I'm quite 'up' on the situation in Iraq, Fred. I served there and now have two family members there. What you really mean is that we aren't willing to accept the NeoCon party line about Iraq without evidence and for a change you're right.
Where are those camps located, Fred? If they existed don't you think we would have seen them on FoxNews by now? Other than a rumor of an alleged meeting by one of the 9/11 terrorists with an Iraqi intelligence operative, a rumor that has since been proven false, the Bush administration hasn't been able to provide one bit of evidence of a direct link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Are you holding out on George, Fred?
According to the US intelligence agencies, and the testimony provided to the 9/11 Commission by the Bush administration, the primary sources of funding for Al Qaeda were the Saudis and Pakistanis, Fred. Are those the states you mean? Even George Bush has been forced to admit that there are no direct links between Saddam and 9/11 so I'm sure he'll be happy to have whatever evidence you're about to present here.
OK then, we're waiting for that evidence, Fred. How about a link to some supporting documents? Name an alleged witness? The fact is, Fred, that most of the competent intelligence agencies are saying just the opposite of you. It seems that you just hope that if you repeat the NeoCon mantra often enough it will come true.
We did that by attacking Afghanistan, Fred, an action that has had unanimous support here and in the world community. Heck, Fred, even the French thought that was a good idea. For all we know Al Qaeda went to the Sudan or Somalia after that because they certainly weren't found in Iraq.
Al Qaeda had no home in Iraq because there is no way a tyrant like Saddam would have allowed an armed force like that in his country. The real fact is that Al Qaeda hated Saddam almost as much as they hate us, Fred. As he was the totalitarian leader of a secular Arab government that controlled some of the holiest shrines in the Shi'ia sect of the Muslim religion while violently repressing the fundamentalist Islam that Al Qaeda embraces there was no room for common ground there.
Deep seated hatred for the man? Not even close. I do hate what he is doing to our country but I don't hate the man. You only say that because it is easier for you to dismiss what we say if you can write it off as a bunch of "Bush Bashing", that way you don't have to listen to those who disagree with you.
Is that why you use affectionate terms like "BJ Bill" and "Slick Willie" when you refer to him? Nice try, Fred, but anyone who has read your posts here, or wasn't living in a cave during the Clinton administration, knows different.
Wrong again, Fred. Everyone here has stated their support for the real war against terrorism in Afghanistan, so your argument is invalid. I, for one, think that George would make a wonderful Baptist preacher but he has no business being in a job that requires a statesman.
How poetic, Fred, now back it up: What has been discovered in Iraq and describe how Iraq is being, to use your term, "reborn"? Have the Shiites suddenly decided to accept minority rule again? Are the Kurds now willing to let go of their demands for Home Rule?
I think not, Fred. Repeating it over and over to convince yourself won't make it so, either.
By invading a country that had not attacked us while ignoring those who had? By trying to subvert the US Constitution and attempting to concentrate all power in the Executive Branch? By voiding the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution with his so-called 'Patriot Act'? By rolling labor laws back to the good old days of the 1890s? By racking up the largest deficits in American history and giving tax cuts to the rich? By relaxing the environmental laws to satisfy big business and then making the taxpayers pay for the cleanup rather than the polluters? By encouraging companies to relocate jobs overseas?
No thanks, Fred. America can't afford the kind of 'safety' George Bush is offering.
