[dwd1]

And they call me a troublemaker...

And some point, there does need to be a discussion about whether the president lied to get us into this war or whether he relied on faulty intelligience or whether the reasons have changed...

His intent was definitely good but the international community is going to require a higher burden of proof when pre-emptive military action is going to be used... (I still say it is self-defense)

And I think the body count is going to go up but that is acceptable to the administration as long the US government is up front about what is going on...

The writer is correct about certain attempts to stifle dissent but the writer of the piece needs to always preface by offering his support to the troops...

[Nonstatist]

the international community is going to require a higher burden of proof when pre-emptive military action is going to be used...

You mean like in Bosnia? The "international community " (read: France and Germany) wants the US out of its backyard so they can cozy up to the dictators of their choice, like Hussein. France regularly bullies into places like the Ivory Coast and Central African Republic without asking permission. There'd be no talk of "illegitimacy" if this was a Democrat Party action, like Vietnam, for example.

[tbpiper]

international community is going to require a higher burden of proof

The 'international community' can kiss our collective national ass. They've shown themselves to be more inerested in talk than action and are perfectly willing to let the whole world go to hell as long a everybody 'feels ok' about it.

As far as 'attempts to stifle dissent', that simply bull sh*t. However when the 'dissent' gets our troops killed, I'm all for stiffling it. We can have a sedate discussion after the war is over. But right now, the 'dessent' for a fact, only feed the jehadis and the dimwits who mouthe it proclaiming to support the troops just need to shut the hell up.

[stands2reason]

The writer is correct about certain attempts to stifle dissent

Bullskite.

[Dr. Frank fan]

And some point, there does need to be a discussion about whether the president lied to get us into this war or whether he relied on faulty intelligience or whether the reasons have changed...

I might be persuaded to agree with this but we would have to agree on some common ground first. For one thing, there can be no serious discussion about whether "the reasons have changed" until Bush critics concede that there's no such thing as an Official List Of "Reasons" For A War.

The writer is correct about certain attempts to stifle dissent

The writer is actually "correct" about astoundingly little, and as for "stifle dissent", I don't know what you're talking about. Whose dissent has been "stifled"? Example(s)?

[xzins]

Feith Memo


It blows the president lied propaganda out of the water!

Al Qaeda operated with Iraqi complicity.....THAT WAS the issue!