[FairOpinion]

Short, but to the point, hitting all the issues.

[xrp]

Right on -- more evidence that Pres Bush didn't mislead us on Iraq was the op name -- Operation Iraqi Freedom, not Operation Nuke Hunt.

Stupid Democrats...I've heard of digging your own coffin but the Democrats really take the cake. They're using a ditch digger to dig as fast as possible!

[noutopia]

Democrats won't be happy until Cronkite is on every nite giving a body count.

[StoneColdTaxHater]

Ann Coulter made a great point last week on Fox News, some Democrat consultant hack was babbling on about this, she reminded him that the State of the Union Address was in January if they were so disturbed by al this, why did they authorize force?

[Susannah]

Good writing and valid points.

New Orleans hasn't beaten Los Angeles yet though(check my tag line.)

I wonder if anyone ever did a comparison of the lives lost during the Vietnam era; that is, those lost in battle versus the same age group lost to other causes.

[larry bear]

60 Murders in Oakland California, so far this year, plus all of the regular fatal car accidents. It looks safe in Irag.

[Wondervixen]

Let's assume the Dummycraps and the leftist media sway fickle public opinion into a tizzy against the president and they were to get their way toward impeachment or winning the 2004 election.

Do these dumbasses actually believe they could keep the truth of the matter from ever rising back to the top and swallowing them up? I'd be willing to bet that if they succeeded, it wouldn't be 6 months before the truth about WMD and everything the Bush White House told us existed began turning up & SOMEONE would have serious egg all over their traitorous faces.

Can you say "2nd American Revolution"?

[backhoe]

-The Uranium Files- Iraq, Mr. Bush... and more--

[ex-Texan]

*BUMP* !

[NMFXSTC]

Hitting the points? Answer these points:>p>1. We screamed at the UN to reinsert the weapons inspectors...we won and the inspectors spent four mobhs scouring the countryside and turned up no WMD. Everyone but the UK and US felt more time should be allowed to conduct the weapons searches...we invade!

2. Bush states that Iraq sought to procure uranium from Africa...unsubstantiated yet a state of the union address topic?

3. "We will topple the regime"...where is SadAss, his sons, the regime? Is our intel so shoddy that we can't locate him? (or bin Laden for that matter...but that's another issue.)

4. Where are the WMD, the biochem weapons, etc.? Imean, we "knew" they were there...where are they?

5. We "liberated" Iraq? Really? Why did it take 12 years to do that and why are we still remaining in the country without and exit plan?

It's politics, folks...dirty politics and the sheeple are simply following the folks in DC blindly.

[nonliberal]

One thing that no one has considered is the burden of proof. The burden of proof was on Saddam to prove that he had destroyed the weapons program that even the UN said that he had. Saddam did not meet that burden of proof so we took him out.

Next question.

[solo gringo]

The Democreeps know there is a lot of people that will believe them and the media.They will not question the dim-wits or ABC CBS CNN NBC they will say oh my god bush has mislead all of us.Dates does not matter they need something to hate bush and this is it democreeps lies and backed up by the leftwing media.

[ericfoxlegal]

The Choice: Who Should we trust: Dubya or Saddam.

The Democrats keep saying that Bush misled the world about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and programs. If this was true, then the Democrats are saying conversely that Saddam Hussain was telling the truth when he said he did not have anything to hide- that he didn’t have any WMD or related programs. (By the way, we have found the scientists and the related program documentation of Saddam’s WMD program, but this is beside the point). So the Democrats are saying, we should not have believed George W. Bush about Saddam, but rather we should have believed Saddam Hussain. This is interesting; and unfortunately, extremely dangerous.

Either Saddam Hussain was misleading the world, or George W. Bush was misleading the world- both cannot have been lying; and they both could not have been telling the truth. The Democrats are saying that we should trust the security of the United States to a mass murderer. The Democrats are saying we should trust the security of the United States to someone you killed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons. The Democrats are saying we should trust the security of the United States to Saddam used this billions of dollars to finance terrorism around the world. The Democrats are saying we should trust the security of the United States to someone who invaded two of his neighbor’s, Iran and Kuwait; causing well over a million deaths. The Democrats are saying that we should trust the security of the United States to someone who provided terrorists with a base of operations, including the terrorists who conducted the first attack on the Twin Towers in New York, Abdul Yazen. The Democrats want us to trust someone who harbored Abu Nadal- an organization with ties to al Qaeda. The Democrats want us to trust someone who’s intelligence officer met with Mohammad Atta in Prague just months before 9/11. The Democrats want us to trust our security to someone who trained terrorists on how to hijack an airplane with rudimentary weapons (knives) at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, where a Boeing 707 was parked for this purpose, as confirmed by two UN inspectors, three defectors, and our own satellite photographs. The Democrats want us to believe a man who provides money to the family of Hammas suicide bombers; Hammas was the same group who murdered 242 American Marines. The Democrats want voters to trust the security of the United States to a man who carried out extensive diplomatic, logistical, and financial cooperation with al Qaeda ever since the Gulf War, until his imminent demise in May of 2003- they even planned to cooperate on WMD according to a sealed 1998 U.S. indictment of Osama bin Laden. In short, the Democrats would have you believe Saddam Hussein, rather than George W. Bush.


The Democrats want us to believe Saddam when he says: “I’m not a perfect person, but I have nothing to do with al Qaeda.” The opposite is true as outlined in detail by an intelligence memo dated October 27, 2003, which was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller. Weekly Standard; November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.