Traumahawk said:
No this is the best part. I'm one of many Americans that has the gift of detecting when someone is LYING to me.
And it's personal, because people are in danger, they are being injured and killed, away from loved ones, over something that is more than questionable. This is not a secret. And it's not brain surgery.
But it is wrong.
Well damn, if that's the case you must have been going nuts when Clinton was in office. All that lying should have caused your poor, weak little heart to explode.
As for your blanket "it's wrong" statement. Well, it's wrong. There are many valid reasons we are in Iraq. 1700 soliders have lost their lives, but I am confident that their lives are saving civilian lives here and around the world. And quit pretending like you care about the soldiers, the only reason you spout this '1700 brothers, sisters killed' is to take advantage of their loss to further your weak views. Have you ever really talked to any of these soldiers? I was in ATL on the train with 3 that were coming home, they weren't the down-trodden you make them out to be, they were proud of what they've achieved over there. I gathered that in the 30 seconds I talked with them. Quit using their achievements to support your bankrupt argument.
And fine, maybe there wasn't an 'Operational Link' (your definition: Saddam's recorded tape ordering Osama to run with it) between Al Qaeda and Saddam for 9/11 but there were most definitely links (look that up in your commission report). State sponsored terrorism is a b!tch.
The road map for the middle east most certainly starts in Iraq. Isn't it just amazing how things have changed in Isreal, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria? Mere coincidence? W must have bumbled into this amazing development, I'm sure nobody thought that this might be the result. He is, afterall, just a 'C' student (what was his GPA again?), how could such a dunce have actually planned this? Why are liberals so against the everyday Iraqi? You don't want to save them too? The "humanitarian" rationale is usually the liberal mantra. Why isn't that so in this case? Oh, cause saving a nation would make Bush look good.
The fact is we are in Iraq, it isn't the Vietnam that you keep telling us it is (What happened to the tens of thousands of body bags?). As with any war, there are those for and against. You guys were for this before you were against this. You like to claim Bush lied and he's only doing it to fatten the wallets of his rich friends. Yet the Democrats that voted for this used the same intelligence Bush had. When it became obvious that the intelligence wasn't what it was cracked up to be (that's a different discussion as well), Michael Moore and the other twits of the Democratic party decided to come up with the Bush lied routine. I guess if a democrat had been in office he would have immediately pulled out of Iraq, apologized to Sadddam and Osama, and packed up and headed home. Let's let the region fester with hatred until they get their hands on something really powerful, then we can deal with it down the road.
All of this has exactly the same parallel as here at home with Social Security. I noticed you mentioned that earlier with regard to 'Bush's propaganda'. Put off the inevitable and let later generations deal with it. I am thankful that we have a President like Bush that doesn't change his mind at the drop of a public opinion poll. He isn't as 'charasmatic' as Clinton. He does, however, do what he feels is best of the country. He's done more for the middle east than Carter/Clinton combined. The evil scheme to privatize SS was a great idea, so great in fact that before Bush pushed the idea Democratics were tolling its virtues as well. Until Bush was for it, now they're against it.
Thankfully, your opinion is just that, your opinion. Bush will continue to do what he's been saying it would take all along, determination, hard work yadda yadda. It's good to see that he doesn't bail out at the first sign of trouble. More than can be said of you spineless turds on the left.