Its amazing how one man can have so many convictions on one issue and still be taken seriously any anyone.  Thanks for pointing that one out!!!!!

Not really.  Bush is the flip flipper.

Kerry didn't say the war was wrong in the Drake quote. It was about Saddam.

Remember, Bush instigated the war not to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but because he claims Iraq has WMds. Bush flip flopped on the cause of war. from being about Iraq is a clear and present threat to the US homeland because they haave WMD, to the new spin by the Bush hencmen that it was to save the Iraqi people from Saddam.


The fact the Bush minions will spin anything to try and make Kerry say things he didn't say, is a sign teh Bush campaign is desperate and sees a change in the wind.

America has proven it dosen't care about a flip-flopper, or a waffler (what's president Clinton's favorite color?  Plad!).  Kerry has gone on the record saying he would have made the same decision to go in if he knew then what we know now.

What we SHOULD be talking about is his voting record in the senate.  Track record is more important than posturing & talking.  But Kerry dosen't want to focus on that since his record sucks.  Read the Congressional review to see for yourself.

Wow unlike you among the GOP loons to be so obtuse.  One can feel that we are better off with Saddam in captivity and Iraq not under his sway AND think in retrospect that the cost was too high and the whole affair a debacle.

I hate Jim Jong Il.  Think it would be a good thing if he was gone.  But I do not think it is worth the possible cost to do it.  Nor do I believe we can do it from a legal stand point.

The fact is that other states can hold any views they want and do anything they want.  It USED to be that they had to attack us or commit an act of war on our forces or interests to be attacked.  We had to wait for the act to happen.

You need to go back to your logic courses- we expect more of you.  You are the lone rational voice of reaction/toryism on the board.  Or you used to be.

... The world is a better place w/o Sadam and we are safer because he is not around.   That does NOT mean that Iraq was the most important issue to us or that we went in before we had things set up for a better result.  

We make lots of decisions in life that require trading off between desirable alternatives and staying within a budget.  Mr Bush did something that was not as useful as other things he could have done and he spent too much of America's money and good will.  How to you feel about people who solve the wrong problem and than want a pat on the back for missing what was important?  Lets face it, there was no good reason to deal with Iraq alone and in the timeframe chosen:  surely you don't want to argue that the US was in immediate danger from Iraq?  You are too rational to believe that anymore.

Does this help clairify your thinking?   Harry

The world could be safer without Saddam Hussein, and it still could have been a strategic mistake to invade Iraq.  A marginal benefit to invading Iraq is that we did remove Saddam.  The minimal safety of removing Saddam is outweighed by the danger we've created now.  If only we had just assassinated him.

/Zin

"You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

and a year later said,

"we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11."

or

"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

and later in the week what was it he said?