[Man of the Right]

The Constitution delegated the war power to Congress because the framers correctly believed no single individual should have the power to go to war.

President Bush told Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein's nuclear program presented a clear and president danger to the nqtion. Subsequently, we learned that the President accepted this CIA estimate based on a single source, the Iranian agent Chalabi. No weapons of mass destruction were found.

Then the President set forth a new objective of democratizing Iraq. Under U.S. auspices, something called the Iraqi Government of National Unity was inaugurated. Nearly four years later, there is no Iraqi nation because the Shiites and Kurds want no part of it, there is no government and there is no unity. Unfortunately, the 1% of the U.S. population that is shouldering the burden for the war -- service members and their families -- are returning for a third and fourth tour and American soldiers are being killed, including 10 yesterday.

From Pearl Harbor to V-J Day (45 months), Roosevelt built a global coalition trained 16 million troops and shipped 8 million to Europe and the Pacific, evicting the Axis from North Africa, Western Europe and the Western Pacific, and totally defeating Italy, Germany and Japan. Forty-five months after the invasion of Iraq, reasonable people ask: Where's the progress? Americans killed in action: 2,924; wounded in action: 21,921. Financial cost: $319 billion.

[altura]

If it was a single source, why did everyone, including dems, including the UN, including your idol Clinton, believe it as well.

BTW, Roosevelt had the country behind him.

BTW again. We won the Iraq war and did it quickly and easily.

The problem now is that, instead of putting in a benevolent dictator friendly to the US(like the Shah), arming him, and giving him carte blanch to restore order, we had a President who had a vision of establishing a democracy in Iraq.

I believe he wanted to do this for two reasons. One, because he cares about people, even Iraqis, and wanted them to have a democracy. All these cut and run pacifists don't get a rat's rear about them.

The second thing is he thought it would be greatly to our advantage for there to be a thriving democracy in Iraq.

He still thinks this is possible and worthwhile and so do I.

If you are so informed and reasonable, why can't you argue on the basis of facts and not lies and insults?

[jveritas]

Since you have mentioned the duration of WW II and compare it to the duration of the war in Iraq, and since you mentioned the number of troops killed and wounded in Iraq, it would have been more honest for you to mention the casualties that we suffered in WW II as well as the cost of WW II: Over 400,000 US troops were killed in WW II, over 600,000 wounded, and the cost of the war was 288 billions dollars in 1940’s money which equivalent to over 2 trillions dollars in today money.

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

[tobyhill]

"Subsequently, we learned that the President accepted this CIA estimate based on a single source"

That's not true because we know that British Intelligence had information that Iraqi Officials traveled to Niger to at the minimum inquire about Uranium and we know from the past use and wars that Saddam had unaccounted for chems according to the UN themselves and that's what brought on 1441. No one should have the luxury of convenient memory when it comes to UN 1441. An automatic act of war was when Saddam fired at our pilots patrolling the no-fly zone but that's just a minor issue to many. Not to mention that Saddam never returned at least the body of our pilot shot down during the first Gulf War which was a part of the cease-fire.
Congress authorized the war based on a lot of information so they need to stand by their vote and help win instead of being critics.