In Raid on the Sun LINK the author describes the Israeli mission to bomb the nuclear reactor being built in Baghdad financed by the French. I say if Saddam can do it once he can do it again. Remember how the French so vehemently denied any WMD? Maybe they knew more?

In the Pentagon’s new map the author describes how the military/government/pentagon need to look at threats in this new era.

Perhaps after reading these and other similar literature those on the left will not think of us (those on the right) as uneducated warhawks who blindly follow men in to battle “knowing” our leaders have no winnable strategy, base the rationale on lies and concoct a war to . . . (I can’t even remember all of the reasons Bush is doing this to America. Is it for the oil $ or because of his Saudi ties or just that he is “not smart”.)

p.s. sorry about the bn link. i couldn’t get it to link properly.

Bob. The key is that we went and removed the government and just like we did in Japan and Germany after WW2 we need to be responsible and not leave a humanitarian crisis. We ALL know that you disagreed with the decision to go to war. That opinion does NOT apply to today’s thinking that we should just remove our troops and have those who died die in vain. The troops have a perpsective too not just you and secondly for all of the things I disagree with Bush on I’m glad he is LEADING and not governing by opinion polls on this issue. For all of the heat he has taken he has shown himself to be a leader. You KNOW Bill Clinton would’ve pulled the troops right now because he would’ve been reading the polls instead of leading.

Sorry to mention Clinton. Maybe I should remind you of Abraham Lincoln. The Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War was VERY unpopular but Abraham Lincoln did what he thought was right in spite of the opposition.

THanks for letting us know once again Bob that you disagreed with the 4 year old decision. We’ll be happy to see you move to current events…. and an appreciation of leadership maybe. I sure as heck wished Bush would listen to us on Illegal Immigration. But alas he has principles that I disagree with.

“The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended.”

The country did not go to war to unearth forgotten remnants of 20-year-old, obsolate and non-functional weapons. We went to war because we were threatened with scenarios about mushroom clouds over American cities and active WMD programs. Only by playing deliberately misleading semantic games about what constitutes a WMD could these corroded artillery shells be construed as anything like the reasons we were told we needed to invade. Americans are fed up with the BS. From the same Gallup website that you pulled your statement about public perceptions of press coverage of Iraq was the following:

President George W. Bush’s latest job approval rating remains about where it stood in early January — notable because it means his recent televised speech to the nation on Iraq did nothing to repair his public image. Bush’s approval rating on his handling of the situation in Iraq is even lower, something that appears to be preventing him from getting a broader benefit from the fact that Americans have grown a bit more favorable about his handling of the economy, and about economic conditions more generally.

We expected a certain core of conservative extremists to never admit the obvious. The rest of the nation isn’t buying it any more.

And many of us would say that the prudent action was to take action sooner rather than later, when it could come at a much greater cost.

Just like GWR said, I never said it was a reason to invade, please check my previous posts, but it was a counter to the “Bush lied” accusations that so many of the liberals have screamed. They, much like you, don’t want to know about the facts and the truth, since they do not support any of your accusations. So, instead, you turn a blind eye to them, or call them right wind propoganda. Of course, you never answered my question that I have asked 4 times now. Did Clinton and Albright lie about Saddam’s WMD?? I don’t blame you. I woulnd’t want to answer that question either, if I were you.

I noticed you had no comment on the Salman Pak training grounds. Perhaps you learned a little something today, hmmmm?

Just to put things in perspective, it’s worth considering just how unpopular both this president and this war are.

Oh, of course it is, Bob, that’s become your rallying cry. Apparently you want the country to be ruled by the polls. Very interesting. You might find this poll interesting.

A majority of Americans believe the news media’s coverage of the situation in Iraq is generally inaccurate. Among this group, the majority says the inaccuracy is in the direction of presenting too negative a picture. Two-thirds of Republicans say the media’s portrayal of the situation in Iraq is biased toward being too negative. The majority of Democrats say news coverage of Iraq is generally accurate.

So basically, Americans realize that the information they are getting from the media is innacurate. What a shock that their opinions are generally against the war, huh? That’s the media at it’s finest, the fourth branch of government.
If Americans got a fraction of the REAL story going on over there, they would have a much different attitude. Of course, that’s not in the media’s best interests is it?

However, if you are a fan of ruling by polls, perhaps you’ll like this:

Majority support eavesdropping

Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they supported eavesdropping without warrants “in order to reduce the threat of terrorism.”

So I guess, that controversy is over, huh?

Majority support border fence

Americans support building a security fence along the entire 2,000 mile U.S.- Mexican border by a landslide, a new Time magazine poll has found.

So, I guess our new Congress will be all over that one too, right?

Be careful about touting polls, Bob, they have a way of coming back to bite you.

it’s simply not true that any WMDs were found in Iraq.

You are making this too easy, Bob. You really do need to do a little bit of research. I guess you know more than the department of defense, huh?

WMD in Iraq

I realize mistakes were made in this war, and I have no problem recognizing that. Those mistakes are Bush’s responsibility and he has already said so, himself. However, for you to sit there and claim that Saddam wasn’t a threat is ridiculous.

Perhaps, Bob, you could tell us. What exactly does a country have to do to be considered a threat by you? Maybe this could help clear some things up.

Also the senate had information that Sadamn had over 500 artilery shells that contained sarin gas, all usable at the time of the invasion.

Then there was a certain picture that USA Today had on their web page with a briefcase full of sarin gas vials that we liberated from a terrorist from Fallujah.

Lastly how do you ‘prove’ the war is winable?? I don’t have the ability to ‘prove’ this war or any war is winable. Just like you cannot prove that this war is un-winable. It is idiotic to think that someone should have to prove that to you Bob. It is winable because I have faith in our military and I am a patriot. Now the majority of the left on the other had, well let’s face it, would cripple the military, both Carter and Clinton did it, and make them look like the Keystone Cops, again both Carter and Clinton did that too, which pretty much shows where the left stands with things. – Lorica

Jan. 27, 2007 – President George W. Bush concluded his annual State of the Union address this week with the words “the State of our Union is strong … our cause in the world is right … and tonight that cause goes on.” Maybe so, but the state of the Bush administration is at its worst yet, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. The president’s approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll’s history—30 percent—and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over, a sentiment that is almost unanimous among Democrats (86 percent), and is shared by a clear majority (59 percent) of independents and even one in five (21 percent) Republicans. Half (49 percent) of all registered voters would rather see a Democrat elected president in 2008, compared to just 28 percent who’d prefer the GOP to remain in the White House.

Public fatigue over the war in the Iraq is not reflected solely in the president’s numbers, however. Congress is criticized by nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of Americans for not being assertive enough in challenging the Bush administration’s conduct of the war. Even a third (31 percent) of rank-and-file Republicans say the previous Congress, controlled by their party, didn’t do enough to challenge the administration on the war.

Right wingers need to recognize who’s really to blame for the current situation. It’s not just “Bush-hating liberals” making a lot of noise. It’s the vast majority of Americans, many of whom are independents and solid Republicans, who are just tired of the BS. Don’t blame us sensible folks, and don’t blame Congress, for trying to mitigate this disaster.

And GWR, I’ll say again, that just because people suspected that Saddam might have some of these things does not equate to it having been a good idea to invade. George Bush I and Clinton thought Saddam had some of these weapons and they decided that it was safer to simply keep him contained. I think that events have only strengthened the contention that their course of action was the most prudent one.

And neither of you still has any proof that this war is winnable. I’d argue that the price we’ve paid for this war is far beyond any potential benefit it will have for our country. It was too much to spend on what was essentially an experiment or a gamble. It’s like betting your inheritance on a race at Pimlico. Irresponsible as hell, and not very smart.

But since we’re being dragged into this fiasco anyway, do I hope we somehow manage to win it? Hell yes! I would gladly eat crow and offer my sincere congratulations to GWB and David Petraeus if they pull out a win. Why would I want to see all this effort, expense and all of these lives go to waste? I just don’t think it’s very likely, because the Iraqis themselves refuse to pull together to make it happen. You can lead a horse to water . . .

You miss the point, Bob. No one is using the fact that the Clinton administration also believed the WMD reports as the justification. That fact is used to show the hypocrisy of those who parrot the “Bush lied, people died” line, but who found absolutely nothing to criticize when a whole host of liberals were rattling sabers right up to January 20, 2001. On that date, your average liberal apparently switched sides, as they had a more important enemy to fight, namely the new administration. All of which is more confirmation that liberals do indeed want America to fail in Iraq.

By the way, Bob, you probably missed it, but our intelligence wasn’t the only one that concluded the WMDs were in Iraq. The British and Israelis also thought so. So did the twin gods of the American left, the French and the UN.

And I’m still not buying the spin that there were no WMDs there anyway. Last time I looked, poison gas cannisters count, and no one has yet explained the sudden rash of military shipments to Syria from Iraq as the US incursion began.

You are telling me that 6000 to 12000 terrorist can defeat the American Army?? Are you that stupid Bob?? It is not a wish, to say this war is winable. It is winable, if it was conducted right. Yes Bush as made some big mistakes. YES Bush shouldn’t have had so much faith in Rumsfield. NO ONE is arguing that. Hell I was thinking LAST YEAR that Bush/Rummy needed to deal with situations that were popping up, but didn’t. And No I or anyone here are happy about the deaths of our soldiers. God how I wish Tommy Franks wouldn’t of retired, but he did, and Abaizaid just wasn’t the General to take Franks’ place, but that has been fixed. Let’s see what the new General, the author of the surge plan, can do.

As far as WMDs go, we did find Chemical/Biological ones Bob. We didn’t find nuclear true, but you can’t say there were NO WMDs when there were, and some of these we found were in the hands of the terrorists. Also Iraq has a constitition and is a democracy. I love how you all have now added the word “stable” to the goal. Well what’s gonna make it stable Bob, a bigger military. Now who would you want traing your military?? I can’t think of a better group than the folks that are over there right now. This war is winable and you all are going to look like bigger idiots when it does happen, and that goes for Hagel and the lowlives that signed that resolution, God Bless the day those idiots are thrown out of office. – Lorica

I still find the excuse of “Bill Clinton thought so too” to be pretty weak stuff to justify the wasting of a trillion dollars and thousands of soldiers’ lives when none of the supposed goals of the invasion—finding WMDs or bringing a stable democracy to Iraq—have been accomplished. It seems like a terrible mistake to me, but maybe you can find a way to blame Clinton and Albright for that too if it doesn’t work out.

Oh, I see. Perhaps you could tell that to Hans Blix or Bill Clinton or Madeline Albright who all thought Saddam had them. So for a third time I ask, Bob, were they lying or not? It’s a simple yes or now question, why won’t you answer it?

Name a single incident of a U.S. plane being shot down by the Iraqis.

Locking anti-aircraft devices onto our planes is an act of aggression, Bob, but I guess since you weren’t flying them, what do you care.

Let’s not pretend that you ever gave a damn about Iraqi children.

Whoa, easy there Bob! I seem to recall in another thread you were jumping all over people for stating that they knew what liberals were thinking. You don’t seem to have a problem knowing what I care about, though, do you? Pot, meet Kettle. I do care that half a million children died as a result of OUR sanctions, apparently you don’t, I wonder why? Oh, that’s right, it happened under a democrat. I find it interesting that you don’t really answer the question though, as usual.

And since the war started, there are estimates that the civilian death toll is likely in the hundreds of thousands.

What estimates? From the “I hate Bush” websites? I would gladly view any links you might have to a credible site that has the estimates in the hundreds of thousands.

You say Saddam trained terrorists? Where’s your proof?

I thought we already covered that, Bob. Ok, I’ll try again. Salman Pak is a terrorist training site IN Iraq, Bob. Our troops found it after invading. On that terrorist training site was an airline fuselage that they were training on. What do you think they were using that for, Bob?

You say Iraq did have something to do with al Qaeda before we invaded? Where’s your proof?

I guess you’ll have to ask Clinton on that one. If you’ll look at my previous post you will find the links to the Clinton administration linking Al Qaeda to Iraq. So again, Bob, was Clinton lying?

It seems, Bob, that your idea of evidence is an 8X10 glossy of Saddam handing cash to Al Qaeda or other terrorists. In the real world, that doesn’t happen. It seems you are determined to remain willfully ignorant, and that is certainly your right. However, please don’t deny events that actually occurred, or deny evidence that actually exists. Also, please don’t tell ME what I do and don’t care about.

Iraq war enthusiasts keep saying the war is winnable. Since we haven’t been able to win so far (without anyone interfering with the Bush administration’s brilliant war strategies), that statement is pure speculation on your part. Like too many other assumptions that war supporters keep making, it’s merely something you wish to be true.