[JohnGalt]

Your post is exatly what I mean. If what you are saying is true, the first thing Bush should have done is seal the borders and throw out dangerous suspects. Instead, he proposed to invade Iraq (just as Pearle/Wolfowitz/Kritsol had been pushing for over 6 years now) over WMD.

To me, the disconnect is so striking, that it is no wonder the 'Right' has conjured up anti-American leftists as the boogeyman in this scenario rather than tackle the far more significant fact that there was not one resignation, one demand for a resignation, or one dismissal from our trillion dollar central intelligence aparatus over 9/11-- and yet that is the aparatus who is claiming Saddam is the next Hitler. Rather the whole thing is the fault of Saddam and the minimum wage baggage handlers.

[.30Carbine]

there was not one resignation, one demand for a resignation, or one dismissal from our trillion dollar central intelligence aparatus over 9/11-- and yet that is the aparatus who is claiming Saddam is the next Hitler. Rather the whole thing is the fault of Saddam and the minimum wage baggage handlers.

Clinton was already gone. 9/11 is *his* legacy.

And Saddam needs to go. Are you one of the Saddamites who would let him continue his threat...Saddam's murderous past, his two invasions of neighboring countries, his open threats against the US, his firing on US and UK forces, his payments to the families of suicide-bombers, his harboring of known terrorists (Abu Nidal ring any bells?), his acceptance of terrorist training camps in Iraq, and his history of using WMD's on innocent civilians...(as the good Teacher317 listed)?

Do you vote for Dems?