Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan

I think this comes from how the the Clinton Adminstration refused to engage terrorism head-on. It was criticized long befgore the Republicans ever entered office. Take for example, Somalia. The US lost, I believe, 17 Special Operators while trying to bring a terrorist to justice. But when the going got rough, the Clinton admin tucked tail and whimpered away with its tail between their legs, thus strengthening the resolve of the West's enemies. The objective was never met, and leraving Somalia prematurely basically told the soldiers that they died for nothing at all. They accomplished nothing.This mentality was greatly exacerbated by the 7 blatant attacks that this administratiuon refused to act upon. Now, there have been mistakes with the Bush Administration. To strengthen the resolve of the waning American support in Iraq, we were told of WMD's, Mission Accomplished, Al-Qaeda/Hussein ties, Sectarian violence, etc. The reality is that hindsight is 20/20. And we now have no way of knowing what would have happened if the Bush Admin had not disamed the Hussein regime. We can say that going into Iraq was a great idea and we can say that it was a horrible idea, but the reality is what's done is done. It would be terrribly irresponsible to leave now, even though these people should have been ready to wipe their own butts by now. I find it interesting that the Bible says that Babylon is cursed and anyone that goes into Iraq will not bear fruit from their efforts. An ominous and neglected omen at best-- and at least, an interesting coincidence. The problem is that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are shadow organizations. They aren't a country. They don't wear uniforms, they play nice, and the days of civilised war with rules of engagements are over. You can say goodbye to how we used to live. We will never experience that kind of prosperity ever again-- might as well get used to it, aye....?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

We went over this already in chat so I'll be brief. No one can doubt, (not even you), that Reagan had an enormously positive effect on the world through his tough policies. The Iran Contra scandal was certainly a stain on his record. I don't there is one presidency that can avoid it. But to compare Reagan in Lebanon to Clinton in Somalia is begging the question and paying no attention to circumstance. Man, I just can't see how anyone could despise Reagan, of all the crappy presidents (See: Nixon, Carter, Johnson for details), that you would loathe Reagan as much as you do. The US did go into Somalia for a reason, but none of the above from your list. They went in to quash rogue warlords who were heaping civil unrest upon its own people. I don't blame Clinton for going in, I blame him for leaving without accomplishing one single objective. All he did was show the world that the mighty US will cave in and crumble if the heat is turned up enough. No, you change tactics and you complete your objective, otherwise, those men died in vain. In the case of trying to tie AQ to Iraq, there was no connection. They made a connection when AQ decided to fight us on Iraqi soil. The WMD's were absolutely real... Just ask the Kurds. Just ask John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Madeleine Alright, among other notables, who are on film speaking about the reality of Hussein's effort to amass WMD's."If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998."(Saddam Hussein) will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998."We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program." -- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle and John Kerry, among others, Oct. 9, 1998."Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998."There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, Oct. 10, 2002.They weren't figments of the imagination. It was a credible threat. The Democrats just used this to their advantage and recanted their statements because they wanted a Dem in office. That's so transparently obvious that I shouldn't even have to mention it.Unfortunately, no one will ever know what would have happened if the US didn't go in. Iraq is a mess. I don't doubt it. But in retrospect, looking at Churchill and Roosevelt, they paid a hefty price for not going after Germany soon enough. Whether you like Bush or not, that was the motivation. There is no such thing as strictly humanitarian efforts. Countries only do what is in the best interests of themselves and their allies. Even the staunchest conservative shouldn't have the wool pulled over their eyes and believe that Vietnam or Iraq was strictly a humanitarian effort. Its just not true. No, the US will be no more in a decade or two.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Yeah, that's usually the way it works from my perspective.

quote:

---

"(Saddam Hussein) will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998.

---

quote:

---

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program." -- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle and John Kerry, among others, Oct. 9, 1998.

---

I think "air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program" is the part that implies invading Iraq. Quotes are powerful, especially when someone changes their tune about a very important issue just for the sake of politics and not for the sake of the people's safety. Don't you think its odd that scathing critics of WMD's and the AQ/Iraq connection make comments like:"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." --Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002

quote:

---

There is no such thing as strictly humanitarian efforts.

---

"The US went into Somalia for valid reasons, humanitarian reason, to bring in food and health care. -Jar (Message 126

quote:

---

No, the US will be no more in a decade or two.

---

I think it has to do with the infiltration of secular humanism. Afterall, its the secular behavior that Wahhabi Islam abhors, not the people of the book.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

I said the reason the US went into Somalia was to capture warlords, one in particular. You claimed that Clinton brought the Army into Somalia for humanitarian reasons and that it was 'honorable.' Lets get real here. You don't send Rangers and Delta Force special operators to conduct humanitarian efforts right smack dab in the middle of Mogadishu. That's why I said the US, nor any country, go into conflicts for stirctly humanitarian efforts. They just don't. Believe me, the US and France, Germany, Spain, or whoever else has ample chances to fulfill this act of pure philanthropy on every coner of the globe. In other words, I'm asking you to spare the sympathies as if the Clinton Admin did for the 'honor.' They did for the same reason any other country would-- out of its own interests.

quote:

---

I think "air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program" is the part that implies invading Iraq.

---

When someone thinks of 'invasion,' does it not invoke hostile actions? Of course it does. Sending missles into a country is a hostile action, whether it be retaliatory or otherwise, is a hostile action. Stop trying to derail the argument with the hair splitting. No, misdirection would be the AP and Reuters, in particular. You said that Saddam didn't kill his own people nor we find WMD's. You were only correct about the latter assessment. Yeah, and I'm showing how Democrats and Republicans both knew that Saddam had WMD's and that they both viewed it as a credible threat to the peace and stability of many nations. I then went on to expand the argument to include how everyone has selective memories about the Democrats support of the invasion....... I'm just refreshing everyone's memory. Okay.... True or false: Has Saddam ever had WMD's, ever? True or false: Has he used those weapons in the past, even on his own people? Was not half the world, including the UN who had weapons inspectors as their watchdogs, reporting that Saddam was building up his arsenal post-Gulf War? Saddam's own military has confided in the US and informed them that they are being housed in Syria. Because the world was breathing down his neck! You act like his reasoning was because he's a nice guy. He didn't do it because invasion was upon him and he was informed of that. Wow.... Just, wow.... You know, this was the same mentality that was espoused prior to 9/11. Big mistake. I always knew it was coming. I was following Bin Laden and Al Qaeda long before 9/11 was ever cooked up and I always knew they'd come back. So, you don't see Wabbi extremists as a credible threat? Maybe I'll send you some footage of beheadings, or remind you of all the plots that have been foiled by the US, UK, Pakistan, etc. You see conservatives as threat more dangerous than terrorism? I see.... Any specific reasons? There is still a large presence of US special operations forces in Afghanistan. Nobody is being left in the lurch. You seem to forget that the UK is also in Iraq, so if they are stretched thin then they need to take that up with their high ranking officers to ensure they have the proper gear needed to win their campaign. Because Iraq is one country, not three. This just adds to the element of sectarianism. Besides, who is the US going to strike a deal with? Its the people who are either going to stand with or against proposed changes like that. Why did change the subject about Palestinians? And why should the US pay for the tuition of Palestinians when most Americans don't even have that unbelievably charitable deed offered to them? Why not help Palestine build their own universities? Why? Why these three nations, that promote state-terrorism, as opposed to some dienfranchised African or Asian country?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

I'm not the one splitting hairs here. The Democrats were all for the invasion of Iraq, as you can clearly read by their own words. Jar praises Clinton for Somalia but condemns Bush for Iraq. Clinton, and his wife, among other high ranking officials in the Democrat party supported what Jar rejects.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Ah, yes, because that has worked brilliantly for the past 25 years, right? There were many warning signs long before 9/11. 9/11 just happened to be the most succesful attack. You can't ignore them because they have aspirations to punish us all in the name of Allah. It isn't retroactive and it isn't passive. Its literally convert or die for Wahhabists. Delusions of grandeur. They hit the symbol of world economic strength and the symbol of military might, and you trivialize this? The scale of their attack is pretty impressive. These are trite statistics that neglects to pinpoint the obvious flaw in your rationale-- namely, that car accidents are just that-- accidents. The incineration of 3,000 + people was an act of premeditated murder.Aside from that, the damage incurred by one suicide bomber is nominal in comparison to a conventional bomb. But these people want to incur maximum damage. Imagine one gaining access to nuclear weaponry from Iran or N. Korea, or the defunct USSR? Do you realize that the US has suitcase-sized nuclear bombs that can be transported clandestinely with ease that would decimate the entire Eastern seaboard? We aren't the only nation with technical capacity. Do you realize that an EMP attack is virtually imminent and relatively cheap to manufacture with the aid of a rogue government bent on supplanting the only remaining world super power? Yes, it will encourage them and strengthen their resolve to come to our own land to attack us for the umteenth time. Guns won't go away through flower power, nor will it stop people from killing. People killed before guns, and people will kill after them. Disarming the responsible owners won't disarm Al Qaeda. Most of the insurgents are NOT Iraqi. They're Arab, yes, but few are Iraqi. They are fighting because they see an opportunity to kill coalition forces-- the very thing they were training to do BEFORE the invasion.No hindsight, no foresight-- they only see what's right in front of their face. There is no credible evidence to support that AQ was linked to Iraq, though, in retrospect everyone in Congress, Dems and Reps believed it to be true. The objective was to go after AQ, right? So they went into Afghanistan and supplanted the Taliban. Now, AQ is in Iraq and the US is catching them there. Now, don't take this to mean that I'm all for the invasion of Iraq or that collosal military blunders haven't taken place. The point is that you live in a fantasy world if you think that AQ doesn't present a legitimate threat to the Western world. That's a pipe dream, in which case, pass the bong so I can smoke what you're smokin'. I'd like to put my head in the sand too. What military campaign in human history doesn't have some of its soldiers die in the process. If you want to use statistics, the number of US casualties is far less in Iraq than it was in any war in its history.

Civil War: 498,332

WWII: 407,316

WWI: 116,708

Vietnam: 58,655

Revolutionary: 25,324

Iraq/Afghanistan: 2,752 (as of October 13, 2006)

​

Over 3,000 people were killed in one day on September 11, 2001.

​

He is also responsible for the number of Iraqiis that have died -- the innocent men women and children that number in the hundreds of thousands, many times the numbers that were killed in ALL terrorist attacks in the last 50 years. That, imh(ysa)o makes him a worse threat to world peace than any terrorist activity.

​

You act as though the US hasn't used laser guided weapons that greatly mitigated the effects of collateral damage. You also act as though coalition forces 'carpet bombed' the Iraqi landscape. If we were out to kill Iraqi's, they'd all be dead. They aren't all dead because that's not an objective of coalition forces.

​

The fact that Schwubbia was a total weinie when it was his turn to stand up for his country doesn't relieve him of the responsibility of standing up to his job now eh? But he's still a weinie when it comes to taking responsibility: can't even admit anything like the correct numbers of deaths of innocents.

​

And how should he have handled this whole mess starting from 9/11? If RAZD was president, (ooh, I just shuddered), how would he have handled it?

​

I don't expect them to lay down Tal, I expect them to get marginalized when you deal with the issues in a rational way that prevents them from making new recruits. If they cannot recruit and their "voice" is increasingly ignored by those who see real progress in respecting human dignity, justice, and equality then they will become irrelevant.

​

And how do you stop them from recruiting? While we ignored them for 30 years, they built training camps to come and destroy us. So, explain how just pretending they don't want to kill us is going to stop them from trying to kill us?

​

Stating publically that the Geneva Convention does not apply and then having picures of abu ghraib broadcast around the world does not make them irrelevant does it? Treating them as lesser beings does not make them irrelevant does it?

​

They're in prison instead of having their heads lobbed off with butterknives. What do you want to see happen? Them let go? The pictures of the people who want to kill you with electrodes and barking dogs are isolated incidents that have been dealt with. Those personell at Abu Ghraib will have to stand before a military tribunal, and you can bet your bottom dollar their punishment will be severe just because of the negative headlines.

​

The methods used in Isreal have been shown to be completely incapable of stopping terrorism -- isn't it time to try something else?

​

Its all been tried. Ignoring them, pardoning them, making peace with them, coddling them, killing them, punishing them-- what options to you suggest at this point for both Israel and the US?

​

Iraq has nothing to do with capturing the terrorists that attacked the trade towers.

​

What is it about then?

​

Terrorism is a response to oppression. Continue the oppression and you can be guaranteed of always having terrorists. Thus waging a "war" is automatically self-defeating.

​

This is stultifying and about the time I shut down. Bin Laden is oppressed?

​

We see these results in the new studies that SHOW that terrorist ranks have increased since Schwubbia invaded Iraq - in spite of the number killed.

​

I won't argue that. So, again, just pretend its not happening will work, like shutting your eyes makes the bad man go away? Out of sight, out of mind?

​

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

​

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

​

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

​

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

​

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : correcting technical errors

​

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Because ignoring them hasn't worked. That's all Bill Clinton did throughout his term. He was a pussycat with timid policies and they preyed on that. They didn't see him as this gentle and meek man who won their hearts over. They saw him as a pansy who would cave into their demands and someone they can totally use and abuse. And that's exactly what they did.To be fair, for the average American, its difficult to remember what exactly the countries sentiments were concerning terrorism because it was often very far removed from us. But American presidents get the briefings and they know what kind of severity it posed. Could the Clinton adminstration or any administration have forseen the scale of the attack-- I doubt it. And I will grant that much leeway. Look at the UK. Look at France. They are a few steps away from from just handing it all over. I implore you to read "Londonistan," for a greater understanding of what I'm referring to. And do you know why this happening? Its because of a liberal ideology that coddles them and caters to their whims. Its like a mad case of Stockholm Syndrome.And its already happening here too. Its just slower to catch on. In Minneapolis, if the cab driver is Muslim and you have a six pack or a ham sandwhich, you are not allowed to ride in his cab. Hmm... The city of Minneapolis observes the Shari'a, but do they observe the Halacha? And the Left complains about how Christians "force" their dogma on them. Force? What, by them engaging with you in a forum? But them opting to watch TBN? Somehow, some way, that's considered forcing, but getting kicked out of a cab because of the drivers beliefs is not? How rich is the irony? "So far" is the optimal word in the sentence. And would please stop trivializing what happened by using numbers as if it justifies the action. I've already shared with you how not ignoring them doesn't do any good. Its the way the West lives that matters. Don't you get that? Just pretending its not happening isn't going to stop it from happening. So, what does this ignoring them entail? No airport security? No countermeasures of any kind? If they creep through again and blow up the Sears Tower, just act like it never happend? Seriously, what does that even mean? According to California pop psychology you let them be spolied brats so they can grow up to be tall, spoiled brats. If you're sensible, you'll spank them when its appropriate. The analogy works for terrorism as well. What is that supposed to prove? Do you ignore murders and rape by not responding to them? I would have assumed from a man of your intelligence would have spotted the glaring contradiction in this pearl of wisdom. I thought you said to ignore them? Which is it? Go after them or don't go after them? Who is throwing away 200 years of rights? Tell me how your freedom has been affected? Can't bring mouthwash on the plane anymore??? Boo-hoo. By some gum. Uncle Sam isn't watching you RAZD. They don't have time to concern themselves with what you and your wife's sound like in the throes of passion, nor would they care. Here's the first thought of competing nations during Clinton's term. "This president is weak and so is his whole staff. They won't do anything. Whatever we do to them, they'll just try and ignore it."Here's where they think twice with the next presidency:"Attack America?!?! Are you serious? This guy doesn't play around."Its called "peace through strength," and its a tactic that has worked well for the United States for years. The difference with terrorists is that they run clandestinely and its hard to bring these shadow warriors out into the open. There is structure so you can't go directly to any source like you can with a nation. So what are your suggestions? If you say 'leave' and an extremist makes it to power in Iraq through complete civil unrest and threatens or attacks the US, you'll no doubt say, "See, GW did this to us. Why did the US leave prematurely?!?!" Don't believe me? Its happened already with this war. Democrats were just as hungry to go into this war. After they saw the backlash from many Americans, they changed their tune for political gain and pretended to suffer from a bad memory. And, naturally, the media won't talk about that because they share the same ideology, so everyone on the sidelines will be none-the-wiser. Its a perpetual stalemate for Bush. There is nothing he can do to make anyone happy. Well, yeah, when you're the CC you have to eat every piece of criticism and like it and then ask for more. How did he run away? Yeah right! Source?Let's see: I placed that in a search engine and check the dates to match them as close as possible. Ever site has radically different figures ranging from, 3-5,000, 30-100,000, 16,000, 50-100,000, 600,000, 650,000, 13,000, LOL, I even have one that said Dubya has personally killed over a trillion people. What links them together? This parroted phrase, "Studies have shown that," "research has shown," but they don't give any sources and they don't give any details on how they could know those figures.Aw heck, lets just do the math here. We've been there a little over 3 years, starting on March 20, 2003. That's 1305 days to accumulate a staggering innocent civilian death toll of 600,000 bodies of men, women, and children. That's 2,175 bodies a day-- not including US or insurgent casualties. I'd like to know how any nation, especially one in such a decrepit condition as Iraq is, how they could possibly handle an influx of over 2,175 bodies a day. Sorry, but that's pure propaganda. Afghanistan has been neutralized as much as it possibly can be without us going into Pakistan. At this point, you don't need alot of troops in country (which I though would please some people). All that is needed is an augmented special operations group with perhaps a contingency of light infantry and a small rotor/fixed wing supply. Iraq, on the other hand, is a disaster. I don't doubt that its a disaster and something needs to be remedied. And since its people are incapable of standing up on its own two feet as of yet, it would be incredibly negligent to leave them in that condition. There is only a small contingent of Taliban operating in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Pakistan. The terrorists are in Iraq fighting the front there. Well, unfortunately hunches don't carry alot of weight, but in the event that such atrocities are or have taken place, then let those reasponsible pay the wage of their crime. I don't understand this paragraph here. What are you talking about here? What are the short-cuts you are referring to? Hamas was elected because they cloaked themselves as a legitimate organization and won the people over by giving them healthcare and other incentives to join in their campaign against Israel.

quote:

---

What is it about then?

---

No good reason...? Even if Iraq was a huge mistake, there is no way that you could say that it was for no good reason. Again, you don't know what would have happened had Hussein still been in power. You also have to know that the average American is not privvy to certain information-- information that. if leaked, could cause irreparable damage to the US and its allies. You could say with a credible amount of sanity, "Ha, ha, we told you Iraq was a mistke." You could make that kind of an argument and be justified. What you can't say is that it was for no good reason, that there were not actual reasons for going in. And so what should we do about that? Free tickets to the Dr. Phil show? Have them psychoanalyzed and treated for depression? I'm questioning what you motivation is for mentioning it. His true purpose is to fulfil Wahhabi Islam. Bin Laden is sincere when he thinks that "garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods"Maybe they stick it out because ""believers, when you encounter the armies of the infidels do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons, or to join another band he shall incur the wrath of Allah and Hell shall be his home: an evil fate." -Qur'an 8:12-17Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

He is advocating that. He has announced it several times. However, if by chance I misunderstood what he meant by 'ignoring them' I would certainly consider that. The question is, 'who' does RAZD want to ignore the terrorist? If he is referring to us, the public, it does no good because the terrorists do not hear our message. Aside from which, we're not all tucked away in our homes in abject fear just counting down the days until we die. We go to work, we shopping, we ride the trains, planes, buses, go to the movies. And in that way, we aren't ignoring them, we're sending a message that we won't be scared into submission.If by 'ignoring them' means that the government should ignore tham and we should go back to our half-assed, lackadaisacal attitude on security, that, as I've pointed out, just didn't work. Even when we didn't retaliate or hardly acknowlege that it happend, they still kept coming.If RAZD meant 'ignoring them' as to refer to the media, then I couldn't agree more. The media has done a stand-up job of painting a nasty picture where the US is bad, bad, bad, and the terrorists are actually a gentle people's. They love presenting gore and are certain to tell us every time a troop dies so that every single day our morale will go down. And its worked brilliantly. Instead of focusing on the schools that were built, or the new Iraqi police force beginning to stand up under its own volition, we hear of "IED, roadside bomb, 4 Marines killed, Striker Brigade under attack, insurgents gaining strength, Al-Qaeda defiant, Zarqawi's death did nothing, the world hates the US now, negative angle, negative spin, negative outlook.But I guess this shouldn't shock anyone. Good things don't get good ratings. People are often masochistic as evidenced by what is popular and what is not. As long as some kind of conflict involved in the plot, the people love it. Shows about betrayal, infidelity, death, destruction and gore are the top go-getters. Interestingly enough, its this Americanized mentality that the extremists despise. I wonder why those who want to coddle them can't make the connection that it is them they despise the most.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

I'm not following you....? What does this mean?

The problem, I think, is that people forget the frenetic tone that led to the war to begin with. As I've unequivocally proven, both high level Dems and Reps were all for the ousting of Hussein who routinely ignored UN sanctions and policies. What is regrettable, is that Rummsfeld, who's been described by senior officials as botching the war effort, has tried to connect dots that didn't exist prior to the invasion. In his defense, he wasn't the only one who believed it to be credible. That figure also includes other Reps and Dems. But, lest we forget, our opinions about the war can only be as good as the intelligence we recieve. Maybe the NSA and CIA need to step up and take some flack for their handling of evidence.Nonetheless, as you shared, simply leaving Iraq high and dry at this juncture would be incredibly irresponsible-- even if you disagree with the war. Something that drastic is just an emotional response, not a well thought plan of action. Sheehan is used to being led by emotion to fuel her personal crusade. I don't see any real vision in her beliefs. She apparently wants some sort of vindication. She obviously isn't the only one. An exit strategy needs to be devised, not some oversimplified version of events that some people are pushing for. I can't help but point out the irony. Certain individuals claim that Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda but Afghanistan does. Afghanistan is a fairly stable country. Most of AQ is either running minor operations in Afghanistan by hanging around the Pakistan border or they are mostly in Iraq. Aside from which, the US is still very much present in Afghanistan. Most special operation efforts are being run out of this country. And that's all that is really necessary due to the terrain. Alot of people say that Musharaf has been an ally of convenience so that the US doesn't invade them in their hunt for Bin Laden. They say he plays both sides. I don't know. I know that he's caught numerous Taliban and AQ officials, moreso than any other Muslim nation, bar none. As long as the Afghani gov't can repel the Taliban, that's all that matters at this point. There will be people who find ideological agreement with the Taliban for a long time. You can't just erase their memory from existence.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

The frenetic tone I'm speaking about is that Iraq while Iraq was continuing to defy UN orders, the US was attacked on its own soil. From the beginning, aye? What do you consider 'the beginning' to be? Pick a card, any card.Tell that to the Democrats in the film. I would expect a blatant disregard of safety in the name of politicking to be more egregious offense. I think your uber-leftist views are clouding what otherwise might be good judgement on your part. You do realize that the 'axis of evil' can do nothing without Congess' approval don't you? Its not like these three men have the ability to wage an indiscriminate war by themselves. Now, you could say that all three are incompotent and that they aren't fit for office. That holds a little bit of water. But your suggestion that the intelligence presented to them by the NSA or CIA bore no reflection on their decision would be ridiculous.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt