Bush's Speech

[chomerics]

He could blame it on false intelligence.

We've seen that game before, it didn't work then and it won't work now.

[Bang]

My kids are eight, six, and five. Yea, I give a ****. I am more suprised by the fact that you DON'T.

Pretty much exactly what I think.

I look at my boy.

~Bang

[Ken]

for the exact reason he said. Doing so would make the current violence look like a walk in the park. It would embolden our enemy, and do nothing but strengthen his resolve to finish HIS war.. even if we pretend ours is finished.

Islamic terrorism on Americans and other westerners would not stop. Likely would escalate.

ever seen a guy who tries to be the "big man" in a fistfight? He may keep his pride by not fighting, but he ends up beaten and bloody more often than not. Guys who walk away after a fight has already begun end up getting punched in the back of the head over and over again.

I also have never ever in my entire life seen a guy gain respect by walking away. Maybe on TV..In reality his enemy only views him with more scorn, and more often than not, will increase his attacks.

~Bang

What violence?

You mean people defending their country from an occupying force?

I'm sure if another country was here bombing you relatives and friends, you would also stand by idly.

I'm not seeing any "terrorism" here at home. Even if you consider 911 to be a terrorist act, terrorism still kills less americans than peanut allergies and vaccines.

Ever thought about that?

[Major Harris]

Even if you consider 911 to be a terrorist act,

is there another term for it?

[SkinsHokieFan]

is there another term for it?

I was told by some lefty's at a debate I was in shortly after 9/11 that it was a "crime" and should be prosecuted that way

I don't know how I didn't get up from my spot at the debate table and punch the geek

[chomerics]

Every general in history wants more men. The thought of going in force is a good one. Overwhelm the enemy. In the long run many more lives are saved by a quicker defeat of the enemy.

It's my opinion that the strategy of sitting and waiting for the enemy to strike is the best way to lose. we need to go on the offensive,, not little patrols, all out offensive, flush them out, kill the enemy. Take ground and hold it. Secure it, and then continue on the offensive until victory is secured.

Sitting there trying to win by playing defense is not going to cut it. Ducks sit, and look what happens to them. Fighting from garrison always loses, from Masada on down thru history.

The simple truth is that we do not have the troops needed to get the job done. The generals were right from the get go, it would u take 500,000 men to do the job, not 100K. We still need 500K troops, 20K is a drop in the bucket, either win the freakin thing or get the hell out. It is pretty apparent that we have no intentions on winning it though, and we have not the stomach for a draft, so why are we there. All we are doing is just getting more Americans killed.

Anyway, while we're on it, don't you have any thought on what a US pullout would do for our enemy?

We will make Iran more powerful, we have already done that. We will not be making any more terrorists though because they will be fighting each other. Iraq will delve into a civil war and they will split it into three countries. We will have created a lot of enemies, but is it any worse then now? We are making more enemies every day we are there.

They are viable, they are real. Do yo think they'll quit, or do you think that they will continue their stated mission of establishing islamic world dominance and spilling as much American blood as possible?

The factions we're fighting are not looking to just run out an invader and go on with their lives.

~Bang

The factions fighting care about power, that is all. They will continue to fight each other over there, and let them fight each other for that hell hole. Baghdad has been the hellhole since the advent of civilization. It has never been stable in that neck of the woods, and it never will be. Placing 20K troops there does nothing help the situation, listen to what Abazaid said. He said adding more troops would not change anything, and he was replaced for telling the truth. If we are going to win it, then win it, and listen to the god damn generals, they have not listened to them from day one, and they are still not listening to them!!!! It is Bush's way and that is it, he knows best. That is the problem with him, not only is he a moron,he is a moron with power and a ****y streak in him. A very dangerous combination, and I am sick of watching our country suffer because of this imbecile.

[Cskin]

Shouldn't we wait for Olberman to tell us how bad it was?

He did... he and Matthews slobbered all over the mention of Syria and Iran as if Bush announced we were attacking them at midnight tonight. :doh:

I just can't wait to catch Obermann's day by day account of the lack of progress for the new strategy... in which he will ignore the progress made in one neighborhood so that he could report on a disenchanted Suni throwing a rock at a Iraqi soldier in another. Liberal hack... a disgrace to journalist. Add Matthews to the mix as well... drooling over Obamma and commenting on his eloquence and mentioning his prospects in 08. Did Obamma share the democratic plan at last!!!! Hell no... he simply restated the democratic talking points and steered clear of articulating the democratic plan. Why? Because they don't have a plan... other than to say they would do things differently.

Vilsack was on Hannity... and Hannity asked him what the Dems would do... and he stammered and stuttered and put the focus back on Bush. Can a Defeat-O-Crat answer the question.... immediate withdraw from Iraq... as they keep proposing.... good for America and Iraq? And... what would Iraq look like in five years if we did just what the Defeat-o-crats are veiling?

[Bang]

What violence?

You mean people defending their country from an occupying force?

I'm sure if another country was here bombing you relatives and friends, you would also stand by idly.

I'm not seeing any "terrorism" here at home. Even if you consider 911 to be a terrorist act, terrorism still kills less americans than peanut allergies and vaccines.

Ever thought about that?

Gosh, you're right. we should just let them keep doing it! Let's get those damned peanut farmers and doctors instead! In all honesty, that was a lousy comparison. You're talking about a medical condition as opposed to premeditated large scale murder.

"Even if I consider 911 a terrorist act"..

In all candor, I don't even see the point in talking about it after that. Let me guess... WE cooked up and carried out 9/11 to push a political agenda and a family vendetta.

Your inability to recognize Islamic terrorism since the day you were born is hard to fathom, Do you not own a TV? Never read a newspaper?

It's not like it's hard to miss. it's been practically a daily occurence since I was old enough to read.

I guess for 40 years they've been trying to kick us out?

Is that why they bomb clubs full of Americans in Germany, France, and other places over the decades? Is that why they bombed a train full of commuters in Spain? Is that why they are at war in Indonesia, Somalia, Sudan, etc, etc.? Who invaded those places? Us? When the hell did we invade Sudan?

I know it's very hard to believe, but we're not bombing innocents.. yeah a few accidents have happened, but that happens in war. It's unfortunate. In fact, National geographic did a great hour on the entire Shock and Awe bombing campaign and showed the remarkable accuracy in which it was carried out... now, I know, the National Geo is just a shill for the right, but hey. they have nice photos, eh?

80% of their population turned out to vote. I wonder why? Because they hate us? I bet it has more to do with finally being given an opportunity to try to control their own lives as opposed to living in constant fear of those who had oppressed them (and still would like to)

Just off the top of my head...

Achille Lauro

Laucherbie Scotland

TWA flight 800

9-11

Countless bombings and hijackings of innocents worldwide.

Islamic terrorism has been going on for more than four decades. Daily. You can ignore it if you'd like. I don't think we can.

Here's the way I think I'll go about this.

You believe what you want.

In my mind, your assertions sound as ridiculous as you think mine are.

Such as it is, this conversation will go nowhere fast.

~Bang

[redskins4life234]

Is the speech uploaded somewhere on the internet? I had a basketball game during it, and would like to watch it.

[chomerics]

He did... he and Matthews slobbered all over the mention of Syria and Iran as if Bush announced we were attacking them at midnight tonight. :doh:

I just can't wait to catch Obermann's day by day account of the lack of progress for the new strategy... in which he will ignore the progress made in one neighborhood so that he could report on a disenchanted Suni throwing a rock at a Iraqi soldier in another. Liberal hack... a disgrace to journalist. Add Matthews to the mix as well... drooling over Obamma and commenting on his eloquence and mentioning his prospects in 08. Did Obamma share the democratic plan at last!!!! Hell no... he simply restated the democratic talking points and steered clear of articulating the democratic plan. Why? Because they don't have a plan... other than to say they would do things differently.

Vilsack was on Hannity... and Hannity asked him what the Dems would do... and he stammered and stuttered and put the focus back on Bush. Can a Defeat-O-Crat answer the question.... immediate withdraw from Iraq... as they keep proposing.... good for America and Iraq? And... what would Iraq look like in five years if we did just what the Defeat-o-crats are veiling?

Iraq is YOUR mess, it is YOUR parties mess. Lets ignore Al Qaeda and go after Saddam while making all of our buddies rich:doh: That was the repubs plan, now they left a freaking mess for everyone else to deal with, how quaint.

[Ken]

is there another term for it?

Yeah...

State sponsored terrorism.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Iraq is YOUR mess, it is YOUR parties mess. Lets ignore Al Qaeda and go after Saddam while making all of our buddies rich:doh: That was the repubs plan, now they left a freaking mess for everyone else to deal with, how quaint.

Just so we are clear

A democratic senate in October of 2002 gave Bush authorization for military force. Am I wrong?

[Bang]

The simple truth is that we do not have the troops needed to get the job done. The generals were right from the get go, it would u take 500,000 men to do the job, not 100K. We still need 500K troops, 20K is a drop in the bucket, either win the freakin thing or get the hell out. It is pretty apparent that we have no intentions on winning it though, and we have not the stomach for a draft, so why are we there. All we are doing is just getting more Americans killed.

That is one way of seeing it, I guess. I agree, we should fight to win. I hate fighting to stand still. It costs a lot of lives. War is the worst option of all, but when it comes, better go in all out and win fast.

We will make Iran more powerful, we have already done that. We will not be making any more terrorists though because they will be fighting each other. Iraq will delve into a civil war and they will split it into three countries. We will have created a lot of enemies, but is it any worse then now? We are making more enemies every day we are there.

Now, I'm surprised at you. The Iranian people have demonstrated in their last election that they do not care for how the hard-liners are running things. Much the same way we decided in November we don't like how the Republicans are running things.

Before 9-11 we had even opened up diplomatic channels with Iran for the first time since the hostage crisis. Progress was being made with their theocracy in power. As you know, the Iran is not some backwoods stone age country. the people there are educated and enjoy a fairly good standard of living. They don't want this any more than we do. I've long said in this forum thatI think a moderate open armed approach with Iran would be wise.

What we've done is give a voice to a wannabe despot, and his own people said "hey,, we don't like that." (For the record, I've also said that they do deserve nuclear energy, if we could only trust Aminidejad (sp) to not blow people up with it. Unfortunately I don't think we CAN trust him, and by their last election, I don't think they trust him either.

The factions fighting care about power, that is all. They will continue to fight each other over there, and let them fight each other for that hell hole..

except Al Qaida has repeatedly stated they want to kill as many Americans as they can. As I said, if we decide to stop fighting them, it is a HUGE risk to think they will stop fighting us. We've seen their resolve, and the results of it.

~Bang

[chomerics]

Just so we are clear

A democratic senate in October of 2002 gave Bush authorization for military force. Am I wrong?

Do you want me to refresh your memory Ish? The vote for WAR, was not a vote for war at all remember? It was a vote to give Bush the AUTHORITY to use troops to force Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Mind you, this vote was placed on the house floor two weeks before an election, and anyone who voted against it was pointed out as being soft on terror.

So lets not dig up the history of what actually happened, and just admit that is was the republican platform and plan to go to war with Iraq.

[Ken]

Gosh, you're right. we should just let them keep doing it! Let's get those damned peanut farmers and doctors instead! In all honesty, that was a lousy comparison. You're talking about a medical condition as opposed to premeditated large scale murder.

"Even if I consider 911 a terrorist act"..

In all candor, I don't even see the point in talking about it after that. Let me guess... WE cooked up and carried out 9/11 to push a political agenda and a family vendetta.

Your inability to recognize Islamic terrorism since the day you were born is hard to fathom, Do you not own a TV? Never read a newspaper?

It's not like it's hard to miss. it's been practically a daily occurence since I was old enough to read.

I guess for 40 years they've been trying to kick us out?

Is that why they bomb clubs full of Americans in Germany, France, and other places over the decades? Is that why they are at war in Indonesia? Who invaded there?

I know it's very hard to believe, but we're not bombing innocents.. yeah a few accidents have happened, but that happens in war. It's unfortunate. In fact, National geographic did a great hour on the entire Shock and Awe bombing campaign and showed the remarkable accuracy in which it was carried out... now, I know, the National Geo is just a shill for the right, but hey. they have nice photos, eh?

80% of their population turned out to vote. I wonder why? Because they hate us? I bet it has more to do with finally being given an opportunity to try to control their own lives as opposed to living in constant fear of those who had oppressed them (and still would like to)

Just off the top of my head...

Achille Lauro

Laucherbie Scotland

TWA flight 800

9-11

Countless bombings and hijackings of innocents worldwide.

Islamic terrorism has been going on for more than four decades. Daily. You can ignore it if you'd like. I don't think we can.

Here's the way I think I'll go about this.

You believe what you want.

In my mind, your assertions sound as ridiculous as you think mine are.

Such as it is, this conversation will go nowhere fast.

~Bang

Bang,

I obviously know the comparison is rediculous, but it was accurate.

Everything you stated, and I mean everything, came from where?

Where did you hear it from? TV and History books. Correct? I did too. I also believed most of it until 911. It is called propaganda.

Do yourself a favor and watch Freedom to Facism. It is on Google video for free. If that doesn't make you rethink some things, I don't know what will.

I have researched way to much into way to many things to not see right through everything I thought I ever knew about this country.

I understand that my post sounds completely rediculous....I would have thought the same thing a few years ago. Do some research and be amazed.

[Ken]

Is the speech uploaded somewhere on the internet? I had a basketball game during it, and would like to watch it.

It is on Drudgereport.com in it's entirety.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Do you want me to refresh your memory Ish? The vote for WAR, was not a vote for war at all remember? It was a vote to give Bush the AUTHORITY to use troops to force Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Mind you, this vote was placed on the house floor two weeks before an election, and anyone who voted against it was pointed out as being soft on terror.

So lets not dig up the history of what actually happened, and just admit that is was the republican platform and plan to go to war with Iraq.

Regardless, a Democratic controlled Senate gave the President authorization to use troops

Am I wrong? Or were they too cowardly and politcally calculating not to offer up opposition?

Lets see what they voted on

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@D&summ2=m&

SUMMARY AS OF:

10/11/2002--Passed Senate without amendment. (There are 2 other summaries)

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.

And who voted for it

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[chomerics]

That is one way of seeing it, I guess. I agree, we should fight to win. I hate fighting to stand still. It costs a lot of lives. War is the worst option of all, but when it comes, better go in all out and win fast.

Agreed. . .

Now, I'm surprised at you. The Iranian people have demonstrated in their last election that they do not care for how the hard-liners are running things. Much the same way we decided in November we don't like how the Republicans are running things.

Before 9-11 we had even opened up diplomatic channels with Iran for the first time since the hostage crisis. Progress was being made with their theocracy in power. As you know, the Iran is not some backwoods stone age country. the people there are educated and enjoy a fairly good standard of living. They don't want this any more than we do. I've long said in this forum thatI think a moderate open armed approach with Iran would be wise.

What we've done is give a voice to a wannabe despot, and his own people said "hey,, we don't like that." (For the record, I've also said that they do deserve nuclear energy, if we could only trust Aminidejad (sp) to not blow people up with it. Unfortunately I don't think we CAN trust him, and by their last election, I don't think they trust him either.

I agree with you here as well. . .

except Al Qaida has repeatedly stated they want to kill as many Americans as they can. As I said, if we decide to stop fighting them, it is a HUGE risk to think they will stop fighting us. We've seen their resolve, and the results of it.

~Bang

Al Qaeda is not Iraq, there are two different things going on right now. Is Al Qaeda in Iraq, of course they are right now. But the group responsible for 9-11 is not what this war is about any more. IMHO, the longer we stay there, the more power we giver them in terms of recruits. Either place 500K troops there or get out. 2 choices, either win or leave. This petty 20K crap is just getting soldiers killed, and I am sick of it.

[Major Harris]

Yeah...

State sponsored terrorism.

oh boy.....

[SkinsHokieFan]

oh boy.....

Yea I made a long winded post about people I have met and how they want you and me dead

But its not worth talking to a guy like this about it. He'd brush it off as many head in the sand people do

[Bang]

Bang,

I obviously know the comparison is rediculous, but it was accurate.

Everything you stated, and I mean everything, came from where?

Where did you hear it from? TV and History books. Correct? I did too. I also believed most of it until 911. It is called propaganda.

Do yourself a favor and watch Freedom to Facism. It is on Google video for free. If that doesn't make you rethink some things, I don't know what will.

I have researched way to much into way to many things to not see right through everything I thought I ever knew about this country.

I understand that my post sounds completely rediculous....I would have thought the same thing a few years ago. Do some research and be amazed.

I've seen the videos. they've been very hard to miss over the last few years. (Believe it or not, I do have an open mind.. i am as mistrustful of our government as anyone, always have been. I was always taught to question.) So I did question ,i watched with open mind, and the answer I keep coming up with is that I tend to believe the guys who stood up and proudly proclaimed they did it.. and have continued to proudly proclaim they did it.

I mean, if you and i were standing together, and a third guy came up and hit you in the head, then laughed and said "I hit you in the head".. but some guy gave you a video with some sketchy 'evidence' that said I did it, would you think I did, or would you think it was the guy who said he did it and laughed afterwards?

Sometimes the obvious answer is the one that is real. I recognize you and I differ on this, and respectfully, we'll just have to disagree.

i know taking my stance lends folks to think one would be a warmongerer or some bloodthirsty jackoff who thinks it's all John Wayne... i am exactly the opposite. However, I recognize what I believe is the gravity of this ever escalating global violence. I fear for my son. In 8 years he'll be of military age. I lay awake at night sometimes worrying over what will happen then.

Some may take that as me thinking "better someone else's kid". But it's not that. I'd rather it be NO one's kids.. but the world doesn't always cooperate.

~Bang

[chomerics]

Regardless, a Democratic controlled Senate gave the President authorization to use troops

Am I wrong? Or were they too cowardly and politcally calculating not to offer up opposition?

Lets see what they voted on

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@D&summ2=m&

And who voted for it

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Ish, was it a vote to go to war yes or no?

Did the vote take place 3 weeks before election time yes or no?

Was it a political vote to force the democrats to vote?

You can claim that the democrats were weak, and I agree with you, they had no power. But you can not claim that this was a democrat idea to invade Iraq and to overturn it. It is a complete joke to even insinuate it.

The republicans played politics with the war, and you know this. They knew we were invading Iraq, yet they never told the American people, or the democrats this. They lied to the American public about everything in the buildup to war, from the NIE to the Presidents speech, it was all politics to invade Iraq. Did democrats vote to give the president the power to use the military? Yes they did. It was BUSH, and the republicans who decided to invade Iraq though, that is something you can NOT deny.

The dems voted to give him the authority to use troops and force Saddam's hand to allow the weapons inspectors in. Bush used that power and invaded Iraq. That is in the books no matter how much you try and spin it

[chomerics]

I've seen the videos. they've been very hard to miss over the last few years. (Believe it or not, I do have an open mind.. i am as mistrustful of our government as anyone, always have been. I was always taught to question.) So I did question ,i watched with open mind, and the answer I keep coming up with is that I tend to believe the guys who stood up and proudly proclaimed they did it.. and have continued to proudly proclaim they did it.

I mean, if you and i were standing together, and a third guy came up and hit you in the head, then laughed and said "I hit you in the head".. but some guy gave you a video with some sketchy 'evidence' that said I did it, would you think I did, or would you think it was the guy who said he did it and laughed afterwards?

Sometimes the obvious answer is the one that is real. I recognize you and I differ on this, and respectfully, we'll just have to disagree.

i know taking my stance lends folks to think one would be a warmongerer or some bloodthirsty jackoff who thinks it's all John Wayne... i am exactly the opposite. However, I recognize what I believe is the gravity of this ever escalating global violence. I fear for my son. In 8 years he'll be of military age. I lay awake at night sometimes worrying over what will happen then.

Some may take that as me thinking "better someone else's kid". But it's not that. I'd rather it be NO one's kids.. but the world doesn't always cooperate.

~Bang

Bang, I for one do not think you are a war mongerer, I just disagree that 20K troops is the answer for Iraq. It just prolongs the misery. Either go in with everything you have, call up a draft and get 500K Americans entering Iraq in 1 year, or get out. Those are the only two options I see. Otherwise, it will just continue to spiral down to hell, and it will be left for the next administration to fix.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ish, was it a vote to go to war yes or no?

Did the vote take place 3 weeks before election time yes or no?

Was it a political vote to force the democrats to vote?

You can claim that the democrats were weak, and I agree with you, they had no power. But you can not claim that this was a democrat idea to invade Iraq and to overturn it. It is a complete joke to even insinuate it.

Just so I make sure I answer your questions

1)It was an authorization to use force. Force=bullets, bombs, missles and blood. I am not sure what else it could mean

2) Yes. Even more reason to either vote how you really feel and quit playing damn politics

3) Was it a D idea to invade? No? But was it a D controlled Senate which gave the Commander and Chief authorization to use force? Yes. It is in writing, black and white

My friend, it seems pretty clear what is in writing

The Democratic controlled Senate, whose duties include being the part of the legislative branch which takes up matters of international affairs, voted to give the President of the United States autorization to use force against Iraq

Thats the title of the bill. No amendments in a Democratic controlled Senate

They could have stopped it. They could have forced the President's hands with refusing to give any authorization

But they didn't. And now they are Monday morning Qb'ng their vote, which they controlled and could have stopped if they so chose. But they didn't

And there is no spin you can put on that.

So saying its "your party's war", when in fact a D controlled senate gave the president authorization to use armed force, thats what the bill says, its not about what is "meant" or "implied", is simply disengenuous when you look at who voted and how they voted

Read the bill. See who voted for it, and tell me that it was NOT an authorization, by a Democratic controlled Senate to use our troops in the manner which the President has. How you can claim they had no power when they were in the majority is beyond me

They controlled the commitees. They controlled the schedule of votes, they scheduled business

You don't want to give the President authority to invade, amend the damn bill. Change it to "Authorization to deploy troops within 1 mile of Iraq"

But they didn't. It was still an "Authorization to use force"

[Bang]

Al Qaeda is not Iraq, there are two different things going on right now. Is Al Qaeda in Iraq, of course they are right now. But the group responsible for 9-11 is not what this war is about any more. IMHO, the longer we stay there, the more power we giver them in terms of recruits. Either place 500K troops there or get out. 2 choices, either win or leave. This petty 20K crap is just getting soldiers killed, and I am sick of it.

I agree 20k is a band-aid on a bleeding artery. As I said, going in strong is the only way to go. I've been in plenty of fistfights, and the ones that I stood there with my dukes up like some boxer.. i always got my ass kicked.. the ones that i let fly with everything right out of the chute,, well, those I won.

I don;'t know if you recall, but one of our first debates on this subject, I explained why I think Iraq is more of a tactical move than anything to do with their involvement in 911. To summarize, we're going to war in a region vs an enemy with no national affiliation, uniform, or any organization as a conventional force. It's a hard war to fight. One of the first orders of battle is to secure a central base to operate from. Plus, eliminate the largest organized fighting force in the region, namely the Iraqi army. I think the rest of the justifications were simply a load of crap to give to a largely ignorant public to try to build public support and to try to get the UN on our side.

As i said then, you can't say "we have to fight, but we don't know who. we know the region they hail from, but it's a politically tricky region at best, so we'll have to tippy toe around a lot. We don't know when this will end, but we have to go."

No one would listen to that, even though that is essentially what it was.

I'm no fan of Bush. I didn't vote for him. I do not like the way they have handled this war. Rumsfeld ought to be brought up on charges for his absolute failure to establish a plan for post-invasion. In fact, there were contingency plans, and he refuse to even look at them.. I think he watched films of Americans liberating Paris, and thought that is what would happen. He went in woefully unprepared, and it's inexcusable.

But, the war is still a necessary fight, regardless of how bad they've screwed it up.

~Bang