Just want to hear your opinion

[Gus Dddysgrl]

on this that I received in an e-mail the other day.


If you really believe that President Bush lied about the growing threat in
Iraq, by the way, he never said Iraq was an imminent threat, but that's
another email. If you believe he lied, then you must believe the people
quoted below are liars also.

"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will usenuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 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

"We 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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and 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

"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, addam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of alicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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

"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

"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

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), 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

"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

SO NOW THE Democrats SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

Boy! Talk about two-faced philosophy!



Just wondered what y'all thought about this especially in the upcoming election.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Media = Bush is bad. No matter what.

No matter what your opinion of Bush/Shrub, you will agree that the media is at war with him.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

THE REAL STORY IS THE MEDIA

Today marks the Wisconsin primary, the coronation of John Kerry as the Democratic presidential nominee, and the completion of the destruction of the dreams of America's Deanie Babies. As of tomorrow Howard Dean has no campaign strategy, no campaign airplane, no campaign schedule and no campaign manager. It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Will today also mark the end of this absurd story about Bush's service in the National Guard? Hopefully ... but probably not.

Did you folks know that about one week ago U.S. intelligence operatives uncovered a memo from a leading terrorist bemoaning the level of American success in Iraq? The memo was from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the world's most wanted Islamic terrorists today. Al-Zarqawi was exhorting Al Qaeda to promote a Sunni - Shiite civil war in Iraq, the only way he sees to turn around the American success in Iraq.

We're winning! That's news, isn't it? A leading Islamic terrorist says that the United States is "suffocating" the jihad in the Middle East! Isn't that just what we went over there to do? Don't you think that's news?

Apparently it's not.

Columnist Diana West searched the transcripts of the White House media briefings for last week and found that there was only one question about the memo. Only one. The enemy admits it's losing, and this gets only one question. But what about President Bush's service in the National Guard? Well, that issue brought over 100 questions. We're fighting a war on terror in the middle east. The enemy is bemoaning our successes, and questions about Vietnam rather than the war on terror overwhelm White House press briefings by a factor of over 100 to 1.

I think that former ABC news correspondent Peter Collins pretty well sums things up. He says that there is a working template that the mainstream Washington and DC press corps is using to formulate its coverage of both the war on terror and the presidential campaign. That template is summed up in four words: "Democrats good. Bush bad." If there is a news story out there that can make George Bush look bad, the media is going to pursue that story to the end. If there's a story that makes Democrats look good, the media will go for it.

The National Guard story had the potential (though unfulfilled) to make Bush look bad ... so the press rode it for all it was worth. The al-Zaqawi memo had the potential of making Bush look good. It was ignored.

Let's not leave this discussion without addressing John Kerry's little bimbo eruption last week. This is a story that was largely ignored by the mainstream political press. Let's turn the clock back to 1992. The Drudge Report contains this summary of media reaction to a rumor of an affair George H.W. Bush, who was running for reelection. A book hit the newsstands with a quote contained in a footnote. The quote was from a long-dead ambassador. The ambassador said that he had arranged a little afternoon delight for George Bush 41 back in 1984. The media jumped on this like a crow on a June Bug. A CNN reporter confronted Bush with the allegation as he was hosting the Israeli Prime Minister in his office.

Drudge compiled this brilliant flashback into how the media grilled George H.W. Bush over claims of infidelity in 1992. Now, contrast that flashback from Drudge to this story in which a reporter from the Washington Post says they wouldn't run the story about a Kerry affair even if someone produced photographs. So, you have to ask yourself whether or not the media has a different standard for Republicans and Democrats. Duh! And here's a good wrap-up from World Net Daily.

A brief sidestep here .... what of the Kerry infidelity story? Isn't it a bit odd how the father of Alex Polier changed his story over the course of a few days? In this story the father of Alex Polier is quoted as saying that he thinks that John Kerry is a "sleazeball." Terry Polier said "He's not the sort of guy I would choose to be with my daughter." Then, yesterday Terry Polier issues another statement. This time saying that he intends to vote for him for president of the United States.

Let's just take one example here. Joe Conason wrote a story in Salon last week about the alleged Kerry affair. Conason wrote "But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations isn't what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation."

So .. Joe Conason pursues a high standard before he puts innuendo into circulation? Back to the 1992 rumors about Bush 41. Back then Drudge reveals that Conason wrote a magazine article entitled "1,000 Reasons Not to Vote for George Bush." Reason number one was "He cheats on his wife."

You get the picture here, don't you? For more you can Just read Drudge's summary to see the extent to which the media went to pursue the 1992 Bush rumor, and to ignore the 2004 Kerry rumor.

Most of you are unaware of a little gem that appeared on an ABC News website last week. It was written by ABC News Political Director Mark Halpern. Halpern wrote:

"The Washington and political press corps are biased. There's a universal sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion and religion are the norm. That there's a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems. That more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good, and the press does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraqi war."

Know this. Over 90% of the people who bring you your news every morning in The New York Times, USA Today and your local newspaper will vote for John Kerry in this year's presidential election. Most of these people will be using that "Democrats good; Bush bad" template for their coverage.

The vast majority of the mainstream media believes that George Bush is bad and must be replaced. They will be doing everything they can in their "objective" coverage of this campaign to see to it that this comes to pass.

 

[HankB]

It is - or ought to be - recognized that as far as political coverage is concerned, most of the media in this country is little more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic National Committee. They strayed from merely reporting the news into managing - and even manufacturing - the news long ago.

Here's food for thought: If the media isn't objective or accurate about things you happen to be familiar with (for readers of THR it may be firearms and related topics ) . . . why in the world would you trust them to be objective and accurate about things you DON'T happen to be familiar with?

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I just posted this on another thread, but this excerpt applies to your question:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20040211.shtml


"...He observes that Bush "undertook a decisive and courageous reassessment of American grand strategy following the shock of the 9/11 attacks. At his doctrine's center, Bush placed the democratization of the Middle East and the urgent need to prevent terrorists and rogue states from getting nuclear weapons. Bush also boldly rejected the constraints of an outmoded international system that was really nothing more than a snapshot of the configuration of power that existed in 1945."

It is worth noting that John Kerry and the other Democrats' central criticism of President Bush -- the prosaic argument that he should have taken no action without U.N. approval -- is implicitly rejected by Professor Gaddis as being a proposed policy that would be constrained by an "outmoded international system."

In assessing Bush's progress to date, The Boston Globe article quotes Professor Gaddis: "so far the military action in Iraq has produced a modest improvement in American and global economic conditions; an intensified dialogue within the Arab world about political reform; a withdrawal of American forces from Saudi Arabia; and an increasing nervousness on the part of the Syrian and Iranian governments as they contemplated the consequences of being surrounded by American clients or surrogates. The United States has emerged as a more powerful and purposeful actor within the international system than it had been on September 11, 2001."... "

 

[ReadyontheRight]

There's also this somewhat old joke:

The Pope, the President, and the Press

The Pope is visiting Washington, D.C., and President Bush takes him out for an afternoon on the Potomac, sailing on the presidential yacht. They're admiring the sights when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat blows off his head and out into the water.

Secret Service guys start to launch a boat, but Bush waves them off, saying "Wait, wait. I'll take care of this. Don't worry." Bush then steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Holy Father's little hat, bends over and picks it up, then walks back to the yacht and climbs aboard. He hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence.

The next morning, the newspaper carries a story with front page photos of the event. The banner headline: "Bush Can't Swim."

 

[OF]

If the media isn't objective or accurate about things you happen to be familiar with (for readers of THR it may be firearms and related topics ) . . . why in the world would you trust them to be objective and accurate about things you DON'T happen to be familiar with?

Absolutely! A great point.

- Gabe

 

[Triad]

Yep, they're a bunch of liars. So's Bush. Seems to come with the territory when somebody has a (D) or (R) by their name. Politicians are funny like that.

 

[Jonesy9]

hehehe

pretty funny stuff. if you look around you'll find an almost identical prop email quoting all the Republicans saying that Saddam has no weapons and is not a threat during the same time period. Hypocracy knows no bounds

 

[Gordon Fink]

Now, you see, I would expect the Democrats, with an avowedly anti-gun platform, to argue for a gun-control—uh … I mean … to argue for an arms-control war. However, it’s somewhat more surprising to see Republicans, who nominally support the right to arms, call for such a war. Then again, neither party is known for ideological consistency.

~G. Fink

 

[bountyhunter]

At Least Get it Right

The main thing that dems are angry that Bush lied about is not that it is possible to draw wrong conclusions from bad intel (although the quotes you post are years older than when Bush went to war, so Bush's information was better).

The main gripe is that Bush lied about why we went to war: we went to war because he wanted to. period. And, the war was a done deal when he took office. Plenty of insiders of the circle have testified that it was in planning from day one. the fact that it was a piss poor plan with no viable end strategy and based on the ludicrous assumption that the Iraqi's would welcome us with open arms (and the resistance would surrender) does not alter the fact it wqas an older plan than Bush admitted. The UN crap was a dog and pony show. he was going no matter what Iraq did, siad, or turned over. period.

The other point is that the "bad intel" ploy is a lie, because the senior intel analyst who gave his summaries to the white house (Greg Thielmann) has testified to what he said and Bush's actions were the opposite. Bush is the CIC and he can ignore his own analyts, but he can't do it and then lie and say he was given "bad infromation". the problem was the info said a war was neither necessary or urgent, so he ignored it. He didn't find anything he could wave as a prize for WMD's, and now he has to have a scape goat. period.

But, the core issue:

You post opinions given by various people about the Hussein regime. My opinion at the time would have been similar. I think he needed to be kept on a short leash and monitored 100% of the time, and the inspections were doing a fair job there. But opinions are just talk, and war is paid in blood.

GOING TO FULL SCALE WAR IS A WHOLE OTHER BANANA.

And, a CIC needs to realize that when he goes to war, he takes the responsibility if it's a disaster. Kennedy did. Bush didn't. he is lying about it to this day. That's what pisses me off the most. He is passing the buck every way but Sunday, and telling us how great it's all going as the bodies pile up and the Sunnis and Sheeites draw the lines in the sand and tell us to f--k off. Yeah, George: it's all going great.

 

[greyhound]

We've seen the end of any sort of respect for the office of President in this country.

Blame Nixon, maybe, or possibly it started with Reagan.

A lot of Democrats still aren't over the 2000 election, and absent a slight blip around 9/11 have been busy Bush hating. To be fair, Republicans weren't much better about Clinton (IMHO, he did enough to tarnish himself without the right fabricating murder theories, etc.)

Contrast that with 60 years ago when the media kept quiet that President Roosevelt was paralyzed. Can you imagine such a thing today? I can't.

 

[bountyhunter]

We've seen the end of any sort of respect for the office of President in this country.

.........Contrast that with 60 years ago when the media kept quiet that President Roosevelt was paralyzed. .

On a PBS documentary, they were interviewing an analyst who is expert on such matters. They asked him about loss of credibility. He answered with the story about John F. Kennedy:

When it seemed we were on the eve of war, Kennedy issued an ultimatum to Kruschev which he (Kennedy) did not think he would honor. So, Kennedy sent our Secty of State to personally advise the president of France of the situation. The Sec told the Pres of France that the Soviets had put missiles in Cuba, and that kennedy believed we would have to go to war. He advised the French leader it would be a nuclear war involving all of the NATO allies, so the losses would be very high.

The secty then took up his briefcase and said: "I have photographs to show you which will prove the missiles are there."

The Pres of France said something like: "No need. if the President of the United States says we must go to war, his word is enough."

Consider where we are today, and you will see the price of Bush's Blunder.

 

[BowStreetRunner]

whether or not it is a "blunder" or not remains to be seen
Poland, Bulgaria, et al are with us because they trust the President of the United States, and we spent the last 50 years "fighting" them in cold war!......if France no longer values or friendship, that is their decision

 

[Gus Dddysgrl]

I think someone before Bush should have ended this war a long time ago. So what if he came in with the idea of ending a war that should have been ended a long time ago. It would not be nearly as out of hand as it is now. I still like him a whole lot more than any wussy Democrat they can put in front of me. Bush knew what he wanted to do, knew what was best for our country and did it.

That's my view.

 

[bountyhunter]

I think someone before Bush should have ended this war a long time ago. .....It would not be nearly as out of hand as it is now.

George Bush Senior chose not to invade Iraq at the end of the war called Desert Storm, and for good reasons: he accurately predicted the mess it has turned into and said the US would get itself caught in such a quagmire. Here is his quote:

"Extending the war into Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Exceeding the U.N.'s mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

-- From "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"
by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft


So, your opinion is that we should have fought the present war "a long time ago".... how long ago? Prior to 1990, Hussein was a firm ally of the US and a valued fighter against Islamic Fundamentalism. he did our dirty work (beat the hell out of Iran). We wouldn't have invaded his country then, he was on our side.

It was only after he invaded Kuwait (1990) that he became a "murdering dictator" that had to be removed.

So, you say we should have gone in earlier? Like, say, the early to mid 90's when he still had stockpiles of the VX nerve agents and biologicals left over from the Iran war?

Those agents would have been used on our invading troops and the US death toll would not have been 542, it would have been tens of thousands.

Your solution seems to have a lot of holes in it.

 

[bountyhunter]

Sailed Over the Head

if France no longer values or friendship, that is their decision

The point of the story was not whether the leaders of France value our friendship, it was that (at one time) the United States credibility was beyond question. Our NATO allies would follow us into a nuclear war that would kill hundreds of millions of people simply on the word of our President. If you asked around today, most world leaders wouldn't believe what Bush had to say even if he said the sun comes up in the east. Whether you think that is a loss to our nation is your choice. I do.

 

[GoRon]

I don't care what the French, Germans or the UN has to say when it comes to matters of our security and foreign policy. They do not have our best interests at heart. The middle east instability finally affected us on our own soil (9/11). Guess what? Now they get to have our hands on attention to to restoring some semblance of order. Talks, treaties, agreements and the like are fine......until we get attacked and 3000 people die. It is the collective fault of the UN that the middle east is f***ed up. They can't even figure out who the good guys are!!!!

 

[grampster]

Gus.

You're right on track and have a good understanding of the situation. Let not your heart be troubled. Some folks always have trouble seeing the forest for the trees. Luckily there is more of us than them. Something else to chew on.....The war on terror is actually a religious war....something America has never undertaken before. After a time it will come to be understood. Also the war is also, really, a war about oil....but not for the reasons, mostly, the lefties think. No oil... no power, heat, light, cars, business, food etc etc. Until we have converted to hydrogen power for home, vehicle, farming, business et al, and folks are able to make money at it in a viable way, we need the oil. The lefties crow about oil, but prohibit drilling in Anwar and off shore drilling, shut down wind power because it kills birds, shut down water lift generators because it sucks up fish, and stop nuclear power because they don't understand how safe and economical it is. Then they criticize those who try and keep the oil flowing so that we have a life....who cares if some people make a good deal of money from the oil, I just like light, heat, transportation, food and job.
Most of the bleeding hearts do all their criticizing ensconced in their lighted, warm houses munching on an ear of corn and a steak while reading the Wall Street Journal lit by their recessed lighting. Hypocrites. Oh....and they want to take our guns away too.

grampster

grampster

 

[bountyhunter]

The middle east instability finally affected us on our own soil (9/11). Guess what? Now they get to have our hands on attention to to restoring some semblance of order.

Today's lesson is on propoganda: how it is used. The above is an indirect restatement of the big lie that Bush has been selling both directly and indirectly since 9/11:

Iraq was behind 9/11

How does propoganda work? A good example is the speech Bush made on the aircraft carrier declaring victory in Iraq:

"On 9/11, the terrorists declared war on us, and now we have taken the war to them."

The clear message is: Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Iraq has been killing Americans. Now that I have defeated Iraq, you are safe.

Problem is, none of that is true. In fact, both Bush and Cheney have publicly admitted there is absolutely no linkage between Iraq/Hussein and Al Qaeda.... but polls consistently show that the majority of Americans still believe it: that's when you know you have really good propoganda, it sprouts it's own roots even when the originator denies it's truth.

The truth is, the only country that is currently getting hands on attention is Iraq who never had squat to do with the WOT. We have a small presence in Afghanistan, which did serve as a tent pitching stop for Al qaeda for a while, but they are long gone and now hiding in pakistan.

 

[GoRon]

NO, NO, NO. I did not say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. I said "The middle east instability finally affected us on our own soil ". The general chaos of the region, which Saddam helped foment, is the breeding ground for the terrorists. The narrow focus of the left doesn't allow them to see the big picture. By pro-actively getting rid of the instigaters we are taking a more hands on approach. Iran is now surrounded by us. Syria is now dealing with a long border with guess what? US Troops stationed on it. Are you so blinded by idealism or hatred of President Bush that you don't see the strategic benifit of being in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Do not missquote me for your propogandistic purposes

 

[bountyhunter]

Are you so blinded by idealism or hatred of President Bush that you don't see the strategic benifit of being in Iraq and Afghanistan?

OK, that's two separate questions:

1) "Are you so blinded by idealism or hatred of President Bush "

I maybe idealistic, but I don't hate Bush. I dislike him about as much as any arrogant Texan with a chip on his shoulder, a bad attitude, who lies at his convenience and won't admit when he's lying. I absolutely FEAR Bush because he is running my country into the sh--ter and starting wars with the wrong countries.

2) "that you don't see the strategic benifit of being in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Afghanistan perhaps was necessary because it could be argued we had a moral obligation to depose a Taliban regime which we basically set in power when we armed them, trained them, and used them to pound on the Soviets.

Iraq? No, I don't see any benefit long term. here's what I think will happen in Iraq. Bookmark it so you can laugh at it later: when we pull out, there will be a brief peace then the civil wars will break out. Al Qaeda will be causing a lot of violence to destabilize the region, then they will be backing one side, whichever one looks like it will win. They will try to set up a fundamentalist government which is "Al Qaeda tolerant" so they will have a base of operations. The ultimate government will me more Islam than secular, and in the final outcome, a lot of people will be dead, a lot will be displaced from their homes, and Iraq will probably be just as screwed up as the rest of those countries.

 

[bountyhunter]

The general chaos of the region, which Saddam helped foment, is the breeding ground for the terrorists.

I think that view is so simplistic it misses the whole picture. Totalitarian regimes like Saddam's actually suppress terrorism, at least in their areas. The reason terrorists exist could fill encyclopedias. Start with the "poor Arabs vs. the Rich Arabs", go next to the "Westernized Arabs vs. the Traditional Arabs", then acknowledge the Arabs who loathe any western power in the region and therfore, want to depose any Arab state that agrees with us in any policy matters. Throw in ethnic and tribal issues, old time scores to settle, a general greed and desire to take land, and you are getting warm.

By pro-actively getting rid of the instigaters we are taking a more hands on approach.

OK, that's one opinion. It didn't work in Northern Ireland, ain't working in Palestine, but it is an opinion. Another opinion is that terrorists will be gone when their support systems dry up and that happens when the average people start thinking their is a chance their lives will actually be better if they drop a dime on the terrorists instead of hiding them out. Hopelessness and despair do a lot to recruit kids who will strap on explosives and blow themselves up. people with hope for a decent life won't do it.

 

[GoRon]

Bountyhunter,
I sure hope your scenerio isn't the way it goes down. Having a stable Iraq working toward freedom is the plan. The question is what are the Iraqi's going to do with this golden opportunity.

We may be turning the government over to them, but I don't see our troops leaving until there is real security, ie: a long time.

 

[GoRon]

OK, that's one opinion. It didn't work in Northern Ireland, ain't working in Palestine, but it is an opinion. Another opinion is that terrorists will be gone when their support systems dry up and that happens when the average people start thinking their is a chance their lives will actually be better if they drop a dime on the terrorists instead of hiding them out. Hopelessness and despair do a lot to recruit kids who will strap on explosives and blow themselves up. people with hope for a decent life won't do it.

Exactly, If they take this opportunity, Iraq will be the Arab/Muslim "City On A Hill" that other Muslim people can look to for inspiration. They have resources and the worlds richest nation to help them.

 

[Michigander]

Well I am certain that the fine, upstanding President of the United States of America, William Jefferson Clintion would never, ever lie!

Therefore, Bush must have been telling the truth!

Makes sense to me!

If enough people say something enough times for a long enough time, then it becomes truth; it must be truth (evidence, or lack of, not withstanding).