<p>Your response just indicates how uninformed that you are and continue to want to be.</p>
<p>yes citygirlsmom</p>
<p>If you go back and read the articles of the time before the invasion, you will find many reasons for the liberation of Iraq.</p>
<p>Stray away from the press coverage or present-day, as right now, you are speaking as a product of the 2006 American Press.</p>
<p>Fundingfather - you need to go back and do your homework. The “multifaceted” excuses for invading Iraq were pitched after no WMD’s were found. There’s no way the American people would have supported a war in Iraq based on the feeble excuses you cite. Your pathetic “He woulda done it, really! Sometime, really!” argument is hardly a basis for launching an attack - and there’s no way to sugarcoat it, our attack on Iraq was a war of aggression. What you cite may have been part of the real reason for the invasion - but it’s no part of the story that was sold to America to garner the nation’s support for the war, and it would not have earned that support. It was WMD’s, every day, all the time. Colin Powell. Dick Cheney. Donald Rumsfeld. And the 55% of Fox-viewing American Republicans who believed that WMD’s had actually been found – long after the WMD’s were known not to be there.</p>
<p>And the “ties between Saddam and terrorists” both you and College2006 are trying to sell - do you honestly believe that tripe? Is that the line the right wing blogs are puching these days? Because that was thoroughly discredited years ago, and in fact, doesn’t even make any sense. Beyond the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” theory there was no reason for Saddam to deal with Islamic fanatics, and no evidence that he was, either. The Saddam/terrorists squeal is the clearest sign of desperation in trying to defend W.</p>
<p>Something to brighten up your day.</p>
<p><a href=“http://weeklyradioaddress.com/WRA20060506.htm[/url]”>http://weeklyradioaddress.com/WRA20060506.htm</a></p>
<p>kluge, you too need to do your homework. Your claim that the saddam/terrorism link was discredited years ago is total bunk and also assumes that what we knew “years ago” was the end of all knowledge. Its very difficult to reason with someone with such a closed mind that he assumes that what he wanted to believe from “years ago” was the be all and end all of knowledge. I suggest removal of your blinders, you may enjoy the view.</p>
<p>The answer to the question is really whether we are better off or worse off for his being in office. Whatever you as a conservative or a liberal might think of the his Adminstration’s policies, he is clearly not the leader of his own adminstration. If we are better off that his admisntration is in power, than we are better off because of Mr. Cheney or Mr. Rove not because of Mr. Bush.</p>
<p>But are we better off? More later…</p>
<p>Kluge –</p>
<p>On the contrary, it has been found to be true that Al-Zarqawi was in Baghadad prior to the invasion of Iraq; therefore, there WERE Al-Queda agents in Iraq prior to invasion. Your assertion that the Bush Doctrine is one-of-a-kind and deviates from all other presidents is inaccurate. Take Teddy Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” Policy, which basically stated that if a contry merely threatens or if the U.S. feels threatened by a country getting involved with affairs in North and South America, then we will interfere. Clearly, Bush’s “Bush Doctrine” is nothing new. When analyzing the war in Iraq, we must not forget the larger, overarching purpose – to reduce the threat of terrorism on America. By overthrowing Saddam Hussein and by helping to establish a Democracy, we reduce the stagnance and radical thinking that can arise under a dictorship. Granted, several mistakes were made during the post-invasion process. I for one believe that more troops were definately needed immeadiately after the overthrow of Saddam. However, one must not lose sight of the fact that other presidents could have done much, much worse than Bush. For instance, we should be fortunate of the fact that our country has not seen a terrorist attack on our soil in nearly 5 years.</p>
<p>Iraq-Al-Qaeda ties = non-existant</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html</a></p>
<p>“…there is no evidence that deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi government was involved in harboring Zarqawi or Ansar al-Islam.” Zarqawi can only claim to be part of Al-Qaeda, but in reality he operates his own terror network, without any formal ties to Al-Qaeda.</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq</a></p>
<p>I’d like to believe that the reason why we haven’t been attacked on our soil is because of their proximity to a huge jihadist training camp that has materialized in Iraq. Why attack us here when it costs less to attack our troops who are much more vulnerable there? We saw what happened with the jihadists in the Soviet-Afghan war, they bred the terrorists we’re dealing with now, my generation is gonna have to deal with the ones that are breeding in Iraq as we speak.</p>
<p>We knew Iraq didn’t have WMD’s before invasion.</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction</a></p>
<p>“In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq had a currently active program to make nuclear weapons, and that there was no credible evidence that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons.”</p>
<p>And to those who don’t believe the pre Iraq war intelligence wasn’t fixed need to visit</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html</a></p>
<p>There are a lot of ways we are still vunerable to terrrorist attacks here in the U.S. Look at our response to 9-11: secret prisons, some forms of torture OKed, warrantless survelliance, Partiot Act, unchecked presidential power. We showed how readily we were to compromise our ideals under the threat of attack. The terrorists didn’t need to attack us again, the last attack is still paying off.</p>
<p>For a more detailed account of what the UN inspectors actually did read
“Disarming Iraq” by Hans Blix, it’s quite informative.</p>
<p>There’s a reason why Bob Graham didnt vote in favor of the resolution to invade Iraq…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html</a></p>
<p>I can’t believe there are people who support the war because they believe there was a link between Iraq and 9-11. I even heard a sound bite of Bush (today) saying “We know there’s no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.” (Don’t know the date, however). </p>
<p>And to say that “liberation” is a perfectly good excuse for war, then why don’t we hear the cries of going to war against North Korea and other worse regimes around the world. When African dictators not only repress their people, but engage in genocide, do we hear these same defenderers of Bush lobbying for occupation of those countries? Why do we look the other way when India has WMD? Or Pakistan? Or Israel? What’s special about Iraq? Once the original excuse of 9-11 is removed, the war is laid bare for what it is - a show for Bush to play like he’s got a Big Stick as well - and big ■■■■■■■ to boot. It’s the result of A LIE!</p>
<p>What about the economy? It’s hard NOT to stimulate the economy with very low real interest rates combined with deficit spending.</p>
<p>According to a “trusted FBI source”, Ayman al-Zawahri, “al qaeda’s #2” was living in Lodi, California for a couple of years. Terrorists in California! </p>
<p>Yes, Dadguy, of course you’re right - and we’re about to experience the hangover from that bender, but hey - it got W elected the second time, right? What’s a few trillion in debt compared to getting re-elected?</p>
<p>
And that is exactly why this guy is a criminal. He’s running rampant (spending like a drunken sailor, someone said, ruining the environment, poisoning our reputation throughout the world, and getting our sons and daughters killed and maimed in Iraq… all for selfish, personal, and political reasons.</p>
<p>During the Viet Nam war, I was a protester. But there were several things I did NOT do: I did not say or do anything disrespectful towards our troops and I refused to chant “Hey hey LBJ, How many kids did you kill today.” But if someone started a chant like “Hey George, Whattaya say, How many kids did you kill today?” I might be tempted to join in.</p>
<p>And why ARE the liberals fighting for the traditional conservative causes?</p>
<p>“Is Bush the Worst President in American History?”</p>
<p>LOL no way…that belongs to Clinton.</p>
<p>Why does it belong to Clinton?</p>
<p>Adulterous (sp?), liar, raised taxes, enough said.</p>
<p>So getting a BJ is worse then anything any other President ever did?</p>
<p>HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHA</p>
<p>I find that so funny!!! Guess having The USA in the worst debt EVER, losing all our surplus, people getting laid off left and right, gas prices the highest ever, being involved in 2 wars and wanting a 3rd, creating a deficit unparralelled in history, and we aren’t even going into all the problems with wiretapping, mistatements, saying he is immune to most laws passed by congress</p>
<p>and if you ask how many people are better off, you don’t get very happy numbers</p>
<p>with a approval rating of 29%, guess lots of people agree with you</p>
<p>Clinton had high approval ratings during his presidency</p>
<p>So sex is what gets your goat, huh…wow, guess being a drunk is aokay</p>
<p>So ur saying committing adultery is OK? I think u need to grow up.</p>