"Sorry, you're the one inventing facts. Please give me a single cite where Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Powell publicly suggested invading Iraq, before Sept 11, 2001. It was the hit on the World Trade Center that they claimed to be responding to, when they invaded Iraq -- yet Osama is the one who did that. And if you're so concerned about the WOT, why aren't you concerned that we haven't caught Osama, who is the most lethal terrorist ever to hit America?"
"THE BUSH DOCTRINE -- that is to say, if you feed a terrorist, if you clothe a terrorist, if you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist!!!"
'Nuff said, in my opinion! SADDAM FED, CLOTHED, HARBORED AND MOST IMPORTANTLY "WAS" (past tense) A TERRORIST! And that doctrine was why we invaded Iraq. Sounds like you're slowly sipping the DU kool-aid??? Maybe it is unwittingly, but may be time to hire a food-tester
Maybe, but it was OSAMA who hit the US and killed 3000 people in New York City. What kind of "war on terror" turns its attention from capturing or killing the arch-terrorist (Osama) and destroying his army of fiends (Al Quada)?
Exactly so. Churchillbuff is the Neville Chamberlain of Free Republic.
IMO, he's a paid opinion shaper. He NEVER supports the administration or the war on terror. Never.
The book for which Jim Robinson wrote the foreward, Hillary's Secret War, makes it clear how opinion shapers are paid by the left to come to sites like Free Republic and try to shape opionions and set conservatives against each other.
As an aside, Iraq supported Al Qaeda financially, militarily through weapons training and hid the 1993 WTC bombers for years.
This is a link of hundreds of articles that show how Iraq and Al Qaeda worked together for years. Even the Clinton administration, when it obtained a federal indictment against Osama bin Laden, mentioned the terrorist's connections to Iraq.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts