" FACT:Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. THE US FORCES LOST 6603 MEN. THAT WAS JUST IN ONE BATTLE. I challenge anyone to cite a conflict on the scale of the Iraq war WITH FEWER CASUALTIES THAN 3300. And there have been numerous news reports on the improving conditions in Iraq since the surge. And $6.7 billion for Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery? My God where does this end? You apparently don't hold the Gulf region to the same high standards of improvement that you do Iraq. Enough is enough. Hurricane predictions? The "experts" predicted last year was going to be a record year for hurricanes. It was- a record LOW year. If this country is divided, it's because of Liberal's like you who have no idea of what they are talking about. "

" There is no correlation between D-Day and the dispersed tactics of the Iraq war. D-Day was fought between world powers with nearly equal technology. The Iraq war is being fought against very small groups of unidentified combatants with limited technological resources. Hardly a valid comparison. Instead of accusing Carol of creating divison, which is impossible without an opponent, why not argue her points? Is the country divided? What progress has been made? How will continuing the war indefinitely improve the situation? Those are the points she made and the questions she asked. "

" The Iraq war is a fight between the U.S. Military and Islamofacists who kill indiscriminately. What difference does the technological resources of the Islamofacists have to do with anything? War is war. And if you don't like WWII as an historical comparison, then name another conflict. This country used to have patience (at the expense of casualties) when it came to warfare. Now, we have an incredibly low number of casualties but with a longer time line. I will gladly take the latter rather than the former. Why wouldn't you? People like Carol have made themselves the opposition, thus creating the division in this country. And here's an ABC NEWS clip on the progress in Iraq (http://tinyurl.com/3aqnew). How does the slow progress of the war translate into indefinitely? And if there is a timeline (and there probably is) why would we want to announce it to the terrorists? Why won't you people let the troops finish the job? Or would you prefer that those 3300 died in vain? "

" The Iraq War has a running total of around $417 billion for a limited war running from 2003 to the present. The best figures I could get for previous American conflicts were pre-adjusted for 1990 USD. Vietnam, 1964-1972, had a price tag of $346.7 billion. Korea, 1950-1953, cost $263.9 billion. World War II, 1941-1945, was the most expensive, costing $2,091.3 billion. World War I, 1917-1918, cost $196.5 billion. The Civil War, 1861-1865, cost both the North and the South a combined $44 billion. That is how the money really stacks up. I don’t like to talk about the death toll; each and every American life was special to someone and it’s hard to compare 200,000 to 3,000 when you’ve lost a loved one. However, the argument comparing casualty figures from a total war against an enemy alliance that controlled half-the-world to those from a limited war against, and an occupation of, a small county accused of (supposedly) possessing and planning to use WMDs is highly deceptive. Do I think the American people have lost the stomach to fight in Iraq? Yes I do. Why? It is un-American to wage preemptive wars of aggression. "

" Actually, the people like Carol are the majority in this country and the ‘dead-enders’ who still support the failed ‘stay the course’ policy have become the opposition to the will of the people. Of course, it wouldn't be America without a variety of viewpoints. Division is not always a bad thing, except when you have people who are unwilling and unable to compromise. "

" Is Carol Ryan as upset about lives being aborted every week numbering more than all who have died in the war? Does it bother her that each year more innocent lives are taken by abortion in this country than lives lost in all the wars combined in the history of the USA? I support the troops and I support the babies. When liberalism gets hold of your throat like it has Carol Ryan it makes you inconsistent. You are either for human life or you are not. "

" Carol, you keep saying Bush did this and Bush did that and Bush made this mistake and that. The Democrats are every bit as ornery and have more dissention within their camps right now over rivalry as to who should represent them and how the war should be dealt with than the Republicans ever thought of. When the election was held the Dem's had all the answers and all the criticism and they won many seats. But the very day after the election they were fighting over what should be done and not agreeing with each other and the reporters started saying, "They don't have any answers either." You might be wiser if you just said that they all have their faults and lack of solutions instead of just showing that you are a yellow-dog Democrat that can pass over Clinton's immorality and Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick crime but cannot overlook any fault of the Republicans. Bet you learned that garbage from one of your liberal prof's at EIU. "

" Voltaire- The Duelfer Report admitted that dozens of chemical weapons actually were found [later determined to be more than 500], And: that the ISG did not search much of Iraq, that its sources were not reliable, that most suspected WMD sites had been looted or destroyed, that WMD could very well have been taken out of the country, that WMD programs could have been reconstituted and WMD produced quickly, and that Saddam Hussein intended to do exactly that shortly after he bribed enough countries using the "oil for food" program to drop the sanctions and inspection regime. And upon entering office in January 2001, President Bush inherited from the Clinton Administration a policy of regime change. And after 9/11 Saddams already established relations with Al Qaeda and his persistent efforts to develop WMD's could no longer be tolerated. The Bush Administration felt that the U.S. had to take action. And as far as only "dead enders" supporting the continuation of the war; does that include the Commanders in Iraq and the troops themselves who still believe in the cause? One more thing, we are not "staying the course". The recent troop surge operations have also employed new, more aggressive tactics that have been working. The course has changed. A lot of us still have faith. "

" To Reading the Posts: Actually, you are not reading the posts. For all you know, Carol could very well be anti-abortion. Just because liberals are more likely to be against the Iraq war, you assume Carol is indeed a stereotypical liberal who is also pro-choice? That is flawed logic. Rather than reading the post, you are in fact reading into the posts what you want. "

" From what I understand, most of the WMDs we did find were already known about and previously recorded by the UN. If we had found the WMDs we were worried so about, President Bush would have had it a major announcement and we wouldn't be having this discussion -- we'd have found the WMDs and nobody would be calling Bush a liar. Furthermore, if we had found those WMDs, the administration would not have had to shift the purpose of this conflict to Iraqi liberation, bringing democracy to the Middle East, and then to fighting terrorism. I do not buy, for one instance, that a secular dictator would be willing to allow a religious-based organization to gain a strong foot-hold in his country. Dictators don't like competition. The two, Saddam and Ossama, might have had similar goals -- like Hitler and Stalin -- but their long-term goals were entirely incompatible and their level of trust low. I dare say that Al-Queda has a stronger foot-hold in Iraq now that Saddam is gone than before the U.S. military swept Saddam from power. "

" To Reading the Posts, so your either with us or against us, total consistency. I assume you do not support the death penalty, right? If every human life is precious, even unborn embryo's then surely full grown humans must be even more valuable. Or is it just American's. Do the innocent Iraqi's caught up in this war of choice count? Let me guess, they're not Christians so they don't really matter either. "

" About Dead-Enders and Stay the Course: Prior to the mid-term elections, Bush was adamantly against a troop increase because the commanders on the ground said it would not help. After the mid-term elections and the defeat of the GOP, we have new commanders and a new Secretary of Defense, and suddenly they all say we need more troops on the ground. Meanwhile the American and Iraqi people are, and have been, saying less troops on the ground. Are we making progress? I think so, at least in limited areas of the capital. But then again, there were also 600 found dead last week alone in Iraq due to sectarian violence. Our strategy has not fundamentally changing. We've gone from "stay the course" to "stay the course with a few additional troops." To me, and most others, this can still be summarized as just "stay the course." We are not including Iraq's neighbor's in the plans to make Iraq a safe, secure, and independent nation and we are definately not playing hard-ball with the Iraqi government that continually refuses to stand up so we can eventually stand down. "

" I think Carol has been spinning around like a top too long with her circular reasoning. I kept waiting for some objectivity but she obviously hasn't grown up to that level yet. "

" And a lot more of us don't have faith in this administration any longer. Why else are Bush's poll numbers sinking daily? I think someone said on here a while ago, that the first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. Bush just doesn't know he is in a hole, does he. Probably been listening to Cheney too much or possibly watching too much Fox News. America is waking up to the mess these two incompetents had gotten us into. The news from Iraq, contrary to Cheney's ridiculous last throes assertion, sounds worse on a daily basis. Anyone remember Bush's response, when asked if could think of any mistakes he had made? I remember, and that is, he said he couldn't think of anything. This man's arrogance and closed mindedness is unbelievable. But you are right, he still has his supporters, but their numbers are dwindling the day. "

" This is war. Let me state that again. This is war. War always takes a heavy toll in lost lives and money. When hasn't it? I feel bad for every one of our casualties and their families. I also feel we owe it to them to let the troops in the field finish this mission. Our goal is a free and democratic Iraq and that is going to take time. And it is not going to happen if the Democrats in Congress keep playing politics with the troop funding. "

" I agree. People like Miss Ryan don't care how many babies lose their lives. They are more interested in parroting the Al Gore and Hillary Clinton propaganda than taking a REAL humanitarian position to help. Bush gave over $75,000 last year to charities and Gore gave $300. Gore goes around the country telling everyone to conserve energy and his utility bill last month was over $1,500. Someone is leaving on all the lights, Al. Miss Ryan, can't you see the hypocracy in your Democratic Party? Or would you rather pick on the Republicans to keep the heat of truth off your own party? Something to think about, young lady. "

" What on earth have you been smoking, Carol? Is that what they teach you in school? "

" Voltaire- First about the WMD's: From the Duelfer Report. 1) "ISG technical experts fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq" 2) "Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW [biological warfare] program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so" 3) "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war". Second: One of the purposes of this war from the very beginning was to bring liberation to Iraq, and thus spread democracy to the Middle East. This was never a shift from the original goals. Third: (From the THE WASHINGTON TIMES): During President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. President Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands. The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists. The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq." "

" "We owe it to them to let the troops in the field finish this mission." I agree, except the mission was accomplished a while back -- I'm not talking about the photo-op aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln either. We went in, beat Saddam's army, and searched for the WMDs; we stopped Saddam's ability to manufacture future WMDs; we established democracy in Iraq; we even hung Saddam for his war crimes. Exactly what else are we supposed to do in order to finish the mission? "

" I bet Carol and none of her liberal professors ever served this country in the military. It is always easier to badmouth those that serve than to get off your butt and serve our country yourself. "

" Voltaire- About the troop increase: -From the LA TIMES Dec 14 2006- "Although Bush declined to comment on the advice he received from the military leaders, Pentagon officials have said in recent days that top uniformed officers largely have rejected recommendations made by the Iraq Study Group to withdraw most combat forces over the next 15 months, a rejection Bush appeared to agree with. Instead, many military commanders have voiced support for a sharp increase in troops as part of a last-ditch effort to restore order, a suggestion Bush has not rejected."... "A troop increase has been opposed by Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, but it has been embraced by a growing number of military advisors inside and outside the Pentagon, several of whom have pressed the case to Bush in recent weeks." And the tactics have changed: -The Boston Globe March 20 2007- "...top commanders in Iraq previously focused on the assumption that the presence of US troops fueled the insurgency. The goal was thus to replace US troops with Iraqi forces. As US troops left, security would improve. While this approach had a certain logic to it, facts on the ground never bore it out because Iraqi forces proved incapable or unwilling to protect both Sunnis and Shi'ites. Previous security plans for Baghdad consisted almost wholly of Iraqi forces and were complete failures. The resulting chaos in Baghdad served as a wake-up call to the United States. The military adopted a bold new strategy, whose departure from the past has not been appreciated. Coalition forces are now committed to securing the population in Baghdad, not just turning over the fight to Iraqis. It is hard not to overstate the importance of the shift since it finally directs coalition efforts at the right objective. The most important feature of the new strategy is joint security stations. The outposts are manpower intensive, which is why the troop surge is needed. A US unit is paired with an Iraqi counterpart and permanently stationed in residential areas." "

" To -OK give me a break- You don't fight wars by poll numbers. The most important opinions are from the Commanders and the troops. "

" Bush gave over $75,000 last year to charities and Gore gave $300. Well then, that makes it clear to me! I support the Iraq War because Bush donated more than Gore. I would rather pick on the other party to keep the heat of truth off my own party! That Al Gore! That Hillary Clinton! "

" Murder is defined as "illegal killing with malice aforethought." Abortion fails this definition for two reasons. First, abortion is not illegal, and second, there is no evidence to suggest that expecting mothers feel malice towards their own flesh and blood. Most Christians know only one Biblical reason to oppose abortion, and that is the obvious one, "Thou shalt not kill." This is one of the most critical laws a society can obey, and every pro-choice advocate agrees with it. However, it is impossible to break this commandment if there is no person on the receiving end of this action. The challenge to Christians is to find a text that declares at what point a fetus becomes ensouled, and hence a person. Pro-choice Christians note that the creation of Adam was a two-step process: God first formed Adam from the dust of the ground, and only then did he give him the breath of life, turning man into a living soul. This closely resembles the scientific description of pregnancy, which notes that the first seven months are devoted to constructing the organs and body, and only by the 8th month does the fetus display a waking consciousness. Or, when Jehovah gave monetary equivalents to the value of people of certain age groups in Leviticus 27:1-7, the lowest values were given to children between the ages of one month and five years. Boy babies were worth five shekels, and girls were worth three. Below the age of one month, they did not even merit a price. Or maybe, for census purposes in Numbers 3:15, only male babies older than one month were to be counted. Below this age, they were not considered persons to be counted. "

" So rather than rely on a solid understanding of Biblical law, the so-called Christians just believe as they are told. Hmm, I wonder if they know that they are being manipulated for political ends? "

" The letter by Carol Ryan is pathetically biased. If she is a student at Eastern I hope she gets her act together before she graduates because her reasoning is atrocious. She is wearing blinders in one eye and being spoon-fed what to see in her other eye. She needs to take a step back before leaving school and see the real world, not the cynically liberal world of academia. Sacred cows still roam our scholastic pastures. "

" I didn't see where she is a current student at EIU, nor where she has ever been one. Maybe I missed something or maybe it is easy to blame students as being naive, either way that was unfair to say. As a college graduate, you are incorrect in the assumption that these things are learned from or "spoon-fed" to us by liberal professors. Think again. Also there are professors at EIU who ARE military veterans. EIU has its own ROTC program which is military. -- I think the point Ms. Ryan is getting at is that the leaders of our country cannot seem to agree on what course of action is correct. People need to sit down, biases aside, and focus on what the goals are and how to get there. Cool heads and a sound strategic plan is in order. -- How in the heck did abortion, charitable contributions, and Kerry get brought into this? They have nothing to do with our political leaders sitting down and making a sound plan. Please stick to the discussion. "

" War is wrong. Jesus would not have went to war. He ran when others tried to make him king. If you in the military you are going against god. "

" Voltaire- "Exactly what else are we supposed to do in order to finish the mission?" - Help the fledgling Iraqi government establish sustainable law and order so that the freedoms and liberties of democracy can firmly take root. All during this conflict President Bush has stressed his belief that if peace and freedom could be established in Iraq, then it would become contagious to the rest of the Middle East. And that would be the most powerful weapon that could be used against radical Islam. I believe he is right. But it will take time. "

" I guess God didn't send the children of Israel out to fight the Phillistines. And he didn't tell King Saul to kill all the Amalekites. Maybe it would help if you would read your Bible. It's in yours, too, I bet. "

" The insurgents are in their last throes. Gotta call my broker to see how my Halliburton investments are doing. Thanks to all of you war fans out there. Keep it up, Dubya and I need all the support we can get. Anyone not supporting our war is unpatriotic and not a good American. "

" The one thing that stands out in this letter to me was the observation of Bush's condemnation of Pelosi, while remaining mute on the actions of the Republicans, for the same thing. That was interesting to me. Maybe Bush was following Reagan's eleventh commandment. I also found it interesting that all sorts of inferences were made about the letter writer by her critics, from her being a EIU student, to her support of abortion. Sometimes I am amazed at the talented clairvoyants that post on here. How in the world did Bush and Gore's charitable donations wind up in the mix? To my fellow poster Kelly: I'm afraid your call for civility and logic to prevail on here, will probably be ignored. Don't you know that all of us that have spoken out on this war, are screaming wild eyed Liberals who want to murder babies and are really the the root of all problems in this country? Oops, I almost forgot we also hate the military, even though many of us are proud veterans. Lastly, I wondered how long it would take someone to throw Ted Kennedy into the debate. Some people need to get some new material. Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are not the issue here, and neither are Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham. The issue at hand is the debate on the ongoing war in Iraq. I guess it's easier to criticize the opposition than to defend your side at times. "

" Um, I happen to be a bible scholar, and the wars fought in the "old testament" by the Israelites were sanctioned by god for a specific purpose - to rid the land of pagans that were inhabiting there and profaning god and his people. King Saul was removed as king of israel because he did not follow god's direction on exterminating the amalekites. Jesus clearly indicated that true christians would now be under a new law, one of not going to war and killing others. So perhaps you are the one who needs to research the bible a little further. You see, I happen to know what I am talking about - you are babbling. "

" Are you people SERIOUSLY comparing Iraq to WWII? Comparing the Iraq war, a conflict in a bloody THIRD WORLD NATION, to the most monumental struggle of the 20th century? Are you that concieted? Yeah, WWII had more casualties... it was also fought by powers that had close pairity in strength! It was fought on two sides of the globe and was fought to the utmost by every country involved. This war hasn't even had a DRAFT! Iraq simply isn't on the level of WWII, period. It's not a war on the same degree, in the same sense, or anything. Iraq bears more resemblance to undtakings like the invasions of Panama and Grenada than WWII. Bloody hell. You think just because people refer to it as a war you get to compare it to conflicts where world history hung in the immediate balance. Don't flatter yourselves. This is NOTHING like WWII, at all. "

" Early Bird- I cited the Clinton Administrations position on the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection. I specifically referenced this as a matter of historical record, and not as a accusation of that Administration. I happen to believe that President Clinton was correct on this conclusion. So far my debate with Answer, Voltaire and (?) has been an honest, open, and civil discussion, and I would like to thank all of them for that. I felt that this point needed to be clarified. I do feel that there is a lack of credible information on the Left. I will however, make a concerted effort to debate with the individual and avoid making broad ideological assumptions. I think in the end, people on both sides of this debate want the same outcome: peace. I share your desire for civility Early Bird and I will do my part to keep the discussion on that level. Thanks. "

" Where do all of the comments keep disappearing to? I think you folks need to hire a new webmaster. "

" Our corporate office is installing a new comment system. All comments from April 9 through today will reappear, everything before that may be gone forever. Please have a little patience. "

" I was demonstrating the low casualty count (3,300 after four years) of the Iraq war, by comparing that number of losses, to the casualties of a single day of battle (6,603 on D-Day) in WWII. I was not making a direct comparison between the Iraq war and WWII as a whole. The current Iraq War bears little resemblance to Panama or Grenada, based on the scale, objectives, enemy composition, and duration of this conflict. Given those historical perspectives, the U.S. losses in Iraq have been remarkably low. And that is a direct testament to the professionalism of the modern U.S. military. I do not however, mean to trivialize these deaths in any way. My heart goes out to the families of all of those who have fallen, and I pray for them often. I have a special place in my heart for our troops, and I honestly don't know where we get people of their character and strength. I would like to thank all of them! "

" I was reading about you in the Bible. I found you in James 4:6 where he says, "God resistesth the proud." "

" Cool! Thanks, Stephen Haas (JG-TC) for the info! "

" I heard Limbaugh and the rest of the knee jerk radio reactionaries saying the same thing about how awful it was or Palosi to do what she did, even old Halliburton Dickie was whining about Palosi, but not one word about the Republicans who met with the same foreign leaders. Did I miss something? Perhaps the know it all Bush defender could come on here and enlighten us on this issue. I'm sure he has a website to prove Palosi is wrong but the Republicans are right. How about it? "

" An observation, and clarification: the Reagan years produced 96 months of peacetime economic expansion, never seen before or since. George H.W. Bush's attempt to reach out to the other side by breaking his 'no new taxes' pledge derailed the expansion. Reagan's "Peace through strength" policy dismantled Kennedy's USSR and brought down the Berlin wall. No one even CONSIDERED attacking the U.S. during those years. Clinton's 43% 'landslide' (he won the popular vote in ONE state - Arkansas) appears pathetic compared to Reagan's 64 - 24 win over Mondale. You CANNOT get 64% with just a rabid base. "

" I wish Carol was as interested in speaking out for babies being aborted as she is for those of age. We all are saddened by any death of a person in the military but the folks that cry the loudest about that are silent as a tomb about the truly innocent helpless babies that are not given a chance due to a mother who doesn't want her baby to live. Where is the cry? Forty-seven million babies have been aborted in the United States since 1973. Approximately 1.3 million of those lives were taken just last year. More Americans have died because of abortion than have died in the Civil War, WWI, WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, and the current war in Iraq combined. More babies are killed each day in America than the total number of people killed in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. There are as many abortion deaths each year as there are deaths caused by heart disease and cancer combined. 3,600 babies are killed every day, and that is 150 deaths per hour, and one baby lost every two and a half minutes. Where is the outrage???? Why isn't there an enormous public outcry over such an immense loss of life? Carol, I would like to hear you voice your concern over these deaths as well as the ones you point out. We agree with you on the ones you wrote about. Help save the babies too. They deserve to live too. "

" Will the lionization of Reagan ever end? Reagan presided OVER these events, he did not have a monopoly on the agency of these events. Go read about the administrations of Truman, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon. Go read about the Berlin air lift, Korea, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Simple minds look for simple answers that don't exist. The USSR was defeated by the containment policies of early Cold Warriors like George F. Kennan. But then again, it doesn't fit nicely into your lionization of Reagan to give true credit to the people who defeated the USSR, does it? We could have had Mickey Mouse in office when the USSR collapsed, and thus their influence over East Germany collapsing and the Berlin Wall falling. Get real and get the facts. "

" Jesus also said to love your neighbor as yourself. That statement alone shows that war is wrong. How can we love our neighbor if we are blowing them up. I don't speak 16th century english by the way, and you shouldn't either, you sound really silly. "

" Just because Carol wants to talk about Iraq, she is "silent as a tomb" on abortion. What? Must everything boil down to abortion with some people? We can't make any opinion without clarifying it with our stance on abortion so it will have merit in your eyes? That whole thing in Darfur is bad, BUT WHAT ABOUT ABORTION? That Holocaust was a bad thing, BUT SO WAS ABORTION. Jaywalking is a bad thing to do, BUT SO IS ABORTION! Man, this oatmeal nasty, BUT SO IS ABORTION! Everyone so sad at what happened in Virginia, BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE BABIES KILLED BY ABORTION. ABORTION, ABORTION, ABORTION. Abortion may be really important to you, but it isn't the only thing that drives discourse im America. Since YOU like to jump to conclusions about Carol being "silent as a tomb", I bet you are one of those Bush supporters, right? And you don't like them Democrats bundling the Iraq war spending with all that pork and withdraw/defeat provisions. Well listen here, you're bundling this Iraq discussion with your abortion-mumbo jumbo. I DON'T CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT ABORTION, TAKE YOUR ABORTION DRIVEL TO THE JESUS IS COMING SOON THREAD AND KEEP THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT IRAQ. "

" The immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq, a nation that never attacked or threatened the U.S., is the greatest U.S. foreign policy blunder in history. Future generations will spit on the name of Bush, and that of his supporters. "

" Thank you, Break! Civility would be nice. Most people who post on here are actually quite civil. It's aways just a few soreheads who can't control their emotions that make it look worse than it really is. And for those who think I only criticize Republicans, I don't. If this forum had been around when Clinton was President, I would have also been hard on him. I personally didn't think Clinton should have been impeached, actually I thought he should have resigned. I agreed with a lot of things he did, but also think he shamed that office, and should have asked the nation for forgiveness and did the honorable think by resigning. I do find it amusing that so many people lament about the Bush hatred, because I think there was just as much, or possible more Clinton hatred going on, while he was President. "

" If the money's lost. Complanies like Haluburton are doing a great job of finding it. We spent the money on the bombs to tear it down and are now spending to rebuild. And about the time we, or should I say Haliburton, get it rebuilt the new construction gets blown up by someone else. Impeach Bush! "

" OH COME ON, maybe you should tell us where you stand on abortion and killing babies and lives? You say you don't care. I think that sums up YOU very well. "

" Guess I might add my two cents worth to the woman who didn't like DISAGREEING WITH CAROL'S position on abortion. Pity the poor guy who marries her with an attitude as unloving and unmotherly as she has. A baby would be more blessed to not be born to a mom like that. Of course, it probably wouldn't. It would be killed in the womb. "

" What started the abortion comments. If you wish to discuss your beliefs on a woman's right to choose then write a letter to the editor and we can debate it there. In the meantime can we try to keep posts somewhat on topic!!! "

" Blah blah blah abortion abortion blah blah abortion blah blah blah abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion blah blah abortion. "

" I have never seen our country so divided in my lifetime. I simply cannot see why the Democrats want to pull out of Iraq. If this happens you might as well go buy yourself a blanket or mat or whatever to kneel and pray. By the way, you might get yourself and your children a turban to also wear. Can't you see that these people want to kill all of us that don't believe the way they do. They even kill muslims if they don't side with them. Better "wake up America" before it's to late!!!!! also better learn to speak Arabic "

" It seems to me in reading these posts that we have more people than I ever thought who care less and are unconcerned about human life. It is shocking to read the anti-humane messages on these boards. It sounds like from a couple of the last posts that we have fallen to a very low level in caring for human life. No wonder our morality and character have fallen so low. It is shameful to be so selfish that one cares only about what they want and cares nothing as to whether a baby gets that right. I sincerely hope these people never have a child born to them with no love for them as is being displayed here. "

" The war is a terrable thing. We're shocked to here about what the idiot at VT did and it seems we pay much less attention to the hundreds dieing every week in Iraq. The people who've benifited most from the invasion are the people who supply the military and the contractors who are rebuilding. "

" If we leave Iraq all the terrorists there will come over here and kill us. Better to kill the terrorists in Iraq than to have to fight them here in the USA. A most original thought from a deep understanding of the subject. "

" Sounds like you're getting it. Halliburton? "

" I aqree with OH COME ON, Carol, Shelly and Kelly on two things. Abortion is a good method of birth control and a womans place is in the home. "

" Those evil Republicans in the White House simply needed to enlarge their portfolio's, so they looked around and said to themselves- "Hey! I've got it! Oil makes money. Weapons manufacturers make money. Halliburton makes money. We don't like Saddam (even though he's as innocent as a boy scout).... Maybe....we can kill four birds (and a few insignificant people) with one stone! What do you think Dubya? - 'Sounds good Dick!'- Then we'll do it! Let's start a war with Iraq so we can all get rich! No...one...will...be...the...wiser. (cue the evil laughter) BWWWAAAAHHHHAHAHAH!!!!!" And they would have gotten away with it to- if it hadn't been for that waddling Michael Moore and his impeccably impartial journalistic skills. Brilliant! "

" were you this upset about the hundreds who were tortured and died every week in Saddam's Iraq? Or is this a recent onset of compassion that you're going through? "

" Michael Moore don't know his arse from a hole in the ground. His ideals and views have already had enough holes shot through them. Swiss cheese, anyone? I didn't think so. Pfffft! "

" Let's not get into a discussion about Michael Moores arse! I have to eat today people....eeeasy stomach....whew*.....easy....easy.... "

" If the Democrats have a consensus from the American people that this war is a lost cause, then why is Harry Reid backing away from his "The war in Iraq is lost", statements today? And why are the Democrats running to the microphones to denounce his comments? They have to be reading some internal polling numbers that have them worried, otherwise, this should be an easy slam-dunk for them. This is just further proof that any kind of success in Iraq will be a political disaster for the Democrats, and they know it. This has got to be the most cynical, Machiavelian-motivated party that has ever controlled Congress. And they WILL pay a price for this. "

" When Dick Cheney is invested in the company, but Halliburton is a-okay when George Soros (the Daddy-Warbucks of the Left) invests $62 million dollars in Halliburton. Just how does this mental-acrobatic-feat-of-logic work in the minds of you Liberals? I would love to hear the fascinating explanation for this. "

" My Republican friends ask me what I'm going to do if "The Surge" is successful. That's easy. If this is the "right" strategy and if it works, WHY didn't we do it 4 years ago? Wolfowitz, Rummy and Pearle thought that once the military had got past Baghdad, the Iraqi would dance in the streets, organize political parties, copy the US Constitution and have a democracy going within a couple of weeks. THERE WAS NO POST-WAR PLAN. One commander asked his Commander what to do after "Mission was Accomplished" and he got a box of 24 PowerPoint slides. Not many people know that the Pentagon was assuming we would have our forces down to 30,000 by the fall of 2003. In fact, if The Surge does not work, there is NO PLAN B -- or we've had so many, maybe it should be Plan G or H. If George is so certain This Plan is going to work, why does he object to a timetable? Why did he call it "The Surge" (surge is defined in the dictionary as "rise and fall"), imply the troops would start coming back by fall, would come home when certain (never-defined) benchmarks were established -- and yet refuses to accept any deadlines? One final question for "Bushies" to answer: since day after day he brags that he is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF, why do we hear that they are searching for a "War Czar" to run the war??? Why doesn't George stay home and do his duty as C-in-C instead of spending all his time flying about the country on political errands????????? Clearly his only goal is to stay in office to the end of his term and dump the war into the lap of our next (Democratic) president. "

" Two points: 1. Soros didn't have a hand in the invasion of Iraq 2. Despite this fact, it still seems pretty tacky to profit from the Iraq war regardless of political affiliation. "

" JMB said: "this war is a lost cause" Lost cause? Tell that to our troops. Defeatism of your kind is what happened in Vietnam, are you ready to cut-and-run from the people of Iraq and start bowing to Mecca six times a day? Tell our troops they are fighting a lost cause. "

" To -Shame on you- please read my post again. I was quoting Democrat Senator Harry Reid's statements. I do NOT believe that this war is a lost cause. I support the troops and the mission. I think the Democrats are wrong for opposing it, especially for nothing more than political gain. "

" Were making progress. At least you right wingers aren't still in denial about Cheney profiting on this war. And yes, it's pretty tacky for Soros to be doing the same thing as Cheney. "

" Wow! Did you guys see the huge anti war protest outside the Army Recruiting Center? It was amazing how many positive salutations were exchanged. The irony is the *fight for freedom crowd* drove by chanting obscenities and one person even threw a cup of pop at someone. I'm happy the protesters were respectful! "

" Everybody who has invested in mutual funds has more than likely, purchased stock in a company that is profiting off of this war. "

" The real "blood money" in this war, is the money that flows into the Islamofacist oraganizations that fund the indiscriminate killings of innocent men, women and children. "

" JMB said: "I... believe that this war is a lost cause." I think we all know where you loyalty really is, with the terrorists. "

" JMB also said: "I support... the Democrats." See, anyone can make malicious quotations. I suggest you turn off Fox News and read what Harry Reid actually said before you start to quote YOUR leader. "

" Tell us -More Quotes- what exactly did Harry Reid say on Thursday April 19th 2007 about the war being lost? Let's see the entire quote. And cite it. "

" Why is it the left have to always bring up Fox news, then say that it is always where the right must get its untruthful info? It seems to me the left like Fox News more than the right, because nine times out of ten, you never hear anyone from the right really ever quoting them. I, myself, don't really watch any tv, nor do I listen to Rush, or the like. The left says the right has Fox News, but I don't hear the right claiming the left have NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN - atleast until now. The old argument of Fox News this, or Faux News that, or Rush this, or Rush that is a dead stick in the mud. I think it's time for some new material for some of these folks around here. Just an observation. "

" Dare to speak out against my war and you are a supporter of the terrorists. "

" Yes, let's talk about Harry Reid. He DID say that, just like JMB said he was a Democrat. Sure beats having to talk about Gonzalez! You say anything bad about the administration, shame on you! But you turn the Justice Department into a tool of partisan warfare, oh, they server at the pleasure of the President. Let's get the GOP to all hammer on Reid instead of the real story, put the message out on www.gop.com and Fox News. You people don't deserve America; move elsewhere. "

" You can go look it up for yourself, but then again, you don't think for yourself and will take Fox's summary -- This war is lost! Think again, this COUNTY is lost. We much rather have our little robots talking about what Reid supposedly said than the REAL story. It's not about justice for all. If you punish the King's men, you will be fired; if you don't take the hint and punish the King's enemies, you will be fired -- then we will say you were a poor performer. Shame on Reid for his "comments" and welcome to the police state where opposition party members are targets of the "justice" department. THIS IS THE NEWS STORY, NOT YOUR LAME LITTLE MISQUOTATION OF REID. Moron. "

" I see that Paul Wolfowitz, one of Bush's chief henchmen and a instigator of the Iraq war, is in trouble in his position over at the World Bank. Seems like he is trying to show favoritism towards those countries who went along with Bush and his war in Iraq. Looks like another Bush man will be going down soon, along with Gonzalez. It also appears that he was trying to show his girl friend at the bank favors too, and due to bank rules on fratinization, she had to leave. Guess where she wound up at, you guessed it, the state department, so it looks like the tax payers are going to get stuck with her salary too. Sleazy politics as usual. People from this administration have no shame. And we thought the Clinton administration was shameless. "

" I MET PRESIDENT GORE ONCE HES A GOOD MAN AND THIS COUNTRY WOULD BE A LOT BETTER OFF BUT THEY HAD TO PUT ARE FIRST MENTALY CHALANGED PERSON IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND WHATS UP WITH DICKY BOY WOW "

" Here's your quote ************************"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev. ********************************* Sounds to me like he's saying the war is lost and everyone knows it "

" I have not looked at this paper in a couple of years. And now that I have, all I can say is, get out of Charleston for a little while, folks. There is a bigger world out there than you will find in this "dialogue." If indeed we are at war, then we, as individual citizens, need to be made aware of what WE need to do. What should we sacrifice as others risk their lives? The Bush Administration has not asked us to do one thing except to keep spending. "Shop at Wal-Mart" is our contribution. What a horror, what a joke. How many people do YOU actually know who are in this war? Very few, if any, I expect. How does that compare to the war in Viet Nam? Is this our nation's war, or is it this administration's? Honestly ask yourself how much YOUR life has actually changed because of this far-off, poorly conceived, and ill-reported battle. We who drive our cars at excessive speeds and use more gas than we should as a result--we, YOU and I, who daily break the law on Interstate 57, or on your way to Mattoon on Highway 16--are contributing to this whole horror. We are victims of our own greed and our own fat, sloppy lives: we consume too much. My advice is that each of us do something positive on our own. Consider how much gas you use driving at 85 mph instead of the speed limit, which, by the way, is 65. That is the law, but it also makes sense. YOU, my patriotic, flag-waving friend, are contributing to this war by contributing to its real cause, our insatiable need for oil. The letters I have just read that somehow distract this "dialogue" about Iraq into issues other than this miss-directed horror are genuinely sad: the focus must be on ending our presense there, or we will go broke, both morally and financialy. "

" I'll ask my question again: If the Democrats have a consensus from the American people that this war is a lost cause, then why is Harry Reid and other Democrats backing away from his "...this war is lost... ", statement? If they think the American people feel this way then why aren't they sticking to this statement? Can anybody give me a clear answer on this? "

" How did my simple question about Harry Reid's war comment turn into a debate about Gonzalez? Wasn't the article that started this thread about the Iraq War? What's with all these unrelated side issues? And to 'Truth' - I'm a moron for asking a question that's actually on topic? "

" Wow, a full quote -- but without the context. I am actually suprised. Most neocons just want to pick out the first couple words and then a few at the end, and viola! This war is lost! "

" Continuing from what has already been posted here, Harry Reid said: "I was like the odd guy out yesterday at the White House, but I at least told him what he needed to hear, not what he wanted to hear. And more people have to start telling George Bush what he needs to hear, not what he wants to hear. I did that. My conscience is clear, because I believe the war, at this stage, can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically." Now, if you have half-a-brain and can read more than four words, it's very clear what Harry Reid meant by reading all of his statement. Yeah, the military answer to Iraq isn't going to work (like the Iraq study group and Harry Kissinger have both said) and we need to look for other options besides the military. Ah, but it's a lot easier to believe whatever fits nicely into your fantasy world, right? Isn't America great? If Fox News wants to push 'Reid: This War is Lost', you have the right to be an idiot and believe it. "

" I have to take exception to the idea that those leaning to the right don't quote Fox News or Limbaugh and the like. While it's true that they rarely do that directly on here, but I see it daily. I travel in my job and listen to talk radio pretty consistently, and enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh, but certainly not for news, in fact, I listen to him strictly for amusement, and like to see how many lies I can catch him in. I love to listen to Limbaugh's logic (anyone crazy, such as the Virginia shooter must have been a liberal) and hypocrisy (about drug users). I also am a news junkie and watch all of the cable news shows, including Fox. What I have noticed is that what ever is being pushed by the radio extremists and Fox News, that day, is what is showing up on here. Again, while it usually isn't sourced, often times it's directly from Fox News and the radio guys. Personally, I think this is rather cowardly on their part. With the vast audience that Limbaugh and his ilk have and Fox's equally large audience, I find it strange that the right leaning types don't have the courage to quote directly their sources. Perhaps they are afraid of ridicule. If you don't believe it, you're only fooling yourself. For the record, Harry Reid is a self enriching reprobate, and like so many others, from both parties, he has used his office for gaining personal wealth. Some of the things Reid and Hastert have done (land deals), are not very ethical. By the way, I heard a lot about Reids phony land deal on talk radio, but for some reason Hastert's little scam was never talked about, by right wing talk radio or Fox News. Focusing on the misdeeds of Democarats while, for the most part ignoring the same things by Republicans, seems to be the standard operating practice for concservative radio and Fox News. Some people, such as Congressman Cunningham of California, have gone to prison for illegal activities. I guess the reason Reid and Hastert got away with it was, because technically what they did was legal, but certainly not very ethical, in my book. I feel just as strongly about those in office who have personally profited from this war such as Cheney and Feinstein. While it's true, that if you are invested in mutual funds, you are no doubt profiting from a company that has some involvement, but Cheney and Feinstein's connections are rather blatant. For those who constantly try to defend this war, the Reid quotes are not a reason to say it's justified in any way. Both major political parties have their own clowns. Have a great day, everyone. "

" I understand that a big anti-war demonstration took place in the vicinity of 4th and Lincoln near EIU Friday. Specifically, I am told that it was a peaceful protest against the military recruting station in Charleston. My congratulations to those who participated in this demonstration. It is about time that local folks spoke out in this way. "

" I understand that a big anti-war demonstration took place in the vicinity of 4th and Lincoln near EIU Friday. Specifically, I am told that it was a peaceful protest against the military recruting station in Charleston. My congratulations to those who participated in this demonstration. It is about time that local folks spoke out in this way. "

" Kelly and Shelly have it all wrong on abortion. They need to realize that killing babies is wrong, wrong, wrong. To stand up for Ms. Ryan who sees only through one shade glasses is being blindly led up the path of silliness. Girls, time to apply what little you learned in school. "

" How did my simple question about Harry Reid's war comment turn into a debate about Gonzalez? The Reid story emerged on conservative stories to counter the real story, Gonzalez's use of the Justice Department to affect the rule of law by punishing those who enforce the law on Republicans and those who don't target Democrats. That was the real story on Thursday, not Reid's comments. "

" Butch - I never made any statement supporting nor denouncing abortion. I was merely pointing out that it had nothing to do with the topic that this letter addresses, and still doesn't. "

" Well, Kelly, where do you stand on abortion? I know Shelly and Carol think it is a good thing. What are your thoughts on it? "

" You blamed everybody for this war - except the enemy. "

" You blame everyone but the enemy, you know, those 19 Iraqi terrorists who hit on 9/11. "

" For the answers to this problem and all other political issues listen to Rush Limbaugh, the most honest man in America! You can hear this great American on WLS (890) Chicago daily. If Rush says it, it's gospel and you can take it to the bank. Quit listening to those pinko commies on CNN and the like. The main stream news outlets lie, and the only place to get the truth is on Fox News and people like Rush Limbaugh. "

" I was refering to Saddam/Al Qeada. You know, that pesky little relationship that the Clinton Administration cited back in Nov 1998 where they explained the WMD connection between two? Remember that? "

" The fact that we caused a civil war in Iraq doesn't mean we can stop it, any more than an arsonist who sets a building on fire can then save it from destruction. "

" “The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. “Here's the key portion: “[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th? “THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim. “THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.” There you go. Now anyone who claims that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda is simply and obviously trying to deceive you. "

" • Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." • Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator." • Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ... I think it will go relatively quickly, ... (in) weeks rather than months." Now that those particular Republican lies have long since been exposed, tell me, Bush lovers, how long you expect “victory” to take in Iraq? We’re in our fifth year of “good progress” there, according to your Monkey King. When do you think we’ll see your glorious “victory?” Thirty years? Fifty years? Or is it just that the "the next six months are crucial" — as every six month-period has been since 2003, according to Republican liars? "

" I have listened to Rush Limbaugh since he went on national radio in 1988. This has been a real education for me because until I heard his radio program I never realized the full extent of the radical agenda that ultra-conservatives have for this country. It is very frightening. Since Rush doesn't have to be elected to anything, he speaks honestly and openly, something that GOP politicians rarely do. Rush has made it clear, for example, that he opposes the entire social safety net -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the rest of it. In fact, Rush has made it clear that he not only opposes such programs, but also believes they are unconstitutional. I would love to see the GOP openly advocate the same things that Rush does. The Democrats would do quite well in future elections if that happened. "

" Does it now appear that all posts on JG-TC blogs prior to April 9 will be dead forever? Or will they still be available for viewing? "

" Would someone please explain to me how abortions are connected to the war in Iraq? "

" CLINTON FIRST LINKED AL QAEDA TO SADDAM (By Rowan Scarborough Published June 25, 2004) THE WASHINGTON TIMES: "The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements. The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden. Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts. In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands. The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists. The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq." Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists. Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission. He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program." He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?" "

" Was the Clinton Administration trying to simply deceive us? "

" Transcript: PRESIDENT CLINTON EXPLAINS IRAQ STRIKE (Wednesday, December 16, 1998) CLINTON: "Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down. Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN. When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan. The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars. Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. "In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, *IRAQ WOULD BE FREE TO RETAIN AND BEGIN TO REBUILD ITS CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMS IN MONTHS, NOT YEARS.* Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past. Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region. That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons. Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it. Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people. First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America." "

" Okay, so Clinton made a connection between Al-Queda and Saddam... he didn't start a ground war over this "connection" that has broken out military ability to react to other conflicts. Come on back to planet Earth, we're waiting for you. "

" THE WASHINGTON POST (by Vernon Loeb Jan 23, 1999).... "Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton’s decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden’s role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings. While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is “sure” that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas. Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan." "

" Was Richard Clarke trying to simply deceive us? "

" WILLIAM COHEN (CLINTON'S SECRETARY OF DEFENSE) TESTIFIES BEFORE THE 9/11 COMMISSION (partial transcript from March 23, 2004) COHEN: Senator Gorton, let me give you a real case involving actionable intelligence, the so-called pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. I want to use that as an example because there we were given information that bin Laden, following the bombings of the embassies in East Africa, was seeking to get his hands on chemical and biological weapons to kill as many people as he could. We were real concerned about that. I was very concerned about that. Intelligence started to come in about this particular plant. They had been gathering information on it, and I think I point this out in my written testimony, but, frankly, I apologize for not getting it to you much sooner. I was still working on it as of yesterday, last night. But to give you an example, this particular facility, according to the intelligence we had at that time, had been constructed under extraordinary security circumstances, even with some surface-to-air missile capability or defense capabilities. That the plant itself had been constructed under the security measures, that the plant had been funded, in part, by the so-called military industrial corporation, that bin Laden had been living there, that he had in fact money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program, and that the CIA had found traces of EMTA nearby the facility itself. According to all the intelligence, there was no other known use for EMTA at that time other than as a precursor to VX. Under those circumstances, I said, that's actionable enough for me -- that that plant could in fact be producing not baby aspirin or some other pharmaceutical for the benefit of the people, but it was enough for me to say we should take it out -- and I recommended that. Now, I was criticized for that, saying, you didn't have enough. And I put myself in the position of coming before you and having someone like you say to me, "Let me get this straight, Mr. Secretary, we've just had a chemical weapons attack upon our cities or our troops and we've lost several hundred or several thousand. And this is the information which you had at your fingertips. You had a plant that was built under the following circumstances, had you manager that went to Baghdad, you had Osama bin Laden who had funded at least the corporation, and you had traces of EMTA and did you what? You did nothing? Is that a responsible activity on the part of the Secretary of Defense?" And the answer is pretty clear. So I was satisfied, even though that still is pointed as a mistake, that it was the right thing to do then. I would do it again, based on that kind of intelligence. So that was an example of actionable intelligence. When it comes to other circumstances, you have to weigh it, each and every case. You say, do you take action just for the sake of taking it, saying do something? I think we have a greater responsibility. Before I decide or make a recommendation to the president of the United States to launch a missile that's going to kill a lot of people, I want to make sure as much as I can it's not out of passion, but out of as much reasoned analysis as I can make to say, "This is a target that poses a threat to us, Mr. President. And yes, there are risks that you're going to kill some innocent people, but we have an obligation to take it out." It's individual analysis. I can't give you specifics on it. I gave you an example of where I thought it was the right thing. "

" Was William Cohen simply and obviously trying to deceive us? "

" THE MARINES THINK THAT IT IS GETTING BETTER IN IRAQ. THAT'S WHY THEY SAY: "I Got A Message For That D*uche Harry Reid" (Read it all here!)(http://tinyurl.com/yvaa9f) “yeah i know how you feel. its going to be very weird leaving this place and going back to america. weve been here for almost an entire year and have lived in the center of it the whole time. its crazy that when we got here it was so hectic and now its calmed down so much. so it was awesome to be able to see that turn out. yeah news worth reporting…. well ramadi was once dubbed by everyone as the worst city in the world. but we have done such a great job here that all the families in the area have worked with us on driving out the insurgency and that we work directly with the IA and the IP’s. the city has been cleaned up so well that the IP’s do most of the patrols now and we go out with them to hand out candy and toys to the children. you can tell that the people want us here to protect them from the thugs and gangs (insurgents). granted they would rather have peace and quit but they know that if we arent here they will be thrown around by the insurgents. a good example is this one mission we did. long story short we got blown up in multiple buildings and had to run into a families house. i spent my christmas holidays covered in ash from the mortar fire and the IED’s, sleeping under a dirty rug i found in the house. everyone was sleeping way to close for comfort just to stay warm. anyways. a family was there and they obviously didnt want us there. atleast at first. the daughters were very sick so our corpsman treated them. they didnt have electricity so we got them a generator for power, they were cold so we got them gas heaters, we got them food and water and then we gave them $500. by the end of the week long visit with them we were drinking tea with them. when we left we cleaned their house better than it was when we got there. i even have pictures with the family. they told us that they liked marines and they would help us as much as they could and they gave us some information on the insurgents in the area. we ended up catching a HUGE target down the road from there house because of it." "

" If we were only half as concerned about abortions and innocent babies being killed as we are deaths from other ways we could save a lot more lives. Where is the outcry? Is it callousness or is it selfishness? Carol Ryan is concerned about Iraq and so are Kelly and Shelly but they don't care a hoot about little babies. Have we stooped down that low? Hard to believe, isn't it? "

" It certainly looks like Democrat Senator Harry Reid just p!ssed the Marines off! Now what were you lib's saying about Iraq being a lost cause and bring the troops home? Don't worry. I've got lot's more military blogs to cite. And guess which side of the political debate they're on. I'll give you a hint- it ain't the anti-war side! They want to know what all the belly-aching is about back here. "

" Bush himself has admitted that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. That ends the matter. Give it up. "

" Please answer the question to the moderator posted on April 23 when you know the answer to it. Thanks. "

" Sen. Harry Reid says that the war is lost, then backtracks. Rep. Nancy Pelosi declares that the road to peace is through Damascus, and offers to meet with Iran’s apocalyptic pirate president but declines to meet with the President of the United States. Together, these two and their allies are doing all that they can to de-fund the war in Iraq through the Jack Murtha “slow bleed” strategy. Call all of that what you want, but it doesn’t amount to supporting the troops. It amounts to supporting the enemy. Ignoring briefings on the war by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander whom Congress recently approved and whose strategy is now governing ground action in Iraq, doesn’t amount to supporting the troops either. But that’s just what the Democrats are doing. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi’s office said “scheduling conflicts” prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8. The Democrats did the same thing on April 9: Only one Democrat Senator attended a video conference with Gen. Petraeus which was an update and progress report on the war. What can be a higher priority than hearing from Gen. Petraeus? Can’t they make Petraeus’ briefings a priority, just for show? Apparently they would rather meet with Code Pink than Gen. Petraeus. The Democrats wanted power but didn’t want any responsibility, but in winning power they have also earned responsibility. This war is being fought on their watch now, too. If they support the troops as they always say that they do, the least that they could do is treat the war as a priority worth studying and understanding, and worth hearing about from the man most responsible for its execution. They shouldn’t rely on media reports or groups like Iraq Body Count, but that’s apparently just what they’re doing.We’re seeing a complete abdication by the party in power on the seminal issue of our time. They’re running toward defeat now and running on defeat for 2008. We’re seeing a gradual abandonment of the Iraqi people, of American troops in the field, and ultimately of America’s place in the world. The Democrats are making a monumental error that will change the world for the worse. Defeat in Iraq, which is how the Democrats are casting the effort even while they dodge reports from the architect of the American strategy there, will echo for decades to come. "

" What President Bush actually said: ( Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th? “THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim. “) He said there was no connection between the specific 9/11 hijackers and Saddam. He did not say that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda in general. Learn how to read your own posts. Geez! "

" A September 2006 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that “no postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa’ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during” the U.S. invasion. The Senate report found, too, that Hussein’s regime had not developed any operational links to al-Qaeda. As explained by captured Iraqi officials after the invasion, the several contacts between Baghdad and al-Qaeda appeared to have been initiated by al-Qaeda and didn’t lead to any cooperation from Iraq. "

" For "To Moderator": Why don't ya e-mail ya questions to the moderator at: online@jg-tc.com - might be quicker. "

" ("Hussein’s regime had not developed any operational links to al-Qaeda.") Does that mean the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION LIED? !!!!!!!! "

" What Marines think isn't relevant. They are forbidden to criticize U.S policy, and they can't even speak the language of the people they are "liberating." "

" So... all the Democrats said there was a connection between Iraq and Bin Laden, but Bush, now Bush said there wasn't any connection. Yeah right. The thing is, the Democrats didn't get us into a ground war that has no end -- Bush did. You can selectively cut and paste till your heart's desire, it's not going to change the facts. "

" What! The opinions of the Marines who are fighting this war are irrelevant?!!!! Are you saying the United States Marines are lying? Why would they actively criticize Harry Reid if they didn't really believe it? And what exactly does this little remark: ("...and they can't even speak the language of the people they are "liberating."") mean? Go ahead, elaborate on that statement. Show everybody what you really believe. Let's hear it. "

" (LOL) Are you an idiot? Bush was asked: (Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?") And he said no. Because there isn't any known "direct link" between Saddam and specifically "the men who attacked on September the 11th?". Is it reading skills that you're having a problem with? "

" Bush is the bestest president we have ever got for 300 years. I know he do not lie to the people but the people listen to the Demochips and all there lies. "

" ("Bush is the bestest president we have ever got for 300 years. I know he do not lie to the people but the people listen to the Demochips and all there lies.") - I guess it's reading and writing skills that you're having a problem with. "

" why don't you explain that crack about the Marines "

" All of this arguing about who is at fault for getting us to where we are today on here, seems a little silly, and a exercise in futility, to me. The fact is that we are in a mess in Iraq, and so far nothing our government has done has made it any better. The news from that country gets worse daily. Bush put together a group of so called experts, and then promptly ignored their suggestions. Unlike a lot of the prognosticators on here, I don't claim to have the answers to this quagmire, and it's growing more obvious by the day, that our currents leaders in Washington don't either. It seems to me that Harry Reid's ideas, that is, when his comments aren't taken out of context, about trying some other venues, such as a diplomatic approach might be worth a try. Given Bush's penchant for stubbornness and never thinking he is wrong about anything, I don't see that that idea has much of a chance of seeing the light of day. It looks like we are going to stay the course for the rest of Bush's term, and more and more of the troops, and innocent Iraqi's will lose their lives due to Bush's close mindedness. Hopefully we will get a President, Republican or Democrat, who will be open-minded enough to try other avenues in extricating us from this fiasco. I think that so many come on here and point the finger of blame back and forth, speaks volumes about the lack of ideas for ending this nightmare. Just like in Washington, there is a lot of hot air being spewed, but very few practical ideas are being put forth. There certainly has been a lot of crowing, boasting, gotchas and I am smarting than you comments made on this subject, but practically zero ideas put forth. "

" PELOSI WON'T ATTEND PETRAEUS BRIEFING: (By JAKE TAPPER ABCNEWS) "WASHINGTON, Apr. 24, 2007— As the House and Senate prepare to vote this week on the final conference report on the $124 billion troop funding bill — which would also mandate that U.S. combat troops begin withdrawing from Iraq on Oct. 1 at the latest — Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to come to the Hill tomorrow to brief lawmakers on the progress of the recent troop escalation. ABC News has learned, however, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will not attend the briefing. "She can't make the briefing tomorrow," a Democratic aide told ABC News Tuesday evening. "But she spoke with the general via phone today at some length." A Pelosi aide said the speaker on Tuesday requested a one-on-one meeting with Petraeus but that could not be worked out. He said their phone conversation lasted 30 minutes. Last week, House Democratic leaders were criticized by their Republican counterparts when they initially declined an invitation from Petraeus to brief House members on the status of the war due to "scheduling conflicts." House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the decision "irresponsible" and said it constituted a "dereliction of duty." But by the end of the day, Pelosi's office changed course and scheduled a briefing for members of the House for Wednesday, April 25. The office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the senator would attend the classified briefing with senators on Wednesday at 4 p.m." If there's any good news from Iraq- the Dem's don't want to hear it! Their political future cannot survive if the Iraq war has a successful outcome. And they damn-well know it! "

" BIN LADEN OVERSEEING IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN OPS: TALIBAN (Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:14am ET) -DUBAI (Reuters) - "Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is orchestrating militants' operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior commander of Afghan Islamist group Taliban said in remarks broadcast on Wednesday. Bin Laden has not made any video statements for many months raising speculation that he might have died. "He is drawing plans in Iraq and Afghanistan ... Praise God he is alive," Mullah Dadullah told Al Jazeera television. In September, a French newspaper quoted French foreign intelligence service as saying the Saudi intelligence were convinced bin Laden had died of typhoid in Pakistan in August. Dadullah said bin Laden ordered the attack on February 27 at the U.S. Bagram base during a visit by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney to Afghanistan. "Do you remember the martyrdom operation inside the Bagram base which targeted a senior American official ... this operation was the result of blessed plans put by him," Dadullah said. Jazeera said the U.S. official Dadullah was referring to was Cheney. "He (bin Laden) guided us through it," he said, adding that no Afghan would have been able to penetrate the base if it was not for the world's most wanted militant. About 14 people were killed, including one American and one South Korean soldier in the suicide bombing which militants said targeted Cheney. A U.S. official then said Cheney was about half a mile away on the base and was not in danger. The Taliban were toppled in 2001 by a U.S.-led coalition for refusing to hand over leaders of al Qaeda after the group's September 11 attacks on U.S. cities. Dadullah did not give further details about the role bin Laden was playing in operations in the two countries where the United States deploys troops." - Sooo it looks like we are fighting the enemy over there- so we don't have to fight them over here. But make no mistake- THEY ARE NOT GOING TO LEAVE US ALONE. WE WILL HAVE TO FIGHT THEM, PERIOD. "

" Maybe next time! "

" Was that a reference to Cheney? "

" You people really need to get a life. Really. There are more important things going on in the world than this ridiculous nonsense. "

" And what are you doing on here? Maybe YOU need to get a life. "

" The left-wing in here hates the United States Marines- and supports Al Qaeda's attempt to assassinate the Vice President of the United States. Is it okay to call you people traitors now? "

" I see the silliness continues on this subject. One person makes a crack about the Marines and another quips about the VP being assassinated and automatically, anyone on the left is branded as a terrorist supporter and military hater. I would love for some of the people, who post on here, to try to put some of that logic forth in a philosophy 101 class. I afraid you would get a failing grade. I lean to the left side on many issues, and I don't hate the Marines. In fact I have a nephew who is serving in the Marines, and I am very proud of him. I am also a veteran, and am proud to have served my country. I cannot imagine a situation where I would be in support of anyone trying to destroy our way of life. There are a lot of problems in this country, but I personally wouldn't want to live anywhere else in the world. I think a lot of the problem is that, too many on the right side have bought into the propaganda from Dick Cheney, that is, if you don't support this war, somehow you are not a good American or are unpatriotic. I realize that the position of VP is often used by an administration for propaganda purposes, and I have to admit that Cheney has done a good job of it, in this case, anyway. I just don't happen to buy that nonsense. As I have stated before, on here, it would be nice if some ideas would come up suggesting ways to extricate us from this mess instead of the constant name calling and stupidity. Calling over half of the people in the country traitors seems a little lame to me, but then I don't have all of the answers like some on here seem to think they have. Using the same type of logic, I guess they would also have to say that anyone who disagreed or who spoke out against the last President was a traitor too. As a student of history, I enjoy reading about the McCarthy era politics and the Hollywood blacklisting events. Many times I have wondered how people could think like that, but after reading some of the stuff on here, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of those types of things make a reappearance in our society. I remind all of you of a EIU professor who wrote a letter a few months ago, advocating canceling elections and putting all of the Democrats in jail. And that idea was put forth by an educated person. It's kind of scary to think there are people out there like that. How many people are there that agree with that sort of extreme thinking? I hope their numbers are small. "

" I feel your pain. "

" As usual Early Bird, you're long on wind and short on substance. Instead of rationalizing the stupid statements of a left-wing loon - why don't you let the loon speak for himself? Or would you like to keep running interference for your pals on the wacko-left? "

" I thought you were a moderate. And if the comments made about Cheney and the Marines were things that you disagreed with, then why on earth wouldn't you simply call out the left-wing bottom feeder who made them? Why instead, would you make such a pathetic attempt to justify the comments by citing unrelated examples of justified dissent? The immediate point at hand is not about supporting the war- it's about a person who just made disparaging comments about the United States Marines, and who wishes the terrorist were successful in assassinating the Vice President of the United States. View points, I might add, that are shared by the terrorists. This has nothing to do with philosophy. It has everything to do with treason to this country. Now prove otherwise. Or better yet, let's have the terrorist sympathizer come on here and explain his/her comments. "

" The exchanges here, too closely, mirror the various politicians on all levels, that are supposed to be public servants, and represent the people, that elected them. Even many random, fillabusters, find their way in the middle of the he said, she said, finger pointing. Could as easily be a city council, county board, state legislature, U.S. congress, or senate dabate. Hard to imagine how any real progress gets made, in the constant posturing, to blame, but not be blamed for, economy is not that great, and we could sure use a 15 percent pay raise, besides all the various inproprieties, the many levels of public servants, feel they are entitled to. Not anything new, the two party system, has become a hoover dam, of sorts, without even the parties being able to generate much in the way of the power to change, and represent efectively. Many of the problems our troops had to deal with in iraq, besides that they ended up, in any role there, go back decades. They were undermanned, undertrained, and inadequately, equipt, for any type of roll, let alone the one they found themselves in the middle of, due to budget deficiencies, and management issues, from all the fuss of overspending, and what not, in the eighties. The situation, in Iraq, and Afghanistan, will be an issue for gererations from now, for the entire world, to recover from. Sure we can go in, and topple, a dictator, but then what. Sadly, them being under the rule of military, or a dictator, was what gave them and the region, for that matter, a control factor. Likely kept Iran, in a bit more check, on the nukes as well. Democracy, can't be handed to a a country like that, and it be expected to just fall together. The biggest flaw, in the no matter who was wrong, we are there now, situation, was that this was not even considered, as likely a possibility, as it should have been, and aside from studies, and proposing time lines to let it sort its self out now, no real realistic direction, or goals, have been put forth, by either party. I see, picking up and leaving, as not good, and staying, with out realistic expectations, proper goals, and how to facilitate reaching them, just as bad. That our troops, are in such a tough spot, because of failures in judgement, will be sorted out retrospectively, like many years of hindsight, and declassification, tend to give such issues. Little of the pointing, and posturing, making news headlines, makes any real effort to point foreward, realisticly. Huricane relief, and many domestic issues, continue, to languish, in the hoover dam like bottle neck, that all the bickering, lack of leadership, and any semblance of progress, by all involved. "

" I see that I have stirred up my fans again. I suspect that both of the posts criticising me were from the same person. I really can't respond to either of them due to my personal policy of not responding directly to anyone who doesn't have the common decency to post under one name on a regular basis. Despite claims to the contrary, I have stuck with the same name for months, and so have many others. As I have said many times before, I find this habit of jumping from one name to another, both cowardly and a indication of poor sportsmanship. Grow up a little, use a consistent name on a regular basis and I will be happy to engage you in a civil and mature manner. Your rudeness and cowardly behavior have caused more than one person to give up. Name calling and pestering will not deter me from expressing myself and I refuse to let a cowardly, and obviously unstable, person keep me away. In looking around on the other sites, I notice that some of the regulars are still around but are avoiding the political pieces, that's too bad, Because some interesting things were being posted before the problem child showed up. Too bad. I once read the brevity was best for those who had little to say. Lastly, I did think this particular thread was about the Iraq war, right? "

" Read it here (http://tinyurl.com/2dnmrl) "I am writing because I read the post you had about Cpl Rock. Consequently I know him, I was stationed with him in Washington a couple years back. And we have kept in touch on myspace since he has been in Ramadi. Also consequently I served in Ramadi with 3rd Battalion 7th Marines and was injured there a year and a half ago. He has let me know of the progress they are making in the city. His views are not unlike other Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen. Its sad that we are the unspoken few in the political circus about the war in Iraq. We are the ones that take the brunt of the punishment, give our health, limbs, and lives there for the Iraqi people and for the man fighting next to us. But the politicians and the media rarely care what we have to say. I was in Ramadi for three and a half months before I was seriously wounded and sent back to the states. During that time we did a lot of good in the city. We set up a tip line for the Iraqis to call and report IEDs and insurgent activity. And we got a lot of Intel from that, the people made it clear to us that they wanted our help. We would talk to them at our vehicle check points and they would tell us about the insurgent activities in their neighborhoods, arms caches, and IEDs set out to blow up our humvees and kill our Marines. I was saddened after I was injured to find out that some of the good that we had done while there didnt even make a newspaper back home. We delivered over a million dollars worth of medical supplies to Iraqi hospitals in Ramadi. Hired Iraqis to take things into their own hands and clean up their streets. And helped rid the streets of the city of IEDs that not only hurt the Marines and Soldiers but the citizens as well. I guess our humanitarian efforts dont make for a good newspaper article back here in America, where people are more concerned with traffic on their way to work or a long line in one of their trendy coffee shops. After all who really cares if we are making the lives of the people of another country better if Americans are more concerned with their mindless daily trifles. One great quote I recently heard about the war in Iraq was this: “Our nation is not at war, our Military is at war, America is at the mall.” Roughly put that is the war in Iraq. The American people simply don’t care what is really happening in Iraq. If they did they would look deeper and talk to the troops who have served there. Instead they rely on the news media for their flawed information. And what’s worse than America not caring is our politicians who are supposed to know what is going on using the troops as a political lever to flaunt their own opinions and electoral goals. How many Democrats are in office today that go there because they didnt support the war in Iraq? Using the ignorance of civilian America to launch themselves onto a political platform. These politicians don’t support the troops or anything that they are doing. The troops want a victory in Iraq. If nothing else to say that our friends, our comrades who fought beside us and never made it home, did not die in vain. I dont know many Marines like myself, who haven’t had a friend or brother die. Most know several, sometimes too many, who never made it home to the freedom of our great country. And that is a shame. To say that these great men who died for our country did it all for nothing is a travesty and does no honor to their memories. I am not saying that Republicans are any better, personally I feel that our political party system needs a serious renovation. The way both parties have used the troops as a bargaining tool is personally sickening to me. Using human life as a chip to cash in for political power is disgusting. And thats what they are all doing. It just seems that as of right now the Republicans are the lesser evil in the political nightmare of the war. I hope that you get this and are able to put my words out there for the people to see. I am no philosopher, but I tried to put things into the best perspective I could. For someone who has been there and seen the tradgedy of what Saddam created I know that we have done the right thing in Iraq. No matter what liberal America has to say. -Thank you,- Neil Frustaglio Cpl/USMC (Ret)" "

" but doesn't answer anything. Let's see, he: Claims that all criticisms are all from one person only- wrong. Doesn't respond to anonymous sources- but has no problem defending anonymous sources who bash the troops and wish the Vice President dead. Calls critic's of the traitors "cowardly"- but has no criticism's of the traitors themselves. He maintains that critics of the Left have caused people to leave this site- but says nothing about the posters who have gone away because of the continual Far-Left, anti-American posts. Calls the critic's of the traitors "cowardly" and "unstable"- but apparently has no problem with posters who insult the troops and encourage Al Qeada to assassinate the Vice President. And then insinuates that criticism of the traitors is somehow off-topic from the war in Iraq? Does that about sum it up Early Bird? "

" I read what he said, and I think you might have misintepreted what he said. I believe what he said was that those who won't take a post name and stick with it are cowards, not those who support the war. In fact after reading both of your recent posts I think you have pretty well misread every point he made lately. No wonder he questioned your logic skills. I too would question them, as well as your intelligence in general. I suspect you might be one of those people who only see and hear what you want to. I have no desire to debate this with you, because I don't make it a habit of arguing with idiots. "

" i see that i have been censored again. i submitted links to sites that were both entertaining, and intellectual. i guess i overloaded them with brains. thanks.(the one, the only.) "

" It's amazing how people can twist and distort what others say into something that was not said. To conclude some of the things he has, takes a quantum leap in logic or is just plain stupid. I suppose if I were a coward and was afraid to put my ideas out under the same name consistently, I might be able to understand that. I think the problem is that my fan knows that once you put something out there on a consistent name basis, it's out there for all to see and to judge, criticise or take issue with, and he is obviously afraid of that. One thing that I have noticed is that there is a consistent use of names from the Bush critics, and the Bush defenders, for the most part, hide behind multiple names that constantly change from post to post. Why is that? There were many at one time who didn't do this, but I think they moved on, and I suspect many were embarrassed by this person. The coward and unstable comments refer to that issue, and I think he knows that too. Certainly not all critics of the anti war crowd are cowards and unstable. I would put those who don't have enough guts to be identified into that category. If my fan falls into that category, so be it. I have many friends and family members who support this war, and I certainly wouldn't say the were cowards or unstable. Just a difference in opinion. I also don't think everyone who supports this was would label all who don't a traitor. I realize this is all in vain because cowards don't change. He will continue to jump around from name to name and snipe at anything he disagrees with. I have long suspected his reason is to make it appear that several support him and his nonsense, but I think that it is obvious that he is only one person trying to appear to be many. Having said that, I think anyone with a modicum of common sense, can tell who it is that is telling the truth, as they see it, and who is twisting, distorting, and taking things out of context, what others say, and coming up with some of the most convoluted conclusions I have ever seen. I continue to be amazed at my number one critics inability to understand anything being said on this site that he disagrees with. I'm not talking about disagreement here, but actually interpretation and understanding. His conclusions are all to often lacking in logic. His insistence on directing the focus of my posts is quite amusing. I sort of think a person's posts should be what they want them to be and don't find it necessary to satisfy the demands or ideas of others. Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. Tap Tap Tap.... "

" I'm not mad that the President didn't stop,cut and run Pelosi from going to Syria,just like Hanoi Jane. I'm mad that he let them back in the U.S.. "

" Isn't he astonishing folks! I criticise a nameless poster on the Left for making insulting comments about the U.S. Marines and wishing that Al Qaeda could assassinate the Vice President of the United States, and Early Bird injects himself into the debate to not only defend the treasonist Left-wing loon- but to attack me for pointing out the treason! Incredible! His main concerns- posters on the Right who don't use names- posters on the Right who consider the Left-wing loon to be a traitor. But is he concerned in the least bit about the stupid and inexcusable anti-American comments? NOPE! Not in the least. Funny- my statements get shorter and more focused- his get longer and more convoluted. Take note folks- he always dances harder when he's in a corner. ...and one,two,three...tap a tap a tippity tapa tap tap tap..... "

" If I were judging this ongoing debate between you two, I would have Early Bird up by about 2 to 1. In a corner? (HA HA) what a moron you seem to be. You don't even get it, do you? Time for more of your chest beating, isn't it. At least you quit coming on here and giving yourself kudos by using one of your many pseudonyms. Have a nice day, loony. "

" Keep giving it to him. I am enjoying watching him squirm around and changing the subject. This is a riot. I don't know how he can claim victory after the whuppin he's taking over all of this. Yahoo... "

" By DAVID E. SANGER New York Times "WASHINGTON, April 27 — The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush’s top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials. "In interviews over the past week, the officials made clear that the White House is gradually scaling back its expectations for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The timelines they are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year. "That prospect would entail a dramatically longer commitment of frontline troops, patrolling the most dangerous neighborhoods of Baghdad, than the one envisioned in legislation that passed the House and Senate this week. That vote, largely symbolic because Democrats do not have the votes to override the promised presidential veto, set deadlines that would lead to the withdrawal of combat troops by the end of March 2008." In other words, while Bush has been talking about "good progress" in Iraq, what he meant to say was "continued abject failure as far as the eye can see." Sometimes even Bush has to abandon his stupid, transparent, murderous lies. How sad for him. He has such difficulty catapulting the new propaganda. "

" The use of the stupid term "Isalmofascist" has been a deliberate propaganda move. I think the Bush gang started to sweat when people began identifying them correctly as fascists, so the Frank Luntz bunch decided to destroy the word "fascism." Make it mean everything so it means nothing. Simple. The Muslims are totalitarian religious fanatics, not fascists.
 As Mussolini said, "Fascism is corporatism." And note that Bush has matched every one of the 14 defining characteristics of fascism.
 "

" For Mike P: You made some very interesting observations, Mike. I agree that all too often our elected leaders act like royally, in their attitudes towards their perceived benefits. A good example is the story being put out by Fox news, of course, about John Edwards getting a three or four hundred dollar hair cut using campaign funds. I don't know if they were speculating about the campaign paying for it or not, but in typical Fox news fashion, anything to make a Democrat look bad is fair game. If it is true, then shame on John Edwards. While I didn't agree with all of Newt Gingrich's Contract for America, I did agree with the part about term limits. Funny how the Republicans sort of forgot about that part after they took the majority of the House in 94. On both the state and national level, all politicians are constantly running for office, and to be reelected they have to bring home the bacon, if they don't they get the label of being do-nothing official. Terms limits would stop this, and a lot of the other abuse we see from both parties. I don't see this as ever happening, and perhaps what Henry Kissinger said, about power being the ultimate aphrodisiac, is true. Before my post manager points this out, I will acknowledge this point, about the need for term limits, has been made on here before, more than once. The two party system does act as a system of checks and balances at times, and this is good, because it keeps either party from getting carried away. Having said that, it also keeps things from being accomplished at times. You are right in blaming both party's for this. All too often the party comes before the people. The Democrats need to get over the fact that Bush got us in this mess, and the Republicans need to stop their total support of this President and his stubborn stay the course policy, that is obviously not working. While our politicians in Washington are finger pointing and bickering, our young people are dying every day, in this ill conceived and poorly planned war, which has turned into a quagmire, with no end in sight. Remember the claim that our troops will be greeted as liberators? They need to work together and come up with some viable solutions and set politics aside for a while and work together in a bipartisan manner for a change. While having a Republican majority, both House and Senate, Bush took the attitude that he had no reason to consult with the Democrats on anything, but at least he has now been willing to offer an olive branch at times, but I think the Democrats are still smarting from his arrogant attitude in the past and are hell bent on revenge. Again, they need to get over it. Both Bush, and the Senate leader, Reid, are acting like a couple of spoiled little kids. I wish all politicians would put the American people first for a change. Again, Mike, I enjoyed reading your post and for the most part, think you hit the nail on the head. You certainly have shown that you don't need to get all emotional and vitriolic to make your point. Thanks, for setting a good example on this site for others. "

" Would it be fair to say the Karl Rove is the Joseph Goebbels for this latest reincarnation of A. H., and what role would Cheney be playing? Goering perhaps? How about sharing some of those defining characteristics with us, Duh? Sounds like you have this bunch of thugs pretty well pegged. I wonder if the reason Bush is trying to hang onto Gonzalez is so he can be the architect for Bush's plans to put Marshall law into effect in order to halt the upcoming elections and facilitate the continuation of this immoral and unjust war that he and that reprobate Cheney have been running. We all know why Cheney is keeping it up (personal monetary gain), but I guess Bush's main reason is for legacy building and misguided illusions of grandeur. Like Hitler, Bush thinks has the obligation to control the world. "

" Nothing new with the extreme-right adopting a negatively connotated, catchy little phrase to decry their opponents. Remember, anyone who didn't support Vietnam was a pinko communist and if you aren't a Republican, well, you're a lefty socialist. Also, remember abortion is murder; although it fails to meet the definition of murder on two accounts. Small minds are easily amused with black-and-white, neatly packaged phrases -- cut and run; stay the course; compassionate conservative; new way forward, etc. It's not so much what the words really mean, but rather, what the words connotate to the public. In this case, as the very first poster in this tread tried to do, the word Islamofascist is meant to draw a connection between WW2 and the War on Terror. The comparison is not valid; WW2 could be achieved through largely military means while the War on Terror must be won diplomatically and culturally. This is due to the fact one was a national entity while the other is international. We must stop the root cause of terrorism, not "fight them over there so we don't fight them here." Unfortunately, the Bush administration is inadequately prepared to handle the job of really winning the War on Terror, knowing not diplomacy or applying cultural pressure, but rather they only how to squander the force reaction capability of our military. I have always felt that those on the right, those die hard neocons who march lock-in-step with the Bush administration, are actually fueling our enemies in the War on Terror with their mismanagement of the Iraq conflict. Who is really supporting the terrorists by not attacking the root causes of the ideology of hate? "

" The New York Times (April 29, 2007)(By KIRK SEMPLE) UNEASY ALLIANCE IS TAMING ONE INSURGENT BASTION "RAMADI, Iraq — Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat. “Many people are challenging the insurgents,” said the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added, “We know we haven’t eliminated the threat 100 percent.” Many Sunni tribal leaders, once openly hostile to the American presence, have formed a united front with American and Iraqi government forces against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. With the tribal leaders’ encouragement, thousands of local residents have joined the police force. About 10,000 police officers are now in Anbar, up from several thousand a year ago. During the same period, the police force here in Ramadi, the provincial capital, has grown from fewer than 200 to about 4,500, American military officials say." Read the rest here: http://tinyurl.com/2uoboh "

" I think Harry Reid had it right when he said George Bush thinks he was elected King, not President. I just read the post, under the heading of Terminology, and have to say I thought it was brilliant in it's summation of what has become the Republican party of today, under George Bush, and his sidekick, Dick Cheney. I think Barry Goldwater would turn over in his grave if he knew what this bunch of has done to his beloved party. I would also note that it's no longer working. Sure, they are holding the extremists and blind partisans together, but they are losing the majority of the public with these tactics. The American public is finally starting to see through all of the lies and bull put out by this gang of unethical and immoral reprobates. I particularly liked the comment about neat little black and white boxes. For those of you who listen to the radio extremists and Fox News, as I do, you will notice that they are all of the same page with their comments like cut and run, radical socialist agenda, and the list goes on and on. From what I have read, all of this seems to have the finger prints of Karl Rove all over it. In reality, this will be Bush's legacy, and not the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Again, thanks for best post I have seen in a long time on this subject. I hope you continue to post on this subject. "

" Reality Check == We lost one of our very own from Gays on Saturday. My heart and prayers to the family and friends. "

" My deepest sympathy's go out to Cole Spencer's family and friends. God bless my friends. "