First I would like to thank your brother for his fighting for you and I.

Seccond, I want to make it very very clear that if we bring the troops home

too early, we will be fighting the terrorists in our streets.

How does your brother feel? Does he want to cut and run?

I tell my brother all the time that everyone here appreciates him and what he's doing. This is not an issue I have with the troops who do a fantastic job everyday. My issue is with the policy makers that dont do enough to make sure things are done properly. If we bring the troops home I believe we CAN fight them here as long as we dont have a government that keeps secrets and lets us know EVERYTHING that goes on so we know what to look for. Things being run the way they are now, no we probably couldnt fight them but with a well informed populace I believe there would be less opportunity for them to carry out their plans. Lets spend some of those BILLIONS of dollars beefing up security here. Check EVERY passenger coming into the country on plnaes AN ships. Metal detectors in ALL schools, ALL airports, EVERY shipping port inspects EVERY crate and reports and confiscates ANY suspicious crate. To do this of course we would need to stop a certain level of corruption and laziness that seems to exist virtually everywhere.

It isn't ridiculous, Dharmabum. If we cut and run, and make no mistake, that is what the Democrats are proposing, we will show the terrorists that we do not have the resolve necessary to prosecute the war against them.You are so right, Frogger. Then thousands of them will board Liberian freighters and invade Washington in the dead of night. Unable to withstand this awesome display of military prowess the White House will capitulate and the War on Terror will be lost!!

It isn't ridiculous, Dharmabum. If we cut and run, and make no mistake, that is what the Democrats are proposing, we will show the terrorists that we do not have the resolve necessary to prosecute the war against them.
They'll be fighting us in the streets for sure!!!!!!!!!!!

Please Frogger. The majority of sisko's posts are ridiculous, and this one in that category as well.

Darn those Dems for politicizing this war. :rolleyes:

The war has always had a political aspect to it. Damn those Dems for being willing to cut and run because of their hatred of the President and all things Bush.

You are so right, Frogger. Then thousands of them will board Liberian freighters and invade Washington in the dead of night. Unable to withstand this awesome display of military prowess the White House will capitulate and the War on Terror will be lost!!

Aren't you precious, Sedan.

No, they won't do that but they will increase their attacks both in The States and abroad. The U.S. will be perceived to be a paper tiger.

Don't Abandon Us

By Hoshyar Zebari
Friday, May 4, 2007; Page A23

Last weekend a traffic jam several miles long snaked out of the Mansour district in western Baghdad. The delay stemmed not from a car bomb closing the road but from a queue to enter the city's central amusement park. The line became so long some families left their cars and walked to enjoy picnics, fairground rides and soccer, the Iraqi national obsession.

Across the city, restaurants are slowly filling and shops are reopening. The streets are busy. Iraqis are not cowering indoors. The appalling death tolls from suicide attacks are often high because of crowding at markets. These days you are as likely to hear complaints about traffic congestion as about the security situation. Across Baghdad there is a cacophony of sirens from ambulances, firefighters and police providing public services. You cannot even escape the curse of traffic wardens ticketing illegally parked cars.

These small but significant snippets of normality are overshadowed by acts of gross violence, which fuel the opinion of some that Iraq is in a downward spiral. The Iraqi people are indeed suffering tremendous hardships and making grave sacrifices -- but daily life goes on for 7 million Baghdadis struggling to take back their capital and country.

Today, at an international summit on the future of Iraq in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, my government will ask the international community to maintain its engagement in our country to help us achieve our goals of security and stability. We recognize that our request conflicts with a plethora of voices decrying the situation in Iraq and those in the British and American publics who seek an expeditious withdrawal from a war they claim is all but lost.

So why should the world remain engaged in Iraq?

There is no denying the difficulties Iraq faces, and no amount of good news can obscure the demons of terrorism and sectarianism that have risen in my country. But there is too much at stake to risk failure, and everything to gain by helping us protect our hard-won democratic achievements and emerge as a stable, self-sustaining country.

We remain determined in spite of our losses. Spectacular attacks may dominate foreign headlines, but they cannot change the reality that Iraq has made steady political, economic and social progress over the past four years. We continue to strengthen our nascent democratic institutions, pursue national reconciliation and expand Iraqi security forces. The Baghdad security plan was conceived to give us breathing space to expedite political and economic development by "securing and holding" neighborhoods across the capital. There is no quick fix, but there have been real results: Winning public confidence has led to a spike in intelligence, a disruption of terrorist networks and the capture of key leaders, as well as the discovery of weapons caches. In Anbar province, Sunni sheikhs and insurgents have turned against al-Qaeda and to the side of Iraqi security forces. This would have been unthinkable even six months ago.

Contrary to popular belief, most government ministries are located outside the Green Zone, and employees drive to work every day despite death threats and attacks on colleagues and families. We government ministers are always at risk of assassination. When a suicide bomber attacked parliament last month, the legislators sat in defiance in an extraordinary session the following day. I am particularly inspired by the commitment of the young diplomats in the Foreign Ministry, a diverse mix of Sunni, Shiite, Christian, Arab and Kurdish men and women who serve their country without subscribing to religious or sectarian divisions.

Iraqis are standing up every day, and we persevere because there is no other option. We will not surrender our country to terrorists. They have failed to cripple the elected government, and they have failed to intimidate us into submission. Iraqis reject their vision of a future whose hallmarks are bloodshed and hatred.

Those calling for withdrawal may think it is the least painful option, but its benefits would be short-lived. The fate of the region and the world is linked with ours. Leaving a broken Iraq in the Middle East would offer international terrorism a haven and ensure a legacy of chaos for future generations. Furthermore, the sacrifices of all the young men and women who stood up here would have been in vain.

Iraqis, for all our determination and courage, cannot succeed alone. We need a healthy and supportive regional environment. We will not allow our country to be a battleground for settling scores in regional and international conflicts that adversely affect stability inside our borders. Only with continued international commitment and deeper engagement from our neighbors can we establish a stable democratic, federal and united Iraq. The world should not abandon us.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050301548.html

No, they won't do that but they will increase their attacks both in The States and abroad. The U.S. will be perceived to be a paper tiger.That might be true if they feared us to begin with. They clearly don't, and no matter how powerful we appear to them it won't deter them.

I want to make it very very clear that if we bring the troops home

too early, we will be fighting the terrorists in our streets.


Oh brother.

I wonder if you actually believe that. :@@:

If you do, it is a sad commentary on how gullible certain types in this country are.

The war has always had a political aspect to it. Damn those Dems for being willing to cut and run because of their hatred of the President and all things Bush.

I think you need to use a more recent Republican Talking Points report - "cut and run" isn't being used anymore. NOR IS "STAY THE COURSE!"

:lolhit:

FT,

Who is scared of a paper tiger?

It might not happen right away, but it will happen if we show enough weakness.

Do you actually believe that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone?


Oh brother.

I wonder if you actually believe that. :@@:

If you do, it is a sad commentary on how gullible certain types in this country are.

What are the Dems saying now?

No matter what it is, it is code word for "cut and run"

It is the same thing as "cut and run"


I think you need to use a more recent Republican Talking Points report - "cut and run" isn't being used anymore. NOR IS "STAY THE COURSE!"

:lolhit:

I would rather fight the terrorists in Iraq than the US.


Aren't you precious, Sedan.

No, they won't do that but they will increase their attacks both in The States and abroad. The U.S. will be perceived to be a paper tiger.

It isn't ridiculous, Dharmabum. If we cut and run, and make no mistake, that is what the Democrats are proposing, we will show the terrorists that we do not have the resolve necessary to prosecute the war against them.

Sorry Frogger, it is utterly ridiculous to imagine that insurgents who want us out of their country would "Follow us home".

There is no "war" anymore. We already won the war a long time ago. There is only an occupation and you cannot "win" or "lose" an occupation.

The war has always had a political aspect to it. Damn those Dems for being willing to cut and run because of their hatred of the President and all things Bush.

The fact that you think our opposition to this dumb war is based solely on dislike of Bush proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about.

No one said the Iraqi insurgents would come to america, they are refering to Al Qeada in Iraq. We would like them to stay Al Qeada "In Iraq". Sorry iraq.

Do you actually believe that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone?

YES!!! The vast majority most certainly will.

We are going to have to deal with the repercussions of the hatred that our invasion and occupation will leave behind among the populace. Already 60%+ of Iraqis approve of the attacks on our soldiers. The living relatives of the innocent people we killed, imprisoned and tortured are probably going to come back and haunt us in the future, but staying there forever is only going to make things exponentially worse.

No one said the Iraqi insurgents would come to america, they are refering to Al Qeada in Iraq. We would like them to stay Al Qeada "In Iraq". Sorry iraq.

Al Quaeda will come after us whether we stay or not.

What are the Dems saying now?

No matter what it is, it is code word for "cut and run"

It is the same thing as "cut and run"

I'm not surprised you didn't understand the point, sisko. Let me spell it out for you.

In November 2006, the American people spoke in a very loud voice that leaving Iraq (sooner rather than later) is what they wanted. Our votes changed BushCo's ability to do as it pleased without oversight. Now BushCo must answer to a Democratic Congress and a populace that does not support staying in Iraq.

At roughly the same time, BushCo stopped using the term "Stay the course" because it was clear that, with the Congress and the American people supporting a withdrawal from Iraq, we simply cannot continue doing the same thing we've been doing there for the last four years. The insurgents in Iraq have our soldiers chasing their own tails and getting killed in ever-increasing numbers every month. The Iraqi civil war has forced our troops to spend less time dealing with terrorists, which has allowed Al Queda to blossom and grow in the Iraqi desert - exactly the thing BushCo supposedly was trying to wipe out in the first place (no matter that Al Queda wasn't in Iraq prior to our arrival... :rolleyes: )

BushCo has been trying to dig a hole in dry sand; no matter how hard and fast it digs, more sand spills down into the hole to fill it.

So, "Stay the course" is out - it is no longer possible given today's political climate. This means that BushCo will eventually have to begin pulling our troops out of Iraq or risk political suicide (and we all know how determined BushCo is to remain in power; after all, the Constitution isn't fully destroyed and we still have a few rights left. So much more work to do!).

For years, BushCo characterized/demonized the Democrats' position (which is, essentially, "We need to get out of Iraq, and sooner is better than later.") as "Cut and run." Of course, no Democrat ever said we should start packing our bags and leave on the next plane out, but this is exactly how BushCo and its supporters have described the Dem position. (See your comment above.)

After pounding the "Stay the course" philosophy into every speech for three years, President Bush tried to distance himself from that core strategy in Iraq. George Stephanopoulos asked about James Baker’s plan to develop a strategy for Iraq that was somewhere between "stay the course" and "cut and run."

Bush responded, "We’ve never been stay the course, George!" :rolleyes:

The fact that BushCo has abandoned its own very loudly proclaimed determination to "STAY THE COURSE!" means that it is no longer able to follow that goal. If we're not going to stay there and keep doing the same crap over and over again ("Stay the course"), the alternative is to get the hell out and let the Iraqis handle their own civil mess ("cut and run").

Which is why BushCo no longer uses the phrase "cut and run." Because it will be doing its own "cutting and running" soon enough.

Of course, BushCo would never use those words to describe its own actions. The new mantra is "Adapt to win." In other words, cut and run from "Stay the course!"

:lolhit:

Al Quaeda will come after us whether we stay or not.

so why havent they?

so why havent they?

Where were you on 9-11?
Or for the WTC Bombing in 93?

There were 8 years between attacks.

Be patient.

It IS coming.

I guess all we can do is hope it happens before the Dems assume power so it doesn't blemish thier triumphant return to power.

I guess all we can do is hope it happens before the Dems assume power so it doesn't blemish thier triumphant return to power.

That already happened last November.
If we are still in Iraq by 2008 the Republicans will lose many more seats and probably the white house.

The best thing that could happen for the Republcians, politically, is for Bush to sign the bill that Congress passed.

That already happened last November.
If we are still in Iraq by 2008 the Republicans will lose many more seats and probably the white house.

The best thing that could happen for the Republcians, politically, is for Bush to sign the bill that Congress passed.

yes, I am sure you and your democrat handlers would like that very much. If he doesnt sign it and you get the white house you will have a very hard decision on your hands, and democrats are not good at making hard decisions. If they have the WH and the congress, they could pull our troops out immediatly, but would they? I doubt it. They want it done and over with by the time they assume power.

Do you actually believe that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone?

Firstly, let's get back to the point under discussion; it is an absurdity to suggest--as you have done-- that we will be "fighting them in the streets in America", no matter WHAT course we follow.

As to the question -- ""Do you actually believe that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone?""-- I believe that if this government would --as Osama bin Laden has outlined his primary objections-- remove the multitude of unwanted military bases we have established the Middle East and would stop killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims, then YES, I think the terrorists would be FAR less motivated and far less likely --to put it mildly-- to attack this county or its people.

Osama Bin laden said it so it must be true.

yes, I am sure you and your democrat handlers would like that very much. If he doesnt sign it and you get the white house you will have a very hard decision on your hands, and democrats are not good at making hard decisions. If they have the WH and the congress, they could pull our troops out immediatly, but would they? I doubt it. They want it done and over with by the time they assume power.

I have always given credit where credit is due. The Republicans are better at the Democrats at getting elected. They have smear down to an artform.

But the Democrats are better at actually governing as the last 6 years proved again.

I have always given credit where credit is due. The Republicans are better at the Democrats at getting elected. They have smear down to an artform.

But the Democrats are better at actually governing as the last 6 years proved again.

give us an example of actual governing the democrats have done.

Where were you on 9-11?
Or for the WTC Bombing in 93?

There were 8 years between attacks.

Be patient.

It IS coming.

Sounds almost like wishful thinking on your part, Dharmabum.

Sounds almost like wishful thinking on your part, Dharmabum.

And that sounds like wishful thinking on your part Froggy.

It is my wish that the terrorists never again launch an attack on American soil. That does not seem to be your wish.

It is my wish that the terrorists never again launch an attack on American soil.

Then you should be against this occupation, which is only creating more and more future terrorists.

It seems you are more pro-war than you are anti-terror.

I won't even dignify that with a response.:upyours:

I won't even dignify that with a response.:upyours:

Looks like I struck a nerve. I will take that as confirmation.

No, take that as your post being so stupid it wasn't worthy of a response.

It seems you are more pro-war than you are anti-terror.

I won't even dignify that with a response.

I will take that as confirmation.

He'd never admit it, but it's the absolute truth.

So are millions of other Reichwingers.

Just like how all liberals are really terrorist loving communists who eat babies, right?

Aren't you precious, Sedan.Yes I am, though not as precious as you are smarmy.No, they won't do that butStop right there.

You are correct.

They won't do that.

Thank you for acknowledging the obvious.

I would rather fight the terrorists in Iraq than the US.

How nice for you to condemn Iraqi citizens to death for your safety.

The war has always had a political aspect to it. Damn those Dems for being willing to cut and run because of their hatred of the President and all things Bush.

I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously when you use the phrase "cut and run". It's pure propaganda.

so why havent they?Many people do not know this, Trav, but the only way for terrorists to get into America is through a secret tunnel -- and the entrance to this tunnel is located in the basement of the American embassy in Baghdad!! So, you see, as long as we keep our troops in Iraq we are completely safe from any terrorist attack.

Way to reduce a serious issue to silliness, Sedan.

Way to reduce a serious issue to silliness, Sedan.I wish I could take credit for that, Frogger, but unfortunately the millions of Americans who think like sisko have already beaten me to it. The idea that terrorists are prevented from attacking America because we have troops in Iraq is a criminally stupid one -- but some people will happily accept it because this is easier than admitting to themselves that our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq has been a terrible, ghastly mistake. It's human nature, I suppose, to embrace a falsehood (no matter how absurd) than it is to face an uncomfortable, even painful reality.

It is the terrorists who have condemned the Iraqi's to death not I.

The terrorists target citizens.


How nice for you to condemn Iraqi citizens to death for your safety.

It is the terrorists who have condemned the Iraqi's to death not I.

The terrorists target citizens.

You said you were glad we were fighting the terrorists in Iraq, rather than fighting them here. I'm sure the Iraqis are just as happy that we decided to fight a war in their country. After all, according to you, we have a right to defend ourselves by starting a war anywhere we want, right?

You know that the entire world thought Saddam had WMD's.

I'd bet they were even moved to Syria before the war started.

If millions of people think like me, I can't be all wrong can I?

I never said that the terrorist are prevented from attacking the US

because we have troops in Iraq.

You must admit that the terrorists are flocking to Iraq.

You also must admit that to thecredit of the Bush Admin, we have not

had another attack since 9-11.




I wish I could take credit for that, Frogger, but unfortunately the millions of Americans who think like sisko have already beaten me to it. The idea that terrorists are prevented from attacking America because we have troops in Iraq is a criminally stupid one -- but some people will happily accept it because this is easier than admitting to themselves that our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq has been a terrible, ghastly mistake. It's human nature, I suppose, to embrace a falsehood (no matter how absurd) than it is to face an uncomfortable, even painful reality.

What do the Democrats use instead of "Cut and Run" Is that

pure propaganda?


I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously when you use the phrase "cut and run". It's pure propaganda.

You know that the entire world thought Saddam had WMD's.

They did? Then why didn't the entire world think it was a good reason to go to war?


I'd bet they were even moved to Syria before the war started.

I see...but you think it was a good idea to invade anyway, even though you believe the WMD's were moved elsewhere. What you're saying is that the presence of WMD's was irrelevant to the question of whether we should have invaded Iraq.


If millions of people think like me, I can't be all wrong can I?

Of course you can still be wrong. Millions of Germans sat back while Hitler turned their country into a charnel house. Millions of people believe in ghosts. Millions of people voted for George Bush...twice. Need I go on?


I never said that the terrorist are prevented from attacking the US

because we have troops in Iraq.

Ok, so leaving won't make us less safe from the terrorists.


You must admit that the terrorists are flocking to Iraq.

Yes, thanks to us, many innocent Iraqis are in mortal danger from terrorist attacks. Good thing it's them and not us, right sisko?


You also must admit that to thecredit of the Bush Admin, we have not

had another attack since 9-11.

I'll admit we haven't had another major attack in this country sponsored by muslim extremists since 9-11. If you wish to make an unsupported leap of logic and assign the credit randomly, feel free to do so. I'll wait for a reason to give the credit to Bush.

What do the Democrats use instead of "Cut and Run" Is that

pure propaganda?

Withdrawal? Doesn't sound like propaganda to me. It's the right that makes an attempt to portray anyone who's against the war as a coward, and you, and Rush, and Frogger, are more than happy to go along with that despicable tactic.

The fact is that we won the "war" years ago and this has been an occupation ever since. Continuing to call what is happening in Iraq a "war" is simply dishonest and wrong. Harry Reid was wrong, we did not lose the war, we lost the peace.

Why should we expect the fighting to stop since we refuse to stop fighting?

He'd never admit it, but it's the absolute truth.

So are millions of other Reichwingers.

I know and I find their refusal to acknowledge their own adgenda pretty ominous.

Why are conservatives such cowards. Why are they so afraid all the time?

Man, I've never heard grown men cry-baby in such a fashion ... WA-WA-WA ... we're gonna have to fight them over here ... WA-WA-WA ...

It would really be nice to know that should we ever be in a position to have to defend our streets, the conservatives would be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of us in defense of our country.

But NO -- that would be asking too much from those backboneless, yellow-belly, punks that dare call themselves patriots.

Many of the Iraqi citizens are glad to have free elections.

Many are glad to be rid of Uncle Saddam.

The innocent deaths are the terrorists fault.


You said you were glad we were fighting the terrorists in Iraq, rather than fighting them here. I'm sure the Iraqis are just as happy that we decided to fight a war in their country. After all, according to you, we have a right to defend ourselves by starting a war anywhere we want, right?

The entire world did thing Saddam had WMS's before the war. That is a fact.
We did not find out that they did not have WMD's until after the war started.

Leaving Iraq too early would make us less safe from the terrorists. Iraq would be a brewing place for the terrorists. It would allow N. Korea and Iran to think that we are a Paper Tiger. (We will be a paper tiger if the Democrats get more power than they currently have)

Any Innocent deaths will be the terrorists fault.
Many Iraqis would perfer this to Saddam.
Many parts of Iraq are not that bad.


Who do you think deserves credit for the lack of a Terrorist attace since
9-11?

Do the Democrats deserve that credit??? (Ha Ha that was funny!!)


They did? Then why didn't the entire world think it was a good reason to go to war?



I see...but you think it was a good idea to invade anyway, even though you believe the WMD's were moved elsewhere. What you're saying is that the presence of WMD's was irrelevant to the question of whether we should have invaded Iraq.



Of course you can still be wrong. Millions of Germans sat back while Hitler turned their country into a charnel house. Millions of people believe in ghosts. Millions of people voted for George Bush...twice. Need I go on?



Ok, so leaving won't make us less safe from the terrorists.



Yes, thanks to us, many innocent Iraqis are in mortal danger from terrorist attacks. Good thing it's them and not us, right sisko?



I'll admit we haven't had another major attack in this country sponsored by muslim extremists since 9-11. If you wish to make an unsupported leap of logic and assign the credit randomly, feel free to do so. I'll wait for a reason to give the credit to Bush.

The entire world did thing Saddam had WMS's before the war. That is a fact.
We did not find out that they did not have WMD's until after the war started. You and those you support are full of shit...Thats a Fact.

State Department blocked investigators' access to analyst who had raised alarms about the yellowcake forgeries before the State of the Union in 2003.
http://mparent7777.blogspot.com/2007/05/waxman-rice-hindering-niger-forgeries.html
Leaving Iraq too early would make us less safe from the terrorists. Iraq would be a brewing place for the terrorists. It would allow N. Korea and Iran to think that we are a Paper Tiger. Iraq is already a brewing place for terrorists. Leaving would not make us less safe, said terrorists would be planning on striking the US wether in Iraq or not. N Korea and Iran both know we don't have enough troops for Iraq let alone to invade their asses.
Any Innocent deaths will be the terrorists fault.
Many Iraqis would perfer this to Saddam.
Many parts of Iraq are not that bad. Innocents deaths are the fault of those who pull the trigger.
You have no clue what the Iraqis prefer. But I'll bet you $50 they all prefer No US occupation and No Saddam.
Again you are full of shit. Assuming by bad you mean the US has control, you are wrong. The US does not control any of Iraq including the green zone.
Who do you think deserves credit for the lack of a Terrorist attace since
9-11? 7/7 ring a bell?
Do the Democrats deserve that credit??? (Ha Ha that was funny!!) What>? You're like an FT in your consistant ranting, and unlike him in your very severe lack of facts. (Ha Ha welcome back to IGNORE.)

The entire world did thing Saddam had WMS's before the war. That is a fact.
We did not find out that they did not have WMD's until after the war started.


Someone was brainwashed.

The UN WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE INVASION OF IRAQ. We did not present enough evidence. The only reason that other countries assisted us was because they wanted to be on good terms with the US.

Who do you think deserves credit for the lack of a Terrorist attace since 9-11?
Here is a list of terrorist attacks so far this year.


January, February: Fifty Two Civilians killed in insurgent attacks according to Human Rights Watch.[76]
January 05, 2007 & January 06, 2007: Suspected LTTE suicide bombers blow themselves up aboard two buses during rush hour in Nittambuwa and Peraliya killing 6 and 16 civilians respectively. A further 100 are injured in the incidents.[77][78][79] See 2007 Sri Lankan bus bombs.
January 10: Three bombs kill six and injure twenty seven in the southern part of the Philippines. Muslim militants trying to disrupt Asian Summit suspected.[80]
January 12: Rocket causes minimal damage at the US Embassy in central Athens; police suspect spinoff of Greek left wing group November 17.[81]
January-February: 2007 United Kingdom letter bombs
January 22: A bombing in a market in Baghdad, Iraq, kills 88 people and wounds 160 others.
January 26: A suicide bomber kills himself and a security guard trying to enter the Marriott hotel in Islamabad.[82]
January 27: A suicide bombing Pakistan's north-west city of Peshawar kills at least 14 people, mostly policemen, and injures at least 30. Security forces had been on high alert ahead of the annual Shia festival of Ashoura.[83]
January 29: A suicide bombing in the Israeli resort city of Eilat kills three people. Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed joint responsibility.[84]
February 3: A truck bombing in a crowed Baghdad market kills at least 135 people and injures a further 339 others.[85] See 3 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing.
February 17: A suicide bomber kills 15 people, including a judge, inside a courtroom in Pakistan. The Taliban is suspected.
February 18: A car bomb in Mogadishu killed four people, the first such attack of the Islamist insurgency in Somalia (2007–present).[86]
February 19: Two bombs explode aboard the Samjhauta Express, a train headed toward Lahore, Pakistan, hour after it left New Delhi. 68 people died in the incident.[87]
February: 2007 chlorine bombings in Iraq
March 5: A Rikers Island inmate offered to pay an undercover police officer posing as a hit man to behead New York City police commissioner Raymond Kelly and bomb police headquarters in retaliation for the controversial police shooting of Sean Bell. The suspect wanted the bombing to be considered a terrorist act.[88][89]
March 5: The Taliban kidnap Italian Journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo whilst beheading his driver. Mastrogiacomo was released March 19 after Afghan President Hamid Karzai agreed to free five Taliban prisoners. His translator was left behind. On April 8 an Afghan government official confirmed the translator was killed.[90]
March 6: Two suicide bombers kill 114 Shiite pilgrims in Hilla, Iraq.
March 22: A rocket or mortar lands within 100 yards of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon in the Green Zone in Baghdad, in an apparent assassination attempt.
March 27: Two truck bombs kill 152 people and injure 347 in Tal Afar, Iraq. See 2007 Tal Afar bombings
March 29: Two suicide bombers kill 79 people and injure 81 in a market of Baghdad.
In the two weeks prior to April 8 at least thirteen Afghans and two French aid workers have been kidnapped. Rebels have demanded further releases of their jailed associates in exchange for some of the hostages.[90]
April 10: Three suicide bombers kill one police man and injure 23 people in Casablanca, Morocco.
April 11: Two suicide car bombs kill 33 people and injure 222 in Algiers, Algeria. Al-Queda takes responsibility. See 2007 Algiers bombings
April 12: One suicide bomber kills 8 people and injures 20 in the cafeteria on Iraq Parliament in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
April 12: A U.S. federal grand jury indicted Christopher Paul, 43, a U.S. citizen and resident of Columbus, Ohio on charges of joining al-Qaida and conspiring to bomb European tourist resorts and U.S. government facilities and military bases overseas.[91]
April 14: A suicide car bomb kills 65 people and injure 100 in Karbala, Iraq.
April 14: Two suicide bombers explode near of the American Language Center in Casablanca, Morocco. One person was injured.
April 16: Seung-Hui Cho killed 33 people including himself in the Virginia Tech massacre the worst civilian shooting spree in United States history, and the worst case of mass murder in the United States since 9/11. (Note: this may be commonly considered a general massacre and thus included in the List of massacres, but there had been several hints of Cho's attempt to kill – an attempt to terrorize.)
April 18: A series of explosions kill 198 people and injure 251 in Baghdad, Iraq. See 18 April 2007 Baghdad bombings
April 18: In Malatya, Turkey, hometown of Mehmet Ali Agca, three Christian men, one of them 45-year-old German father of three children Tilman Geske, were brutally murdered by at least four young men who already have confessed the slayings. The assassins tortured their victims for hours before cutting their throats. An autopsy of the German victim found 156 stab wounds. Hurriyet newspaper quoted a suspect: "Let this be a lesson to enemies of our religion."[92][93] [94]
April 25. The American International School in the Gaza Strip is stormed by a dozen gunman claiming to be a members of al-Qaida of Palestine who stole eight computers, planted explosives in adjoining buildings, doused the school with gasoline and set it ablaze.[95]
April 28 Saudi Arabia announced it has arrested one hundred and seventy two people in an Al Queda plot to attack oil facilities, military bases and public figures using civilian aircraft as suicide missiles.[96]
April 28 Interior minister Aftab Khan Sherpao suffers minor injuries, 28 are killed and 35 are injured, ten critically, in a suicide bombing after the minister had finished speaking.[97]
April 28: A car bomb kills 63 people and injure 70 in Karbala, Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#2004

Do the Democrats deserve that credit??? (Ha Ha that was funny!!)
Nope.

The entire world did thing Saddam had WMS's before the war. That is a fact.

Bull. Bush's statement about yellowcake that he used in his SOU address was based on a document that was known to be a forgery.


We did not find out that they did not have WMD's until after the war started.

Yep. Four years ago.


Leaving Iraq too early would make us less safe from the terrorists.

Perhaps, perhaps not.


Iraq would be a brewing place for the terrorists.

More and more every day.


It would allow N. Korea and Iran to think that we are a Paper Tiger.

So your justification for creating a war zone in Iraq is to scare the crap out of Iran and North Korea?


Any Innocent deaths will be the terrorists fault.

That's blatantly false, and it says nothing about the innocents already lost.


Many Iraqis would perfer this to Saddam.

To my knowledge you have neither the authority, nor the credentials to speak for the people of Iraq.


Many parts of Iraq are not that bad.

What an excellent endorsement. "Come to Iraq, many parts aren't that bad!"


Who do you think deserves credit for the lack of a Terrorist attace since
9-11?

Do the Democrats deserve that credit?

I think if the Bush administration had thwarted a terrorist attack on this country you'd have heard about it by now.

Lies about Iraqi Nukes
Bill Clinton & Carl Levin.



In December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton informed the nation that he had ordered military action against Iraq. No less than three times Clinton referred to Iraq's nuclear arms or nuclear program.




Example 1: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Example 2: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons."




http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin072103.asp


Do not attack the messamger. You will not find this reported by CNN or USA today. If Clinton did notsay that, then refute it. Attacking the messanger will not work. Refute the message.

















Someone was brainwashed.

The UN WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE INVASION OF IRAQ. We did not present enough evidence. The only reason that other countries assisted us was because they wanted to be on good terms with the US.


Here is a list of terrorist attacks so far this year.


January, February: Fifty Two Civilians killed in insurgent attacks according to Human Rights Watch.[76]
January 05, 2007 & January 06, 2007: Suspected LTTE suicide bombers blow themselves up aboard two buses during rush hour in Nittambuwa and Peraliya killing 6 and 16 civilians respectively. A further 100 are injured in the incidents.[77][78][79] See 2007 Sri Lankan bus bombs.
January 10: Three bombs kill six and injure twenty seven in the southern part of the Philippines. Muslim militants trying to disrupt Asian Summit suspected.[80]
January 12: Rocket causes minimal damage at the US Embassy in central Athens; police suspect spinoff of Greek left wing group November 17.[81]
January-February: 2007 United Kingdom letter bombs
January 22: A bombing in a market in Baghdad, Iraq, kills 88 people and wounds 160 others.
January 26: A suicide bomber kills himself and a security guard trying to enter the Marriott hotel in Islamabad.[82]
January 27: A suicide bombing Pakistan's north-west city of Peshawar kills at least 14 people, mostly policemen, and injures at least 30. Security forces had been on high alert ahead of the annual Shia festival of Ashoura.[83]
January 29: A suicide bombing in the Israeli resort city of Eilat kills three people. Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed joint responsibility.[84]
February 3: A truck bombing in a crowed Baghdad market kills at least 135 people and injures a further 339 others.[85] See 3 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing.
February 17: A suicide bomber kills 15 people, including a judge, inside a courtroom in Pakistan. The Taliban is suspected.
February 18: A car bomb in Mogadishu killed four people, the first such attack of the Islamist insurgency in Somalia (2007–present).[86]
February 19: Two bombs explode aboard the Samjhauta Express, a train headed toward Lahore, Pakistan, hour after it left New Delhi. 68 people died in the incident.[87]
February: 2007 chlorine bombings in Iraq
March 5: A Rikers Island inmate offered to pay an undercover police officer posing as a hit man to behead New York City police commissioner Raymond Kelly and bomb police headquarters in retaliation for the controversial police shooting of Sean Bell. The suspect wanted the bombing to be considered a terrorist act.[88][89]
March 5: The Taliban kidnap Italian Journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo whilst beheading his driver. Mastrogiacomo was released March 19 after Afghan President Hamid Karzai agreed to free five Taliban prisoners. His translator was left behind. On April 8 an Afghan government official confirmed the translator was killed.[90]
March 6: Two suicide bombers kill 114 Shiite pilgrims in Hilla, Iraq.
March 22: A rocket or mortar lands within 100 yards of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon in the Green Zone in Baghdad, in an apparent assassination attempt.
March 27: Two truck bombs kill 152 people and injure 347 in Tal Afar, Iraq. See 2007 Tal Afar bombings
March 29: Two suicide bombers kill 79 people and injure 81 in a market of Baghdad.
In the two weeks prior to April 8 at least thirteen Afghans and two French aid workers have been kidnapped. Rebels have demanded further releases of their jailed associates in exchange for some of the hostages.[90]
April 10: Three suicide bombers kill one police man and injure 23 people in Casablanca, Morocco.
April 11: Two suicide car bombs kill 33 people and injure 222 in Algiers, Algeria. Al-Queda takes responsibility. See 2007 Algiers bombings
April 12: One suicide bomber kills 8 people and injures 20 in the cafeteria on Iraq Parliament in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
April 12: A U.S. federal grand jury indicted Christopher Paul, 43, a U.S. citizen and resident of Columbus, Ohio on charges of joining al-Qaida and conspiring to bomb European tourist resorts and U.S. government facilities and military bases overseas.[91]
April 14: A suicide car bomb kills 65 people and injure 100 in Karbala, Iraq.
April 14: Two suicide bombers explode near of the American Language Center in Casablanca, Morocco. One person was injured.
April 16: Seung-Hui Cho killed 33 people including himself in the Virginia Tech massacre the worst civilian shooting spree in United States history, and the worst case of mass murder in the United States since 9/11. (Note: this may be commonly considered a general massacre and thus included in the List of massacres, but there had been several hints of Cho's attempt to kill – an attempt to terrorize.)
April 18: A series of explosions kill 198 people and injure 251 in Baghdad, Iraq. See 18 April 2007 Baghdad bombings
April 18: In Malatya, Turkey, hometown of Mehmet Ali Agca, three Christian men, one of them 45-year-old German father of three children Tilman Geske, were brutally murdered by at least four young men who already have confessed the slayings. The assassins tortured their victims for hours before cutting their throats. An autopsy of the German victim found 156 stab wounds. Hurriyet newspaper quoted a suspect: "Let this be a lesson to enemies of our religion."[92][93] [94]
April 25. The American International School in the Gaza Strip is stormed by a dozen gunman claiming to be a members of al-Qaida of Palestine who stole eight computers, planted explosives in adjoining buildings, doused the school with gasoline and set it ablaze.[95]
April 28 Saudi Arabia announced it has arrested one hundred and seventy two people in an Al Queda plot to attack oil facilities, military bases and public figures using civilian aircraft as suicide missiles.[96]
April 28 Interior minister Aftab Khan Sherpao suffers minor injuries, 28 are killed and 35 are injured, ten critically, in a suicide bombing after the minister had finished speaking.[97]
April 28: A car bomb kills 63 people and injure 70 in Karbala, Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#2004


Nope.

You will not find this reported by CNN or USA today.You are so full of crap.

Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

Many are glad to be rid of Uncle Saddam.


That was 4 years ago, now they are more worried about getting rid of Uncle Sam.

Why are conservatives such cowards. Why are they so afraid all the time?

Man, I've never heard grown men cry-baby in such a fashion ... WA-WA-WA ... we're gonna have to fight them over here ... WA-WA-WA ...

It would really be nice to know that should we ever be in a position to have to defend our streets, the conservatives would be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of us in defense of our country.

But NO -- that would be asking too much from those backboneless, yellow-belly, punks that dare call themselves patriots.


Well said.


IMO it goes back to George Lakoff's writings about the Conservative philosophy and their "Strict Father" paradigm of a family. They need a strong father figure to defend them. They don't believe that they have any responsibility to society except to obey and support the Father figure.


.

The entire world did thing Saddam had WMS's before the war. That is a fact.

I don't know what WMSs are, but *I* didn't buy a single word of the BushCo argument that Saddam had WMDs. It would seem that the 36 million people across the globe that took part in nearly 3,000 protests against invading Iraq also didn't buy it.

:rolleyes:

I don't know what WMSs are, but *I* didn't buy a single word of the BushCo argument that Saddam had WMDs. It would seem that the 36 million people across the globe that took part in nearly 3,000 protests against invading Iraq also didn't buy it.

:rolleyes:
the French, Russian, Chinese and German Governments "knew" he did...but they were still against an invasion, i will concede that. it would have exposed their unlawful weapon sales, and other embargo violations sooner.

," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.



wow, he must have hit all of them and destroyed everything he had, amazing!

I don't know what WMSs are, but *I* didn't buy a single word of the BushCo argument that Saddam had WMDs. It would seem that the 36 million people across the globe that took part in nearly 3,000 protests against invading Iraq also didn't buy it.

:rolleyes:

Well said.
They love to pretend that there was consensus before the invasion but everyone who was paying attention knows how wrong that is.

Ya gotta laugh at the people that still buy into the saddam boogeyman bullsh$t.

Barnum was right after all.

ROTFLMAO