Now, suppose the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan demand that the United States Government turn over Bush and the PNAC. Would the U.S. agree? Not likely. Would Iraq and Afghanistan then be justified in assembling a coalition of the willing and invade the United States, replacing its government, and killing or capturing as many members of the PNAC as possible?

If not, then the invasion of Afghanistan was also not justified.

38 militants said killed in Afghanistan
AP – KABUL, Afghanistan – NATO-led troops killed 38 suspected insurgents in two separate confrontations in southern Afghanistan

I always knew you were a fine man. Thank you.

This administration has been the ones pushing it and all of the fear associated with it. One could make an argument that by their constant push of fear they themselves are guilty of a terrorist act.

Look, I have nothing against the core values of republicans or conservatives. I believe many of the ideals would be helpful. I also believe that the republican party has been hijacked by ideologs that have caused deep divisions in this country and aren’t pushing the core values of republicans or conservatives. More debt than I ever remember, more gov’t intrusion and less responsibility is what I’ve seen from this group. Two weeks before the last Presidential election Cheney was saying you vote for Kerry and we will have a Terrorist attack. That’s just instilling fear with no proof. They are doing the same thing now.

The American people will hopefully wake up. When / if they do the republican party will be hurt for many years to come. As it stands now, it will take decades to correct the injustices produced by this group.

Jason has my feminist hackles up. I’m going to dog the dog.

Jason, you are not only a liar, you are a damned liar.

I agree to the extent that I have always disliked the title “War on Terror.”

Webster’s defines Terror as: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

If this what this administration defines as Terror then we shouldn’t be letting up, we should be calling for a draft to counter the Masadras in Pakistan and the Whabists (? on spelling) of Saudi Arabia. Why not? Because it’s just a fear toting slogan by this administration. They have no real understanding on what it would take to truly have a “War on Terror”.

I was in full support of a military operation in Afghanistan. I wanted to see 400,000 US troops and any other Allies that cared to join. I wanted to crush the Taliban and Al Qiada. We were violently attacked by terrorists and I wanted to see all unholy hell unleashed upon all who were involved.

We didn’t do what I wanted but we still made our selves known and the world stood beside us. When the focus became Iraq, I hoped this administration was right because sending troops to fight and die is as big a responsibility any President has. That’s where this administration has failed. They failed the soldiers sent, they failed the citizens they are elected by, they destroyed all the good will and support that was behind us after 9/11.

This administration has failed us.

1) The UN did not say that Iraq had no WMDs. Quite the opposite, in fact. Recall that Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously by the Security Council. And that followed a decade of UNSC resolutions and UN economic sanctions based on the premise that Iraq had not disarmed as it was required to. So, you are incorrect there.

2) We were indeed initially greeted as liberators. In April . May 2003, Iraqis cheered American troops, waved America flags, and chanted George W. Bush’s name and “U.S.A.” The Sunni-Baathist-Al Qaeda insurgency that developed in the months afterward do not take away from the fact that we were indeed greeted as liberators.

3) So, what are you saying, DRxJ? That the Clinton administration did not claim that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs? I hope not, because I have a whooooooole slew of quotes and news clips from the 1990s that show they did. Indeed, they even launched military strikes against suspected Iraqi in 1998 (Operation: Desert Fox). Please, do not try to re-write history, my good Doctor, and try to argue that the believe tha Iraq had WMDs was a belief restricted solely to the Bush administration. Such a claim is patently false. Thus, with two successive presidential administrations of two different political parties both saying (along with a decade of UN resolutions) that Iraq had WMDs, the American people were more than justified in believing that was indeed the case.

The War on Terror has as much meaning as the War on Drugs. Slogans and nothing more. Terror is a tatic used by desperate groups. More soldiers on the ground would just mean more targets for the terrorists. The original goal after the fall of Saddam was never thought through and that is why we have the situation we have. The PNAC playbook didn’t go into detail on what needed to be done and Phase IV planning was piss poor and implemented half assed.

There are no easy answers but I firmly believe that I don’t want to give this current administration another shot at trying to get this right.

Out in South Africa we got ahold of the debunks to the war long before you Americans did. It was generally mystifying to us as to just why America went ahead and did it: Everybody already knew that Saddam didn’t have links to Al Qaeda, and the WMD charges were shaky to say the least.

The best anyone could come up with really to defend America’s decision was there might have been classified information nobody else was privy to, but in the end I guess not.

In a way Iraq was a bit like with the Soccer World Cup in South Africa, any idiot can see that in real terms it is going to be a stuff-up, but read up on it and you will see stories that almost glow with optimism, so nobody really worries about it. You were decieved, the countries which said “Nah, crap boet” were right, and now it is time to see what can be done about it.

I think part of that is a changing of the guard, a re-introduction of multiple party politics (Where the two Houses are no longer in the same hands that landed America in this mess) and a strong policy of hiring people based on their competence rather then their affiliation into all cabinet and government positions. Lackey appointments needs to be an ongoing election issue. America is in dire straits, but it is salvageable if America’s parties and voters, can put aside their loyalties, and honestly look at the problems involved.