I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Brilliant information and great site to visit. Informative and attractive layout.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

This is similar to comment spam but avoids some of the safeguards designed to stop the latter practice.) Some individuals or companies

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Cash loans aid loan seekers by certainly removing hassles from the process quick and problemless.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100%, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong.

I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.

Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I thought it was us “Liberal Lefties” who were supposed to be the proponents of moral relativism? And yet time and again I see the conservatives trot out arguments like, who was in power when such and such happens, or other countries do it to.

I thought we were supposed to do what’s right because it’s right, not because some other conservative or liberal may have done it and not because others are doing it to.

Also… Clinton inherited Somalia from Bush I. We can argue the merits of Clintons withdrawal, but our involvement there in the first place is a conservative boondoggle.

Speaking of Somalia… I understand that much of the world drew an incorrect conclusion that we didn’t possess the stomach for conflict when things got tough when what really happened is Clinton recognized that we were not wanted there by the very people we were trying to help and that the effort couldn’t succeed without a massive escalation of the conflict. He simply decided that the lives of our soldiers were worth more than that. For people who claim to value and support the troops so much, I wonder why they can’t wrap their minds around that or why they aren’t more appalled by the current senseless waste of life for a littany of lies. At least the troops themselves seem to be slowly coming around. It’ll be interesting to see what kind of support conservatives get from the military in the future.

Also… Some folks seem all too willing to gloss over the facts when reviewing the history of our current conflict. Yes it was rumored that Hussein’s Iraq possessed WMDs, but it also now widely known that much of that rumor came from us and more specifically the Office of Special Plans inside the Pentagon as headed up by Rumsfeld and Cheney. It is now widely known that intel was cherry picked and elements that supported Bushco’s drive towards war were highlighted and put in the spotlight, while evidence that contradicted that agenda was kept quiet and hidden. Furthermore, Hussein never kicked out the inspectors. They left of their own volition after Clinton warned them of an impending strike and that he couldn’t guarantee their safety. Nevermind that they were allowed back in,(despite Bush’s constant public protestations to the contrary) and that Hussein was cooperating. You may recall said cooperation being dismissed as another clever Hussein tactic to hide his true evil intent.

The U.N. sanction violations are a red-herring on two counts, 1st, many countries, including the U.S. and Israel are in violation of several U.N. sanctions yet no one seems to be calling for armed invasions of either us or Israel. 2nd, it defies logic to use the sanctions as an excuse when the very body that creates and issues the sanctions is and was opposed to the war.

Also… Of course there were no pre-election political ploys for troop reduction before the 2004 elections. We hadn’t yet reached the tipping point in the polls where the majority of Americans opposed the Iraq war, and supported troop withdrawal at the earlist possible point. Now that we have it’s become a political ping pong ball.

b.) “What are the metrics being used to reduce troop numbers?”
******* ++++NOTE++++ See “a.)” above.

c.) “Why did we go into Iraq and what needs to happen for an exit to take place?”
******* For the umpteeeeenth time: Iraq was known to posses AND use WMD’s. In the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement (Handy TIP: A cease fire agreement is NOT a peace treaty – it is a cessation of hostilities as long as agreed upon conditions are met.) Saddam agreed to weapons inspectors and certain humanitarian programs such as “Oil for Food ” Program. Rife with corruption from the UN, suppliers, and the Iraqi government, the ordinary citizen suffered greatly. Paying suicide bounties to Palestinian bombers and playing host to known terrorists didn’t increase most Americans love for Saddam. After going over the known intelligence of the day (intelligence HEAVILY discussed – but weakly acted upon by our former President) and going to the UN (where more than a dozen resolutions that liberals love so much were disregarded by Saddam) and conditions were announced by our diplomatic corps and President – we went in. (SAVE for FUTURE reference!!!)

Re: US and coalition forces: as the Iraqi security forces increase their capabilities, we will withdraw. And No, GWB will not be posting here to let progs know the “metrics” or timetable. But isn’t this conundrum typical of progs? They want out – they want to know when – they “support the troops” who aren’t murderers — AND they’re offended at the possible political implications of a staggered withdrawal in a POLITICAL ARENA!! (My favourite two words to bring nebulous progs back to earth – “GEORGE MC GOVERN”.

I’m certain your disagreement with my answer to you will warrant a vacuous response – but please don’t waste your precious time. Conference in 30 minutes….’til later….