Political Question..??

[freeby4me]

Ok I have a question and I want to hear all different sides. Why are we still in Iraq when so many Americans (Dems and Repubs alike) want us out of there? I thought this country was based on "majority" and the numbers back up that the majority of Americans dont think we should be there anymore. Now I could understand if last month the numbers were high for us there and this month they weren't but thats FAR from the case. The numbers show numerous months of declining support. So when will our government finally do what the American people want?

[pepperpot]

Another thought/question, the casualty number seems to be rising...since we have increased the amount of troops there, has the percentage of casualties also risen or has it stayed the same? Just curious (one is too many :( )

[tngirl]

It is not just a matter of wanting to just leave a war. You can't just one day decide you don't want to do this anymore and go home. First, whether we should be there are not is actually irrelevant at this moment.

1) The fact is that we are there and because of this war a lot of the infrastructure of the country has been damaged or destroyed.

2) With all the insurgents (outside factions) and the internal battles within the country that are going on for power, we just cannot just pick up and come home and leave Iraq on their own to deal with this.

3) If politics would get their nose out of this war and let our military do what it needs to be done, we could be finished a lot sooner doing what they need to do.

In Veitnam the problem was only the Chinese and North Veitnam. In Iraq, you have so many different factions just within the country without even taking into consideration all the outside forces that have come into the picture. What are we to do? Are we just to pull out and let the Iraqi people fend for themselves?

I do believe it is more so that people do not like the way the war is going as opposed to wanting us to have an immediate pull-out. I realize that we have over a year and a half until our next Presidential election, but right now there are so many people that have already thrown their hats in the pot and they are all busy right now promising and posturing based on what they believe the American people want to hear. Then throw in the MSM to put their own spin on things and you are going to end up with a lot of misinformation out there. I do not rely on polls to form my opinions on anything. I look the information up on my own and then base my opinion on that. If you go out in the blog world you will see a different story than what the MSM and a lot of politicians are saying.

[freeby4me]

Another thought/question, the casualty number seems to be rising...since we have increased the amount of troops there, has the percentage of casualties also risen or has it stayed the same? Just curious (one is too many :( )

You mean like "more troops, more targets" type thing?

[Crick]

Ok I have a question and I want to hear all different sides. Why are we still in Iraq when so many Americans (Dems and Repubs alike) want us out of there? I thought this country was based on "majority" and the numbers back up that the majority of Americans dont think we should be there anymore. Now I could understand if last month the numbers were high for us there and this month they weren't but thats FAR from the case. The numbers show numerous months of declining support. So when will our government finally do what the American people want?

Because Bush is in his own words "the sole decision maker" and he doesn't pay any attention to polls. That being said, I think most Americans also feel it would be a mistake to just pull out of Iraq now that we have so much invested there. I have a c/p article where Republicans are challenging Bush on his "sole decision maker" statement but just don't see any point in posting it. ;)

You should know by now that majority does not rule in this country. Just look at the 2000 Presidential election. Gore won the popular vote but Bush took the electorial vote thus becoming President. Unfortunatelly that is the way the Constitution is and until it is changed the electorial college will decide the President not necessarily the choice of the people.

[pepperpot]

You mean like "more troops, more targets" type thing?

I guess you could put it that way. Just using any number...if it's 1% and there are 300, then it's 3.... if it's 1% and there are 3,000, then it's 30. Has the percentage increased, we know the end number increased?

[Jenn]

Why are we still in Iraq…

We are there because we cannot leave. If we leave Iran takes over and that puts us in just as bad a place as if Saddam Hussein was still in power, other then Iran has nukes.

It does not matter who is in the white house, congress, or the senate.. We made a HUGE mess and now it will have to be cleaned up regardless of the opinion of anyone. We cannot leave. If anyone says they will pull out troops they are not telling the truth.

We need to fix our relationship with the international community to find support for the messes we have made. The UN needs to move in and help. We have Iran and North Korea to deal with on top of the Iraq mess.

[Rosina823]

I hate our troops being there but as alot of people say we can't leave now.It would be a mess!! What gets me is if 911 didn't happen we would not be there.I just wish we would have concentrated more on the one who brought 911 on to us.They need to pay for that.
I don't like Bush as a president.I believe he just wanted to finish what his father started.Im just glad that he can't run no more.But the next president needs to clean up his mess.

[YankeeMary]

I hate our troops being there but as alot of people say we can't leave now.It would be a mess!! What gets me is if 911 didn't happen we would not be there.I just wish we would have concentrated more on the one who brought 911 on to us.They need to pay for that.
I don't like Bush as a president.I believe he just wanted to finish what his father started.Im just glad that he can't run no more.But the next president needs to clean up his mess.

We are not in war because of 911. In theory we went because of WMD, which turned out not to be any.

[DBackFan]

We are not in war because of 911. In theory we went because of WMD, which turned out not to be any.

I think SHE has well as most of us know this Mary but perhaps you misunderstood what she said. Her words were : What gets me is if 911 didn't happen we would not be there.

THAT is true. She was not saying who was responsible in fact says she wishes we concentrated more on the ones who brought it on. We all know that "indirectly" it is ALL related to terrorism...period.

[YankeeMary]

I think SHE has well as most of us know this Mary but perhaps you misunderstood what she said. Her words were : What gets me is if 911 didn't happen we would not be there.

THAT is true. She was not saying who was responsible in fact says she wishes we concentrated more on the ones who brought it on. We all know that "indirectly" it is ALL related to terrorism...period.

You just think all know this is related to terrorism, not all agree with that.

[freeby4me]

I think Bush would have gotten us over there regardless of 9-11 I think some others might agree.

[gonnascream]

Cause georgy boy would look too much like a political weenie if we "pulled out"

to quote his father on the gulf : "this will not be another vietnam...we will not pull out, we will go all the way !"

The end result : WE PULLED OUT

[YankeeMary]

I think Bush would have gotten us over there regardless of 9-11 I think some others might agree.

I know I agree with your statement.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1468/7356915/14010829/226749451.jpg

[tngirl]

Cause georgy boy would look too much like a political weenie if we "pulled out"

to quote his father on the gulf : "this will not be another vietnam...we will not pull out, we will go all the way !"

The end result : WE PULLED OUT

When we went into the Gulf War our mission was to get Iraq out of Kuwait, nothing more, nothing less, that is how it was put before the UN. I think it would have been better if we had gone to Bahgdad and taken Hussein out then, but, that was not our initiative at that time. There were things that happened with our treaty to pull out of Iraq that I find totally inexcusable, but those mistakes were actually made by the Generals in country that had the responsibilty to draft it and get it signed.

We did NOT "pull out", we accomplished what we set out to do and came home.

[buttrfli]

I also agree that this would have happened if 911 had not occured. My son in law was in Iraq months before 911 and they were over there making preparations for more troops to come in.

I don't understand the war or WHY we can't leave (is there a law or rule about that?) and I am not going to pretend to. All I can do is support our military and pray they come home safe.

[Jolie Rouge]

New Iraq Report Makes Case for Victory

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new report on Iraq as released today that covers many subjects not touched on by the Iraq Study Group. Titled Citizens Report on Iraq: Attainable Victory vs. the Propaganda of Defeat, the report was conceived, researched and authored by independent citizens with experience in Iraq who are concerned that the American people and politicians are ill-informed about the situation in Iraq.

The 86-page report is available for download at the Free Republic website:
http://www.freerepublic.com/CitizensReportonIraq.pdf

In the Citizens Report on Iraq, readers will learn that progress is being made in Iraq; there are large areas of Iraq that are safe and prospering; that the enemy is being killed and wounded in astounding proportion to American casualties; that the reporting on Iraq by the dominant media is universally despised as inaccurate and misleading by those fighting for Free Iraq -- Americans and Iraqis alike; that the so-called antiwar movement, including the organizers of this past weekend's protest in Washington, is led by terrorist supporting Marxists as part of a global alliance seeking America's defeat in the Global War on Terror and that a prominent White House correspondent has allied herself with one of these groups.

The report includes frank interviews with dozens of Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans, their families and several Gold Star parents. Those who think their support for President Bush and victory in Iraq has waned will be sorely disappointed.

The report also includes an overview of captured Saddam Hussein era Iraqi government documents that demonstrate Saddam's commitment to international terrorism and research in to Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear weapons.

Contributors include a history professor, an American contractor who has spent the past three years in Iraq, an Iraqi living in Baghdad, and numerous soldiers who spoke frankly on condition of anonymity.

The information in the report was gathered from original research and interviews, publicly available government reports, blog entries, news articles and transcripts.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/01-30-2007/0004516061&EDATE=TUE+Jan+30+2007,+09:59+AM


you won't read about this on the front page of the NYTimes or see the authors in photo spreads in Vanity Fair... :rolleyes:

[Crick]

New Iraq Report Makes Case for Victory

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new report on Iraq as released today that covers many subjects not touched on by the Iraq Study Group. Titled Citizens Report on Iraq: Attainable Victory vs. the Propaganda of Defeat, the report was conceived, researched and authored by independent citizens with experience in Iraq who are concerned that the American people and politicians are ill-informed about the situation in Iraq.

The 86-page report is available for download at the Free Republic website:
http://www.freerepublic.com/CitizensReportonIraq.pdf

In the Citizens Report on Iraq, readers will learn that progress is being made in Iraq; there are large areas of Iraq that are safe and prospering; that the enemy is being killed and wounded in astounding proportion to American casualties; that the reporting on Iraq by the dominant media is universally despised as inaccurate and misleading by those fighting for Free Iraq -- Americans and Iraqis alike; that the so-called antiwar movement, including the organizers of this past weekend's protest in Washington, is led by terrorist supporting Marxists as part of a global alliance seeking America's defeat in the Global War on Terror and that a prominent White House correspondent has allied herself with one of these groups.

The report includes frank interviews with dozens of Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans, their families and several Gold Star parents. Those who think their support for President Bush and victory in Iraq has waned will be sorely disappointed.

The report also includes an overview of captured Saddam Hussein era Iraqi government documents that demonstrate Saddam's commitment to international terrorism and research in to Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear weapons.

Contributors include a history professor, an American contractor who has spent the past three years in Iraq, an Iraqi living in Baghdad, and numerous soldiers who spoke frankly on condition of anonymity.

The information in the report was gathered from original research and interviews, publicly available government reports, blog entries, news articles and transcripts.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/01-30-2007/0004516061&EDATE=TUE+Jan+30+2007,+09:59+AM


you won't read about this on the front page of the NYTimes or see the authors in photo spreads in Vanity Fair... :rolleyes:

The Premier Conservative News Forum

Welcome to Free Republic!
Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

Jump right in!
Most visitors to Free Republic are attracted to our very popular (and, warning: addictive) conservative news and discussion forum which can be found by clicking here or following any of the forum links in the sidebars.

Contributers include Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Cloutier, and Glenn Beck among others.

[Crick]

When we went into the Gulf War our mission was to get Iraq out of Kuwait, nothing more, nothing less, that is how it was put before the UN. I think it would have been better if we had gone to Bahgdad and taken Hussein out then, but, that was not our initiative at that time. There were things that happened with our treaty to pull out of Iraq that I find totally inexcusable, but those mistakes were actually made by the Generals in country that had the responsibilty to draft it and get it signed.

We did NOT "pull out", we accomplished what we set out to do and came home.

I agree. :eek: I also agree with all the posts they say regardless of 9/11 that Bush would have gone into Iraq.

[Jolie Rouge]

Hind sight is 20/20. Clinton and Albright were also quoted as saying ( multiple times ) they thought Saddam was a serious terrorist threat. Gee... I wonder what was in all those papers that Sandy Berger stuck in his shirt and socks and stole right out of the Archives could tell us ?? Hmmm... the world will never know. http://www.bigbigforums.com/warnings-fyi/418115-oh-please-best-defense-offense-lol.html

[Crick]

Hind sight is 20/20. Clinton and Albright were also quoted as saying ( multiple times ) they thought Saddam was a serious terrorist threat. Gee... I wonder what was in all those papers that Sandy Berger stuck in his shirt and socks and stole right out of the Archives could tell us ?? Hmmm... the world will never know.

I'm sure Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Malkin, Coultier and Fox News will tell us. ;) They are all knowing. :rolleyes:

[Njean31]

I also agree that this would have happened if 911 had not occured. My son in law was in Iraq months before 911 and they were over there making preparations for more troops to come in.

your son in law was in Iraq months before 9/11 preparing for more troops to come in? who was he working for? we had no combat forces in Iraq before 9/11.

[tngirl]

your son in law was in Iraq months before 9/11 preparing for more troops to come in? who was he working for? we had no combat forces in Iraq before 9/11.

We actually have had troops in Iraq since the Gulf War enforcing the no fly zones.

[tngirl]

I agree. :eek: I also agree with all the posts they say regardless of 9/11 that Bush would have gone into Iraq.

Be still my heart!:o I am also not going to disagree with you. We will never know for sure.

[tnfuhs]

I have a ? Maybe someone can answer. Why does the government feel it was their business to get involved in a war thats been going on longer then we've been a country? Just wondering. My son is also getting sworn into the Army at 8am, he enlisted for 5 years. I'm praying that by the time all his training is done things are better over there, but I doubt it will be.

[jkmiller]

the only thing that gets to me through all the political debate is the one about "no WMD's." It's hard for me not to argue about that one since my husband was in the Gulf War (as well as his father). They personally saw wmd's and my husband has first hand experience with chronic headaches and a skin disorder ever since coming back from Iraq. The wmd's were there, and are probably still there either burried in the sand, taken to Syria, Iran or somewhere, but they didn't disappear.

[YankeeMary]

the only thing that gets to me through all the political debate is the one about "no WMD's." It's hard for me not to argue about that one since my husband was in the Gulf War (as well as his father). They personally saw wmd's and my husband has first hand experience with chronic headaches and a skin disorder ever since coming back from Iraq. The wmd's were there, and are probably still there either burried in the sand, taken to Syria, Iran or somewhere, but they didn't disappear.

I am probably wrong on this but I will give it a try.
From what I remember Bush said there were WMD in Iraq and "We" were doing an investigation, which proved there were no WMD in Iraq. I am talking about this war not the Gulf War. The Gulf War has absolutly nothing to do with this war. If there were WMD in Iraq and they are now in "Syria" or "Iran" or "somewhere" else then why aren't we at war with them opposed to Iraq? I am not trying to be a brat here, I am serious, and it seems no one (most that support the war, notice I said support the war, not soliders) can answer a question as simple as that.

[Crick]

I am probably wrong on this but I will give it a try.
From what I remember Bush said there were WMD in Iraq and "We" were doing an investigation, which proved there were no WMD in Iraq. I am talking about this war not the Gulf War. The Gulf War has absolutly nothing to do with this war. If there were WMD in Iraq and they are now in "Syria" or "Iran" or "somewhere" else then why aren't we at war with them opposed to Iraq? I am not trying to be a brat here, I am serious, and it seems no one (most that support the war, notice I said support the war, not soliders) can answer a question as simple as that.

IMO...During the Gulf War, WMD were used. Yet the USA kicked Iraq out of Kuwait which was the reason Bush Sr. went to war and I feel the US should have done helped Kuwait. Part of the resolution to the war was that Saddam get rid of the WMDs. That is why we had the UN and others including US investigators making sure they were (WMD)dismantled and/or destroyed. Then Bush Jr. used the WMD and Saddam is a terrorist/immenant threat to the US as his focus to go back to war with Iraq even though there was no evidence. When no WMD were found then Bush started his propoganda tying Saddam, Iraq and 9/1 together to brainwash the American people when in fact 9/11 had no connection to Saddam/Iraq. The hijackers (majority) were from Saudi Arabia yet Bush has continued to kiss the Saudi's butts. Now Bush has gotten the US into such a mess that they can't just pull out. I agree that this region has been at war for thousands of years and will probably never see peace. I'm just thankful that now people are seeing through Bush's lies and deceipts and finally rallying against his dictatorship and making him accountable for what he has done. With Iran, N. Korea, and others posing a bigger threat than Iraq has/had ever posed then I agree with you and have said from day one, why did we not go after those countries instead of Iraq? Finally, IMO (again) the US's #1 priority is/should be Afghanistan/Pakistan and getting Osama in Laden. Yet Bush rarely mentions bin Laden??? :( My political rant for this morning.

[tngirl]

The following is a blog entry at BLACKFIVE (http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/01/sergeant_in_afg.html). This was written by one of our soldiers and the blogger covered it on his blog. This was NOT written by the blogger himself. I think this basically says it all.


Things that I am tired of in this war:

I am tired of Democrats saying they are patriotic and then insulting my commander in chief and the way he goes about his job.

I am tired of Democrats who tell me they support me, the soldier on the ground, and then tell me the best plan to win this war is with a “phased redeployment” (liberal-speak for retreat) out of the combat zone to someplace like Okinawa.

I am tired of the Democrats whining for months on T.V., in the New York Times, and in the House and Senate that we need more troops to win the war in Iraq, and then when my Commander in Chief plans to do just that, they say that is the wrong plan, it won’t work, and we need a “new direction.”

I am tired of every Battalion Sergeant Major and Command Sergeant Major I see over here being more concerned about whether or not I am wearing my uniform in the “spot on,” most garrison-like manner; instead of asking me whether or not I am getting the equipment I need to win the fight, the support I need from my chain of command, or if the chow tastes good.

I am tired of junior and senior officers continually doubting the technical expertise of junior enlisted soldiers who are trained far better to do the jobs they are trained for than these officers believe.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who fight this war with more of an eye on the media than on the enemy, who desperately needs killing.

I am tired of the decisions of Sergeants and Privates made in the heat of battle being scrutinized by lawyers who were not there and will never really know the state of mind of the young soldiers who were there and what is asked of them in order to survive.

I am tired of CNN claiming that they are showing “news,” with videotape sent to them by terrorists, of my comrades being shot at by snipers, but refusing to show what happens when we build a school, pave a road, hand out food and water to children, or open a water treatment plant.

I am tired of following the enemy with drones that have cameras, and then dropping bombs that sometimes kill civilians; because we could do a better job of killing the right people by sending a man with a high powered rifle instead.

I am tired of the thousands of people in the rear who claim that they are working hard to support me when I see them with their mochas and their PX Bags walking down the street, in the middle of the day, nowhere near their workspaces.

I am tired of Code Pink, Daily Kos, Al-Jazzera, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, ABC, NBC, CBS, the ACLU, and CAIR thinking that they somehow get to have a vote in how we blast, shoot and kill these animals who would seek to subdue us and destroy us.

I am tired of people like Meredith Vieria from NBC asking oxygen thieves like Senator Chuck Hagel questions like “Senator, at this point, do you think we are fighting and dying for nothing?” Meredith might not get it, but soldiers do know the difference between fighting and dying for something and fighting and dying for nothing.

I am tired of hearing multiple stories from both combat theaters about snipers begging to do their jobs while commanders worry about how the media might portray the possible casualties and what might happen to their career.

I am tired of hearing that the Battalion Tactical Operations Center got a new plasma screen monitor for daily briefings, but rifle scope rings for sniper rifles, extra magazines, and necessary field gear were disapproved by the unit supply system.

I am tired of out of touch general officers, senators, congressmen and defense officials who think that giving me some more heavy body armor to wear is helping me stay alive. Speed is life in combat and wearing 55 to 90 pounds of gear for 12 to 20 hours a day puts me at a great tactical disadvantage to the idiot, mindless terrorist who is wearing no armor at all and carrying an AK-47 and a pistol.

I am tired of soldiers who are stationed in places like Kuwait and who are well away from any actual combat getting Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay and the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion when they live on a base that has a McDonald’s, a Pizza Hut, a Subway, a Baskin Robbins, an internet café, 2 coffee shops and street lights.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who take it out and "measure" every time they want to have a piece of the action with their helicopters or their artillery; instead of putting their egos aside and using their equipment to support the grunt on the ground.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who are too afraid for their careers to tell the truth about what they need to win this war to their bosses so that the soldiers can get on with kicking the ass of these animals.

I am tired of Rules of Engagement being made by JAG lawyers and not Combat Commanders. We are not playing Hopscotch over here. There is no 2nd place trophy either. I think that if the enemy knew some rough treatment and some deprivation was at hand for them, instead of prayer rugs, special diets and free Korans; this might help get their terrorist minds “right.”

I am tired of seeing Active Duty Army and Marine units being extended past their original redeployment dates, when there are National Guard Units that have yet to deploy to a combat zone in the last 40 years.

I am tired of hearing soldiers who are stationed in safe places talk about how hard their life is.

I am tired of seeing Infantry Soldiers conducting what amounts to “SWAT” raids and performing the US Army’s version of “CSI Iraq” and doing things like filling out forms for evidence when they could be better used to hunt and kill the enemy.

I am tired of senior officers and commanders who look first in their planning for how many casualties we might take, instead of how many enemy casualties we might inflict.

I am tired of begging to be turned loose so that this war can be over.

Those of us who fight this war want to win it and go home to their families. Prolonging it with attempts to do things like collect “evidence” or present whiz bang briefings on a new plasma screen TV is wasteful and ultimately, dulls the edge of our Infantry soldiers who are trained to kill people and break things, not necessarily in that order.

We are not in Iraq and Afghanistan to build nations. We are there to kill our enemies. We make the work of the State Department easier by the results we achieve.

It is only possible to defeat an enemy who kills indiscriminately by utterly destroying him. He cannot be made to yield or surrender. He will fight to the death by the hundreds to kill only one or two of us.

And so far, all of our “games” have been “away games,” and I don’t know about the ignorant, treasonous Democrats and the completely insane radical leftists and their thoughts on the matter, but I would like to keep our road game schedule.

So let’s get it done. Until the fight is won and there is no more fight left.

-D

[tngirl]

Also, have we forgotten her?

http://bluecollarrepublican.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/fingeriraq2.jpg

[Crick]

The following is a blog entry at BLACKFIVE (http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/01/sergeant_in_afg.html). This was written by one of our soldiers and the blogger covered it on his blog. This was NOT written by the blogger himself. I think this basically says it all.

I respectfully disagree and will leave it at that.

[tngirl]

I respectfully disagree and will leave it at that.

I can appreciate that.

I guess what I am trying to point out here is how the positive gets lost in all the negative. Who do we believe and what do we (the general public) really know about what is going on? The MSM likes to center their attention on the negative aspects because they can sensationalize it. I have no problem with the negatives, but can't we also get the positive also? Our politicians and the MSM all know how to play the spins and only put out there what is going to better their own stance or opinion on a subject. I just think it is a shame when we have to go digging to find the truth because the majority of people take the information put before them as fact or truth.

This is why it is great that we do have these debates and differences of opinions, it helps to get the truth out there...whether positve or negative, liberal or conservative. I like having ALL the facts before basing my opinion...not that I haven't gone off half-cocked a time or two...lol.

[Jolie Rouge]

Why is it that "all Americans" want us out of the Persian Gulf - because the MSM tells us daily how badly it is going. If the mainstream media has no agenda, and their misreporting can solely be blamed upon the fog of war, we should see the mistakes benefiting the both sides equally; half the time, they should wrongly report a great American victory that turns out not to be so great after all. I now pause for readers to wrack their memories to recall the last time AP, Reuters, CNN, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Herald, the Wall Street Journal, or Media Matters did so.

Go ahead; I'll wait.

Curiously enough, every time a major media source blows a story, they do so by publishing something that advances the message of the "emerging defeat" in Iraq, and that only thing we can do is to manage that inevitable defeat. (Similarly, mistakes on restaurant bills always seem to be in the restaurant’s favor.)

[Jolie Rouge]

I respectfully disagree and will leave it at that.



I can appreciate that.

I guess what I am trying to point out here is how the positive gets lost in all the negative. Who do we believe and what do we (the general public) really know about what is going on? The MSM likes to center their attention on the negative aspects because they can sensationalize it. I have no problem with the negatives, but can't we also get the positive also?


I agree with both of you ....

[Jolie Rouge]

Hind sight is 20/20. Clinton and Albright were also quoted as saying ( multiple times ) they thought Saddam was a serious terrorist threat.

What *Did* The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

[tngirl]

John Edwards says that he did not rely on information from President Bush.

http://rednecktexan.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-weve-come-down-to.html


And I personally think there’s some dishonesty in suggesting that members of the United States Senate relied on George Bush for that information, because I don’t think it’s true. It’s great politics. But it’s not the truth.”



“I was on the Intelligence Committee,” Edwards went on, “so I got direct information from the intelligence community. And then I had a series of meetings with former Clinton Administration people. And they were all saying the same thing. Everything I was hearing in the Intelligence Committee was the same thing I was hearing from these guys. And there was nary a dissenting voice. And so, for me, the difficult judgment was not about the factual information, which I was convinced was accurate. It was about whether I was going to give authority to this President I didn’t trust. That was where the friction was for me. I decided to do it, and I was wrong. I shouldn’t have done it.”

[Jolie Rouge]

*sigh* How soon they forget ....

[jeanea33]

I think if we all stopped second guessing the politicians. And show more support for our troops. Both Dems and Republicans voted to go over there. It wasnt just a bush dicision. Took congress too. Lets blame all in both parties than just one person. We also need to stop sending negative opinions to irag. I have a nephew over there and they get upset when they hear us debating their fate in negative ways.

[buglebe]

Because Bush is in his own words "the sole decision maker" and he doesn't pay any attention to polls. That being said, I think most Americans also feel it would be a mistake to just pull out of Iraq now that we have so much invested there. I have a c/p article where Republicans are challenging Bush on his "sole decision maker" statement but just don't see any point in posting it. ;)

You should know by now that majority does not rule in this country. Just look at the 2000 Presidential election. Gore won the popular vote but Bush took the electorial vote thus becoming President. Unfortunatelly that is the way the Constitution is and until it is changed the electorial college will decide the President not necessarily the choice of the people.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOO TRUE!