get geared up? During the 9 months or so that the "negative-nine" Democrat presidential candidates spent convincing the terrorists that if the Democrats were elected, they would immediately leave Iraq. That 24/7, anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-war rhetoric helped get the terrorist campaign going. The LibDims continue to encourage them to keep it going.

Why haven't many of the reconstruction projects been completed? Why has it cost more than expected? Terrorists for one! They blow up what has been completed. They blow up oil pipelines that could help Iraq fund more of it's own rebuilding. They kill construction workers and cause higher salaries to offset the threat to the worker's lives. And all during this time, LibDims continue to tell terrorists that if the Democrats gain control, they will pull our troops from Iraq immediately. John Kerry's proposal to withdraw our troops from Iraq is just the latest in Democrat's actions that are undermining our war effort.

So what do the terrorists do? How do they respond? Why, blow up more Americans and Iraqis to help the LibDims propaganda campaign of course!!!

AAR

Thanks for the complements, Kimberley---from you they really mean a lot. I was honored to have my words repeated, and I look forward to your carefully crafted and thoughtful posts. I always learn something.

Have you noticed that the Libs simply do not answer questions? When challenged, they disappear, only to pop up somewhere else with different talking points, till they get challenged there.

I just keep coming back, I think, to "Prove it". Because they can't. The sum total of what they know is what they were fed on AA that day. Look at the latest---Bush "sneaked" into Iraq.

Warriornation

The insurgents and wacko fundamentalists are in Iraq because it was invaded and is now occupied by the U.S. military, sent there by Bush. So yes, I blame him for the mess he created.

hmmmm,

I disagree. That isn't the same situation as in Iraq.

How do you say that President Bush is encouraging genocide and torture? By not invading their country? Are you saying that you want America to invade all nations with internal conflicts? As long as they continue to keep the fighting within their country and without supporting terrorists or developing nuclear weapons or WMD, their actions are not affecting the security of this country.

The U.N. could do more -- much more -- but they are ineffective. The nations in the U.N. don't want to commit their troops or resources. Even when the U.N. approves of and supports military action, it is the United States that must provide most of the military support, and more often than not, the money and materials as well. Do you propose that America take over the U.N.'s role and become the world's police force?

That may sound good, but we don't have the resources to pull it off. Even if we could, how long do you thing the rest of the world will sit by and allow America to invade country after country just to stop their internal killing? It wouldn't take much of that to possibly lead to a nuclear world war which would solve the problem once and for all!

And once again, President Bush did not lie. The entire world, including France, Germany, Russia, China, and the rest believed that Saddam still had the WMD. The fact that the WMD wasn't found does not mean President Bush lied. The information that he and the rest of the world used in their decisions may have been wrong, but that does not make it a lie.

Saddam had WMD and would not tell the world what he did with them. He had them when he kicked the inspectors out of Iraq. All it would have taken for the other nations to have withdrawn their support for a war with Iraq was to show the inspectors and the world what he did with the WMD that the world knew he had at one time. Just show where the WMD were, or show where they went, or allow the scientists and others to be interviewed to determine what happened. Saddam could have stopped the war. He chose not to do so. His lies and arrogance cost him and his barbaric sons their empire and at the same time stopped his killing and torture, and freed ALL Iraqis to establish a democracy or other government of their choice.

AAR

Canadian Observer,

Then if it were up to you...

Saddam Hussein and his two murderous and barbaric sons would still be in power.

Saddam had already killed well over a million of his own people and those from surrounding countries. How many more would have died before the reign of Saddam and his two sons ended years in the future if you had your way?

The thousands and thousands of children that were dying each month because of the U.N. sanctions would still be going on.

Saddam would still be paying suicide bombers to blow up Israeli families while they shopped, ate, rode busses.

Saddam would still be a direct threat to neighboring nations.

Saddam and his sons would still be carving up people alive, cutting out their tongues, and torturing tens of thousands of others with REAL torture, not just frightening them with a dog or taking embarrassing photos. Iraqis would still be "enjoying" the REAL torture that entertained Saddam and his sons, and that they were so good at performing!

Saddam and his sons would still be digging mass graves and filling them in with tens of thousands of bodies of men, women, and children that he, his sons, and his regime tortured and killed.

And, if the sanctions were ever removed, just what do you think Saddam would be doing with those "dual use" chemicals, fertilizer, and mobile labs that could be used to easily make more WMD and grow deadly germs and viruses? Saddam had not changed his personality, goals, or plans.

If President Bush, Tony Blair and the coalition members had not acted when they did, with no further delay, the world could have been living with the handiwork of Saddam and his sons for many years.

If you had your way, that would be Iraq's future! Therefore, one can only conclude that you supported Saddam's killing and torture and would have preferred it continued. Either you support his removal by President Bush, or you would prefer that he was still in power. You can't have it both ways. There's no middle ground!

Yes, there are terrorists and insurgents in Iraq now, but they will ultimately be defeated... unless America and Iraq are defeated in their efforts by liberal Democrats!

AAR

President Bush makes me so proud to be an american!!

Of course I meant Arlington. I was reading an article from the Austin newspaper which was probably the reason for my malprop. Anyhoot:

"To add insult to injury, Bush and his partners continue to stiff the taxpayers for $7.5 million they owe under the terms of the agreement. It held that the team would pay all expenses over $135 million. The original owners of just 13 of the acres sued the City of Arlington, saying that the ASFDA had not paid a fair price for the land. The jury awarded them $7.5 million, but even though the project exceeded the $135 million limit, the partners have refused to pay. Given their huge taxpayer subsidy and $170 million profits, it seems absurdly selfish."

AAR

Saddam was a dictator of monstrous proportions and Iraqi citizens are grateful to be rid of him.

With the immense expertise of US intelligence, couldn't Saddam have been taken down without the death & destruction that was inflicted on the innocent people they were liberating? Or is this just one more case of ongoing collateral damage?

AAR,

You present what is called a "false dichotomy". You would really like to be able to boil an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation into an issue of either 'with us, or against us', but outside, y'know...in the real world, we have a choice to either act like barbarian-children, or grown-ups, unfortunately we chose the former.

We had a perfect opportunity to get what we wanted, which was the removal of the Saddam regime; but it would have involved work, it was going to require that we allow the UN to be the safety net after the initial invasion and ouster of Ba'athist forces, it would have required many more troops than we put there, to secure more than just the resources we saw as valuble, it would have required that we ask for help in trying to understand a conflict that has raged for centuries, and has only been kept under lock and key by Arab strong-men and dictators; basically it was going to require we be a helpful neighbor, and not the overbearing covenant-hawk.

You want to use the fact that there was unaccounted for weapons following the '91 war, yet neither you, nor I, nor anyone in the UN was able to disprove that they were not destroyed with the rest of his weapons, which by the way we have accounted for and documented, yet you want to sit here and retroactively use this fact as some sort of justification for an illegal invasion. So which was it, non-existant WMDs, non-existant AQ collusion, Freedom? You want to bask in the sun of feeling what we did was so morally justified as to allow us to subvert the law of the land, but that isn't how civilization works, and that is why IMHO there is such a fervor on the right to crush criticism at home, because that might lead to its logical conclusion of showing the disregard for international conventions and treaties we ignored, even though we agreed to them; kind of a CYA by re-writing history.

TEO,

You present what is called a "false image".

We could discuss history, facts, details, and future possibilities for weeks and months, but that is not your purpose.

Believe what you will. Say what you want. Your only interest is in spinning information to further brainwash your liberal readers! You live in the theoretical world of academia, college professors, and text books -- not the real world.

The U.N. is useless -- totally useless -- and ineffective. The only thing they can do is vote against the United States and demand more money to fund their corruption, waste, ineffectiveness, and the anti-Americanism that liberals support.

President Bush, Tony Blair, and the coalition did precisely the right think at precisely the right time. If they had waited any longer, even a few weeks or months, the opportunity would likely have been lost and the world would have had Saddam to deal with for many years to come.

If you don't understand the threats and possible threats that Saddam posed to world peace, to the U.S. and world economies, and to the U.S. and world security, then perhaps you can talk to some conservative professors and try to get an education.

I would have done some things differently after the collapse of his military, but then I have the benefit of history to provide clear vision and upon which to base my opinions.

I fully support President Bush's actions to remove Saddam.

AAR

Canadian Observer

It sounds so very simple, so easy and good, but how many hundred thousand Kurds and Shiites had already died trying. That's one reason we imposed the "no fly zones" on Iraq, to "limit" the his options for killing his people, but that didn't stop him. We could discuss this issue for days, but liberals aren't interested in a discussion.

The United States has fought one of, if not the most precise wars in history using the weapons we have as our disposal. The accidental deaths (you like to call "collateral damage" because it sounds harsh and insensitive) have been as limited as a rational person could logically expect in a war like the one with Iraq.

How many innocent bystanders are killed or injured by our police in their efforts to stop and apprehend criminals? Do we stop fighting crime and allow murderers to go free who will then harm many other people because innocent people are sometimes hurt in our efforts? No!

There have been far, far more innocent people killed in Iraq by the terrorists than by U.S. military actions. The liberal Democratic rhetoric and propaganda is providing hope and encouragement to the terrorists. The liberal Democratic rhetoric and propaganda is encouraging terrorists to kill more U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens in an effort to help Democrats get their message across.

Who has killed far more U.S. troops and innocent Iraqi men, women, and children? Terrorists.

Who's rhetoric and propaganda has been and continues to provide hope to the terrorists and is encouraging terrorists to kill even more? Liberal Democrats!

Who is indirectly killing U.S troops and innocent Iraqis by their actions? The answer is ____________!!!

AAR

Observer...you miss the much greater point.

If we convert Iraq over to Democracy and defeat the Terrorist threat there, imagine what that does worldwide?

We took your approach (Clinton's) all through the 1990's and all it did was reward and stregthen the terrorist movement year after year because there was never an appropriate response.

They got stronger and stronger and stronger. Finally we have someone that is taking it on.

AAR,

I am glad you support the president, and God-speed to you on your quest; but unfortunately the rule of law is very clear, and we did not follow the rule of law, no matter how you FEEL about the situation.

You wanna know why the rest of the world looks at the US like a bully recently? Examine your quote regarding the UN, a very dysfunctional family, but OUR family none-the-less:

"The U.N. is useless -- totally useless -- and ineffective. The only thing they can do is vote against the United States and demand more money to fund their corruption, waste, ineffectiveness, and the anti-Americanism that liberals support"

It may be slow to react and filled with liars and corrupt politicos and waste...sounds just like our government, so i guess they learned from us well.

The world is everyone outside of America, their opinion carries just as much weight as ours when it comes to invading and occupying nations, they want proof, and not wishful-thinking and "curveballs"...we did not reach that threshold, so despite your FEELINGS to the contrary, our actions were illegal.

But thanx for playing; and i'll await an email form your conservative professors to discuss history and geo-politics, I would love to be 'educated'.

Eyes Closed,

Your "version" of "your rule of law" may be clear to "you", but I and others disagree!

I don't know if you are even capable of understanding why Saddam Hussein had to be removed. The discussion would go beyond what we could effectively conduct here. It includes far more that Saddam torturing and killing his own people. If he had done that without threatening his neighbors and the world -- in many different obvious and not so obvious ways -- he would have still been in power conducting his experiments in torture and murder.

A discussion about the reasons for removing Saddam are beyond the understanding of most liberals -- probably yours too -- judging from your posts. Go talk to axis, teenaged liberal, and the other liberals who will listen. None of them can understand the related issues that would be involved in a real and comprehensive discussion.

If you believe that I believe that removing Saddam was just a "moral" issue of freeing the Iraqi people and stopping Saddam's torture and murder, then you have absolutely no idea of what I think. That is a benefit from removing him, but not the reason he was removed. And whether or not he actually had WMD or what he did with them is not "the" reason. It is "a" reason that the "entire world believed was true" and one they could "understand." It was "a" reason, but not "the" reason!

Unfortunately, I must try to discuss issues in terms of what readers are likely to understand, and try to counter yours and other's "sounds good", "sounds right" statements. What else would you expect? You are talking to your liberal base who was schooled -- not taught -- in your liberal controlled schools! They don't even understand history, economics, and other subjects so how are they going to understand a comprehensive and complex discussion about the real reasons for removing Saddam. That discussion would go right over the heads of most -- yours too!

If you believe that President Bush committed some illegal act, that's your opinion. Why don't you just call up your friends in the World Court and have them come and get him, handcuff him, and take him away to their inquisition? I think you would like the Democrats to gain control of Congress so they could try something like that. That would fit right with the LibDims mentality!

But before they or anyone else steps one lousy liberal foot on the soil of this nation -- tell them that our troops will be waiting there to meet them, and I'll be right there with them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AAR

AAR,

has your hard-on died down from that fantasy of brandishing your guns on the tarmac of Dulles, waiting for the UN soldiers to disembark?

Y'know the funny thing is we have no problem going into other countries to do the same thing to anyone else, but that's another discussion.

Please, give me your "reason" for removing Saddam, im sure it's really good. Please educate me in the geopolitical background and the history as to why we removed Saddam, a tooth-less tiger, but still coddle any number of other tyrants, doing just as bad things to their people, some even with WMDs, yet we find the restraint to stay on our side of the globe when dealing with them?

You just want to believe that people on the left aren't capable of understanding your reasoning, we understand just fine, we just don't agree with you.

You rambled on quite a bit, but didn't say much of anything, so next time save your fingers, and just get to the point...ill await your education. Thank you in advance.

xoxoxo

Eyes Closed,

You missed another good broadcast from Rush Limbaugh today. You really should try listening to him as often as possible.

There's no point wasting your time or mine discussing the reasons for removing Saddam Hussein. If you think about it, you should be able to come up with at least 7 to 10 reasons on your own.

Your only purpose it to "allege" that the war was "illegal" so you can continue your anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-military rhetoric and propaganda. You and the LibDims continue to do all you can to slander and demean the American presidency and the image of the United States around the world.

Liberals don't want America to succeed. They only want failures!

I see only ONE reason why we must remain a member of the U.N. for now. Any idea what that ONE reason would be?

That doesn't mean we can't cut our support back to the absolute minimum and start working on a new world body of nations more friendly to the United States.

AAR

AAR,

that new UN would consist of us, and only us...well maybe afghanistan, but only because they need us there. LOL!

TEO,

I don't think so, but that would be enough!

AAR

That's enough for a start, but I think there will be more than that.

At least we will be among friends for a change -- unlike the current U.N. with it's anti-American agenda and attitude.

BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME!

AAR