[cardinal4]

But, but, but its a quagmire! We will kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians! Hey! GWB is wearing a flight suit and landing on a carrier, hes looking Presidential, no fair! Itll cause more terror attacks..../sarcasm off

I could go on and on with the liberal complaints about W, but then I would sound just like them....

[Mike4Freedom]

I disagree completely with the premise of this article. If we had been told before the war that Iraq was absolutely no danger to us, that it had no WMDs, that it was an economic basket case, the American public and Congress would not have signed off on a war. The obvious rejoinder is that many nations are evil to their own people, as much or more so that Hussein was, but, as long as they are no threat to us, it is not our business to put our troops at risk and our money in the pot to do something about it.

All this discussion after the fact, in an attempt to make excuses for what happened is actually embarrassing. I am embarrassed that most of the public apparently accepts it. It bodes ill for our future.

[Grut]

Anything now about us being misled about weapons of mass destruction is only partisan background noise against an outcome an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with.

So next month or next year the administration says "Here's the situation and here's what we have to do." Aren't we well advised, in light of its intelligence failures on WMD, to doubt the administration's assessment?

This isn't just about Bush's critics maneuvering for advantage.

[TheDon]

The reasons we went were valid before the war, and are valid now. The article is right about Demorat partisan background noise. When have the Demorats ever place the security of the nation before their own partisan advantage these days?

The big lie this go around is about WMDs. The mandate of the UN, and our reason for invading Iraq, was that Iraq was not proving they were clean on this point. They were not complying with the UN inspectors.

Those who didn't want us to interfere with their interests in Iraq, tried to cloud the issue, hoping the American public wouldn't grasp the difference between Iraq having WMDs, and Iraq proving they didn't have WMDs. The Demorats have and are currently using this subtle distinction for their own partisan advantage.

Case closed.

[alrea]

the former Iraqi regime itself was a weapon of mass destruction

The "peace first" political wing of the demoocratic party still believes there is a way to stop terrorism with negociation and good will.

They could care less about mass rape and murder of those in places where there is no political leverage for their socialist causes.

[Monty22]

9/11 justified our taking out any enemy regime pre-emptively at any time, using any method.

QED. Period.

[Search4Truth]

It all comes down to this; if you kill Americans, no matter who you are or where you are, we are going to find you and kill you. To make that believable, we needed an example, Saddam was the best candidate.

Now when Bush draws his sword - fresh with the blood of our enemies on it - tyrannts the world over take heed.

[TLBSHOW]

More on Iraq Connection with 9-11

Shocking evidence that Iraqi intelligence played a hand in the 9-11 bombing is available, says Leonard Woolsey, former CIA director from 1993 to 1995. But investigators seem lackadaisacal about pursuing it.

Quoted in NewsMax.com, Woolsey notes that the two ringleaders of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center were Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ramzi Yousef -- both believed to be Iraqi agents.

"Yasin... fled back to Iraq and was under the protection of the Iraqi government there for years," says Woolsey. He is still at large. Yasin's partner Ramzi Yousef was later captured in the Philippines in 1995. Yousef's laptop computer contained plans to hijack U.S. airliners and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and other U.S. landmarks.

Now serving a life sentence in a "supermax" prison in Florence, CO, Yousef could undoubtedly shed light on what really happened on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, according to NewsMax, "Publicly, at least, the Bush administration has given no indication that it has pressed Yousef for more information on Iraq's role in his plot to destroy the World Trade Center."
http://www.richardpoe.com/blog.php

[HitmanLV]

Nah, honestly this isn't good enough. They need to find, or trace, the WMD that Iraq had/has. The central issue would be how could so many intelligence agencies (several of ours, as well as the UK's and Israel's) be wrong?

The answer: It's very unlikely they were.

So they need to find them, or heads need to roll at Military Intelligence. If Bush & crew deliberately lied, then they have lost the moral authority to lead.

I don't see any evidence that they lied, so any talk of that is wishful thinking on the part of the enemies of the administration.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[DeaconRed]

Bottom Line:
Do you feel safer with Sadam still in Power, with over a Billion dollars in hundred dollar bills, People who would do anything for him surronding him?
I feel much safer with the scum out of power.

No matter What "W" does they will critize and find fault.
After all we picked on poor slick willie. We put Monica right in his path and he bought it. Hook, Line and Sink.
7.62MM

[ApesForEvolution]

Hmm, if the threat of force caused him to dismantle, hide or ship out his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons/programs, then we accomplished the mission.

The fact that he was a communist tyrant of immense proportions within the arab world, attacked his neighbors, funded terrorists against Israel and on and on would have been enough reason.

His nuclear program was far more advanced previously than anyone had thought. What if it had been this time and nobody checked it? Next stop: Iran - with Syria on deck.