Let's we forget ..... the Repug insanity

[boutons]

Let we forget, THIS MAN hit the WTC:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/08/magazine/11cover.386.jpg


_NOT_ THIS MAN:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/art/h_background.jpg


shrub/dickhead/Repugs lied to the world about Saddam/Iraq and exploited the goodwill and trust of the USA post-9/11 by politicizing the WTC attack for their own Repug agenda.

The bogus Repug Iraq war is hurting, and will hurt, the USA, for decades, MUCH MORE more than did 9/11.

Expect in the next few months that the number of _US LIVES WASTED_ in Iraq to exceed US lives lost at WTC.

The Repugs have damaged and "fragilized" the USA and individual Americans with the bogus Repug Iraq war MUCH MORE than bin Laden's jihadis.

Meanwhile, the Repugs fuck around losing their war in "slam dunk" Iraq, the really hard stuff remains:

the Taliban/jihadis are re-grouping in Afghanistan,
Iran remains unpunished for the destuction of the US Embassy,
sooner or later, shrub/Repug's bogus war hands Iraq to Iran,
and the Repugs are letting "ally" Pakistan harbor bin Laden and/or jihadis.

Lest we forget the daily insanity of shrub/dickhead/Repugs: "THE ENEMY WITHIN"

.

[Clandestino]

both have attacked americans for the past 10-15 years.

[Clandestino]

you weren't attacked directly by osama either..

[Clandestino]

i remember some of my friends being shot at in iraq in the past 10-15 years... threat...take it out...

[Clandestino]

attacking americans is attacking americans...

[Clandestino]

saddam hussein never stopped attacking us when we patroled the no fly zones that were part of the ceasefire agreement. you are probably too young to remember that.

[Clandestino]

how many times has north korea fired on us in the past few years?

[Clandestino]

that wasn't the only reason.. until you learn that, you will never be satisfied. i guess you were fine with saddam trying to shoot our planes out of the sky.. were you fine with that?

[Useruser666]

Some people have no idea what they are talking about. It is not possible to attack NK.

[FromWayDowntown]

Here's the transcript of Bush's speech before hostilities began in Iraq.


My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.

For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq.

Our good faith has not been returned. The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament.

Over the years, U.N. weapons inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraq regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda. The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety.

Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me as commander of chief by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep. Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq.

America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations.

One reason the U.N. was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.

For the last four and a half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that council's longstanding demands. Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it.

Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world.

The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours. In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq so that disarmament can proceed peacefully.

He has thus far refused.

All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.

For their own safety, all foreign nationals, including journalists and inspectors, should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.

As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.

In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.

The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed.

I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services: If war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders." Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure will be taken to win it.

Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so.

If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end.

In desperation, he and terrorist groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible.

And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed. Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland.

In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services.

Among other measures, I have directed additional security at our airports and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail.

No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people, yet we are not a fragile people. And we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers.

If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war.

In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth. Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations.

And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self defense. It is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose.

Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

In reading that again several times today, don't see any mention, in the White House's articulated reasons for going to war, of Iraqi firing on United States citizens, whether civilian or military. Instead, Bush cites only Iraq's possession of WMD (citing the fact that his refusal to disclose his weapons violated Security Council resolutions, since, without such resolutions, mere possession of such weapons wouldn't have justified a war against any nation) and the likelihood that Saddam would provide such weapons to terrorists. To date, we've been unable to find any concrete evidence to support either of those justifications.

We're fighting 2 very different wars. 9/11 very clearly gave rise and justification for the war in Afghanistan, which I fully support. The war in Iraq, to me, is an entirely different matter -- a politician's war, rather than a war of justification. I support the men and women who are in Iraq, but I fully believe that their efforts and lives could be better spent pursuing other goals.

9/11 isn't about Iraq.

[Shelly]

yeah i remember dodging bullets from iraqi soldiers on my way to school in the morning

Was it a 10 mile hike to school during a blizzard?

[hussker]

yeah i remember dodging bullets from iraqi soldiers on my way to school in the morning

Why don't you sign up and go dodge some bullets so the Iraqi kids can go to school? Or how about so the people can vote without the threat of having their heads chopped off if they vote anti-dictator? Or so women can enjoy the unalienable rights that all humans have, as espoused by our forefathers and those who chose to build this nation?

I know it must be easier to sit at home and blog...

[mookie2001]

^its easier for Bush and the gop to just take away consitutional right after constitutional right

[ChumpDumper]

I have no problem with the men and women who carried out their orders. My problem is with those who gave the orders.
Why don't you sign up?Why would anyone sign up if they don't agree with what they would be ordered to do? Specious.

[mookie2001]

no shit its like

-I won't sign up because I don't believe the war serves a purpose, was started for the right reason and is worth the american lives and money.

-coward!

[FromWayDowntown]

Why don't you sign up and go dodge some bullets so the Iraqi kids can go to school? Or how about so the people can vote without the threat of having their heads chopped off if they vote anti-dictator? Or so women can enjoy the unalienable rights that all humans have, as espoused by our forefathers and those who chose to build this nation?

I know it must be easier to sit at home and blog...

Those are wonderful ideals. Why is it that we've only chosen to protect them in Iraq? The same issues are prevalent in other places in this world, but somehow, we haven't seen their existence to be enough to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation that had not attacked the United States.

[hussker]

^its easier for Bush and the gop to just take away consitutional right after constitutional right

Which amendments have they employed to take anything away from anyone? If you can list them, I will shut up. Oh my, he hasn't has he?

[hussker]

Those are wonderful ideals. Why is it that we've only chosen to protect them in Iraq? The same issues are prevalent in other places in this world, but somehow, we haven't seen their existence to be enough to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation that had not attacked the United States.

As far as you know...As far as any of us know for that matter.

[mookie2001]

right to assemble
the "protest zones", and big brother filming protesters to put "on file"
recently freedom of the press
cant show coffins comign back from Iraq or dead victims of Hurricane Katrina

[FromWayDowntown]

As far as you know...As far as any of us know for that matter.

What in the hell does that mean?

[mookie2001]

unreasonable search and siezure laws in the PATRIOT ACT

[mookie2001]

Which amendments have they employed to take anything away from anyone? If you can list them, I will shut up. Oh my, he hasn't has he?
no amendments thats what makes them UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws and practices

[hussker]

right to assemble
the "protest zones", and big brother filming protesters to put "on file"
recently freedom of the press
cant show coffins comign back from Iraq or dead victims of Hurricane Katrina

So, where are the amendments? Where are the court decisions overturning anything that was supposedly unconstitutional? These are your opinions, not the opinions of everyone. Therefore, I deem that there is no constitutional violation. That is my opinion, of course. I doubt we will ever agree to disagree on that (which we should always agree to disagree...we are, afterall, civilized Americans.)

[ChumpDumper]

As far as you know...As far as any of us know for that matter.What does that mean? The other situations are extremely well-known and documented. We're not jumping into Rwanda or Darfur even though people actually were and are getting their heads chopped off there. The white hat argument can only go so far, because we clearly do not follow it in every situation.

[mookie2001]

so if im across the street from a protest zone, PROTESTING under my constitutional rights, and a cop can come and arrest me if i do not stop and take me to jail?
how is that not taking away someones rights?

[hussker]

unreasonable search and siezure laws in the PATRIOT ACT

Again, your opinion of something unconstitutional that was passed by governmental bodies.

It's like saying that it is unconstitutional that I have to wear my seat belt when I drive, or (fill in the blank with something you may not like...) Perhaps it is semantics, but I see no violations of constitutional rights.

[mookie2001]

the right to not wear your seatbelt is not in the bill

[hussker]

so if im across the street from a protest zone, PROTESTING under my constitutional rights, and a cop can come and arrest me if i do not stop and take me to jail?
how is that not taking away someones rights?

Go do it, get arrested, sue the government (the Executive and Legislative branches) and have legal evidence that you were acquitted and I will buy it from you. By the way, you said the GOP and President Bush...not the police. Be specific now. We have seen in N.O. that there is a LOCAL leadership issue and a FEDERAL leadership issue that some on the board do not quite get.

[hussker]

the right to not wear your seatbelt is not in the bill

Anything in the constitution that says I have the right to NOT wear the seat belt? That I MUST wear the seat belt?

[mookie2001]

of RIGHTS


I FUCKING LOVE IT
over and over again these pussy ass republicans have to argue AGAINST the CONSTITUION of the UNITED STATES
how PITIFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hussker]

Getting silly now :) The Executive and Legislative branches have not taken anyone's rights. Bottom line. Think before you type.

[mookie2001]

cool man
Bush lovers keep arguing against the constitution and calling people who dont support the war anti-american

thats where i get my laughs from nowadays

[hussker]

of RIGHTS


I FUCKING LOVE IT
over and over again these pussy ass republicans have to argue AGAINST the CONSTITUION of the UNITED STATES
how PITIFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am neither republican, nor democrat, I am simply a hard-working, tax paying, US Citizen that happens to love my country and be proud of it. You may too, I am not sure.

God Bless,
Hussker

[hussker]

cool man
Bush lovers keep arguing against the constitution and calling people who dont support the war anti-american

thats where i get my laughs from nowadays


And you all were the ones falsely accusing a Person and a Party of taking away constitutional rights, I did not start that banter. Frankly, it is a waste of time. I am obviously not going to educate or inform. It is humorous to see the profanity fly from the voids in gray matter.

[Clandestino]

Here's the transcript of Bush's speech before hostilities began in Iraq.



In reading that again several times today, don't see any mention, in the White House's articulated reasons for going to war, of Iraqi firing on United States citizens, whether civilian or military. Instead, Bush cites only Iraq's possession of WMD (citing the fact that his refusal to disclose his weapons violated Security Council resolutions, since, without such resolutions, mere possession of such weapons wouldn't have justified a war against any nation) and the likelihood that Saddam would provide such weapons to terrorists. To date, we've been unable to find any concrete evidence to support either of those justifications.

We're fighting 2 very different wars. 9/11 very clearly gave rise and justification for the war in Afghanistan, which I fully support. The war in Iraq, to me, is an entirely different matter -- a politician's war, rather than a war of justification. I support the men and women who are in Iraq, but I fully believe that their efforts and lives could be better spent pursuing other goals.

9/11 isn't about Iraq.


i'm sure they could've wrote an whole volume of encyclopedias with reasons to attack iraq, but they aren't going to put every single one in a speech of that sort.

[FromWayDowntown]

i'm sure they could've wrote an whole volume of encyclopedias with reasons to attack iraq, but they aren't going to put every single one in a speech of that sort.

That's funny. This was the President's speech to his constituents. Are you saying that the White House wouldn't tell the people -- the very people who have trusted them enough to elect the President -- the whole truth about why it had decided that our young people should be put into harm's way?

You know, maybe if the President had bothered to lay out his "entire" case against Iraq, he might enjoy a bit more support for his decision to invade a sovereign country. But since the only reasons that he bothered to give us have pretty much been proven to be wholly bogus, it's no wonder that the President's credibility is subject to attack.

At least he didn't commit the unpardonable sin of lying about getting a hummer in the Oval Office.

[Clandestino]

the majority of america voted for bush and his plan. i would say he has support.

[mookie2001]

registered voters...

[boutons]

"both have attacked americans for the past 10-15 years."

In the case of Saddam, evidence absent.

[ChumpDumper]

the majority of america voted for bush and his plan. i would say he has support.Public opinion has never changed over the course of a year in the history of the US.

Understood.

[FromWayDowntown]

the majority of america voted for bush and his plan. i would say he has support.

So then, a President has no obligation to be completely honest with the American people, as long as he can win re-election?

[boutons]

"the majority of america voted for bush and his plan."

yes, a majority, but wihtout context, yours is a distortion in the extreme. Typical.

shrub won re-election in 2004 by the smallest %age, 3.5%, of any victorious sitting president since Woody Wilson in 1916. Hardly a mandate.

shrub's re-election victory was with the full benefit of "don't change (war) horses in the middle of the war", and still he just sneaked by.

Rove was right: let's start a war on a prostrated Iraq , early in 03 (war was the ONLY option, and had to be IMMEDIATELY started) enough in advance of Nov 2003 so that a US war victory would assure a Repug election victory.

That Mission Accomplished bullshit didn't work out, so

Rove's plan B: the war continuing, shrub runs as the "war president", daring people to replace him in the middle of a war. THAT plan worked, but only just barely.

The Iraq war is nothing but an exclusively Repug war, started for their own re-election purposes, bathed in the wasted blood of US military and 1000's of innocent Iraqis.

And now Rove doesn't have a fucking clue how finish the war.

Repug-nant, indeed.

[mookie2001]

^got that right

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Why did 11 repugs vote against the $51 billion in Katrina aid?

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b61/hover71/bushdis.jpg

[hussker]

Funny how when one makes an obvious conclusion, the feces stops flying...

God Bless,
Hussker

[Clandestino]

"both have attacked americans for the past 10-15 years."

In the case of Saddam, evidence absent.

you must only read nbadan's posts for news. saddam constantly fired upon our planes in the no fly zones.

[Clandestino]

"the majority of america voted for bush and his plan."

yes, a majority, but wihtout context, yours is a distortion in the extreme. Typical.

shrub won re-election in 2004 by the smallest %age, 3.5%, of any victorious sitting president since Woody Wilson in 1916. Hardly a mandate.

shrub's re-election victory was with the full benefit of "don't change (war) horses in the middle of the war", and still he just sneaked by.

Rove was right: let's start a war on a prostrated Iraq , early in 03 (war was the ONLY option, and had to be IMMEDIATELY started) enough in advance of Nov 2003 so that a US war victory would assure a Repug election victory.

That Mission Accomplished bullshit didn't work out, so

Rove's plan B: the war continuing, shrub runs as the "war president", daring people to replace him in the middle of a war. THAT plan worked, but only just barely.

The Iraq war is nothing but an exclusively Repug war, started for their own re-election purposes, bathed in the wasted blood of US military and 1000's of innocent Iraqis.

And now Rove doesn't have a fucking clue how finish the war.

Repug-nant, indeed.


they know how, but nothing is an overnight process. anyone who thinks so is a fucking idiot. why do you think we still have servicemembers in germany, japan, bosnia, kosovo, korea, afghanistan, etc...

[hussker]

This is a dead thread

[FromWayDowntown]

you must only read nbadan's posts for news. saddam constantly fired upon our planes in the no fly zones.

Sure, but again, please find me one place where the White House ever advanced that as a justification for sending our troops to war in Iraq.

It's quite clear that concerns about the no fly zones were not among the issues cited by the White House to whip up a frenzy to justify invasion. It may have been brought up after the fact, but that doesn't change the truth that the Administration never once put forward no fly zone issues in its buildup.

The White House has been consistent only in developing other "justifications" for this war after the original bases were shredded by the facts.

Pointing to a reason we're at war in Iraq is like trying to hit a moving target. I truly suspect that is the case because the White House can't honestly admit that this war is about revenge and oil without jeopardizing whatever support they might still have.

[Clandestino]

they fit into un violations!!!

[hussker]

Rhetoric

[FromWayDowntown]

they fit into un violations!!!

The White House cited violations of Security Council resolutions 678 and 687 as the basis for Resolution 1441, which gave Iraq one last chance. Neither 678 nor 687 relates to the no-fly zone. 678 authorized the use of force to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991. Resolution 687 required Iraq to unconditionally disarm itself of any chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Thus, none of the resolutions that the White House cited had anything to do with the no-fly zone and, again, the White House never offered violations of the no-fly zone as a justification for its war.

[hussker]

More rhetoric...you guys should run for office...heck, I would vote for you!

[FromWayDowntown]

More rhetoric...you guys should run for office...heck, I would vote for you!

If you don't like the rhetoric, don't read what's been posted. Virtually all politics is rhetoric.

Have you elevated yourself to the discourse police? or is this some dippy ploy to inflate your posting statistics?

[Clandestino]

this is a dead thread.








hahah :lmao crazy fucker

[ChumpDumper]

Main Entry: rhet·o·ric
Pronunciation: 're-t&-rik
Function: noun

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3 : verbal communication

Yep, it certainly is.

Cornfed seems a bit overtired.

[hussker]

Main Entry: rhet·o·ric
Pronunciation: 're-t&-rik
Function: noun

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3 : verbal communication

Yep, it certainly is.

Cornfed seems a bit overtired.

An amazing cut and paste from, I am guessing, Dictionary.com
What genious!

[ChumpDumper]

genious!Indeed.

[boutons]

"saddam constantly fired upon our planes in the no fly zones."

The US was flying over his country, WTF would you do if Mexico was flying over Texas with fully armed warplanes?

And firing on US planes over Iraq affected only those planes, presented absolutely no threat to the USA.

[Clandestino]

stfu boutons. he was in VIOLATION OF UN REGS. it is a totally different scenario. that is what happens when you start a war and lose. you lose basic rights that most countries have.

[boutons]

"they know how"

It's a national security secret, right?

sorry, but "staying the course" is a 3-word phrase that streches shrub's intellect, but it's NOT "how" to resolve Iraq.

A main reason Americans are abandonding shrub/dickhead over Iraq is that the Repugs haven't articulated a way forward that convinces the Americans to believe in the Repug's Iraq misadventure (for those few who ever did). People just don't believe that shrub has clue how to get the US out of Iraq in a way that justifies the cost so far.

[Clandestino]

it IS BEING DONE NOW... shit takes time.

[boutons]

"he was in VIOLATION OF UN REGS."

BFD. Iraq was pinned down and harmless. The solution the US/allies/UN had applied to Iraq was "good enough" to hold for years.

The US's pressing priority was terrorists, al Quaida, jihadis, bin Laden, but shrub fucked up and went into Iraq.

Secular Iraq was not involved in WTC or with jihad or terrorism.

In 1990, bin Laden even offered the Saudis to fight Saddam in Kuwait and protect his sacred Saudi Arabia. The Saudis said no, went with the Americans, and bin Laden broke totally with SA and carried on with his jihad, with the US presence in SA "defiling" that country, in bin Laden's opinion.

[Clandestino]

saddam funded terrorists... no way around that.

[boutons]

"saddam funded terrorists... no way around that."

Proof?

A lot of people, countries funded terrorists, like the Saudis. Even if Saddam did, that doesn't justify a war.

Iran funded, funds terrorists, and raped the US Embassy, but the Repugs didn't have the balls to go in there.