Wars are gender and politically neutral. They are fought to take turf or defend turf. I believe we are
fighting this one to defend turf (the USA). We may not fight where you prefer but you are not
in the drivers seat here. The man in charge is in charge. Vote him out if you wish, but playing the
blame card helps no one.

I'm trying to make the point that whatever war a Democratic president endorses (like the war in Kosovo), the Republicans denounce. Same with wars endorsed by Republican presidents.

The War in Iraq was an error because it diverted resources from the real danger - international terrorism. Rogue states do not pose a danger to the US but international terrorists do and because they do not have a country to loose, we must conduct the fight aginst terrorist cells not countries like Iraq. Bush does not understand the difference. We have not only diverted our resources but have provided the terrorists resons to use with more moderate Moslem groups in their quest to get more followers. If you want to learn the real truth about the policies we are following, read "Four More For George W?" It is on the Web at www.authorhouse.com or toll free at 888-280-7715.

The message being aped by the Left at this point is the same message used by enemy propagandists in every recent war. You seem to be a student of history, go back and read the transcripts of Tokyo Rose's or Hanoi Hanna's radio shows. They play like a Micheal Moore movie. Things are really going badly, we're being lied to, they make up the victories, the war is unjust, you are dying for nothing...

This similarity simply cannot be overlooked. It is a tactic that WORKS; it undermines the morale of the military and nation as a whole. What do you call people that demoralize and splinter a nation during a time of war for personal gain? I call them traitors.

I never said that they made up the victories, nor did I say that the war was totally unjust or that our troops were dying for nothing. As a matter of fact, I hummed "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead" when I heard that al-Zarqawi was killed. Secondly, Saddam was evil. Very evil. And I'm glad we got him. I'm just angry that the American people were lied to about why we were going to war. If Bush said "Saddam is evil, we're going to take him down." or something like that, I would have supported the Iraq War. But he didn't say that. At least, not at first. He said we were going in to find al Qaeda links and stop Saddam from using weapons of mass destruction. Both turned out to be nonexistent. Also, I know of no Democrat who criticizes the war for political gain. They criticize the war because they believe that the reasons for the war were untrue. And they were.

"As a matter of fact, I hummed "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead" when I heard that al-Zarqawi was killed."

You mean you WILL do it, when it happens? He just beheaded someone else a couple of days ago.

" Also, I know of no Democrat who criticizes the war for political gain. "

That is insane. You think Kerry says the things he says to crowds just because he feels strongly abou them? , come on. Every word out of that man's mouth is the product of a group of people designing exactly what they think will play to the exact people he is talking to, and that will have the exact effect they want to cause. Kerry wants us to be demoralized about Iraq. He calls the President inept regarding a WAR that is being fought. He insults the interim leader of that nation, degrading his credability in an already difficult tenure. He highlights ever mishap, ignores every success, and capitalizes on ever horror. His goal is to undermind Bush's efforts to keep the American people united behind the effort. His acts are treasonous.

No, al-Zarqawi's followers beheaded someone. al-Zarqawi was killed in a missile strike four or five days ago. As for the second part, I guess that was a misfire. The first part of my point remains valid.

"Every word out of that man's mouth is the product of a group of people designing exactly what they think will play to the exact people he is talking to, and that will have the exact effect they want to cause."

Two words: Karl Rove

GoualdMaster: He's still around . . . Link

" No, al-Zarqawi's followers beheaded someone. al-Zarqawi was killed in a missile strike four or five days ago. "

Could you point out a news item to that effect? I find it really, really hard to believe with as much as I watch and read that I would have missed that. Not saying you are wrong, but I find it odd that you are the only person I am hearing about it from.

"Two words: Karl Rove"

Pfft. Kerry, again, is trying to undermine the authority of the President and demoralize the American people regarding Iraq. He called the President 'inept', questioned the motives of Iraq's new leader, and has at every step tried to portray the Iraq war as meaningless and poorly handled. Why? Because he wants power, and is willing to degrade his nation's will to get it. Treasonous behavior, imho.

Several groups in Iraq, as well as parts of the Iraqi government, claimed that al-Zarqawi was killed. That turned out to be false, even though sixteen of his followers were indeed killed in that missile strike. As for the Karl Rove thing, I was simply stating that it's a little hypocritical to complain that Kerry tailors his speeches to his audience when Bush does that all the time. Also, Kerry is not degrading the United States. He is simply stating that Bush lied on Iraq. Bush wanted power enough to have his political allies suppress minority votes in Democratic areas. Treasonous behavior.

I agree - democrats have led us through some difficult times, as opposed to Republicans, especially George W, who had led us INTO difficult times.
I say the choice is ours, plan for 2008.

-Jeff
URL - http://www.cafepress.com/clintonisback