I guess this makes perfect sense

[maineman]

ho hum

same tired old quotes from democrats.

not one of them sent the light brigade into battle, though, did they?

that is the blunder: in the wake of 9/11, losing our focus on the real enemy and going after Saddam instead. Thinking that we would waltz in, depose Saddam, establish democracy, get cheered as liberators, and waltz out.... that was the blunder.

 

[maineman]

I C diarehhia brains is still possting with usual stupidity.

how much was that bar fine?

 

[Alucard]

ho hum

same tired old quotes from democrats.

not one of them sent the light brigade into battle, though, did they?

that is the blunder: in the wake of 9/11, losing our focus on the real enemy and going after Saddam instead. Thinking that we would waltz in, depose Saddam, establish democracy, get cheered as liberators, and waltz out.... that was the blunder.

I have more!!!

“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, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Also, I remember the President bracing America for a LONG war...

Exactly who said it would be a waltz? .....Bill Maher?....

 

[Alpha1]

ho hum

same tired old quotes from democrats.

not one of them sent the light brigade into battle, though, did they?

that is the blunder: in the wake of 9/11, losing our focus on the real enemy and going after Saddam instead. Thinking that we would waltz in, depose Saddam, establish democracy, get cheered as liberators, and waltz out.... that was the blunder.

Waltz in and .......waltz out....????

Short memory, huh? Maybe you didn't listen to this speech in 9/20/01
or maybe you choose to ignore it....maybe your world is fast food and instant coffee....

George Bush....
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime

 

[maineman]

IExactly who said it would be a waltz? .....:

Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, to name a few.

better known as "Team Bush"

 

[maineman]

Waltz in and .......waltz out....????

Short memory, huh? Maybe you didn't listen to this speech in 9/20/01
or maybe you choose to ignore it....maybe your world is fast food and instant coffee....

george bush gave a speech about the iraq war a year and a half before it started?

his comments had to do with the war on terror...which was always a war on islamic extremism..... which had little to do with Iraq.

 

[dilloduck]

ho hum

same tired old quotes from democrats.

not one of them sent the light brigade into battle, though, did they?

that is the blunder: in the wake of 9/11, losing our focus on the real enemy and going after Saddam instead. Thinking that we would waltz in, depose Saddam, establish democracy, get cheered as liberators, and waltz out.... that was the blunder.

no-- they didn't do anything cept fire a few missles. So what was the point in them making all all the saber rattling speeches ?

 

[maineman]

no-- they didn't do anything cept fire a few missles. So what was the point in them making all all the saber rattling speeches ?

they didn't send the light brigade into the valley of death, though, did they?

That IS my point.

 

[Alpha1]

george bush gave a speech about the iraq war a year and a half before it started?

his comments had to do with the war on terror...which was always a war on islamic extremism..... which had little to do with Iraq.

Maybe you need to read slower...look up those big words.....

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime

So this "war" against terrorists and those nations that support it, was never seen to be a waltz in and waltz out thing...it was meant to be "war"....as in the US has been attacked and now we are "at war" ....
and damn...the Dims clapped so loudly back in 01....remember?
the gutless wonders...the appeasers....the "the war is lost" crowd....

 

[Alucard]

george bush gave a speech about the iraq war a year and a half before it started?

his comments had to do with the war on terror...which was always a war on islamic extremism..... which had little to do with Iraq.

George Bush....
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause). From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Unlike Liberals he means what he says...

Sadam harbored terrorists and alowed them to train in Iraq...

No need to respond... Just move on to another thread...

 

[dilloduck]

they didn't send the light brigade into the valley of death, though, did they?

That IS my point.

It's obvious what you are trying to get everyone to focus on. Why were the democrats saber rattling and claiming Saddam was a threat to America? The real shocker is that they were right.

Now we are to accept the theories that Saddam was actually keeping the area stable by killing and torturing his subjects ? I don't think so.

 

[Avatar4321]

Bush's ego will never allow for that. God did, after all, tell him to invade Iraq. But to be honest the quibbledicks of both parties seem more interested in playing "Whose is biggest" instead of concentrating on the real enemy, and letting our troops continue to die as a salve to the ego of the man we call "Mr. President".

The real enemy are the people trying to keep us from defending ourselves.

In other words, you and your friends.

Now do you really want Bush focusing on you guys? Somehow i doubt it.

 

[ReillyT]

The real enemy are the people trying to keep us from defending ourselves.

In other words, you and your friends.

Now do you really want Bush focusing on you guys? Somehow i doubt it.

Do you actually believe the stuff that you write?

Just so I am clearn, is your suggestion that America's real enemies are those that peacefully disagree on US foreign policy objectives and strategies? Are their weapons the right to free expression and the right to vote?

You must be kidding me.

 

[Avatar4321]

George Bush....
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause). From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Unlike Liberals he means what he says...

Sadam harbored terrorists and alowed them to train in Iraq...

No need to respond... Just move on to another thread...

And yet speeches like this and the one in the post prior to this one are completely ignored on the left. Bush has somehow ignored the real threat by focusing on eliminating regimes that support terror and not on regimes that are helping us fight terror.

But according to the leaders on the left, we need to talk with the terrorists and attack our allies against the terrorists. That is how we win the the war.

Then again, Ive never heard a Democrat talking about actually winning. Maybe winning isnt what they are trying to do.

 

[Avatar4321]

Do you actually believe the stuff that you write?

Just so I am clearn, is your suggestion that America's real enemies are those that peacefully disagree on US foreign policy objectives and strategies? Are their weapons the right to free expression and the right to vote?

You must be kidding me.

Giving propaganda to our enemies is even more effective the bullets. The enemy within is always worse than the one outside.

Besides, there is nothing peaceful about these people. Suggesting we bomb allies and assassinate the President isnt peaceful. Suggesting we leave the Iraqis to be murdered by terrorists and terror supporting governments such as Iran is not peaceful. Encouraging terrorists to kill our troops to get the death count higher to use as propaganda that helps the terrorists is not peaceful.

Great Civilizations do not fall from the foreign threats. they fall from the threats within. And I am sick and tired of Careless and Malicious people doing everything they can to undermine the work we are trying to do to protect this nation and pretending that somehow attacking this nation doesnt make them enemies.

 

[ReillyT]

Giving propaganda to our enemies is even more effective the bullets. The enemy within is always worse than the one outside.

What constitutes propaganda? Attending an anti-war protest? Urging withdrawal of the troops from Iraq?

Besides, there is nothing peaceful about these people. Suggesting we bomb allies and assassinate the President isnt peaceful.

If meant seriously, I would agree that these recommendations aren't peaceful.

Suggesting we leave the Iraqis to be murdered by terrorists and terror supporting governments such as Iran is not peaceful.

Actually, one can definitely peacefully urge that we leave Iraq. Watch!

"I think we should withdrawal from Iraq."

See how easy it is.

Encouraging terrorists to kill our troops to get the death count higher to use as propaganda that helps the terrorists is not peaceful.

Maybe you are right here, but I haven't seen a lot of US citizens urging this. The vast, vast, vast majority of those who would like us to leave Iraq (something over 2/3 of the population) certainly don't want terrorists (or anyone else) to kill more US troops.

Great Civilizations do not fall from the foreign threats. they fall from the threats within.

I guess that all depends on what you consider a "great civilization." Apparently, Carthage does not make your list. Personally, I don't think many civilizations fall for either reason. It is much more complicated than that.

And I am sick and tired of Careless and Malicious people doing everything they can to undermine the work we are trying to do to protect this nation and pretending that somehow attacking this nation doesnt make them enemies.

Why are you capitalizing "Carless" and "Malicious?"

People disagree about what is the best course to protect the nation. Just because they disagree with you about Iraq doesn't mean that they don't care about the nation, or that this represents an "attack" on it. They just disagree on the method. Perhaps they would take you more seriously if you didn't imply that this disagreement constitutes some kind of treason.

 

[maineman]

It's obvious what you are trying to get everyone to focus on. Why were the democrats saber rattling and claiming Saddam was a threat to America? The real shocker is that they were right.

Now we are to accept the theories that Saddam was actually keeping the area stable by killing and torturing his subjects ? I don't think so.

stable is a relative term, isn't it?

The middle east is a much more dangerous and volatile place since our invasion of Iraq. Saddam may have been a bad guy, and politicians from both sides of the aisle may have loved to score political points by talking about him, but the fact remains: Saddam did three things that we can only DREAM of doing as well: 1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. 2. He kept islamic extremists out of Iraq, and 3. He was a pretty effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony.

We would have been better served, and the region would have been better served, if we had concentrated on rooting out islamic extremism and allowed Saddam to continue doing those things that he did well.....

As it was, we did NOT concentrate on our real enemies, and DID invade, conquer and occupy Iraq... and five years later, we have suffered 31K dead and wounded Americans, flushed a half a trillion dollars down the toilet, are not one bit safer than we were on 9/11, and our REAL enemies are JUST AS STRONG as they were on that day.

Try as you like, it is really hard to spin all of that into the cover story that George Bush has done a good job or that his party does not deserve to have the keys taken away, get grounded, and sent to their rooms for a few election cycles... but I know you'll try!

 

[maineman]

Maybe you need to read slower...look up those big words.....

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime

So this "war" against terrorists and those nations that support it, was never seen to be a waltz in and waltz out thing...it was meant to be "war"....as in the US has been attacked and now we are "at war" ....
and damn...the Dims clapped so loudly back in 01....remember?
the gutless wonders...the appeasers....the "the war is lost" crowd....

I have never implied that the war against the folks who attacked us was going to be a waltz in and waltz out thing. I have suggested that Bush&Co certainly implied that about their initiative in Iraq. I, myself, see the misadventure in Iraq as nothing but a diversion away from the real war against Islamic extremism. Lots of groups around the globe use and have used terrorist tactics and we should not and ought not to make them all our mortal enemies and, in so doing, lose our focus on those types of terror employing organizations that seek to do the United States grave harm. Saddam was not supporting or harboring those sorts of organizations.

Again...lumping wahabbist extremists with palestinian arab nationalists is really no different than saying that all ragheads look alike... but I consider the source.

 

[Alucard]

I C diarehhia brains is still possting with usual stupidity.

 

[maineman]

limited intellectual content poorly spelled will always bring laughter to the morons.