Many Democrats betrayed not only the American Forces over Viet Nam, they betrayed the South Vietnamese, as well.

Kerry was at the forefront of that effort then and now, as a US Senator, he still wishes to see America embarrassed and defeated. Joined by Pelosi, Murtha and some others, as well as afew RINOs, the call is out to once again scuttle and abandon a struggling ally.

If America is truly despised around the world, it isn't because we invaded Iraq to depose Saddam, it's because we have a reputation for not supporting our allies and leaving them to sure slaughter and degradation.

This is all you need to know about the letter:

John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Signed it.

Meanwhile, Murtha has his own problems.

"...a vote for the GOP is a vote for victory."

Remind us again please what that victory would look like.

Is it when "they stand up and we stand down"? Is it when we find and kill every current and future radicalized Islamic fighter in Iraq? Is it when Shiite, Sunni and Kurd stand together, holding hands, thanking the Americans for liberating their country and resolving their centuries old differences for them? Is this a victory some 20 years and $10 trillion dollars away?

Call me defeatist if you like, but I don't see anything resembling victory any time soon in this administration's management of Iraq. Seems more like we're going backwards. I think a vote for Republicans would be a vote for an expensive, mismanaged, open-ended debacle.

It will be amusing to see that when this administration eventually does redeploy forces out, you'll be declaring 'victory' rather calling it 'surrender'.

After we cut and ran from Vietnam, the Communists massacred 800,000 of their fellow Vietnamese. If we cut and run from Iraq, the real quagmire will begin. Running from Iraq will not be seen as an contrite admission of being wrong and asking forgiveness, but as an admission of weakness, thus recalling our previous admissions of weakness in Lebanon ('83) and Somalia ('93). We all need to get through our thick skulls the fact that in radical Muslim and Arab circles, weakness is provocative. While the war's critics have complained that we are "creating terrorists", they don't realize that running from Iraq will create more terrorists than anything else, and they will come here, just as they did in 1993 and 2001.

Call me defeatist if you like

No need. You expose yourself.

Our Democrats, still living in the glory days of when they scuttled our effort in Vietnam.
-Mark Noonan...

Wasn't it the Democrats that got into Vietnam and the Republicans who got us out?

In fact, I seem to remember that that was the case... In fact, Vietnamization (the plan to get us out of Vietnam) was a conerstone of Nixon's '72 campaign.

So... whoscuttled our effort in Vietnam?

I personally think that the Democrats are wrong on this issue, but you are overplaying it as a conscious effort to betray our troops. It's just a different (and wrong) solution to a problem.

This is all you need to know about the letter:
John Murtha, American Hero

Frankly a pullout is not just a victory for the Democratsand a loss for Iraq - but a solidification of the perception that America no longer has the will to fight a bloody war. The Terrorists, who have no problem with bloodletting, seek to pour out all of america's blood-GOP and Liberal alike.

There is nothing for us short of victory that will do - failure here is the end of the USA in this war with Islamofascism. This will only encourage them.

Either fight of get out your prayer rugs now!

So... whoscuttled our effort in Vietnam?

Read some history. The answer to your question is LBJ. Nixon & Co., just closed the books on the defeat guaranteed by LBJ and his idiotic micro-management and clueless Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara. (who probably has the most appropriate middle name ever: "Strange").

Frawg,

RE: "So... who scuttled our effort in Vietnam?"

As Lew pointed out, that would be John Kerry and his anti-war activist liberal friends then... and John Kerry and anti-war activist liberal friends now -- the spineless anti-American liberal "cut and runners"!

In the case of Viet Nam, Kerry was joined by Jane Fonda it their support and encouragement of our enemy. Today Kerry is joined by Sheehan, Murtha, and the rest of the liberal Democrats in their incessant pro-terrorist, anti-American propaganda and preaching of their "cut-and-run" strategy of defeat!!!

It is the liberal weakness then and now that encourages and supports terrorism and our enemies!

Take a walk at night through a crime invested neighborhood or down a dark trail near one. Who is the primary target of the criminals and the ones most likely to be attacked? A group of strong body builders who can stomp the life out of any attackers" ...Or a weak person who appears incapable of defending themselves?

Who will a gang attack and kill? An armed police officer? Or a defenseless woman or teenager?

When violence breaks out in an area, what is it that the residents demand? Pull the police from the area so the criminals will feel less threatened and leave? ...Or bring in the troops and remove or kill the thugs?

It is the ever present weakness, cowardice, and "cut-and-run" mentality of the liberal Democrats that encourages, fosters, and nourishes terrorists and that causes our enemies to attack us!!!

AAR

John Murtha, American Hero

Sounds vaguely familiar...Oh yea, John Kerry, American Hero. Remember the group Swift Boat crew members called SwiftVets? Remember what they did to that "hero?" Remember who their leader is? (hint: John O'Neil ring a bell?). Well Mr. O'Neil has decided to bring the deck guns around and commence firing on "hero" Murtha, and will likely have the same results as when he finished with Kerry. But "hero" Murtha, given his penchant for surrender, might just raise the white flag if O'Neil says "Boo!"

Meanwhile, Diana Irey is going to send the "hero" packing. And the "hero" now has Veterans groups after his scalp. No wonder the left thinks this traitor to be a hero. And Just in case "Cut-and-Run" Murtha dodges a couple of those bullets, the Marines he defamed and accused of murder without even a charge being leveled, have filed suit against the "hero" for defamation and legal scholars think they have a good chance of winning. Yep, typical liberal traitorous slime ball hero. Soon to be unemployed too, I hasten to add.

reverend S. care to respond the breaking news....

WASHINGTON - Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.

Didn't the Bush administration as recently as a month ago announce a very similar plan? As I recall, you bushbots all thought that was a good idea then.

Now, you've flip-flopped, and are back to thinking any talk of withdrawal is bad. What changed since then?

Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

Well that proves it, right? A pentagon official. Named? I know Captain Anon. And since this "official" said it, we should just dispense with those messy things like charges, a trial and go straight to the firing squads, right? You're no better than Murtha and he's a foul creature indeed.

Now that you've solved that one, perhaps you could scurry down to Gitmo and stand up for the innocent, kind, and gentle folks we've got locked up in the dungeons down there - tortured daily by the same types of troops that you despise so much and exhibit glee at the rumor of wrongdoing tossed their way.

Darn, Ohio Golfer you beat me to it. But don't expect anything approaching intelligence from the good rev. (and if he does say anything, be sure to shower immediately to remove the agent orange he spittles when talking)

o. golfer:

I rest my case. Reminder: shower quickly

Ash,

wonder how the reverend will spin it when there are charges filed, a trial and a judgemen tin this case. He knows nothing of me and yet slanders me wiht his invective

Ash, OhioGolfer, and the rest of you libbies...

The investigation is ongoing. If the evidence "supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians" without reasonable justification, then the question becomes why? Are they guilty of a crime? Were there extenuating circumstances? Etc.

The Marines have not been found guilty... they haven't been tried... they haven't even been charged. Yet, the anti-American liberal left Democrats continue do all they can to convict them and keep the issue at the forefront of their worldwide anti-American propaganda campaign in the world's press and media.

If the evidence supports charges against some or all of the Marines, they will be charged and tried for their actions. If they are found guilty, they will be punished in accordance with military regulations. If they are found not guilty and cleared of the charges, they will still be punished by liberal Democrats and the liberal media for months and years to come!

Andrea Yates drowned her five children one by one in her bathtub, but she gets sympathy from liberals and is found not guilty by reason of insanity. Perhaps those Marines snapped after weeks or months of seeing their friends shot or blown up by terrorists -- terrorists who work from people's houses, mosques, and any other non-military building or vehicle where they can take shelter. Perhaps they got tired dealing with average looking men, women, and children who could just as easily be a suicide bomber. Perhaps they got tired being shot at day after day and being told they must abide by "higher" standards of conduct. Perhaps they were on edge after wondering when they would be blown up by the next IED. Perhaps when their fellow Marine and friend was blown in half by the IED, they finally snapped and "took out" those whom they believed hid, supported, or at least knew about the IED that blew up their friend. Perhaps they went temporarily insane too. Perhaps they will be found not guilty of the charges against them.

It's time to allow the military courts to handle the case. It's past time to take it out of the daily news and off the front pages of the news around the world -- where you liberal Democrats have kept it day after day... week after week... month after month!

AAR

"It is the ever present weakness, cowardice, and "cut-and-run" mentality of the liberal Democrats that encourages, fosters, and nourishes terrorists and that causes our enemies to attack us!!!"

Cowardice?

AAR - Would you care to explain to me what exactly is so brave about sending other people to fight and die for you? Or is it your contention that all Conservatives are active or former military personnel?

Want to know what cowardice is? It's pre-emptively destroying weak nations who pose no threat to you because you are scared to death about another terrorist attack.

I hope there is a special place in hell for traitors like John Murtha. The man is a disgrace.

The 'swift boat veterans for truth' group was funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas. Internal Revenue Services shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston. It was a smear campaign and it worked beautifully and now they have changed their name to 'Veterans for Truth' to smear another non-republican. The vets who campaigned against him were not even on his boat.
Its a sham, and sad....

Extramundane, your naivete is astonishing. Were the THOUSANDS of victims killed on 9/11 murdered by a weak nation? When will you morons wake up and realize that we are not fighting weak nations but a powerful religious fanaticism? Those fanatics gravitate to weak nations (Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan) due to the host country's inability to eradicate the monsters. That is why we need to be proactive and stamp out the problems before they kill more of us. Get IT?

Man, talking about the reality of this with you idiots is getting BORING...

ogolfer: wonder how the reverend will spin

No doubt with a silly and hatefilled reportee. Same as he will use when the Plame law suit forces Cheney to testify under oath. Although these men pay not attention to laws or authority.

Morphie,

Explain how to me again how you arrive at the deluded idea that the SwiftVets engaged in a smear campaign? Becuase it was funded by a Republican? That's the best you have? How about the FACTS that JohnF*CKINGKerry distorted? Like being in Cambodia etc. etc. etc.

If I were to ascribe to your "logic" then I would be forced to suggest that the entire 2004 democRAT election campaign was a smear on W (who won by the way so suck on it) because democRAT billionaire Soros contributed millions to the donks campaign.

Can you say sophmoric? Sure I know you can...

I hope there is a special place in hell for traitors like John Murtha. The man is a disgrace.

Oh there's a place like that alright, zoot. For Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perl, Ken Lay, Jack Abramoff, et pukeum.

Democrats Advocate Surrender in Iraq

Republicans Advocate Perpetual War With No Plan

GOP 4 ME -

The thousands of victims on 9/11 weren't murdered by a nation at all. And those who did it certainly weren't hanging around in Iraq.

Clearly you you are a genious in a sea of idiots. Perhaps you would like to tell me what's so brave about sending other people to die for you while you sit safely on your couch carping about the cowardice of liberals.

So Goopie, then why have the US invaded Iraq, a country that posed no threat to the US and was NOT involved in 9/11?

why have the US invaded Iraq,

Are you just a slow learner or are you stuck on last year's talking points? You can't possibly be that thick, even if you are one of those Dhimmi Euros.

VO,

Go read some history! Project that into the future that would have existed under Saddam and his sons for the next 30, 40, 50 or more years. Maybe you can figure it out given enough time! I doubt it though. Liberals aren't capable of doing any more than their "handlers" tell them!!!

At least we haven't seen any scuds or threats of scuds hitting Israel from Saddam... and the Israelis haven't had to put on their gas masks or seal their homes in fear of being gassed by Iraq!

AAR

"...even if you are one of those Dhimmi Euros." by: Reverend Scaramonga

Willem, Dhimmi and Dhimmitude defined-

From the website Answering-islam.org:

DHIMMITUDE
The state of subjection and oppression of non-Muslims under Islamic rule. This then becomes a whole outlook on life and way of dealing with things. For more details, see the entry on DHIMMI.

DHIMMI
A person belonging to the category of "protected people" (ahl ad-Dhimmah) in the Islamic state. Only those from the "people of the Book" (Jews and Christians) can become Dhimmis and then have certain rights, like privately worshipping according to their religion, as long as they pay the "protection money" (jizya) but are not considered citizens of the country. Their status has to be one of humiliation (Surah 9:29).

One needs to understand this term "protected people" properly. Protected from whom? From the Muslims! It is the same dynamic as when the mafia comes to a shop owner and tells him, from now on we are protecting you, and you are going to pay us such amount of money for this protection. You will not have to bear a weapon yourself. We take that responsibility.

Details on this state of affairs in Islamic Shari'ah, Islamic history and present reality can be found here:

Being a non-Muslim under Islamic rule
Dhimmis and Dhimmitude

"...even if you are one of those Dhimmi Euros." by: Reverend Scaramonga

Willem, Dhimmi and Dhimmitude defined-

From the website Answering-islam.org:

DHIMMITUDE
The state of subjection and oppression of non-Muslims under Islamic rule. This then becomes a whole outlook on life and way of dealing with things. For more details, see the entry on DHIMMI.

DHIMMI
A person belonging to the category of "protected people" (ahl ad-Dhimmah) in the Islamic state. Only those from the "people of the Book" (Jews and Christians) can become Dhimmis and then have certain rights, like privately worshipping according to their religion, as long as they pay the "protection money" (jizya) but are not considered citizens of the country. Their status has to be one of humiliation (Surah 9:29).

One needs to understand this term "protected people" properly. Protected from whom? From the Muslims! It is the same dynamic as when the mafia comes to a shop owner and tells him, from now on we are protecting you, and you are going to pay us such amount of money for this protection. You will not have to bear a weapon yourself. We take that responsibility.

Details on this state of affairs in Islamic Shari'ah, Islamic history and present reality can be found here:

Being a non-Muslim under Islamic rule
Dhimmis and Dhimmitude

Posted by: AAR, "At least we haven't seen any scuds or threats of scuds hitting Israel from Saddam... and the Israelis haven't had to put on their gas masks or seal their homes in fear of being gassed by Iraq!"

Great point, AAR!

There's one simple way to make sure we don't pull out like we did in Vietnam: we go vack to Vietnam and finish the job. It's still a communist nation, I believe.

How many more American soldiers would die? 1,000? 50,000? Doesn't matter. That would show the terrorists that we don't cut and run.

Oh, and if you don't agree with me, you're a coward and a hypocrite.

extramedium,

RE: "Would you care to explain to me what exactly is so brave about sending other people to fight and die for you? Or is it your contention that all Conservatives are active or former military personnel?"

Well, we all know liberals wouldn't fight for anything other than gay marriage or removing crosses from public view! All liberals will do is sit home and applaud the terrorists and our enemies while our troops are dying to defend your right to hate them and the country which allows you to continue your campaign of hate!

RE: "Want to know what cowardice is? It's pre-emptively destroying weak nations who pose no threat to you because you are scared to death about another terrorist attack."

Want to know what cowardice is? Cowardice is you liberals allowing weaker nations to believe they can attack the United States and win because they have seen your spineless retreats in the past and your calls for more hi-tailing it now. Cowardice is you liberals allowing terrorists to believe that by destroying the World Trade Center, a portion of the Pentagon, and the passengers of four passenger planes, they could force an American retreat without firing another shot... just like they did in Somalia! That's the problem, terrorists and countries like Iran and North Korea have become so used to the white and yellow flag retreats and unwillingness to fight of liberals that they think they can attack the United States with impunity! They didn't count on a strong willed person like President Bush.

By continually showing your liberals weakness, you actually encourage the attacks that might otherwise not even occur. You liberals are the ones who set the stage and the conditions for war, but you crawl under your rocks and leave the fighting up to the Conservatives. Then you crawl out again periodically to call for surrender and encourage our enemies to continue fighting. Weak willed liberals are the real threats to the United States and world peace. You just don't have the intelligence to know it!!!

If it weren't for you spineless anti-war, anti-American liberals who are so quick to surrender to the enemy, Syria and Iran would not be the problem they are today. Shortly after Saddam was removed from power, Syria and Iran both worried that they were next. Libya got rid of their nuclear program and didn't want to risk a fight with President Bush. But now Iran, North Korea, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas have seen your weak willed liberal propaganda weaken the will of the American people to fight and win. They have seen the liberals crawl out from under their rocks and change the opinion of the American people -- for the moment. Having seen that, terrorists and our enemies are once again emboldened and willing to take on the U.S.

Because of the spineless weakness of liberalism, the next time they attack, thinking they can defeat us, however, there will likely be many more Americans and citizens of other nations killed. Eventually, weak liberals will create the conditions that lead to the use of nuclear weapons, the destruction of entire cities, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions.

We did not avoid a nuclear war with Russia and defeat them through weakness. We did it because of our strength. We did it because Russia (the Soviet Union) knew full well that our destruction meant their destruction. The only message terrorists, Iran, North Korea and our enemies of today know, however, is that liberals will do all they can to avoid a fight, they will talk while our enemies develop their weapons, and they will not take preemptive action to stop an attack on America, and they will hi-tail it and run when the fighting gets a little tough or messy!

And if the enemy hides behind civilians like the terrorists do and Hezbollah does, blame them for the death of the civilians -- not our soldiers or Israel's soldiers! Where are of those liberal anti-war, pro-terrorist human shields now. Hezbollah could use a few in their fight with Israel!

As that Arab proverb goes: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Well, our ENEMIES KNOW you liberals VERY WELL... you are their FRIENDS!!!

AAR

Extramedium

The enemy we fight are not "weak nations." By labeling them as such it makes the USA much easier to vilify. We are fighting a very vicious and very powerful enemy. This enemy is the nation states of Iran, Syria, the former Afghanistan, the former Iraq, and others. These enemies are closely allied with Russia and China. Far from being weak nations who pose no threat, this is an enemy who is ruthless, powerful, and very cunning. It is fully capable of defeating the US. A terrorist attack using WMD could kill millions. I would not say I am scared to death, however, to describe my position as very concerned would be accurate. My main problem with this administration and this government is it has not been aggressive enough in pursuing this enemy.

The enemy understands how the western mind set works. There is a certain amount of leverage in claiming to be a victim. By falsely portraying themselves as weak nations who pose no threat when the reality is they are very powerful and capable of defeating the US, they gain sympathy for themsleves. The sympathisers are either malicious or they are being played.

AAR

Great post!! There is one thing you might want to conisder. Given teh actions of Russia of late, I think it might be a fair question to ask if we actually really defeated Russia. I'm not sure the Cold War ever really ended.

The proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an Arab proverb. I did not know that. In any event, I'm finding this explains allot of things in international politics. Common interests can draw unlikely groups together.

OT: Every time I hear some pundit or diplomat counseling Israel to "show restraint" it really makes me angry. Had a terrorist group done to France or the US what terrorists have been doing to Israel for decades now we would have responded far more aggressively than Israel has.

At least we haven't seen any scuds or threats of scuds hitting Israel from Saddam... and the Israelis haven't had to put on their gas masks or seal their homes in fear of being gassed by Iraq!

Israelis didn't have to "put on their gas masks or seal their homes in fear of being gassed by Iraq", not because you invaded Iraq but because Saddam did not have any WMD. You invaded a country that didn't have any WMD thanks to the UN-sanctioned international pressure and sanctions on Iraq, the no-fly zones, UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and therefore didn't pose any treat to its neighbors, let alone Israel or the US.

Tens of thousands have lost their lives and a multitude is maimed for live for a lie, for a fear that in 20 30, 40, 50 yrs they might have become a threat.

The only thing that the US has done is making it more probable that the ME will remain a threat to world peace in the next 10, 20, 30 40, 50 yrs

Posted by: AAR at August 2, 2006 06:21 PM

Excellent post, AAR!!
:)

Freedom1: Iraq was a secular nation, it is fast becoming a theocracy now. The US has succesfully managed to make DHIMMITUDE an issue for Iraq again.

VO,

Someday we may yet find out what happened to the WMD that Saddam had at one time, had at the time he kicked the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq, and had used in the past to kill thousands. Go check with their families if you are still in a state of denial. Do you really believe that Saddam had changed his goals? If so, you really do live in liberal dream land.
We may not have found stock piles of actual WMD, but that does not mean he did not have them nor does it mean he would not have restarted his programs given the opportunity. Those trailers that "produced hydrogen gas" for "observation balloons" could very easily have started producing anthrax or other biological agents and germs -- very quickly. All of those "dual use fertilizer" components he had -- some found "buried in bunkers" could very quickly have been used to produce nerve gas. Just because he had not "assembled" the components into their final nerve agents says nothing. Why was he "hiding" dual use chemicals if they were really just for fertilizer.

And all of those dual use fertilizer components that were buried underground. Check the components used to make nerve gas and those used to make pesticides. Sarin is similar in chemical composition to many pesticides, which are also Organophosphate compounds. Sarin was first developed as a pesticide, and any factory capable of making commonly used Organophosphate pesticides (such as Malathion and Parathion) is also easily convertible to one making Sarin, often no conversion as such is necessary, just change the initial ingredients and the settings. What makes a perfectly legitimate pesticide factory into a WMD factory are facilities for filling shells, bombs and rockets, or storing weapons-grade chemical munitions.

And do you forget that Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers as much as $35,000 for each suicide attack on Israel -- blowing up men, women, and children... but with no liberal outrage. Those were just Israelis, right? It was Israel's fault, right? WRONG! And if Saddam was paying money to suicide bombers to kill Israelis, what do you think he was or would pay to terrorists to destroy American cities? You don't think Saddam would do that? Dream on!

The only thing that Saddam was waiting for, and the only reason he would [temporarily] get rid of his WMD was to show the world that he had done so in order that his friends and trading partners the French, Chinese, Russians, Germans, and others would work to get the U.N. sanctions removed. Then, Saddam would have free rein to start his WMD programs full bore! Do you doubt that he would have done that? Do you doubt that was not his plan? If so, go take a good course in human nature!

But one thing is certain... Saddam won't be launching scuds or gas at Israel today, tomorrow, or next year!

AAR

B.Poster,

I think Russia still has it's pride and desire to be as super power again. If I were them, I would want the same thing. Until then, anything they can do to strengthen or protect the enemies of the United States or the enemies of our friends, e.g, Israel, works to there benefit. Likewise their current loose alliance with China.

Perhaps Putin sees democracy as a hindrance or even a threat to that goal -- having seen what liberal voters have done to the once great nations of Europe, Canada, and are doing to the United States.

I'm no expert on Russia or the Soviet Union, but I think we should have helped done all we could to help them right after the collapse of the Soviet Union when they were struggling to survive and when their economy neared collapse. I believed then and still do that money spent helping them would have been better spent than on other needs in this country. But we basically ignored their situation and left them to flounder. We did offer to help with the destruction of their old nuclear weapons, but the last I heard, we had not even fulfilled that obligation. Keeping those weapons and/or their components out of the hands of other nations should have been a top priority. I would also have tried harder to get them involved with the U.S. in as many joint efforts as possible, economically, militarily, and otherwise. I would like to have seen them join us as an ally and done everything I could to accomplish that. But, Americans believed their money was better spent here rather than investing in a new and strong Russia that might be a friend and an ally to the U.S.

Perhaps I am the one who was being overly naive though in that regard. Perhaps that was never a possibility. As I said, I am no expert in the Soviet Union.

AAR

WVO: Former head of the Iraq Survey Group did not agree with you that Iraq was not a threat. He described the situation as virtually inevitable that with Saddam's Iraq that WMD and a terrorist buyer would have met at some point in the near future. He went on to describe the situation as more dangerous than we had thought, furthermore, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had achieved a de facto end to sanctions by early 2001. There still remain many unanswered questions about what was transferred to Syria. This may be where Saddam's WMD stockpile is. Perhaps this is the "surprise" Hezbollah leaders have said they have in store for Israel. I'm sure Israel is taking this seriously. I do hope the conventional wisdom on Saddam's WMD is correct.

Iraq's ties to terrorists of global reach is well documented. Iraq was a legitmate target in the GWOT. That said, it may not have been the best place to start.

Obviously the intellegence was wrong. The WMD are not "there." At least they are not where we thought they would be. There was a consensus on where they were among all points on the political spectrum prior to the war. It is important that we figure out what went wrong. The survival of the free world may depend on it. "Bush lied" diatribes are incredibly counter productive.

I agree with your analysis to a point. Perhaps we should have begun with Iran or Syria. Also, I would like to see more diplomatic effort being directed at Russia and China to get them to withdraw support from Iran and Syria. You probably would not be able to get a coalition together for Syria or Iran, as we could for Iraq. Over twenty nations examined the threat posed by Iraq and thought it dangerous enough to support the effort to remove the former Iraqi government. Kuwait and Jordan even allowed their countries to be used as a base for the US and its coalition allies.

Where we made a mistake was we did not use enough troops and we allowed Islamic parties to enter the political process thinking it would "moderate" them. This allowed Iran to get a foothold in Iraq and it emboldened them to take the fight to Israel through their Hezbollah proxy. The lack of enough troops in Iraq has made security extremely difficult. If we can get security under control, we should have a loyal and dependable ally. I would suggest commiting more troops. Also, I think other free nations should lend the Americans and their coalition partners a hand in commiting more troops. The former regime elements, their al qaeda allies, and their primary supporters of Russia and China pose a survival threat to the USA. Free nations need to understand that peace will not be gained by throuwing America or Israel under the bus.

Btw, I find it interesting that when the former regime elements were quitely killing people by the hundreds of thousands that people did not worry about it much. Now that former regime elements and their terrorist allies have killed tens of thousands of Iraqis people care about it but they blame the wrong entity for the killing!! All of the blmae should go to the terrorists and the former regime elements.

The former ISG head I was referring to was David Kay.

The 'swift boat veterans for truth' group was funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas.

What? No Democrats? Who'd thunk it (insert eye rolling).

Primarily, the Swifitees were supported by Veterans who, like me, sent what we could as we could. The released their contributions and it was small donors who made up the bulk of their donations.

But, can you tell me how much George Soros gave to anti-Bush groups? I guess somehow, that is different, huh?

Lew....exactly right...and there were a lot of us who contributed.me a non-military female....etc. etc.we sure weren't G. Soros...

But, can you tell me how much George Soros gave to anti-Bush groups?

Case in point? Air America. They've never made a dime of profit - ever. Who is keeping them funded? Soros? Hmmm.