VPILF

[Vaelahr]

You know....... those are leaking milky goodness...........um........

[Mulu]

Bush stated a war on terror before Iraq.
There was no threat of invasion by Iraq.

That's true, the rest is largely false.

There may, or may have not been WMDs in Iraq during the time leading up to the invasion.
There are links between Saddam and terrorism.

Even the Pentagon said otherwise.

A war on terror would also mean a war against those who sell weapons and support groups that use terror to influence, use kidnappings & sales of drugs to gain money to fund terror. This includes Saddam.

It would also include the US. Oh, that's right, you're too young to remember Iran/Contra, where we sold drugs to fund weapon purchases for known terrorists. The depth of ignorance by you Republican types, young and old, is amazing to me. I'm beginning to think what separates out Dem from Rep is simple knowledge.

Troops find weapon cache's in Iraq all the time - These belong to terrorists who were not in Iraq prior to invasion but those that cross border in order to kill american troops

So in other words they are there because we invaded and occupied a Muslim country under false pretenses? What's your point? Normal people see that as an example of why we shouldn't have invaded.

Make note of the fact that unlike bush, lincoln waged a totally unconstitutional war.

What do you think was unconstitutional about it? There is an argument, but I'm curious if you actually know what it is, or can find it.

Anti-war, anti-nation building is ENTIRELY still a republican platform. This idea of interventionalism to describe Bush's policies are an invention of democrats to create positive public polls due to war weariness. Where, I ask, were these anti-war democrats during 1980s - 2000? Plenty of conflicts to yell about, but none as important or as long lasting? Republicans will always do the right thing, even when we have to drag you along, kicking and screaming.

So the Republicans have an anti-war platform, and therefore they will drag the Democrats kicking and screaming into war every time....

This is why we need to fund public education better. The outcomes are obviously degenerating.

One more opinionated thought; Is it just me or do democrats seem to be reaching out to claim Lincoln as their own. Good luck with carpetbagging the past, my friends.

It's just an analogy. We wouldn't dare to attempt to usurp Republican re-writing of history.

[Detry]

That bitch considers it acceptable to go to war with Russia over Georgia.

Treasonous.

[NickD]

I agree with Lusipher that you are supposed to defend your allies...

However! Taking Georgia into NATO would just be America grabbing its crotch and saying "Now what are you going to do about it?" to Russia.

[Lusipher]

Um, she said if they were in Nato we as a Nato member would probably honor our agreement to help defend other Nato members. I threw up a little bit when I saw your K-Fed sig. wtf

[White Warlock]

Bush should have been impeached for initiating the Iraq war -- a war which was instigated by America on a confirmed falsehood that Iraq had WMD's and posed an "immediate threat" to the United States. The so called "War on Terror" in Iraq is nothing more than using the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as an excuse to topple a dictator that we, Americans, had an awful lot to do with bringing to power during the lengthy Iran/Iraq war. There is no confirmed link between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11. The failure to bring Articles of Impeachment against Bush for this is the largest failure of the Congress in the history of our country to date IMO. I suppose if he got a blow job from an intern in the oval office it would have been different.

The post-invasion revisionist justification for toppling Saddam because he is guilty of atrocities and (allegedly) supported terror groups is one of the most outrageous hypocritical statements made by the republican party regarding this entire affair. And as far as terroists in Iraq now -- they came there after we invaded -- so where is the logic? There are any number of world leaders in the middle east and elswhere guilty of many more atrocities than Saddam who have confirmed links to terror organizations presently. Why haven't we invaded them if that is all the justification we need? Don't get me wrong Saddam Hussein was clearly a very bad man and a megalomaniac, and I surely didn't shed a tear when he was gone. But we don't invade other countries like we did here because it is wrong. Indeed it is unAmerican. Americans don't start wars, we repel those who start them and finish them.

Yes we were attacked on 9/11 by a bunch of insane radical Islamic terrorists. I live in NY. Born and raised. I knew people who died in those towers and had friends and family of friends die in them, or who died trying to save them. I was down at ground zero a week after it happened, when they opened it back up. I got news for all of you so gung ho about Iraq. The two guys who mastermined that are still out there plotting against us and recruiting more insane extremists to attack us while Bush has been busy with Iraq. Mission accomplished. Read the official reports, Al Qaeda is just as strong now as it as ever been. Some "war" on terror. Oh and by the way, it was the republicans and George Bush who were in power when the attacks happened. Read the 9/11 Commission's report. There was intelligence available that could have prevented 9/11, but our fearless leaders were asleep at the switch. Given how quickly the focus switched to Iraq after those attacks, maybe they were busy planning to invade it. And then they gave the guys in charge of the intelligence failures medals. The Hypocricy is astounding. Ask yourself, if the Bush administration had in fact acted on the intelligence available and prevented 9/11 would we be at war in Iraq today? The answer is obviously no. It is sad and disgraceful that the loss of those innocents and heroes who died on this the anniversery of 9/11 is still being used as an excuse to justify this unjust war. Frankly it makes me sick.

Deserved a reposting.

Btw, I am of the opinion impeachment wasn't approached for the simple reason the democratic party learned from the Nixon scene, where Ford "pardoned" him. I believe, I hope, that after his team is no longer in office, charges will be filed. This, however, is not likely to occur if McCain is voted in.

[Grand Fromage]

[Veilan]

Sorry to break your bubbles, but wake up guys. The Russians are not the West's friends. The Chinese are not the West's friends.

They are regimes that can be dealt with somewhat rationally, because they have interests we can understand (like Saddam, unlike Al Qaeda). They will try and test their limits, and it is up to us to determine how much we are willing to let them get away with. I'm kinda wondering whether they'll try to find a pretext for messing down in Azerbaijan next...

[danielmn]

GF...

Cake please!

[Mulu]

Um, she said if they were in Nato we as a Nato member would probably honor our agreement to help defend other Nato members.

It was more explicit than that, but the real question is how would we do so with our military almost fully committed to the Middle East?

Right now Palin is being eviscerated in her first ever interview on national TV, by Charles Gibson being played on Good Morning America of all places. Even the Sesame Street of news is too much for her. Practically every response she's given has been proven false by the fact checkers, and her evasiveness is a joke.

Still, she doesn't need a brain or straight answers to be popular.

She's apparently going to get ABC on and off for the whole day. I think McCain spent his entire advertising budget on buying time on ABC today.

One take on the interviews:

Gibson simply can't win. He is the sophisticated, big-city television anchor. She is the small-town mayor who rose to become a governor and is just doing her best to raise her kids. As Gibson ventures to Alaska to interview Palin on her home tundra -- in her first unscripted appearance since she received the vice-president position on McCain's ticket -- he runs the risk of disappointing every faction in the Western Hemisphere.
If he doesn't reduce her to a quivering mass of jelly, Democrats will attack him for being too soft on a wily politician. On the other hand, if Gibson does indeed drive Palin into a corner, Republicans will shriek that he is a sexist who bullied America's new favorite hockey mom.
If Gibson plays it down the middle, critics like me will dismiss him as a hopeless wimp.

[Lusipher]

Right now Palin is being eviscerated in her first ever interview on national TV

You have to be dumber than I thought. Ive watched what has been throw out there and she hasnt done a bad job answering any of the questions we have seen so far.

[Mulu]

You must be ignoring the fact-checking.

[Lusipher]

What? from some liberal nuts like yourself? I've watched brief snippets of her interview. I doubt there was anything needed checking. They asked for her opinions from everything Ive seen so far.

[Grand Fromage]

[Mulu]

What? from some liberal nuts like yourself?

From the media, retard.

Dang, now that's some good looking pie....