Why Iraq?

[Guest Guest]

Of course not, only Democrats' are above the law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That may be your wish but I say they all deserve scrutiny, there's problems on both sides of the aisle. It seems the first thought of many politicos these days isn't what they can do that would be good for America but what can they do to make themselves and by extension their party look good.

[Guest Guest]

I really don't unnerstand what all you folks is arguin' about.  Why just the other day i arranged for a buncha nice people to have some lower taxes and they all agree that things is just fine and dandy. Trust me, things'll be OK, when y'all have realized that that's the truth you just let me know, I got a little bridge in Brooklyn that I'm gonna let y'all have a good deal on.  And if ya hear a click on your phone line don't worry, it's just a 'feature'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your right we should be very afraid of people like you. You really think all these problems will go away when Bush is gone, I don't think so. Let me ask you this what would we be doing right now if we had Gore? This is real and it is not Nam. This is a whole new ball game. Right now we should all be united. And when it's over we can play the blame game.

[Guest Studies and Observations]

Odd, the special prosecutor seemed to believe Plame's position, I guess it's the "hide your head in the sand and refuse to be blided by the facts" theory of government you like.

Bush not being the first president to abuse the position doesn't absolve him of answering for his actions.  NO ONE should be held to be above the law and that includes the president.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the Special Prosecutor believed Valerie Plame's Position, why has noone been indicted for "outing " her??? The ONLY charges after 2 years is a single indictment against Libby for allegedly perjuring himself during the investigation..but NO charges have been made agaisnt anyone for the original "Offense" of exposing Plame's identity.

[Guest Guest]

If the Special Prosecutor believed Valerie Plame's Position, why has noone been indicted for "outing " her???  The ONLY charges after 2 years is a single indictment against Libby for allegedly perjuring himself during the investigation..but NO charges have been made agaisnt anyone for the original "Offense" of exposing Plame's identity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well if there wasn't the belief that Plame was an outed covert agent why was there even an investigation?

[Guest Guest]

Your right we should be very afraid of people like you. You really think all these problems will go away when Bush is gone, I don't think so. Let me ask you this what would we be doing right now if we had Gore? This is real and it is not Nam. This is a whole new ball game. Right now we should all be united. And when it's over we can play the blame game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is it that when Bush's decisions are questioned some of the favored responses by his supporters are to question Clinton's actions or ask what would Gore do? Bush is the president, he himself takes responsibility for the decision to go to war, it is HE that must justify it, so far that justification is tenuous at best.

[Guest George Burdell]

Your right we should be very afraid of people like you. You really think all these problems will go away when Bush is gone, I don't think so. Let me ask you this what would we be doing right now if we had Gore? This is real and it is not Nam. This is a whole new ball game. Right now we should all be united. And when it's over we can play the blame game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sadly these days things always seem to become a bi-partisan issue and they shouldn't, they're America's problems, not Republican problems are Demobratic problems.

[Guest Guest]

There seems to be a consensus that Iraq was never claimed to be a reaction to 9/11 yet Bush certainly seems to miss no opportunity to allude to 9/11 when speaking about Iraq, he did it in his Pearl Harbor speech and did it again last night and has done it at other times. That's the type of thing that in my opinion makes his actions very questionable, seems to be a bit of the old "bait and switch".

[Guest Guest]

Your right we should be very afraid of people like you. You really think all these problems will go away when Bush is gone, I don't think so. Let me ask you this what would we be doing right now if we had Gore? This is real and it is not Nam. This is a whole new ball game. Right now we should all be united. And when it's over we can play the blame game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course they won't go away with Bush, that shouldn't preclude his actions being questioned.

If the best argument you have to justify his actions is meaningless speculation about "if we had Gore" it only exposes the weakness of your argument.

[Guest iran]

What about me? Every day my nuclear capabilities increase and I've shown blantant hatred for Israel and Jews. Why the hell does Iraq get all the attention. Won't somebody bomb me ... please.

[Guest Guest]

Your right we should be very afraid of people like you. You really think all these problems will go away when Bush is gone, I don't think so. Let me ask you this what would we be doing right now if we had Gore? This is real and it is not Nam. This is a whole new ball game. Right now we should all be united. And when it's over we can play the blame game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would much prefer to think what if we had McCain? It would be a welcome change to have a man of true character and humility, someone who has not only talked the talk but walked the walk, someone not prone to the chest thumping, macho posturing that Bush displayed in that BS carrier landing PR stunt.

The reluctance Bush showed in agreeing to a ban of torture and inhumane treatment exposed the true level of his character, low.

[Guest Guest]

What about me?  Every day my nuclear capabilities increase and I've shown blantant hatred for Israel and Jews.  Why the hell does Iraq get all the attention.  Won't somebody bomb me ... please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just shut up and wait yer damn turn, eventually we'll get around to bombing all you damn pains in the butt

[Guest Loki]

There seems to be a consensus that Iraq was never claimed to be a reaction to 9/11 yet Bush certainly seems to miss no opportunity to allude to 9/11 when speaking about Iraq, he did it in his Pearl Harbor speech and did it again last night and has done it at other times.  That's the type of thing that in my opinion makes his actions very questionable, seems to be a bit of the old "bait and switch".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When we talk of these radical Islamists, I feel the need to repeat, understanding will not work. You say Bush always cites 9/11 as a backdrop to Iraq, and you're right. But just because 9/11 wasn't used as a justification for Iraq, that doesn't mean the enemy is not the same; at least in their mindset.

They yearn for the demise of Western Civilization. The Koran (Qu'Ran) tells them to fight the infidels wherever you find them, make no mistake, this means us. Some will make an argument about the Crusades, and while I can not defend the use of any God as justification for war, the tolerance of the Christian world for the existence of other theologies doesn't exist in Islam.

If you read a history of the Ottoman empire, the Islamic religion was spread in the last century at the end of the sword. You either converted or got killed; in more moderate times, you could maintain your religion under penalty of a crushing tax, but were in no way allowed to openly celebrate your own religion.

I do not think the "radicals" are as far on the fringe as we can reasonably hope, and that is ominous. Just my opinion.

[Guest Guest]

When we talk of these radical Islamists, I feel the need to repeat, understanding will not work.  You say Bush always cites 9/11 as a backdrop to Iraq, and you're right.  But just because 9/11 wasn't used as a justification for Iraq, that doesn't mean the enemy is not the same; at least in their mindset.

They yearn for the demise of Western Civilization.  The Koran (Qu'Ran) tells them to fight the infidels wherever you find them, make no mistake, this means us.  Some will make an argument about the Crusades, and while I can not defend the use of any God as justification for war, the tolerance of the Christian world for the existence of other theologies doesn't exist in Islam.

If you read a history of the Ottoman empire, the Islamic religion was spread in the last century at the end of the sword.  You either converted or got killed; in more moderate times, you could maintain your religion under penalty of a crushing tax, but were in no way allowed to openly celebrate your own religion.

I do not think the "radicals" are as far on the fringe as we can reasonably hope, and that is ominous.  Just my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If what you say is true and "the tolerance of the Christian world for the existence of other theologies doesn't exist in Islam" then what is the sense of supporting the Iraqi constitution which specifies Islam as the state religion?

And don't assume the tolerance of Christianity, as a child I attended Sunday school at St Cecilia's and remember quite clearly being told that even stepping foot in another religion's church would be a mortal sin, that's not a very tolerant stance in my opinion.

It's the "radicals" of any faith or those of no faith that are the problem.

[Guest Guest]

When we talk of these radical Islamists, I feel the need to repeat, understanding will not work.  You say Bush always cites 9/11 as a backdrop to Iraq, and you're right.  But just because 9/11 wasn't used as a justification for Iraq, that doesn't mean the enemy is not the same; at least in their mindset.

They yearn for the demise of Western Civilization.  The Koran (Qu'Ran) tells them to fight the infidels wherever you find them, make no mistake, this means us.  Some will make an argument about the Crusades, and while I can not defend the use of any God as justification for war, the tolerance of the Christian world for the existence of other theologies doesn't exist in Islam.

If you read a history of the Ottoman empire, the Islamic religion was spread in the last century at the end of the sword.  You either converted or got killed; in more moderate times, you could maintain your religion under penalty of a crushing tax, but were in no way allowed to openly celebrate your own religion.

I do not think the "radicals" are as far on the fringe as we can reasonably hope, and that is ominous.  Just my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then shame on Bush!  By alluding to 9/11 so often he's trying to justify the war with the public's hunger for retaliation and not being honest about the true motives, if he really thinks his cause is just then let him explain it honestly without resorting to deception.  A leader shouldn't resort to some sleazy, Madison Ave ad tactics to explain his actions.

[Guest Devil's Advocate]

When we talk of these radical Islamists, I feel the need to repeat, understanding will not work. You say Bush always cites 9/11 as a backdrop to Iraq, and you're right. But just because 9/11 wasn't used as a justification for Iraq, that doesn't mean the enemy is not the same; at least in their mindset.

They yearn for the demise of Western Civilization. The Koran (Qu'Ran) tells them to fight the infidels wherever you find them, make no mistake, this means us. Some will make an argument about the Crusades, and while I can not defend the use of any God as justification for war, the tolerance of the Christian world for the existence of other theologies doesn't exist in Islam.

If you read a history of the Ottoman empire, the Islamic religion was spread in the last century at the end of the sword. You either converted or got killed; in more moderate times, you could maintain your religion under penalty of a crushing tax, but were in no way allowed to openly celebrate your own religion.

I do not think the "radicals" are as far on the fringe as we can reasonably hope, and that is ominous. Just my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll freely admit that I haven't read the Koran but I think there has been enough condemnation of the actions of the radicals by moderate Muslims to believe that the radical actions are contrary to the core teachings of Islam, sure they may try to convert "infidels" but so have Catholic missionaries as well as Mormons and who knows how many other religions?

One of the things that gives me so little faith in the Bush administration is the speech he have referring to the war on terror as a crusade. This is either gross ignorance of history, lack of sensitivity to a large number of peceful Muslims, and/or just plain tasteless, just not something I find acceptable in the alleged leader of the free world.

It's interesting to read that during the crusades the so-called savages in the Holy Land actually had quite an advanced civilization, especially in the field of medicine among others. It's also true that many Christians and Muslims lived side by side in peace, it was governments and churches that were responsible for much of the hatred and killing.

[Guest George Burdell]

Loki

In your own words you say "The Koran (Qu'Ran) tells them to fight the infidels wherever you find them, make no mistake, this means us. " yet you seem to support Bush's actions which include championing the adoption of a constitution which establishes Islam as the state religion of Iraq.

Being that the Koran is the backbone of Islam what is your logic in supporting a state whose people are by their own constitution told to fight us?

[Guest Guest]

When we talk of these radical Islamists, I feel the need to repeat, understanding will not work.  You say Bush always cites 9/11 as a backdrop to Iraq, and you're right.  But just because 9/11 wasn't used as a justification for Iraq, that doesn't mean the enemy is not the same; at least in their mindset.

They yearn for the demise of Western Civilization.  The Koran (Qu'Ran) tells them to fight the infidels wherever you find them, make no mistake, this means us.  Some will make an argument about the Crusades, and while I can not defend the use of any God as justification for war, the tolerance of the Christian world for the existence of other theologies doesn't exist in Islam.

If you read a history of the Ottoman empire, the Islamic religion was spread in the last century at the end of the sword.  You either converted or got killed; in more moderate times, you could maintain your religion under penalty of a crushing tax, but were in no way allowed to openly celebrate your own religion.

I do not think the "radicals" are as far on the fringe as we can reasonably hope, and that is ominous.  Just my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fighting religious intolerance is a noble cause but you need look no further than the intolerant babbling of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, they scare me as much as Saddam ever did and they're protected by the Bill of Rights.

[Guest Patriot]

When we talk of these radical Islamists, I feel the need to repeat, understanding will not work.  You say Bush always cites 9/11 as a backdrop to Iraq, and you're right.  But just because 9/11 wasn't used as a justification for Iraq, that doesn't mean the enemy is not the same; at least in their mindset.

They yearn for the demise of Western Civilization.  The Koran (Qu'Ran) tells them to fight the infidels wherever you find them, make no mistake, this means us.  Some will make an argument about the Crusades, and while I can not defend the use of any God as justification for war, the tolerance of the Christian world for the existence of other theologies doesn't exist in Islam.

If you read a history of the Ottoman empire, the Islamic religion was spread in the last century at the end of the sword.  You either converted or got killed; in more moderate times, you could maintain your religion under penalty of a crushing tax, but were in no way allowed to openly celebrate your own religion.

I do not think the "radicals" are as far on the fringe as we can reasonably hope, and that is ominous.  Just my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank God for George Bush. If we had a yellow-bellied Democrat as President when 9-11 happened, Saddam would still be in power, the talaban would still be in power and we'd all be in serious danger of another attack.

[Guest Radagast]

Thank God for George Bush. If we had a yellow-bellied Democrat as President when 9-11 happened, Saddam would still be in power, the talaban would still be in power and we'd all be in serious danger of another attack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was very good!

You managed to put God, George Bush, 9/11 and ''another attack" all in the same two sentence post.

Hell, you must be Bush's speech writer!

[Guest Guest]

Thank God for George Bush. If we had a yellow-bellied Democrat as President when 9-11 happened, Saddam would still be in power, the talaban would still be in power and we'd all be in serious danger of another attack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Patriot

You may think you have psychic powers and know what would have been but I think you just missed your medication.

Thank God for George Bush? What an insult to God. We are still in serious danger of another attack and while we still haven't found Osama Bin Laden people like you fail to realize that Bush Been Lyin'

Even worse than the danger of another attack from outside we are in grave danger of the erosion of American values by those who think they are above the law.

[Guest Guest]

Thank God for George Bush. If we had a yellow-bellied Democrat as President when 9-11 happened, Saddam would still be in power, the talaban would still be in power and we'd all be in serious danger of another attack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, Thank god for George Bush, who when he had the chance to fight for his country chose to patrol the dangerous skies of Alabama, thank god we didn'yt have a yellow bellied Democrat who volunteered for duty in a war zone.. YOU are a red, white, and blue twit.

[Guest Guest]

Thank God for George Bush. If we had a yellow-bellied Democrat as President when 9-11 happened, Saddam would still be in power, the talaban would still be in power and we'd all be in serious danger of another attack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you have anything of substance to say or are you content to label yourself 'patriot' and resort to name calling? The most popular justification of Bush seems to be calling the Democrats names, no justification at all. And you forgot to knock Clinton which is surely justification for Bush.

You must be one of those "America right or Wrong" people, I don't believe in that, I believe when America is right it's fine to strut arounfd and wave the flag and be proud. I also believe that when America is wrong we shouldn't just close our eyes ad ignore it but fix what's wrong.

[Guest Good Ol' Boy]

The Top Ten reasons Bush Supporters Give to Justify His Actions

10 He was a real 'murican hero fighter pilot

9 Clinton had sex in the Oval Office

8 Bush TOLD us he was doing good

7 Gore was a wuss

6 Clinton had sex again in the Oval Office

5 Bush said he woulda went to war but couldn't pass the drug test

4 That damn Clinton was having sex AGAIN

3 Bush said the voices told him what to do

2 Please, somebody throw ice water on Clinton

1 Bush suffers from low intelligence

[Guest Guest]

The Top Ten reasons Bush Supporters Give to Justify His Actions

10  He was a real 'murican hero fighter pilot

9  Clinton had sex in the Oval Office

8  Bush TOLD us he was doing good

7  Gore was a wuss

6  Clinton had sex again in the Oval Office

5  Bush said he woulda went to war but couldn't pass the drug test

4  That damn Clinton was having sex AGAIN

3  Bush said the voices told him what to do

2  Please, somebody throw ice water on Clinton

1  Bush suffers from low intelligence

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

His test scores were higher then Kerrys.

[Guest Guest]

If what you say is true and "the tolerance of the Christian world for the existence of other theologies doesn't exist in Islam"  then what is the sense of supporting the Iraqi constitution which specifies Islam as the state religion?

And don't assume the tolerance of Christianity, as a child I attended Sunday school at St Cecilia's and remember quite clearly being told that even stepping foot in another religion's church would be a mortal sin, that's not a very tolerant stance in my opinion.

It's the "radicals" of any faith or those of no faith that are the problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah that may be a bit misguided, but at least they didn't cut your head off.