[swany]

This is so true! It just frosts me that even the pro-war pundits in the media do not use this fact when debating!

I tried paying close attention to debate before we went into Iraq. The main point I saw was whether we should go to war if we could not prove Iraq posed an imminent threat. It was a legitimate arguement. Even I could tell, based on what I followed, that the intelligence we had could not be proved 100% and much had to be based on common sense due to the history Saddam's seeking, procuring, and willingness to actually use this arsenal. Not to mention his sheer brutallity to his own people.

The tragedy of 911 showed us just how far these nuts are willing to go. Can anybody seriously think the Iraqi regime would not have ever proliferated any amount of these weapons if someone was willing to bring them here?

The President took a stand that should have been taken years ago. He showed leadership and made the decision. Had he had the full support of the UN, Saddam may well have stepped down and we would have had unfettered access to settle this WMD thing once and for all with much less bloodshed on both sides.

I fell in line with President Bush's case, knowing full well he understood Iraq may not have posed an "immenent" threat to the U.S. Being your average citizen, I figure if I can see this clearly, why has this turned into he lied about and "immenent" threat, pushed faulty intelligence, etc....?

If they want still argue we shouldn't have gone to Iraq because THEY think the threat wasn't "immenent" enough, fine. But what's done is done, quit undermining our credibility and slowing our progress in rebuilding by giving fodder to the diehards over there who now think if they can keep it up long enough, we just may buckle.

Also, average joe citizen here, even understands the rebuilding process over there is going to take a long time, a lot of effort and it won't be easy. This President is not going to buckle on this! Can't these dissenters see that? The only thing that will make this process easier and quicker is if we stand united.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[RobbyS]

I always understood that the purpose was to forestall any threat from Iraq, to ourselves or to our clients in the Middle East. Do the liberals content that ther Taliban was about to attack the USA? But that did not mean they did not have the intention, just the means.

[HadEnough]

"The only thing that will make this process easier and quicker is if we stand united"

This is an idealistic proposal, and I would really
like to support it.

Unfortunately, here is the 2000 election reality
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Bush: 50,456,002 votes, 47.87% of the popular
Gore: 50,999,897 votes, 48.38% of the popular

Resident Population: http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab02.txt
Total Resident Population/1 281,421,906
Percentage of population who participated in Election
105,405,100/281,421,906 = 37.5%

As you can easily see, only a small percentage of our population participates in elections and of that small group the United States is SEVERELY DIVIDED.

The last time the demographics looked this way, we had a CIVIL WAR. No doubt we are headed for Civil War II.