Heavy Fighting in AR Ramadi Iraq~~~ Sadr's fighters have attacked US Forces.

Fox News

[txradioguy]

Semper Fi Texas.

[Miss Marple]

Yes, the Dallas question was good.

Karen is doing a great job. Talking about the war of civilizations, valuing life.

[BushMeister]

Well, you argument about Iran's threat to Iraq being a major reason for our invasion of Iraq is very interesting. The fact that Saudi Arabia (25% of world's proven reserves) would be right in the crosshairs of the Islamists if Iraq went fundamentalist like Iran is pretty obvious. The Middle East has about 55% of the world's proven reserves, and all that oil would be in great danger of becoming terrorist petrodollar assets if Iraq went Islamist.

I have always believed that the primary reasons we went into Iraq were to lay a public smackdown on a muslim terrorist nation ("pour encourager les autres", if that's the phrase), and to establish major bases right in the middle of the Islamic world. The ones at Qatar and Bahrain are not enough, and the fact that we had to shed blood in Iraq to gain control of the turf makes us more likely that we'll insist upon keeping these bases, rather than, say, those in the above two nations (or Kuwait), if the politics got tricky.

I see it like this:

There's no one overwhelming reason for our presence in Iraq. Here's a breakdown, as I would posit it :

Smackdown in broad daylight/bases 30%
WMDs 20%
Oil flow and control 30%
Other 10%
Saddam's attempt to kill Bush-41 10% (Yes, I think that it did play a part)
Create a democracy in an Arab/muslim Middle Eastern nation ???%

You can assign your own percentages, or introduce other reasons, of course. Do we want the bases to crack down on terrorists or dominate oil flow? Both, it seems.

Regarding the WMD issue, how silly would the US look if we admitted that we were wrong about Saddam having WMDs, and then a whole bunch turned up? I know Saddam is a miscalculating lunatic, but think about this:

Why would Saddam give up the benefits of having WMDs without gaining the benefits of NOT having WMDs? I still think they're in the ground, or in Syria. I can't believe that Saddam unilaterally destroyed them, and then hid that fact.

[boxerblues]

Thanks for the update, I've been gone this evening and didnt wade though all the posts. Stay safe & kick some @ss

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Now we have John Dean on with Hannity!

[txradioguy]

Expect the number dead Iraqi's to rise as the hospitals are combed for dead and wounded. The 66 confirmed dead are the ones that couldn't be stuffed in a car and driven off.

[Darlin']

Yes, that was a great answer. I'm happy to know her opinion and I'm looking forward to reading the book. I'm gonna try to pick up a copy tomorrow.

[oceanview]

no 9/11, no anthrax in the mail shortly afterwards - no iraq invasion.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I basically agree with your statement, however, I thought this was about terrorist, Al Quida, Saddam and Weapons of mass destruction? Now we are in the streets, going from town to town fighting Iraqi street gangs? It seems the goal here is becoming out of focus, blurred.

They are talking about this right now on the west coast blow torch station KFI. Many of the callers are asking the same damn thing.

[Miss Marple]

I am sticking with Karen. I remember that weasel from Watergate days.

[prairiebreeze]

Karen said it's not a war between Christians and Muslims but between civilization and the forces of chaos.

Dumb question about the World Trade Center supposedly being cordoned off with police-tape the night before the attacks. Is Karen SURE that nobody in the WH didn't have prior knowledge?

Caller most likely from DUmmyville

Prairie

[Darlin']

What a waste of oxygen he is.

[bcoffey]

Oh, now here come the "random" questioners.

Yes, my suspicions of LKL's "random" questioners echos my suspicions of some "random" political polls: The pollster may use 1,000 "random" participants in the polls, but he had to ask 10,000 people the questions from which he picked his 1,000 "random" answers.

[vbmoneyspender]

I thought this was about terrorist, Al Quida, Saddam and Weapons of mass destruction? I thought one of the reasons we went into Iraq was to put an end to a regime that was the only one on the face of the earth that was regularly firing missiles at our pilots. Doesn't that sound like a good reason to you for going after the Baathists?

[Miss Marple]

Fajullah is full of people from Saddam's regime, who won't give up.

Sadr is trying to take over the country and start a fundamentalist regime, rather than a democracy.

Neither of these situations is acceptable. What is hard for those listeners to understand?

[prairiebreeze]

Wow, the caller from Ontario was spitting nails with his question. Inane question! The DUmmies are out in force on CNN

Prairie

[mylife]

The point is to make Iraq a stable region to spread democracy in the middle east. this will have the long term effect of defusing the rift between the haves and have nots in this world and help to stop all this damned hatred.

[Dane]

Wow, the caller from Ontario was spitting nails with his question. Inane question! The DUmmies are out in force on CNN

Not surprising CNN is their home base.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

They are talking about this right now on the west coast blow torch station KFI. Many of the callers are asking the same damn thing.

Now isn't that amazing how well the media has modified and morphed all of the administrations statements to just that one question: "It was for the WMD'S, that we invaded IRAQ"

Now the populus has picked up on that and are saying where are the WMD's?

The power of the media and the left is awesome,!!!!

[O Neill]

Now we have John Dean on...

Is that blonde wife of his with him? She was a real looker back in '73...