The question that needs be asked here is are all those who support the floundering war America has pursued in Iraq willing to stay there until order is restored to a nation that existed only through the brute force of totalitarianism? The question of when will Iraq be stable enough to allow an American return home is the question the Right is not willing to answer. This ser, is the problem that the 68% of Americans who wish to see the troops come home need to have answered. Is it 12 months, 2 years, 5 years, or is it an open ended committment to a folly that could only have been built on the irrational fear of people who felt the World Trade Center was in their back yards and was going to yet again collapse upon them?

Hopefully, an age of reason and rationality that can lead to real security for the American people can carve through partisan rhetoric will begin in January of 2009. Until then all we can do is hope that the horrible foreign policy decisions of the AEI don't cost America many thousands more lives at the hands Muslims willing to die for what they sadly think will shake the economic monolith of consumerism that America has become.

Leo, let me remind you of something: the GOP majority in both houses of Congress for the last few years. The do-nothing, rubber-stamp classes we've had that have abandoned both oversight and advice-and-consent.

Bush has always gotten what he wants from Congress. Ever since day one, the war in Iraq has been run _exactly_ the way he wanted it to. It _is_ Bush's war, and he deserves all the credit _and_ blame for it.

Leo, let me remind you of something: the GOP majority in both houses of Congress for the last few years. The do-nothing, rubber-stamp classes we've had that have abandoned both oversight and advice-and-consent.

Bush has always gotten what he wants from Congress. Ever since day one, the war in Iraq has been run _exactly_ the way he wanted it to. It _is_ Bush's war, and he deserves all the credit _and_ blame for it.

They have given Bush what he wants, while at the same time distancing themselves of responsibility and sabotaging it at every turn with their defeatist rhetoric.

It isn't Bush's war. It's our war and their war.

It's about time they start acting like public servants rather than con artists working their next mark.

Quite right,
This is Bush's war -- and his legacy will be forever saddled with it -- never let people forget that it was the neocons and their allies on the far right who orchestrated this fiasco.
This war is your war Mr. President (it is the Pottery Barn after all).
Aside from the updated (2.0) version of "stay the course" there was nothing new in the Bush domestic agenda -- and nothing in it that will attract the kind of bipartisan support that could get something done.

To call this "Bush's war" is the height---or depth---of sheer stupidity.

Bush went to war to protect this country, and everyone in it, including those who sneer at him, revile him, slander him, and abuse him at every opportunity.

We know that the rhetoric is personality-based, agenda-based, hate-based. No matter how you (the radical LLL) pretend to be speaking from a position of principle, it is clear and always has been that your true foundation is really the smug self-indulgence of wallowing in a hateful and negative emotion, which you try very desperately to mask as a political or moral position.

But when you absolutely HAVE to either ignore or deny proven, published, and readily available facts to spout your vitriol, you prove to the world that your position is based on your personal loathing of the man himself and not on any objective truth.

I believe that if we could divide this country physically, into the Right and Left, with only the Right gaining the safety and protection gained by an aggressive offense against terrorism and the Left going back to pre-911 complacency, you Lefties would not want to move across that line to the side where the enemy would know they could attack with impunity, safe in the knowledge that their target would never fight back. Even the looniest of the LLL remember Osama bragging that our failures to retaliate after repeated attacks told him it was safe to continue attacking us. Even the most self-destructive of Libs would hesitate to move back to a position of total cowardice and weakness, knowing the inevitable outcome.

No, you hypocritically enjoy the safety of a country which has proven that it has teeth and will hurt those who hurt it, while at the same time trying to weaken it and undermine it.

And you whine about not getting any respect. Hey, you get exactly what you earn.....

Almiranta,

Ah, but they will continue to call it Bush's war - its a mental dodge which allows them to be unpatriotic and still feel good about themselves. Its like this - "I'm a patriot who supports America, but the war in Iraq is only President Bush...and if we lose there, it is only President Bush who loses, and that is a good thing because I'm still mad at what happened in Florida, 2000".

A really pathetic spectacle...but the speech was good, it nailed the Democrats to the mast of their defeatism, and it showed the American people who really cares about doing America's business for the good of all.

"A really pathetic spectacle...but the speech was good, it nailed the Democrats to the mast of their defeatism, and it showed the American people who really cares about doing America's business for the good of all." -- Mark Noonan
I assume you're referring to the 28 percent of Americans (most of whom blog here, it seems) that are still wearing blinkers.
Bush has failed, and the quicker his slide into complete irrelevancy the better for the nation.

The democrats line about "Bush's War" shows their weak nature and cowardice. President Bush should wear the mantle with pride and announce "Fine its my war, but it will never be my surrender or defeat. The ownership of that will be those who wish to cut and run."

Salvelinus:
No matter how hard you try, Bush won't be "irrelevant" until after January 20th, 2009.

And with Democrats KNOWING full well that the American people won't allow us to evacuate Iraq like they wish we did after our hostages were kidnapped in Tehran.

But again, no matter how hard you bash and bash and bash, and take EVERY side of the debate depending on what the President says and does, it doesn't make you right, it just makes you popular.

Fortunately for us, George Washington and our Founders decided to issue a Declaration and fight a war, against a rather SIZEABLE royalist population.

Good thing Lincoln decided to fight for our Union.

Good thing Wilson decided the press needed to hear what the government wanted it to during WWI.

Good thing Roosevelt kept the media at bay during World War II.

The thing is, Democrats want Iraq run like Vietnam, where in that war, the President WAS making attack/target decisions... it's how Democrats did it then, they blamed ONLY the President then too.

It must be great to be soooo culpable and have the lack-of-conscience it takes to stand with one foot on both sides waiting to see which way the sand finally shifts.

There's a nine letter word folks that best describes elected Democrats, and it starts with an H... and ends in ypocrite.

Noonen and Almiranda,

First of all I would like to say that for the most parts I liked your president’s tone. I liked the way he honoured the Madame speaker.

However

Are you saying that if your country is in a war then per definition you have to support it? Even if you honestly believe that it was started for all the wrong reasons? I seem to recall the Bush administration claiming to have the evidence of WMD’s and then basically saying they weren’t going to show it because that could jeopardise there intelligence gathering capabilities. I also seem to recall many of your fellow countrymen being against the war, some of whom you are now accusing of being pathetic, unpatriotic and weak just because they think escalating it would be mad. I have to say that you are the pathetic ones and you have misunderstood the concept patriotism. Patriotism is fighting in Vietnam and then coming home and protesting against the war because you love your country. Patriotism is not staying the course because pulling out would be embarrassing.
I think your administration was very selective when it hand picked the intelligence they used to convince the rest of the world that Saddam was very close to developing WMD’s, and had strong ties to Al Qaeda. But it worked perfectly because it convinced enough people that invading Iraq was necessary. Well guys, most of those people have woken up and will not take it anymore. You evidently will never wake up.

Let me ask you guys a question. Could Bush ever do anything that would make you stop supporting him, or would you consider that unpatriotic?

Bush is "The Decider"....

He is responsible for the Iraq disaster.

Wade

Willy lad,
I have been on EXACTLY the same side of this fool's errand since Bush and company came up with it.
No, then -- no, now. Nothing shifting there that I can see.
On the other hand, I've watched as this administration and its toadies have switched positions so many times that its hard to keep track of their lies -- sometimes I wonder if you can back each new one with a straight face?
The examples you cite are not appropriate either -- those former presidents led war efforts required to save the United States, or the western world, from being destroyed by external (or regional, in the case of Lincoln) enemies.
The fact that Bush has declared his debacle to be some sort of decisive cultural war is just more nonsense.
The only thing "American" that will be destroyed by pulling out of Iraq will be the remaining credibility of this president -- and you guys too.

When the 28% or whatever the number is down to these days want to do something besides mindlessly cheerlead than all of this blather will mean something. There are two things that will happen in Iraq 1)A huge infusion of a few hundred thousand troops sent over to reconquer Iraq and prepare to build a new country from the ground up for the next 10 or 15 years (read: Draft, or read: Not going to happen) or 2) A simple five word command to the troops: Okay. On the plane. Now.

Both are unpalatable. Bush is choosing 2). Because all his 5th "surge" does is stave the off the day that 2) happens. Until January 20,2009 and then doesn't give damn about what happens in Iraq.

I assume you're referring to the 28 percent of Americans (most of whom blog here, it seems)

Or, Sal, it could be the 28% who don't get the lion's share of their news from ABC, CBS, NBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the NYT, WAPO, LA TIMES, USA Today, etc.. Sometimes the majority is not right, just misinformed.

If only Blowjob Bill had had the stones to invade Iraq and topple Saddam back in '98 instead of just firing a few missiles at him, 9/11 never would have happened and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

These libs simply don't get it..do they?
They continuously blast the President for taking action that was long..long over due.

Yes, the war hasn't gone as expected and no, it won't be over any time soon. However, the kook left is working on that all-to-popular self- fulfilling prophecy called "defeat" that was/is so popular with the low road crowd such as Saliva and his kin.

BTW, I love the way GW nailed the pu**y donks with the "You all didn't vote for defeat" statement.

"The fact that Bush has declared his debacle to be some sort of decisive cultural war is just more nonsense."

Nonsense Saliva? What were all those terrorist plots around the world that have been foiled...hmmm? These aren't part of the cultural war?

Only an ignorant fool would think this way.

On the contrary, the reason why the democrats, and even some of the republicans voted for the war was because they were given false information. The entire congress was told that Iraq had weapons of mass descruction, and the American people were also told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush and his administration flat out lied about the facts, and because of this many of our brave you men and women are paying the ultimate price for this. Maybe conservatives should quite blaming the liberals for this catastrophy of a war, and start looking at the person they voted into the presidency.

It sure is funny that President Clinton could get impeached for commiting adultery, but when President Bush commits a lie that has caused the deaths of thousands of people on both sides, conservatives are quick to point the finger. Instead of rushing into a war of chose, maybe we should have been more critical of the false intelligence that was given to us.

Now, because of Bush's lies, we are spread to thin, our soldiers are being killed for no reason, and we have no resources to fight the greater war on terror. Thats alright conservatives keep blaming the other side for the mess that you guys have got us into.

Sufur,
Tell me again -- exactly what was the connection between Saddam and the WTC attack?
Oh that's right -- there wasn't one.

No Sal, like most of us have said, only an ignorant fool (emphasis on fool) would think that Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq. Thus far the only fools are those that think that we can negotiate with terrorists or leaders such as Akmdumbojob.

I've watched most of you kooks now for months and it is so sad to think that your hatred for GW is so great that you'll compromise your true beliefs for political gain...it's pethetic.

Hey, BTW Sal, I have a complete set of chrome plated muffler bearings I'll sell you cheap!

Oh, BTW Sal, where was the connection between the Taliban and 911? Oh that's right, there wasn't one? Al Qaeda was operating independantly in Afghanistan and Iraq and Somalia and...and...and....

Saliva, you may want to refresh yourself with this tid bit of info from the United States District Court Southern District of New York back in 1998. "It's a pretty clear indictment against Usama Bin Laden alleging that he and others engaged in a long-term conspiracy to attack U.S. facilities overseas and to kill American citizens." It also ties him to Iraq.

It's titled:
"US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN" and is a clear indictment of UBL's

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

"Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq NOT to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development."

This is Bush's and the neocon’s war. The United States’s war is against Bin Laden and his followers. If anything Congress gave Bush permission to rid Iraq of nuclear weapons, which we later found out was permission based on administraiton lies. At least when no WMD were found we should have gotten out. However when none were found the administration spent the next four years giving us one excuse after another for being there. One thing is for sure, no permission was granted to pick a side in a civil war. Now neocons have provided a playground for terrorist to practice their craft at killing Americans. All neocons, especially the war profiteers should be ashamed.

Ending a civil war must also have a political resolution as well as a military one. In his speech Bush didn’t even give lip service to a political solution. Doesn’t that concern any of you God loving people of the remaining 28% that Bush's only message is to kill and repress the Iraqi insurgence? By contrast Lincoln freed the slaves as one of many political wedges to end our own civil war.

Will one of you great war strategist explain just one thing? When our troops are on a street corner of Baghdad as an “untrained traffic cop” and they are shot at and must instantaneously respond, who do they shoot at? Is it the lady coming out of the market with a bag, is it the school student with a back pack or is it the middle age man driving the car? Should our troops guess wrong and kill an innocent person they have to live with it, not the political neocons. He may kill all three only to have his parents tragically learn he was killed by an insurgent, trained by Americans, dressed in an Iraqi uniform.

Or, Sal, it could be the 28% who don't get the lion's share of their news from ABC, CBS, NBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the NYT, WAPO, LA TIMES, USA Today, etc.. Sometimes the majority is not right, just misinformed.

spook - do you not think it disingenuous to propose that every major news organization aside from fox news has a liberal bias? or is it more likely (given the stacking) that fox has a deeply conservative bias relative to the rest of the media community - which is by leaps and bounds more objective, balanced, fair, and moderate?

i mean who else but fox would start peddling the very clear and blatant lie that Obama attended a madrassa as a child?

the truth is in the numbers and it's clear to most rational individuals that, if your news source is typically an OUTLIER on the spectrum of objective media content production, than it's fair game to remove the 'fair and balanced' moniker once and for all.

Dad,
Did you actually read your link?
First, it predates the 9/11 attack by three years.
It refers to an "agreement" between Iraq and UBL that al Qaida will not try to overthrow Saddam and to cooperate on weapons development -- weapons we have since learned didn't exist.
That hardly constitues an alliance of some sort and because of the time frame, I'm guessing that it is based on disinformation spread by Iraqi National Congress plants -- something we have also since learned about.
I'm surprised that you didn't drag up some echo chamber crap about the meeting between an Iraqi officer and Mohammed Atta, in Prague.
You guys really cling to some of the most outrageous things in your defense of (and arguments for) Bush/war/neocolonialism and nuking muslims -- get some new material.
Oh, and I'm guessing you get most of your news and spin at Faux News.

Lousy rotten Defeat-o-crats! Tell me, which one of those cowards said THIS about the escalation plan today?

"I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy. In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan. I happen to know that Pentagon planners were on their way to Central Com over the weekend -- they haven't even Team B'ed this plan.... There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives.... We'd better be damned sure what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more lives into that grinder.... and I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don't hide any more, none of us."

(Hint: It's a trick question.)

Now really, don't ya'll think its time to send in the twins?

Tell me, which one of those cowards said THIS about the escalation plan today?

Cyber, sounds like the Democrat Senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel.

Saliva..you just don't get it..or want to, is more like it.

The article was meant to show you the overall connection that you so vehemently deny existed.

We "realists" see and hear the connection and if it weren't for our side, one can only imagine where we'd be today.

Next you'll say that none of these past actions took place....right.

What I cling to is factual evidence that certain terrorists have been planning and plotting for many years to destroy western civilization. Something you kooks seem to think is simply make believe.

Additonally Saliva, the simple indisputable fact that Al Qaeda has confessed to 911 is ample evidence for me to agree with our actions.

But why can't you answer the question regarding the Taliban and Al Qaeda connection?

I had a feeling you'd avoid it, therefore everything you spew is purely BS.

spook - do you not think it disingenuous to propose that every major news organization aside from fox news has a liberal bias?

Probably not from your perspective, Conscriptor. I would readily admit that Fox has a conservative bent. That's the main reason that I watch it; I'm a Conservative. As my 12-year-old granddaughter says, "Duh!"

That said, I also read the NYT, WAPO and the LA Times, as well as the Wall Street Journal. As you can see from the links in my posts in the previous thread, I also read some off-the-wall stuff. There are just too many sources of news to limit yourself to just one source. I assume at least some of you Lefties who come to B4B do so to see what the other side thinks. If B4B is your only source of conservative viewpoints, then you need to get out more.

I am constantly amazed that any medium which has the temerity to actually show both sides of an issue is automatically labeled "conservative". No, actually I am NOT amazed, as daily it seems the conservative side of the aisle is picking up the discarded tenets of what used to be liberalism, before it morphed into totally illiberal Liberalism.

It is the conservatives who are fighting for free speech, asking that more than one side of any position be presented---on campus, on the radio, on television. It is the conservatives who not only fight for but represent racial equality, both promoting people according to their talent and ability instead of according to their color and expecting people to take personal responsibility no matter what their color.

It is conservatives who are trying to bring about changes in our country---changes in education via school vouchers (which also represent freedom of choice and equal opportunity) and Social Security reform and election reform, just to name three.

It is conservatives who argue that high school and college students deserve and are legally entitled to both freedom of speech and freedom of access to different points of view.

It is conservatives who are fighting for the freedoms of others who have been brutalized and deprived of basic human rights, while Liberals claim we should have just turned away and let them suffer.

And it is conservatives who trust the American public enough to give them both sides of a story.

I watch Fox abd I KNOW they give Democrats, even the goofiest of Democrats, plenty of air time. If the mainstream media gave the conservative point of view half as much time to present itself as Fox does the Left, the entire face of network television would be changed.

Is't it strange and amusing that it is the so-called liberal Liberals who are so upset about freedom of speech, about the ability of Americans to be exposed to differing sides of an argument, who actually claim that ",,,the rest of the media community..(are) by leaps and bounds more objective, balanced, fair, and moderate.."

Fox has two major elements. One is its reporting of the actual news, which is pretty balanced, given that it does offer good news from Iraq as well as bad, good news about what the administration is accomplishing and not just what sounds bad, and news from more than one source and one perspective.

I think what chaps your collective heinies is the commentators---O'Reilly and Hannity in particular. But note the key word---COMMENTATOR. These guys are there to offer their OPINIONS. They do not represent themselves as reporters, they do not pretend to be just telling you the "news", they do not posture as journalists. They openly identify themselves as conservative advocates, and then present their conservative take on events.

Your heroes do not do this. Your Brokaws and Rathers and Sawyers and Courics and so on tell us they are REPORTING the news---and then they insert themeselves and their own views and perspectives into what is supposed to be objective journalism. They contort the news, they spin the news, and sometimes (as in the case of Rather) help invent the "news".

You're very much on point Almiranta.

But be prepared to be LASHED verbally by the intellectual lightweights around here who (in their mind) know they can't be wrong for they've been reinforced by a media that doesn't question anything that comes out of the DNC's perverbial mouth.

In the dictionary, under "absolutely clueless", there is a picture of Sal.

I read one of his posts and got lost in the goofiness and irrelevance and general insanity of what he was saying. Take this: "First, it predates the 9/11 attack by three years.
It refers to an "agreement" between Iraq and UBL that al Qaida will not try to overthrow Saddam and to cooperate on weapons development -- "

So what's your point? You radical Lefties have been whining that there was never any connection between al-Queda and Sadaam, and navydad proves there was. And your brilliant response? Well, that doesn't count because it goes back three years before the attacks in the U.S. Well, yeah, DUH. It shows a long-standing, pre-existing, alliance between Sadaam and al-Queda. Which is the point navy dad was making. LONG STANDING. PRE EXISTING. COOPERATION.

But you have to keep going..."...weapons we have since learned didn't exist."

NO, we HAVE NOT learned that these weapons didn't exist! My Gawd, boy, what planet are you beaming down from? It has been conclusively proven, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that "these weapons" DID exist.

What was NOT proven was that they were still in Iraq when we invaded. BIG difference. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. You don't know one way or the other.

Then you continue to pontificate your silliness: "That hardly constitues an alliance of some sort...."

Not unless you arbitrarily decide that an agreement between two groups to benefit each other is not the same as an alliance....

"... and because of the time frame, I'm guessing that it is based on disinformation spread by Iraqi National Congress plants -- something we have also since learned about."

So when you don't like something you just pretend it has been proven to be from a false source? Too bad that philosophy didn't extend to Mary Mapes....

"I'm surprised that you didn't drag up some echo chamber crap about the meeting between an Iraqi officer and Mohammed Atta, in Prague."

Echo chamber crap? I think the tinfoil hat is slipping.....

"You guys really cling to some of the most outrageous things in your defense of (and arguments for) Bush/war/neocolonialism and nuking muslims -- get some new material."

Now we are talking about your paranoid visions of the war in Iraq representing neocolonialism and your delusion that conservatives are into 'nuking muslims' , which you seem to be presenting as established fact..

"Oh, and I'm guessing you get most of your news and spin at Faux News."

Tell us, oh great oracle of the LLL, one single news item from Fox that is "faux". One. One single news item. Not one single thing that you didn't like hearing. Not one single opinion expressed by a commentator. But one single news item which was wrong. Factually wrong.

It doesn't even have to be invented, like the Mapes psuedo story. It can just be an honest error. But it has to be a news item, and it has to be wrong.

Oh, anyone still depending on the long-debunked whine that there were never WMD in Iraq is the one who needs "new material". Better yet, a new site in which to void your vitriol.

conscriptor says "..i mean who else but fox would start peddling the very clear and blatant lie that Obama attended a madrassa as a child?"

As usual, the LLL has it wrong again. Obviously scrip didn't actually see or hear the Fox story, but was told what it said and what to think about it.

Fox actually reported on the fact that Senator Hillary Clinton, DEMOCRATIC Senator from New York, was claiming that Obama attended a madrassa as a child.

You see, conscriptor, the Senator from New York is embarking on yet another of her well-known Politics of Personal Destruction Tours, starting with Senator Obama. This is what is called "news" by those who are not deeply invested in hiding what is happening when it does not advance their personal agendas. Therefore, it may not have been reported by any of your favorite "journalists", who sift through current events pretty carefully to sort out what they want to tell America and what they hope will not surface.

If you are genuinely as outraged as you claim to be, about what you label "a very clear and blatant lie" I am sure you will be happy to share your scathing letter to Senator Clinton with the rest of the class, as you rake her over the coals for her slander. Because I am sure YOU are "fair and balanced" and in search of the truth above all else, and would never overlook such a slur on Obama just because it happened to come from a LLL icon.

Well, some democrats in congress voted to give the president the power to exercise military solutions in Iraq, it's true. But only because they were deceived into believing the lies that the Bush administration was telling.

Those lies (wmd, imminent threat, etc.) are now a matter of public record. So why should anyone continue to support this invasion/occupation?

Fox actually reported on the fact that Senator Hillary Clinton, DEMOCRATIC Senator from New York, was claiming that Obama attended a madrassa as a child.

Posted by: Almiranta [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 24, 2007 06:50 PM

My God you challenge us to list a false Fox story and then you list one yourself. Clinton never said this. The faux show never listed one Democrat source by name. Her campaign has denied the story.

Don't you see this is classic Neocon swiftboating of a Democratic front runner. RNC helps Fox put the lie out there and sure enough Almiranta will take the bait and spread it as the truth.

My patience is running thin with these libtards Almiranta. I try to introduce as much factual evidence that I can to support my case and all these kooks come up with is "you're lying" or "you must have gotten your facts from Fox"

Sorry for the tard comment Mark, but these libs refuse to present a dialogue that includes facts and therom and it's like trying to talk to a mean drunk most of the time.

Those lies (wmd, imminent threat, etc.) are now a matter of public record.

Bzzzzt, sorry, PM, you're the liar. It was your guy who said Sadaam was an "Imminent threat".

John Edwards in a CNN interview with John King on 2/24/02:

KING: Senator Edwards, when discussing the North Korean problem, the president wants to confront the regime, deal with its own missiles program plus its exports. There is not a reasonable military option when it comes to North Korea is there?

EDWARDS: Well, I don't think we're focused on military options right now, John.

I think it was important, in answer to your last question, it was important for the president to go to the region. I think he did help alleviate some of the concerns that people in that area had about this "axis of evil" comment.

But I do think that the more serious question going forward is, what are we going to do? I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. (emphasis - mine)

You're entitled to your own opinion, PM, but not your own facts. Sorry, pick up your prize at the door on your way out, and thanks for playing.

its a mental dodge

You mean a mental dodge like ascribing "evil" and "hatred" to anybody who opposes Bush? That sort of mental dodge? I'm sure yo wouldn't know anythng about that, would you, Noonan?

Whoops.

Alm and Dad,
Nothing is "proved" by a grand jury indictment. I know that you folks like to have it both ways -- when Tom Delay was indicted, this site proclaimed loudly that, "you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." When Scooter Libby was indicted, this site screamed (and still does) that the indictment was "procedural" and that no crime had been committed (despite the obstruction charge, which was included because Libby's actions, in the mind of the prosecutor, prevented a thorough criminal investigation) -- a presumption of innocence, I might add, the right had no problem denying Bill Clinton.
By the way, Alm, save those, "the weapons were moved" stuff for your own tinfoil brigade (pretty much a platoon now, it seems). By the way, you might want to review a few of Dad's posts regarding Iran -- oh, that's right, he wants to nuke Persians -- my bad.
Oh, and Dad -- I don't know anyone that doesn't believe that bin Laden and the Taliban had a cozy, working relationship -- and I know that I have never made any statement denying that. That same relationship did not extend to Iraq -- in fact you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that there are militarily significant al Qaida forces in Iraq even now.
I'd go into an exhaustive list of Faux News lies and distortions, but I don't have all day -- got to help prepare the radical redistributionist, homosexual, defeatist agenda for today.
Lol!

Saliva

Cherry pickin again are ya! First off, yes, I support boming the hell out of Iran's nuke sites if that is what it takes and anyone else that tries to get in the way of peace and Democracy. This most likely includes you.

Secondly, Al Qaeda indicted themselves post 911 by airing statements to the effect.

Third- You may not want to believe that Al Qaeda had ties to Iraq, but the truth is, no one may ever know about the "exact" connection nor will anyone ever know about the moving of WMDs, however, since you conspiracy theorists have proclaimed that GW conspired to promote the invasion of Iraq, one would need to assume that you would also assume that Al Qaeda had ties to Iraq. But since you only use your so-called facts, (which you have yet to post), I will re-iterate, that you are full of BS.
Finally- If you don't know anyone that doesn't believe that Al Qaeda and the Taliban had a relationship, show me that they did.

I can't wait for this twisted answer.
We'll need some facts this time Sal, not conjecture and thus far, all you have provided IS conjecture.

Almiranta has a great point when she states that kooks won't believe this is a WOT until the muzzle lands on the bridge of their nose and then...click, will be the last thing they hear.

Dad,
Get back on your meds and off the koolaid.
Paragraph 1: Okay, so you want to go "boming [sic]Iran's nuke sites . . . and anyone else that tries to get in the way of peace and Democracy (strange capitalization). This most likely includes you."
A) Go for it big guy, sounds like you may be as mad as the mullahs.
Paragraph 2: Al Qaida indicted themselves post 911 by airing comments to the effect.
A) If you're convinced that it's true -- why on earth would you request a citation (the citation you previously posted dated to years before 911).
Paragraph 3:I'm just going to paraphrase your rant. No one knows what the "exact" relationship between al Qaida and Iraq was -- and nobody will ever know if the (assuming that there ever were any) WMDs were moved, but since I'm a conspiracy theorist" and believe that Bush conspired with his neocon buddies to promote the invasion of a sovereign nation -- then it follows that I must believe your two former assertions. Oh, and since I use my "facts" (actually they are in the public domain -- no classified information dealt here) I am full of BS.
A) I stick to "my" facts on point one and two. Point three -- take a logic class the next time you plan on being sober for 16 weeks -- nevermind. Point four -- I guess, only time will tell who here is full of it -- call me prescient, you are full of it.
Paragraph 4:See your own second point -- how can you have any reasonable discourse with somebody that is on both sides of an argument? Do you actually read your posts?
By the way, here is some conjecture:The hard core wingers, like Bush, are so heavily invested in the Iraq disaster that they cannot quit -- no matter the cost. When it ends, and the dominoes don't fall; they'll be exposed for the reality-challenged dolts they are.

Sal

Are you trying to psychoanalyze me instead of answering the questions?

You continue to prove our point that you kooks really have no response other than "everyone is wrong" but you and your cowardly buddies. It's easy for you to critisize our arguments, but you do so with no intelligible response..only "you're wrong" or "Almiranta is wrong".

I'm still waiting for a response to the Al Qaeda/Taliban link and it appears that none of you kooks can answer it so I'll answer it for you:

You see, UBL has been around for quite some time plotting and planning to kill as many westerners as possible, I know you don't want to believe this, but it is fact, and indisputable, and when he found out what a coward Slick Willie was after the Black Hawk disaster when SW said the following: "If all of you who served had not gone, it is absolutely certain that tens of thousands would have died by now." It was a "successful mission," he said, and "proved yet again that American leadership can help to mobilize international action." and tens of thousands have died because of his weak-kneed leadership. Moreover, he flat out lied about the success.

UBL began to believe that the Americans would "do nothing" in response to his terrorist attacks because we supposedly had no stomach for war. He was right, as long as SW was at the helm he could terrorize at will.

UBL finally found a country with Afghanistan/Taliban that would allow him to establish terrorist training camps to promote his anti-western doctrine. Now, I know you still don't want to believe this happened, but it did. He began reaching out to many across the middle east and beyond including Africa and found that the male youth was his likely target consumer for his doctrine. Now, knowing that many of these young men were from various countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, Pakistan etc. and that these were young men that were easily influenced by money and their desire to become part of something "important", he began to gain traction and capital with other extremist governments such as Iraq...yes Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon where cells have existed for years.

Iraq was an additional source of funding and a pool of depressed youths that needed something other than Saddam to look up to, cause you know he was a great guy that Saddam, therefore, the youth began to travel to whatever terrorist training camps they could to "join the cause". Now, some may say that Al Qaeda was limited to only Afghanistan, but how did all those 19 Saudi's that flew the planes on 911 come from just Saudi Arabia? Hmmm, doesn't it seem a bit odd that they would have miraculously lept across a few countries to get to Afghanistan when they could simply start their own jihadist training camps in SA and why weren't they from Afghani's? Maybe they got there on flying carpets...I don't know. But I do know that Al Qaeda was not and is not exclusive to any one country.

If you're familiar with the term "distribution", you would understand, but I don't expect you to so I'll go on to why it makes sense, both financially and geographically, to set up terrorist distribtion centers across the middle east, that were non-exclusive to Afghanistan, but welcomed by islamic extremists in about 30-40 other countries including the Philipines where a number of Al Qaeda plots and training sites have been uncovered/destroyed.

This leads me to my question....again:

What makes you think that Al Qaeda was exclusive to Afghanistan and what makes you think that there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq? Where's the link that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Taliban harbored Al Qaeda?

If there is no concrete evidence to connect the dots in Afghanistan, then why would there need to be a different standard for Iraq?

This, from a party that spent the past six years saying the President could do whatever he wanted without the influence of Congress. This IS the President's war -- the Republicans have made that fact abundantly clear. What really bugs the Republicans is that the Democrats are agreeing with them and refusing to stick their necks out right next to Bush.

Sal, I hope your KoolAid supplier has plenty of flavors, because at the rate you guzzle it you might want to switch off every now and then. I have seldom read such a load of delusional crap as you have dished out here.

I know you desperately want/need to believe that there were no WMD, which is why it is so vital to you that you just dismiss the vast amount of documented evidence of WMD that have been provided. But we understand---it's the only way you can explain away the two-faced cowardice of your party. Rather than admit they voted for the war and are now trying to dodge that responsibility, you pretty much HAVE to try to come up with some excuse for their duplicity and lack of backbone, and I guess the lame whine that they were LIED to is all you have. After all, the radical Left will welcome and embrace stupidity, much easier than they will tolerate anyone who actually wants to defend the country.

But none of what you and your fellow BSers (that is, Budding Socialists---I am tired of the weasel word "Liberal" ) seem to get is that the President has been acting exactly as the Constitution of the United States of America says he should act, and Congress is proving their ignorance of the document they have sworn to protect and uphold.

Congress approved the miltary action in Iraq---plain and simple, they voted for it. They can whine and whimper and invent silly stories about how they were "tricked" and "lied to" , knowing that there are a few gullible morons out there eager to lap up whatever they are fed, but the fact is, they had the same info the Pres. did, and they drew the same conclusions, and they voted the way they did because of what they believed--or because they wanted to posture as being strong on defense, whatever.

And now that we are there, there is only one Commander in Chief. You don't like that, start a campaign to change the Constitution. But nowhere in the Constitution does it say Congress gets to run wars. Nowhere. No Where.

You all get your knickers in a twist with your faked-up claims that the President is not obeying the Constitution, and now you need a change of your Jockeys because he is. Make up whatever you use for minds, will ya?