Shady

I appreciate the offer, however, I absolutely know what I'm talking about. No. Saudi Arabia does not support terrorism. Are there citizens within Saudi Arabia that do? Of course. But all things considered, the government of Saudi Arabia does not support terrorism. So to suggest they be invaded is laughable. Same goes for Pakistan. The government of Pakistan, does not support terrorism. However, there are large portions of the Pakistani population that do. You cannot compare the two to Afghanistan. Afghanistan was invaded and its government removed because they absolutely did support terrorism, and provided refuge to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Some may say the same of you. Sorry, but I don't agree with your premise that Bush and Blair lied. If Bush and Blair lied, then France, Germany, Russia, China, and the United Nations all lied. Not to mention most of the rest of the world and their intelligence apparatus. Was there intelligence suggesting that Iraq possessed WMD? Of course. Was there intelligence that suggested Iraq possessed no WMD? Of course. However, as elected leaders, after 9/11, a decision was made, that such threats, especially when examining Iraq's history, couldn't be tolerated.

Yes.

I respectfully disagree. It was quite coherent and concise, but above all else, not BS. Sometimes the truth hurts. That is a rather ignorant statement. All things considered, our relations with the middle east have very little significance in the stagnant state that part of the world finds itself in. They've been cruising in neutral for hundreds of years, and now, the chickens are coming home to roost. The difference between Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, is that the government of Saudi Arabia is a western ally. They're not a hostile government, though they do have a problem with terrorism amoungst thier citizenry.

Nope. President Clinton made 140 such appointments and I did nothing of the sort. Nonsense. Says who? Of course real leaders throw their weight around. Sometimes that's the only way one can truely lead when obstacles are impeding progress. Some of America's greatest victories (non-military) have come through President's flexing their muscle. Slavery, Women's Suffrage, Desegregation, Civil Rights, etc. Again, more nonsense. The Constitution of the United States provides the President the power to make such appointments. A loophole? You mean the loophole called the Constitution of the United States? And of course he could've had Botlon approved through normal proceedings, except the opposition wasn't interested in holding a vote. Nonsense. He'll be there until a new Congress takes session in January 2007. When discussing Constitutional issues, it helps immensely to have read said document.

CNNI don't know about everyone else, but I'm thrilled! The President had a fantastic week last week and now caps it off with a Bolton appointment. I'm glad the President is finally throwing his weight around. When President's win elections, they have the right to appoint the people they feel are most qualified to positions within the Administration. It's about time he let's everyone in the Senate know just who the Commander-In-Chief is!

Why don't you complete your conversion by joining one of the many terrorist groups fighting against freedom? I mean, you're already providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Now you're even helping spread their propaganda. Shame on you!To suggest that the terrorist bombings in London are soley based on the invasion of Iraq is grossly irresponsible. You're nothing more then a mouth piece for terrorism. They tell you what to say, and you say it, as though it's gospel. I'm sick and tired of this attitude of appeasement, especially in Canada. We are truely a country without a spine, a nation of fence-sitters hardly matched in the world. Aside from possibly Spain and Switzerland. The truth is, Iraq has very little to do with the Islamic fascists that threaten the world today. They consider everyone of us not Muslim as infidels, who deserve death. Shall we start our conversion for fear of terrorist reprisal? They consider the presence of multi-national troops and aid workers in Afghanistan as illegal and immoral. Shall the world start its withdrawal for fear of terrorist reprisal? They consider the freedoms we enjoy, especially the freedom provided to women as a grave disgrace in the eyes of Islam. Shall we start repealing these rights for fear of terrorist reprisal? The answer to these questions is an obvious NO. Well, obvious to people of non-appeasement. Either you comply 100% with each terrorists demand, or there will always be an excuse for a bombing, kidnapping, or suicide attack. One doesn't allow its foreign policy to be dictated by terrorists. Let's remember, September 11th took place before any military invasion in Iraq. The bombings in Bali took place before any military invasion in Iraq. Australia, for example, who lost 88 people in the Bali bombings was originally sited by Osama Bin Laden as a legitimate target for terrorism due to its involvement in the liberation and aid in East Timor. Anyone that spreads the false notion that Iraq is the cause of these types of terrorist actions is a liar and a propagandist. The attitude of some people in this world, and especially some people in this forum is frightening, but reminds be of a great quote from President John F Kennedy.

Washington Post

Well, it seems as though Jews and Christians can live in peace together. The same can be said for Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for a large number of Muslims.

Exactly! Bush has introduced democracy to a part of the world which otherwise wouldn't have had the chance for self-determination for who knows how many decades longer. History will look very kindly on that fact. Iraq will look much different (for the better) in the coming years. Much similar to that of South Korea. And hopefully, it's a process that will spread through the middle east, as some signs have indicated progress in Egypt, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia.As for Bush's immediate predecessor, you're absolutely correct. He shoved aside tough actions and tough decision for pseudo-peace and psuedo-prosperity in the name of politics. In contrast, history will look very unkindly towards those selfish acts.

This ties into my "Familiar Headlines" thread perfectly. Familiar Headlines Germans Declare Americans Hatred U.S. Investigators Discover Mounting Bitterness Over Our Occupational Practices By Kathleen McLaughlin, The New York Times December 3, 1945 Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared By John H. Crider, The New York Times November 18, 1945 Germans Reveal Hatred of Americans By Drew Middleton, The New York Times October 31, 1945 American's Clashes With Germans Grow October 10, 1946 Reich Girls Want Return of Nazism By Drew Middleton October 22, 1945 It's just the same doom and gloom recycled by the same type of people today.

Yes, Muslims show us just how peaceful of a religion Islam is, on a daily basis it seems. Unfortunately.

Well, there's these things called nuclear weapons, which greatly complicates the situation.

Lie No, you're lying. Try providing links to your references too, it would be most helpful. Mirror.co,uk That's true. But to suggest there was no intelligence when half the world had intelligence suggesting Iraq was in possession of WMD is extremely irrepsonsible. There's always a but with you people. Saddam lied but. Iraq was in breach but. Stop making excuses for Saddam and his regime. Please. It's not the length of the post you should be apologizing for, it's the regurgitation of propaganda from a murderous dictator and his regime. This letter has about as much merit as a letter from Hitler being sympathetic to the Jews.

Yes, I do mean the daily coalition bombings on Iraqi military targets, especially anit-aircraft targets that fired upon coalition aircraft on a daily basis. The same coalition aircraft protecting the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. Those are facts. Deal with them however you like, but please stop providing excuses for Saddam and his regime. Not so, either is thier sheltering of those who participated in the bombing. USATodayStop making excuses for Saddam and his regime. My comment on the attempted assassination of the former President was in responsee to theloniusfleabag. However, that cruise missle attack accomplished about as much as the cruise missile attacks against Bin Laden in Afghansitan. In other words, nothing. No, the no-fly zones permitted under Security Council Resolution 688. The no-fly zones which protected the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. Yes, until then, I'm glad we agree.

Excellent observation! Oh please. It's just a little taste of your own medicine. The left loves to throw around the term fascist when describing conservatives. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Again Argus, great observation!

Yes of course, slight progress. Saddam plays people like you like puppets. It's the same cat and mouse game that went on through the 90's. As for the pressing need for regime change, it was 9/11. Such threats that were tolerated before, were deemed unacceptable after. Yes indeed. Saddam's bluff was called, and we only know this because he's been removed. What's ironic, is the only lies that led to the war were being perpetuated by Saddam and Iraq. I'm glad that you people can finally admit it. Actually, by much of the world, including Canada. However, this is another non-sequitur argument. Yes, sometimes there's no nonsense quite like the truth.

Have you forgotten the first WTC bombing? Or how about the assassination attempt on George H. W. Bush? Or how about the daily attacks on U.N. (mostly American, but some British and French) pilots patrolling the no-fly zones protecting the Kurds in the north and the Shites in the south? Ever heard of Abu Nidal? CNNThis terrorist leader used Iraq as a safe-haven, where he lived very comfortably under Saddam Hussein's watch, and with Saddam Hussien's money. And let's not forget about Saddam's interest in the financing of suicide bombers, remember? And where was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi BEFORE the war started? Baghdad. Lies. Pure lies. CNN Exactly. So why do you people think you know everything that pertain's to Iraq as a threat, Iraq's WMD capability and possession, as well as it's links to terrorism?

Thank you. I'm sorry about your knuckles, however, the constant lies, disinformaiton, and revision of history by those on the left really bothers me. From the memo: Link Hmm, that's odd, don't you think? Contemplating a situation in which you apparently know won't happen because you apparently know that Iraq doesn't possess such illegal weapons in a memo in which nobody else is suppose to see. There was a genuine fear of Iraq. There was a fear of WMD, and a fear of terrorism. This fear was deemed unacceptable after 9/11. It's accurate to state that Iraq was under severe sanctions and inspections. However, sanctions were at a point of breaking down, and inspectors hadn't been inspecting for a period of 4 years. And history indicates that Iraq did an execptional job of working around such sanctions and inspections. This is evident in 1996 when UNSCOM was about to declare Iraq free of illegal weapons untill Iraqi defectors uncovered chemical, biological and nuclear programs to inspectors. It is NOT an acceptable method after 9/11 to hope for defectors in order to insure one's safety. It is NOT an acceptable method to push for indefinite inspections, and it is definitely NOT an acceptable method to push for indefinite sanctions which only work to starve and deprive millions of Iraqi's from even the basic necessities of life. That's my opinion. And then there's stories like these, in which some people continue to ignore: Washington Post

Some may argue whether killing babies is a right.

How is that strange? Intelligence indicated that Iraq possessed WMD. Intelligence from America, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China, and even The United Nations. If you actually read the Downing Street memo, America and Britian were genuinely concerned about their forces facing WMD in the event of an invasion. They do. Although I'm sure that Russia, China and Japan possess very compentent fighting forces and intelligence networks aswell. However, this is a classic non-sequiter argument. Two facts: George Tenet is a Clinton appointee. George Tenet HAS lost his job. LOL, yep, one big giant lie, America and Britian in collaboration with the intelligence agencies of France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Israel, and The United Nations and its Security Council.

Actually, if you read the memo, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the war was based on everything but lies. The memo clearly indicates that the British are genuinely fearful of WMD by Iraq during an invasion.

I'm sorry, but these types of statements don't invite honest intelligent discourse.

I couldn't agree more. It really puts you inside the heads of these insane type people and reflects their true logic and beliefs. He may not be the same raving religious nut of a suicide bomber, but he's friends witht them, and invites them to official government meetings. Link That's your pal Ken Livingstone. So you may hold what he says in great regard, however, the majority of Brits think otherwise. That would make sense if the terrorist attacks weren't being planned while Bill Clinton was President. Not to mention several terrorist attacks occuring during his Presidency. You totally fail to address the real root causes of terrorism.

It's not just because it might be an Arab website, it's also the fact that it's called Jihad Unspun. That should be a dead give-away that it's nothing close to an impartial source. I still stand by iraqbodycount.net. Now, I know for some of you Bush haters, you'll be disappointed. I know that for your "cause" the more dead Iraqi's the better, but your numbers just aren't accurate. So please stop inflating the number of casualties for poltical purposes. It's shameful and disgusting.

This is his source ladies and gentlemen: Jihad Unspun You must be joking.