[DugwayDuke]

“Iraq is and always was completely separated from 9/11. There was and is no connection between the two.”

There was a connection. Hussein had a record of supporting terrorism and a record of WMD. Saddam could have remained in power by fully cooperating with the inspectors and proved he had no WMD that he might provide to terrorists.

“Ron Paul has not been specific about how we deal with the danger of destablizing Pakistan entirely by imprudent measures.”

Just like the democrats, avoid being specific, just criticize.

“The Bush administration has seemed, until this last week, to have no more interest in Osama than Xlinton did. We condemn Xlinton over and over for not apprehending Osama when he had the chance.”

Exactly which organization offered to turn Osama over to Bush like the Sudanesse offered to Clinton?

“Just what the hell has Bush been doing to get Osama the last five years anyway?”

You’re making the same mistake as the democrats in viewing this as a law enforcement issue that can be solved by arresting or killing one man. Getting Osama won’t solve the problem of Islamic terrorism.

[George W. Bush]

There was a connection. Hussein had a record of supporting terrorism and a record of WMD. Saddam could have remained in power by fully cooperating with the inspectors and proved he had no WMD that he might provide to terrorists.

Supporting Pali terrorism, yes. Just like our Saudi friends did (and 16 of 19 9/11 hijackers and Osama are all Saudi). You want to advocate invading Saudi Arabia, clearly a known source of terrorism as well as the 9/11 attack? Most of the money we cut off from the al-Qaeda network were the donations from members of the Saudi royal clan.

And Saddam did 'prove' he didn't have WMD to the inspectors. He was stupid about it but there is no proof he still had any WMD or that he evacuated to Syria or anywhere else. And we just said that Saddam was lying and that he really had them anyway. But he didn't, regardless of the rich fantasies some folks here at FR spin about it.

Just like the democrats, avoid being specific, just criticize.

You're being silly. No Congressman, even those on the military and intel oversight committees, is given access to that much information. Not under this administration or in any previous ones.

Exactly which organization offered to turn Osama over to Bush like the Sudanesse offered to Clinton?

I was indicating the hypocrisy in condemning Xlinton for exactly that which Bush has shown so little interest in. Bush has actually been publicly dismissive of the need to bring Osama to justice, talked as though it was completely unimportant. And Xlinton hadn't had 3000 Americans killed and our economy hit on by an Osama attack either.

Beyond that, we don't know yet whether anyone has, since 9/11, offered up Osama. However, they did just raise the reward from $25 million to $50 million. So they're getting a little more interested. Maybe we might even actually capture him.

You’re making the same mistake as the democrats in viewing this as a law enforcement issue that can be solved by arresting or killing one man. Getting Osama won’t solve the problem of Islamic terrorism.

Phooey. It will stop terrorism organized by Osama. You don't stop future murders by executing a single murderer. But you stop that murderer from murdering again. And recent studies show that almost nothing deters murder like the death penalty despite all the bilge the liberals spew about how ineffective it is.