MichFan

Defense loses in this battle. Saddam was at the front of the line for offensive tactics, he had already painted a bullseye on Baghdad. Never implied they did. They were harboring AQ as early as 2001, however. Whenever the US gave its best intelligence on where these phantom weapons were, the media was there waiting for the inspectors to show up . You're right, because the U.N. was tiring of the whole Iraq issue and they were about ready to start removing sanctions. Which gets back to my point that we were ultimately going to end up in Iraq regardless of the administration. I think I'll trust Allawi's judgement over yours on this one.

Cincy -- I'm a little confused by the two responses, maybe delete one? The point I was making re: the Senate is that the least populous and most populous states are evenly represented, so the balance of power is highly disproportionate to the population. Our founding fathers designed it that way and I understand why they did it, but if someone is going to complain about representation based on population, the Senate is a much bigger target than the Electoral College.

You're wrong -- using your strategy, the mess in Iraq would have found it's way over here first, and then we would have gotten your permission to go ahead with Iraq. Ultimately, we were going to end up in Iraq again regardless of the administration. Your way there would have been a few more thousand deaths on American soil.

Using your and Rabid's rationale, if we had a direct election system my vote for Bush would not have counted in 2000 (since Gore won the popular vote). Someone's going to win and someone's going to lose no matter what system we have. Why aren't you guys complaining about every state having two Senators? That leads to the greatest imbalance of power based on population. At least the electoral college is proportional.

Hmmmm ... a country led by an oppressive dictator who ruled with an iron fist, invaded neighboring countries, funded terrorism in Israel, and threatened stability across the entire Middle East. Nose -- meet face, face -- this is nose. . I'm sure you'll come back with some remark about how that is the Iraqi's freedom and democracy and not ours, blah, blah, blah. There are several threads on this board where I and others have clearly laid out the implications of Iraq continuing under Saddam and how that was incompatible with the broader war on terror.

Think of it this way, Koffi ... freedom, democracy, and long-term security are well worth the investment.

I think Fallujah is probably going to be the final exam for an elite group of Iraqi police/military forces. It will be used to show the capability of these forces when combined with U.S. air support. It will also open the door for reducing U.S. feet on the ground.

Nice of them to opt out of airing a hostage's wife's videotaped plea for her husband's life because it wasn't compelling enough to interrupt their scheduled programming. "Excellent" news my arse.

This should be renamed the "I'm not really a liberal -- I just play one on the Internet" thread. So let me get this straight -- we should throw someone out of office who in your mind has handled many things well but ultimately made one unforgivable mistake on an extremely complex issue. Then we should overlook another candidate's past which involves committing war crimes and discrediting the entire military upon returning from Vietnam. Then we should overlook this candidates atrocious Senate voting record on the issues you've creditied Bush as succeeding with. Then we should overlook the 16 different positions this candidate has taken on Iraq and the fact that the only difference between his 4-point plan and what is happening today is the involvement of France and Germany ( ). Then we should make this person president and just trust that he'll continue to do a good job with the things Bush is doing well, will clean up Iraq, and won't make any other mistakes. Me thinks you're either a bit confused or you're being a tad bit disingenuine with your post. Yeah, right, Exiled. You would have voted for Bush if he would have just stayed out of Iraq, huh? Unless we got attacked again and Sadam had his hands in it, right? Interesting that libs all of a sudden are backing off on attacking Bush over anything and everything and are focusing their attacks on Iraq "like a laser". We'll see how long this kinder, gentler strategy lasts. Given Alawi's comments to Congress today, it will be a lot more difficult making the case against Iraq.

No, you and this article are deliberately missing the point. You absolutely cannot make an analogy between Iraq and America the way this author does because our cultures and our historical frames of reference are completely different. All Americans would shudder at the visions invoked in this article because we compare them to the freedoms we enjoy today. We would see a HOPELESSNESS in the situation. Iraqis have at least three predominant cultures (Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites) who each have their own impressions of what is happening. I doubt anyone over there is happy about the security situation right now, but at least two of these cultures see a HOPE for the future amidst the situation. There is a huge difference between the two.

Apparently reading facts and having things put into their proper context bore you. Sorry if I created any congitive dissonance in your DNC programmed state of consciousness.

What a stupid, one-sided article. I'm embarrased to say the author works at my alma mater. Of course, I don't see any of these what-ifs mentioned: - 300,000+ citizens were killed in a chemical weapons attack launched by our own military - We attacked Mexico and a combined 10,000,000+ died in that war - We invaded and briefly took over Canada for their oil reserves -- killing and raping their citizens in the process for fun -- and left only when forced out. To this day we still claim Canada is ours and it is only a matter of time until we go back in. - 11,000,000 children starved to death in the 90's because we had no money to feed them, yet our ruling family built dozens of palaces around the country. Then we learned the U.N. was siphoning off tens of billions of dollars from our exports that were supposed to feed these children. - 100,000+ citizens each year were raped, tortured, executed, and/or ground into human hamburger each year. - We were forced to vote for our leader or be subjected to said rape, torture, execution, and/or grinding. - Mass graves with 200,000+ bodies were discovered all over the country Given that frame of reference, maybe the things listed in the article wouldn't seem quite as awful. Apparantly this scholar doesn't understand the basic underpinnings in this story -- the power of freedom and hope on the psychology of a society.

The frustrating thing for me is that Kerry's 16 positions on Iraq, combined with the one position that he suddenly may have settled in on, don't allow for the proper actions to take place on the ground in Iraq without being used to inflict political damage on Bush. It's a shame that differences in ideology can't be kept at the ideological level when the best interests of our troops are on the line. Kerry should allow the tactical commanders to do their jobs without second guessing every step they take. Tommy Franks can refute just about every tactical smear Kerry has made, but apparently only Fox News is iterested in his side of the story.

Agreed. Sounds like an issue the Libertarians should start addressing if they want to be the 3rd major party.

The reason I think Clinton/Gore would have gotten more flack if Gore were president is that they were in office for most of the big terrorist attacks launched against us by Islamic militants, and they have taken the most criticism for either turning tail or providing a weak response at best. Reagan did the same thing in Beirut, so i agree that each party had their pre-9/11 skeletons. But I think Bush gets some credit for being new to the scene and having a rough transition due to Florida/2000 election that Gore would not have been allotted.

The average person's opinion of what a Libertarian is -- a Republican with a stick up his butt. Neal Bortz is the most widely known example of a Libertarian, and as much as I enjoy his show that is how many people perceive him. A Libertarian, Reform, Independent, Green, etc. will be invited into the mainstream process when they show some type of mainstream support. A good start would be to build the party through victories in State and local elections. You don't start with the presidency.

3rd party this, 3rd party that, blah, blah, blah... The 2 parties can't produce a candidate that even remotely interests you guys and somehow a 3rd party is going to offer your political savior who is not in the pockets of special interests, who is better aligned with you on the issues, and who stands by their promises once in office. Okay . All a third party is going to do is look at the polls and triangulate. As I mentioned a while back before the boards were reset, a significant third party would cause most elections to be decided by the House of Representatives. I personally don't think this would be an acceptable situation. Instead of focusing on a 3rd party, why not focus the conversation on something that actually can be addressed -- the roles of Federal, State, and local governments. These roles have gotten so confused by years of liberal big government agendas, activist judges, endless serving of special interests, and tons of pork. The spirit of capitalism should be restored to how our government operates. Right now we as taxpayers are getting the selection of Sams Club (one brand, one size) at boutique shop prices. I credit Bush for at least giving us education and faith-based charity initiatives that recognize State and local authorities do a better job reforming the system than the Federal government, and the Fed's role first and foremost is ensuring accountability on such issues.

Nothing to worry about. If you really want to wierd yourself out, when they are done grinding the tooth down to a peg and just before they put the crown on, feel the tooth with your tongue.

First, I'm not saying Bush is doing a great job. I think he is doing the best he can dealing with a very difficult situation and I give him credit for that. If Gore were president today under the same circumstances, I would be glad he went into Iraq because I would still believe that you can't make the reforms we all realize need to be made in the Middle East with Saddam in power. He would face more scrutiny from me than Bush does because there would be the direct connection to the inactivity of the Clinton administration re: terrorism. As proof that many Conservatives would see this differently, look at Black Hawk Down. Conservatives weren't mad about the mission to capture a warlord, they were mad about the lack of availabiltiy of devastating support for pulling off the mission.

This issue, along with many others, is probably going to take 3 things to be addressed in the forseeable future: 1. A second term president (not worried about getting re-elected) with carte blanche in his/her party; 2. A majority in the House and nearly a super majority in the Senate (removes potential for other party to dilute the bill in order to score political points); 3. A media that reports in favor of the best interests of America and doesn't disporportionately provide coverage for the bleeding hearts I can see the possibility of 1 and 2 this year. Problem is that 3 won't happen when 1 and 2 are Republican. Other problem is that 1 and 2 won't pursue a strong border protection policy if they are Democrat. So I guess the chances are pretty slim of this getting taken care of.

Then I hope you're not someone who accuses Bush of "letting" bin Laden escape at Tora Bora. Seems to me that evidence is just as "murky". At least Zarqawi actually turned up in Iraq. And I never said Saddam was working with Zarqawi. Saddam was harboring him, however, which is still a no-no by the Bush doctrine.

That sentence doesn't make any sense. Anyway, wasn't it just two weeks ago that I was taking heat for being in favor of the assault gun ban? Am I not on record favoring need-based Social Security reform in favor of improved Medicaire for all seniors? I don't think of myself as a conservative talking points kind of guy -- I'm an independent thinker whose beliefs tend to align with conservative ideology 85% of the time.

Here's a link to a biography on Zarqawi that references him being in Iraq as early as 2001: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm

What about starting a post with "It's pretty apalling to see the attitudes of some libs" leads you to believe I was blasting all liberals in this post? I guess Kerry is still trailing in the polls ... Zarqawi and AQ were already known to have been in Iraq long prior to the war starting. Zarqawi is the guy doing most of the bad stuff now. If there is one thing the average American should be grateful for, it's that this sick SOB has his sights set in Iraq right now and not over here.

FoxNews would be placed under immense pressure by most of the media outlets. It would be ten times more scandalous than what is going on with CBS. At the same time, their rankings would only take a minimal hit because their audience is far more loyal and dedicated to the channel.