Democrats Perception Of Saddam/iraq Before Gwb...so Will They Do The Same With Isis??

[JakeStarkey]

Wrong question, LBT. The Adams who took over the medieval literature graduate program at Harvard said, to the effect, "Teach your students to learn how to ask themselves the right questions so they can find valuable right answers."

I am pretty sure that he also was unimpressed with the fallacy of derivative analogies that quickly fall apart, like yours.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

FW 9832286 regarding NF 9832231, FW 9826516

But she said what she said knowing full well the evidence as well or better then anyone .

She said what she said in October 2002 when there were no UN inspectors in Iraq.

I have stated she was correct to vote in October 2002 to confront SH because UN inspectors were not in Iraq. Then 1441 was passed in November and inspectors went in.


The evidence Bush cited on March 17 2003 to justify the invasion was not the evidence that Senator Clinton had available to her in October 2002. You are blurring the truth.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What a pointless thread. Everyone knows that when GWB was born ISIS was created in his image.

 

[deltex1]

FW 9832286 regarding NF 9832231, FW 9826516

But she said what she said knowing full well the evidence as well or better then anyone .

She said what she said in October 2002 when there were no UN inspectors in Iraq.

I have stated she was correct to vote in October 2002 to confront SH because UN inspectors were not in Iraq. Then 1441 was passed in November and inspectors went in.


The evidence Bush cited on March 17 2003 to justify the invasion was not the evidence that Senator Clinton had available to her in October 2002. You are blurring the truth.

Hillary ignored evidence on 9/11/12 also. Did bush lie then?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM 9835555 regarding JS 9834778

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times
So to put it in terms YOU can understand.. Based on the UN Resolution 687 when Saddam breached the 1991 Cease Fire, the Cease Fire no longer existed and the UN Resolution 687 was resumed.

No, here is a fact that is relevant to 2002 and 2003. Bush signed onto Resolution 1441 in November 2002. And clearly in that document Bush agreed to give Iraq a Final Opportunity to Comply. In other words - resolve the material breach resolutions that were passed since the 1991 ceasefire.

Bush also agreed being signatory to 1441 that any further material breach after 1441 would be addressed by reconvening the Security Council to decide further action.

Fact - Iraq did not further commit a material breach of 1441. What Negroponte says is meant to fool the easily and willingly duped.

 

[healthmyths]

So given this article by the NYT...

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times
This article reports in five years 576,000 children starved because sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Saddam could have saved these children from starvation simply by certifying Iraq's WMDs were destroyed.
Why didn't he?
To most of us that care for children his allowing these 576,000 children to starve meant only one thing...Saddam had WMDs or why else would he not
certify the destruction?
Almost all civilized countries wanted to lift the sanctions . So why would Saddam to save future children from starvation would he just simply certify?
Now the common retort is Saddam feared Iraq more then the USA and by refusing to certify he constrained Iran from conflict with Iraq.
Saddam feared Iran more then the USA.

My simple retort to those sophisticated elitists that want to blame the entire problem on the USA is this:
would you let another 1.2 million starve over the next 11 years starve just so Saddam could continue the pretext he had WMDs thereby fooling Iran?
I really don't understand you Bush haters and haters of the Liberation of Iraq because you complained about 100,000 mostly killed by terrorists Iraqis while never considering the 1.2 million children that are alive today because Saddam was removed.
Where is your compassion for these 1.2 million kids alive today because Saddam convicted and executed by his own people?

 

[healthmyths]

Iraqi officials have issued a desperate plea for America to bring US ground troops back to the embattled country, as heavily armed Islamic State militants came within striking distance of Baghdad.

Amid reports that Isil forces have advanced as far as Abu Ghraib, a town that is effectively a suburb of Baghdad, a senior governor claimed up to 10,000 fighters from the movement were now poised to assault the capital.
Iraq asks for US ground troops as Isil threaten Baghdad - Telegraph
Obama wanted to end the Iraq conflict by going against what ALL our military and experts advised. Obviously Obama forgot the USA still has over 100,000 troops stationed in Europe/Asia even 70 years after the conflicts were over...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

DT 9952118 regarding NF 9952067, FW 9832286, NF 9832231, FW 9826516

Hillary ignored evidence on 9/11/12 also. Did bush lie then?

No evidence was needed in March 2003 to know that there were UN inspectors in Iraq. That was obvious and indisputable. It not clear what you are talking about or trying to convey. You make no sense relative to the discussion.

 

[Kosh]

DT 9952118 regarding NF 9952067, FW 9832286, NF 9832231, FW 9826516

Hillary ignored evidence on 9/11/12 also. Did bush lie then?

No evidence was needed in March 2003 to know that there were UN inspectors in Iraq. That was obvious and indisputable. It not clear what you are talking about or trying to convey. You make no sense relative to the discussion.

And the far left can not acknowledge the OIL for FOOD scandal which showed why so many were truly against things in Iraq. But then again as the far left shows, the history of Iraq to them started in 2003.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM 9953159

So given this article by the NYT...

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times
This article reports in five years 576,000 children starved because sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Saddam could have saved these children from starvation simply by certifying Iraq's WMDs were destroyed.
Why didn't he?
To most of us that care for children his allowing these 576,000 children to starve meant only one thing...Saddam had WMDs or why else would he not
certify the destruction?
Almost all civilized countries wanted to lift the sanctions . So why would Saddam to save future children from starvation would he just simply certify?
Now the common retort is Saddam feared Iraq more then the USA and by refusing to certify he constrained Iran from conflict with Iraq.
Saddam feared Iran more then the USA.

My simple retort to those sophisticated elitists that want to blame the entire problem on the USA is this:
would you let another 1.2 million starve over the next 11 years starve just so Saddam could continue the pretext he had WMDs thereby fooling Iran?
I really don't understand you Bush haters and haters of the Liberation of Iraq because you complained about 100,000 mostly killed by terrorists Iraqis while never considering the 1.2 million children that are alive today because Saddam was removed.
Where is your compassion for these 1.2 million kids alive today because Saddam convicted and executed by his own people?

That's one of the most incomprehensible attempts to justify the US invasion into Iraq I've heard yet.

Are you serious?

 

[Kosh]

HM 9953159

So given this article by the NYT...

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times
This article reports in five years 576,000 children starved because sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Saddam could have saved these children from starvation simply by certifying Iraq's WMDs were destroyed.
Why didn't he?
To most of us that care for children his allowing these 576,000 children to starve meant only one thing...Saddam had WMDs or why else would he not
certify the destruction?
Almost all civilized countries wanted to lift the sanctions . So why would Saddam to save future children from starvation would he just simply certify?
Now the common retort is Saddam feared Iraq more then the USA and by refusing to certify he constrained Iran from conflict with Iraq.
Saddam feared Iran more then the USA.

My simple retort to those sophisticated elitists that want to blame the entire problem on the USA is this:
would you let another 1.2 million starve over the next 11 years starve just so Saddam could continue the pretext he had WMDs thereby fooling Iran?
I really don't understand you Bush haters and haters of the Liberation of Iraq because you complained about 100,000 mostly killed by terrorists Iraqis while never considering the 1.2 million children that are alive today because Saddam was removed.
Where is your compassion for these 1.2 million kids alive today because Saddam convicted and executed by his own people?

That's one of the most incomprehensible attempts to justify the US invasion into Iraq I've heard yet.

Are you serious?

And further proof that to the far left the history of Iraq began in 2003..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

KO 9954972 regarding NF 9954947, DT 9952118, NF 9952067, FW 9832286, NF 9832231, FW 9826516

And the far left can not acknowledge the OIL for FOOD scandal which showed why so many were truly against things in Iraq. But then again as the far left shows, the history of Iraq to them started in 2003.

Had the UN inspectors been allowed to finish their work in 2003 and set up long term monitoring as required under UN resolutions then both Blix and Elberadai could recommend the lifting if of sanctions and an end to the OFF program.

That means the objective you so phonily desire would have been accomplished without killing a couple hundred thousand Iraqis and 4584 US troops and without wounding and without displacing millions and without creating conditions for Sunni terrorists like ISIL and al Qaeda to gain a foothold in Iraq and kill and terrorize even more.

Yes letting the inspectors go
a few more months would have averted all the death and destruction that was caused by bombing, invasion and foreign occupation.

 

[deltex1]

DT 9952118 regarding NF 9952067, FW 9832286, NF 9832231, FW 9826516

Hillary ignored evidence on 9/11/12 also. Did bush lie then?

No evidence was needed in March 2003 to know that there were UN inspectors in Iraq. That was obvious and indisputable. It not clear what you are talking about or trying to convey. You make no sense relative to the discussion.

That's because you only want to discuss the bush years and you blind eye the Obabble years. Have you got anything on current iraqi troop movements outside the green zone Foo? Please update us on the plans of the unprecedented coalition...I need info for my tracking thread.

 

[healthmyths]

HM 9953159

So given this article by the NYT...

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - New York Times
This article reports in five years 576,000 children starved because sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Saddam could have saved these children from starvation simply by certifying Iraq's WMDs were destroyed.
Why didn't he?
To most of us that care for children his allowing these 576,000 children to starve meant only one thing...Saddam had WMDs or why else would he not
certify the destruction?
Almost all civilized countries wanted to lift the sanctions . So why would Saddam to save future children from starvation would he just simply certify?
Now the common retort is Saddam feared Iraq more then the USA and by refusing to certify he constrained Iran from conflict with Iraq.
Saddam feared Iran more then the USA.

My simple retort to those sophisticated elitists that want to blame the entire problem on the USA is this:
would you let another 1.2 million starve over the next 11 years starve just so Saddam could continue the pretext he had WMDs thereby fooling Iran?
I really don't understand you Bush haters and haters of the Liberation of Iraq because you complained about 100,000 mostly killed by terrorists Iraqis while never considering the 1.2 million children that are alive today because Saddam was removed.
Where is your compassion for these 1.2 million kids alive today because Saddam convicted and executed by his own people?

That's one of the most incomprehensible attempts to justify the US invasion into Iraq I've heard yet.

Are you serious?

1.2 million SAVED from Starvation Death SERIOUS!
Of course people like you for POLITICAL reasons would love to have had Saddam stay in power...thus allowing his continual killing by starvation and murder thousands of Iraqis which obviously was OK with you!
Of course I serious. All Saddam had to do was certify. He didn't. Thanks to the Liberation of Iraq and in spite of traitors like you and these following DEMOCRATS who HELPED prolong the war and caused nearly 3,000 troops to die, 28 million Iraqis improved by 1,200% their GDP per person from what it was under Saddam...and not counting the fact millions are alive today
that would have been under Saddam dead!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Do you think these were encouraging words to OUR military or to the terrorists?

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

You also totally ignore THIS WMD that CBS News Scott Pelley term when doing this story... again you totally ignore these benefits!
Scott Pelley :
"It turns out Saddam Hussein did possess a weapon of mass destruction and he used it in a slaughter that few have heard of until now: after the Gulf War in 1991, the dictator spent untold millions on this weapon, designed to exterminate an ancient civilization called the "Ma'dan," also known as the "Marsh Arabs."
In a five-year project 90 percent of the marshes were drained - an area of more than 3,000 square miles.
"... the marsh dwellers were important elements in the uprising against Saddam Hussein’s regime. To end the rebellion, the regime implemented an intensive system of drainage and water diversion structures that desiccated over 90% of the marshes. The reed beds were also burned and poison introduced to the waters.
It is estimated that more than 500,000 were displaced, 95,000 of them to Iran, 300,000 internally displaced, and the remainder to other countries. By January 2003, the majority of the marshes were wastelands.
"As an engineer, I'm telling you, drying of the marshes is definitely not an easy task. It's a monumental engineering project," Alwash explained. "He put every piece of equipment available in Iraq under his control at the services of the projects needed to dry the marshes."
"Saddam was using water as a weapon?" Pelley asked.
"You know, the world was looking for weapons of mass destruction. And the evidence was right under its nose," Alwash.
Resurrecting Eden - 60 Minutes Videos - CBS News

But you ignore these benefits, lives saved and ecology restored!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

DT 9955882 regarding NF 9954947, DT 9952118, NF 9952067, FW 9832286, NF 9832231, FW 9826516

That's because you only want to discuss the bush years and you blind eye the Obabble years.

If you are tracking my posts you'd realize the fallacy of your argument. I discuss every year from 1990 through today. On the other hand you refuse to discuss the Bush 43 years other than absurd declarations such ad Bush won the war in 2008. So if you wish to declare Bush victorious in a war that had no victory then anyone who respects the truth is obligated to push back on that lie.

I have discussed Obama's position mainly that it would have been unwise to allow the US military to have been seen as Maliki's personal Shiite army and Air Force battling a Sunni insurgency. You are silent on Obama's wiser policy.

So talk about both - stop running from the Decider who made the sole decision in March 2003 that resulted as a matter of cause and effect, actions and reactions that lead directly to the crisis that is being dealt with today.

 

[healthmyths]

DT 9955882 regarding NF 9954947, DT 9952118, NF 9952067, FW 9832286, NF 9832231, FW 9826516

That's because you only want to discuss the bush years and you blind eye the Obabble years.

If you are tracking my posts you'd realize the fallacy of your argument. I discuss every year from 1990 through today. On the other hand you refuse to discuss the Bush 43 years other than absurd declarations such ad Bush won the war in 2008. So if you wish to declare Bush victorious in a war that had no victory then anyone who respects the truth is obligated to push back on that lie.

I have discussed Obama's position mainly that it would have been unwise to allow the US military to have been seen as Maliki's personal Shiite army and Air Force battling a Sunni insurgency. You are silent on Obama's wiser policy.

So talk about both - stop running from the Decider who made the sole decision in March 2003 that resulted as a matter of cause and effect, actions and reactions that lead directly to the crisis that is being dealt with today.

Where were you in 9/21/2001 when George W. Bush Presidential Job Approval rating was 92% of Americans approved?
Were you in that 8% that disapproved?
Presidential Approval Ratings -- George W. Bush Gallup Historical Trends
What happened to the President since polling started that had the highest rating?
Presidential Approval Rating Highs and Lows

What did Bush do at the time of 9/11 with 3,000 people died, $1 trillion in assets destroyed, 18,000 businesses destroyed, 400,000 people put out of work, airlines not flying for 3 days and wall st closed for 10 days. Were you one of those 8% that didn't approve of what Bush was doing to keep Americans bucked up? Were you one of those extremely smart Americans that just KNEW that these Democrats were wrong as well as the UN,etc. when they begged Bush EVEN before Bush was President to remove Saddam!!!

"deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs"Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

Were you that SMART that you KNEW everything that BUSH was told BY CLINTON's administration, by the CIA, THE UN you knew but THEY didn't... THEY all believed like the dummies we are and you marvelous smarty pants knew but you wouldn't tell these people why... I just don't understand some people as smart as you not speaking up!!!
All of those people including 576,000 starved children believe Saddam HAD WMDs but you didn't! YOU were so smart!
What kind of super intelligence do you have that the above people didn't???

 

[healthmyths]

It must be very heavy having the burden as Deltex has of KNOWING exactly what is going to happen! I mean someone that smart must have known AT THESE TIMES even before THESE people made THESE STATEMENTS they were wrong!
My only complaint is "DELTEX... WHY DIDN"T YOU SAY SOMETHING???

"deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs"Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

.

1.2 million SAVED from Starvation Death SERIOUS!

You are ignoring my reply to that. Any issues of starvation or whatever domestic issues could be dealt with after the disarmament issues were settled. Bush signed on to UN 1441 and did not invade Iraq over starvation or genocide. He claimed Iraq was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspection regime. That was not true.





HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course people like you for POLITICAL reasons would love to have had Saddam stay in power...thus allowing his continual killing by starvation and murder thousands of Iraqis which obviously was OK with you!

People like me do not do not believe in starting wars and killing people unless there is a threat to our national security. Your argument does not meet that threshold or come close. People like you are for killing people on trumped up charges and when charges are found to be false go around digging up convenient excuses to cover the original lies.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course I serious. All Saddam had to do was certify. He didn't.

The only outstanding issue in March 2003 was thev1990's unilateral destruction by Iraq without UN observation of VX and other chemical wespons. That was being addressed when Bush, not Iraq, decided to end the peaceful process and started a war.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Thanks to the Liberation of Iraq and in spite of traitors like you and these following DEMOCRATS who HELPED prolong the war.... But you ignore these benefits, lives saved and ecology restored!

You are arguing that US combat troops busting into Iraqi homes brandishing their weapons does not terrorize women and children living there. You are a fool if you are. Part of Petraeus' COIN strategy was to end US troops entering Iraqi homes and confronting women and children. It was best to let Iraqi troops do that.

You are arguing that the women and children and old men were not shot dead at Haditha? The students in the taxi were not shot dead execution style? There was no attempt to cover up that mass killing - some at point blank range?

What is wrong with you?

 

[healthmyths]

HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

.

1.2 million SAVED from Starvation Death SERIOUS!

You are ignoring my reply to that. Any issues of starvation or whatever domestic issues could be dealt with after the disarmament issues were settled. Bush signed on to UN 1441 and did not invade Iraq over starvation or genocide. He claimed Iraq was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspection regime. That was not true.





HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course people like you for POLITICAL reasons would love to have had Saddam stay in power...thus allowing his continual killing by starvation and murder thousands of Iraqis which obviously was OK with you!

People like me do not do not believe in starting wars and killing people unless there is a threat to our national security. Your argument does not meet that threshold or come close. People like you are for killing people on trumped up charges and when charges are found to be false go around digging up convenient excuses to cover the original lies.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Of course I serious. All Saddam had to do was certify. He didn't.

The only outstanding issue in March 2003 was thev1990's unilateral destruction by Iraq without UN observation of VX and other chemical wespons. That was being addressed when Bush, not Iraq, decided to end the peaceful process and started a war.



HM 9956733 regarding NF 9955063, HM 9953159

. Thanks to the Liberation of Iraq and in spite of traitors like you and these following DEMOCRATS who HELPED prolong the war.... But you ignore these benefits, lives saved and ecology restored!

You are arguing that US combat troops busting into Iraqi homes brandishing their weapons does not terrorize women and children living there. You are a fool if you are. Part of Petraeus' COIN strategy was to end US troops entering Iraqi homes and confronting women and children. It was best to let Iraqi troops do that.

You are arguing that the women and children and old men were not shot dead at Haditha? The students in the taxi were not shot dead execution style? There was no attempt to cover up that mass killing - some at point blank range?

What is wrong with you?

No what is wrong is idiots like you and these traitors that gave all the ammunition as if they handed out bullets to kill our soldiers!
Idiots like you don't seem to comprehend words have meanings!
Calling our troops terrorists, cold blooded killers helped the TERRORISTS as it certainly NEVER NEVER applied to the majority of US Troops that died protecting children! You idiots like Murtha,Obama you say those terrible words for political purposes ONLY! These words are used by the terrorists to recruit more and here is a study that proved it!

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Do you think these were encouraging words to OUR military or to the terrorists?
THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT

 

[TooTall]

Just right, Jim H., and I am wondering if the America haters like healthmyths will support the pres, the congress, and the american people in time of crisis.

Just like the Democrats that voted to go to war supported Bush. They were for it before they were against it!