The Energon Pub

Professor Smooth wrote:We need to hear more democratic scandals. It might finally put an end to the two party system that has been a large part of the ruination of the United States.

But you will not because the big 3(ABC,NBC,CBS) along with CNN and MSNBC are solidly left leaning in their reporting. When they cover a Democratic mistake, they move on the next day. Whereas if its a Republican they milk it for days. A study was conducted and some 80+% of reporters admitted they voted/donated to Democratic causes. Hard to take their reporting as objective then isn't it?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455

Professor Smooth wrote:Clinton...man, that guy was taken to task for all the wrong reasons. Blowjob in the office? Big deal. Started his own little war to cover it up? Meh.

Clinton made some incredible blunders during his time and nobody seemed to care about any of them that didn't involve the man's pants around his ankles.

It wasn't the blowjob that got him it was the lying under oath and purjuring himself on the stand. If he had just owned up to it the matter would've gone away. Shameful yes, Crime no. The irony is he escalated the whole Bosnia thing for his own ends, Bush didn't start the Afganistan and Iraq wars to serve his own means(conspiracy nuts will say otherwise, but remember they are "nuts" for a reason)

Clintons blunders that are most harming and had the longest lasting affect was his poor foreign policy. He had no response to the WTC parking deck bombing, the Embassy bombings, or the USS Cole. Nothing of substance or retiliation was done. He put up a front that the US was weak by retreating in Mogadishu and slashing the US military by half. A military we need now because as is evident evil doesn't go away just because the Soviet Union was dissolved.

I wonder if he had done something about those attacks if they would've been the blunders like the ones we are seeing now. I would rather we have a prepared army than to just throw one in to appease people who want quick retaliation. Keep in mind that most infantry soldiers are between 18 and 25, and it takes a while to prepare them to be efficient soldiers. Add to that inadequate supplies, unarmored Humvees....had we actually been prepared for this war, strategically, and our soldiers ready, it may not have been such a mess....but then again, you can't change a people that have lived their way for centuries. You can't just erase that kind of hate, that kind of backwards living. It will never happen.

Moonbase2 wrote:I wonder if he had done something about those attacks if they would've been the blunders like the ones we are seeing now. I would rather we have a prepared army than to just throw one in to appease people who want quick retaliation. Keep in mind that most infantry soldiers are between 18 and 25, and it takes a while to prepare them to be efficient soldiers. Add to that inadequate supplies, unarmored Humvees....had we actually been prepared for this war, strategically, and our soldiers ready, it may not have been such a mess....but then again, you can't change a people that have lived their way for centuries. You can't just erase that kind of hate, that kind of backwards living. It will never happen.

Well, not to sound evil, but a couple of nukes would erase it rather well.

Moonbase2 wrote:I wonder if he had done something about those attacks if they would've been the blunders like the ones we are seeing now.

No, but we probably would have been more properly prepared or even have prevented 9/11 if Clinton would have taken such responsibilities seriously instead of pawning it off as a police matter.

Do I blame Clinton 100% for 9/11, no I don't, there's more than enough blame to go around. Do I think he could have taken great strides in preventing it? Certainly.

captain craig says

Bush didn't start the Afganistan and Iraq wars to serve his own means(conspiracy nuts will say otherwise, but remember they are "nuts" for a reason)

Part true and part naive.

The only reason Baby bush(our current prez) even looked at Iraq was 'cuase someone lied to his dad"Big daddy Bush" and said some people in the dessert were trying to kill him. This was a lie and all of the people accused of the assignation plot were released once BDB left office. Plus BB thought he could finish what BDB started.

Baby Bush only wanted to settle a score and he said instead of finding Osama Bin Laden and getting the Mo FO, lets go to war with Iraq and lie to the public to get them to back this plan up. Hmm, lets' get Carl Rove to brainchild this and then we'll throw the jobs to Cheney(VP) and Haliburton. Then we kill Sadam.

Now, let's throw all of our resources into this and let the Taliban stay in the mountains. There's no need to send all of out troops there, we need them to fight the lie in Iraq.

...'Geeze, I can't believe the American ppl and most of the world fell for this crap! There was no reason to go to Iraq, it was a Lie, it was only to settle a score.

Meanwhile Osama is still loose, the Taliban is still causes trouble and we have tons of troops in Iraq stuck in a civil war while they should be in Afganistan chasing the Taliban to get Osama Bin Laden.

Don't let the lie lead you, you have to break it and finish the war that OBL started, not the Iraq's.

Now, if this was done right and they chased the Taliban and OBL into Iraq, then that's an entirely different story. But that's not how it happened, and it seems to me a least, that the public is too stupid to see this.

DJDrew&ScoobyDoo wrote:captain craig says

Bush didn't start the Afganistan and Iraq wars to serve his own means(conspiracy nuts will say otherwise, but remember they are "nuts" for a reason)

Part true and part naive.

The only reason Baby bush(our current prez) even looked at Iraq was 'cuase someone lied to his dad"Big daddy Bush" and said some people in the dessert were trying to kill him. This was a lie and all of the people accused of the assignation plot were released once BDB left office. Plus BB thought he could finish what BDB started.

Baby Bush only wanted to settle a score and he said instead of finding Osama Bin Laden and getting the Mo FO, lets go to war with Iraq and lie to the public to get them to back this plan up. Hmm, lets' get Carl Rove to brainchild this and then we'll throw the jobs to Cheney(VP) and Haliburton. Then we kill Sadam.

Now, let's throw all of our resources into this and let the Taliban stay in the mountains. There's no need to send all of out troops there, we need them to fight the lie in Iraq.

...'Geeze, I can't believe the American ppl and most of the world fell for this crap! There was no reason to go to Iraq, it was a Lie, it was only to settle a score.

Meanwhile Osama is still loose, the Taliban is still causes trouble and we have tons of troops in Iraq stuck in a civil war while they should be in Afganistan chasing the Taliban to get Osama Bin Laden.

Don't let the lie lead you, you have to break it and finish the war that OBL started, not the Iraq's.

Now, if this was done right and they chased the Taliban and OBL into Iraq, then that's an entirely different story. But that's not how it happened, and it seems to me a least, that the public is too stupid to see this.

Bush took advantage of a grieving nation to institute his own agenda. We were still reeling from 9/11 and his administrations tells us the bad guys are in Afganistan, so we go there...then next thing we know we're in Iraq.

Mr. Bush I think we missed our exit...

Neko wrote:

DJDrew&ScoobyDoo wrote:captain craig says

Bush didn't start the Afganistan and Iraq wars to serve his own means(conspiracy nuts will say otherwise, but remember they are "nuts" for a reason)

Part true and part naive.

The only reason Baby bush(our current prez) even looked at Iraq was 'cuase someone lied to his dad"Big daddy Bush" and said some people in the dessert were trying to kill him. This was a lie and all of the people accused of the assignation plot were released once BDB left office. Plus BB thought he could finish what BDB started.

Baby Bush only wanted to settle a score and he said instead of finding Osama Bin Laden and getting the Mo FO, lets go to war with Iraq and lie to the public to get them to back this plan up. Hmm, lets' get Carl Rove to brainchild this and then we'll throw the jobs to Cheney(VP) and Haliburton. Then we kill Sadam.

Now, let's throw all of our resources into this and let the Taliban stay in the mountains. There's no need to send all of out troops there, we need them to fight the lie in Iraq.

...'Geeze, I can't believe the American ppl and most of the world fell for this crap! There was no reason to go to Iraq, it was a Lie, it was only to settle a score.

Meanwhile Osama is still loose, the Taliban is still causes trouble and we have tons of troops in Iraq stuck in a civil war while they should be in Afganistan chasing the Taliban to get Osama Bin Laden.

Don't let the lie lead you, you have to break it and finish the war that OBL started, not the Iraq's.

Now, if this was done right and they chased the Taliban and OBL into Iraq, then that's an entirely different story. But that's not how it happened, and it seems to me a least, that the public is too stupid to see this.

Bush took advantage of a grieving nation to institute his own agenda. We were still reeling from 9/11 and his administrations tells us the bad guys are in Afganistan, so we go there...then next thing we know we're in Iraq.

Mr. Bush I think we missed our exit...

I don't. We're still present in both nations, and doing a damn good (even if not great) job in both places. And Bush did not go into Iraq to settle a score (although I see why conspiracy theorists think so), he went in there because he saw that Iraq was planning WMDs. UN intel, British intel, French intel, Russian intel, and American intel (among others) ALL said that Saddam had WMDs, so the "Bush lied" crap is bullshit. Additionally, the Husseins were slaughtering their own people in droves. And finally, we went in to prevent an Iran/Iraq arms race which would have made the situation 100 times worse about 2-5 years from now. Are things perfect? hell no. Are they better than they would have been if the Bush Administration hadn't taken action? Hell YES.

Semi-related note:
Contrary to ignorant belief, our President is not, in any way, a stupid man. His speech patterns are flawed, granted, but we shouldn't give a hoot. Aren't the same Libs who try to skewer Bush always preaching "tolerance?" For enforcers of this ideology, they seem pretty narn intolerant of that man's speech issues.

If we're going to bring up the "Sadam was killing his won people" arguement as a way to justify going there I would like to say two words:

Sadan Genocide.


Are we busting through their gates toppling their government? Nope.


To me, I see that whole arguement as a convenience.

Neko wrote:If we're going to bring up the "Sadam was killing his won people" arguement as a way to justify going there I would like to say two words:

Sadan Genocide.


Are we busting through their gates toppling their government? Nope.


To me, I see that whole arguement as a convenience.

Sudan exports it's oil to mostly China.

We'd cause international turmoil if we went there and toppled the government and would not be able to receive any real compensation if we wished to keep the international status quo. And, yes, money does rule the world.

Ironhidensh wrote:

Moonbase2 wrote:I wonder if he had done something about those attacks if they would've been the blunders like the ones we are seeing now. I would rather we have a prepared army than to just throw one in to appease people who want quick retaliation. Keep in mind that most infantry soldiers are between 18 and 25, and it takes a while to prepare them to be efficient soldiers. Add to that inadequate supplies, unarmored Humvees....had we actually been prepared for this war, strategically, and our soldiers ready, it may not have been such a mess....but then again, you can't change a people that have lived their way for centuries. You can't just erase that kind of hate, that kind of backwards living. It will never happen.

Well, not to sound evil, but a couple of nukes would erase it rather well.

Explain how.

We do NOT have a right to invade a country because we disagree with how its people are being treated. That is not our business. So to use that justification because there ARE NO WMDs is ridiculous. My husband has been sent over there twice now. He was shot in the chest, and had it not been for his chest plate he might be DEAD now. He's had people's heads blow up beside him and he's cleaned up the mess. He's seen more violence and destruction than most of us will ever see in our entire lives. We are killing their people and burying 18 year old men for this bullshit war. It is BULLSHIT!!!!!

If we are sending our men into a sovereign country for a war, by god there better be a good reason. There'd better be a good excuse that I pass by these clapboard churches here on post and memorials are being held all the time. There'd better be a reason I go to the hospital and see soldiers hobbling around on prosthetics. Unless you see the damage that it does to these men, physically and mentally, you just don't know!! They are worth more than this!!!!

Professor Smooth wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:

Moonbase2 wrote:I wonder if he had done something about those attacks if they would've been the blunders like the ones we are seeing now. I would rather we have a prepared army than to just throw one in to appease people who want quick retaliation. Keep in mind that most infantry soldiers are between 18 and 25, and it takes a while to prepare them to be efficient soldiers. Add to that inadequate supplies, unarmored Humvees....had we actually been prepared for this war, strategically, and our soldiers ready, it may not have been such a mess....but then again, you can't change a people that have lived their way for centuries. You can't just erase that kind of hate, that kind of backwards living. It will never happen.

Well, not to sound evil, but a couple of nukes would erase it rather well.

Explain how.

Fear. They only respect fear. If you make them think they'll be completely annihalated for attacks against the west they'll stop. I guarantee it. They understand fear quite well. Fear is how Saddam kept them in check. Pure fear and nukes would bring fear. And they know they can't fight a Gihad when there is noone left to fight. Anybody who doesn't realize what a fear like nukes would do to these neanderthals needs to rethink their position because fear is the way to win this. The world doesn't fear the USA anymore and that is why we get so much disrespect.

It wouldn't work. Nuking them would make martyrs of every single one of them. The survivors (and there will be survivors. You can't nuke an idea) will come at you much harder than before.

The bombs worked on Japan because the Emperor didn't want his people slaughtered. Such a statement does not hold true for the God Warriors of Islam. They would LOVE to be blasted to the other side.

The US is fighting an enemy that is not only unafraid of death, but an enemy that openly welcomes it.

Moonbase2 wrote:We do NOT have a right to invade a country because we disagree with how its people are being treated. That is not our business. So to use that justification because there ARE NO WMDs is ridiculous. My husband has been sent over there twice now. He was shot in the chest, and had it not been for his chest plate he might be DEAD now. He's had people's heads blow up beside him and he's cleaned up the mess. He's seen more violence and destruction than most of us will ever see in our entire lives. We are killing their people and burying 18 year old men for this bullshit war. It is BULLSHIT!!!!!

If we are sending our men into a sovereign country for a war, by god there better be a good reason. There'd better be a good excuse that I pass by these clapboard churches here on post and memorials are being held all the time. There'd better be a reason I go to the hospital and see soldiers hobbling around on prosthetics. Unless you see the damage that it does to these men, physically and mentally, you just don't know!! They are worth more than this!!!!

I'm an ex Marine ( actually not an ex Marine because you are a Marine for life SEMPER FI!!) and I got caught up in "Clinton's War" and I have lost 2 very good friends in Iraq over the last few years. I can tell you as a soldier, you have the mindset that you will go do your job and that's final. Rarely do you ever talk to a soldier who isn't proud of what he is doing and for the cause. It's terrible to lose loved ones and friends in war but as a soldier I know that they went out in an honerable way. Just like in one of the previous posts on the previous page EVERYBODY in the world had intelligence that said Saddam had WMDs. Many of us still believe he did and because we didn't act fast enough he had a chance to ship them to Syria. You all remember how long we played footsie with Saddam with the UN inspectors don't you? And you all MUST realize the UN is full of backstabbing liers that would cover for Saddam as long as there was some $$ coming their way. This war is justified and if the democrats and liberal media would back off and let us prevail the world as a whole will prosper from our victory. But alas, them democrats own defeat, they are invested in defeat and they seem to desire it. Not unlike what they did during Vietnam. But they weren't even near as treasonous during "Nam as thay are now. It's sad that our media and half our politicians are invested in our defeat. And it's even sadder when Americans follow THAT lie instaed of looking at real life and what needs to be done to secure our future so that the soldiers have a good home to come back too. No offense but you are speaking on pure emotion. It is your husband and you are worried sick about him. That's understandable but you can't just believe and fall for a bunch of hokie nonsense from the libs just because you are scared for your husband. As a soldier who's been to war and seen death and feared it, the best advice I can give you is, the best thing you can do for your husband is be strong, support him and don't make excuses for this war. Just support him because he is there and he needs your support. You can't let your attention be wavered by the tresonous pigs back here in the US that run our media and have infiltrated out political system. Please realize, I'm not saying this to be mean to you. I'm sincere and I really hope I can help. I'm sorry that you have to endure all this with your husband but hang in there and support him and things will work out.

Professor Smooth wrote:It wouldn't work. Nuking them would make martyrs of every single one of them. The survivors (and there will be survivors. You can't nuke an idea) will come at you much harder than before.

The bombs worked on Japan because the Emperor didn't want his people slaughtered. Such a statement does not hold true for the God Warriors of Islam. They would LOVE to be blasted to the other side.

The US is fighting an enemy that is not only unafraid of death, but an enemy that openly welcomes it.

I respectfully disagree. I have many arab muslim friends and they will tell you that even the terrorists fear death. They do fear death and they fear death by the masses that nukes would create. Of course there would be survivors but they would be completely deflated by such an attack. Plain and simple. Nuking them would send them back far enough that the last thing they would be worried about is regrouping to keep war going. And for many who don't realize it, terrorism is a very new idea. The idea of terrorism came from Yasir Arafat. He invented it in it's current form. And in case you missed it, those who order the terrorists into battle are not the terrorists themselves. Those who die as terrorists are the young and easily persuaded men. People like Bin Laden would never strap on a bomb. He has a very gullible following to do it for him. Trust me, they fear death.

I see.

What size bomb would you like to use and where would you care to drop it?

Professor Smooth wrote:I see.

What size bomb would you like to use and where would you care to drop it?

Hit the terrorists where they reside. Drop a few nukes in the mountains in Afghanastan so you can hit the terrorists head on with as little loss of innocent life as possible. The nukes used in this case don't have to be very large. Just large enough to do some damage kill a bunch of bad guys and let them know we aren't afraid to use them. Then, let the president get on TV and say that was your warning, if attacks against the west continues we will systematically continue using nukes until we get the desired result. Guarantee you will instanly see a sharp decline in violence before the US has to drop any more. Then we won't have to drop any more. It will make a statement that the US is ready to do what it takes to win and I guarantee they will take that seriously.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070907/ap_ ... fundraiser

Here's your Dem scandal.

HoosierDaddy wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:I see.

What size bomb would you like to use and where would you care to drop it?

Hit the terrorists where they reside. Drop a few nukes in the mountains in Afghanastan so you can hit the terrorists head on with as little loss of innocent life as possible. The nukes used in this case don't have to be very large. Just large enough to do some damage kill a bunch of bad guys and let them know we aren't afraid to use them. Then, let the president get on TV and say that was your warning, if attacks against the west continues we will systematically continue using nukes until we get the desired result. Guarantee you will instanly see a sharp decline in violence before the US has to drop any more. Then we won't have to drop any more. It will make a statement that the US is ready to do what it takes to win and I guarantee they will take that seriously.

And then Iran will respond in kind. Nice one.

Oh and, stop right now with that bullshit about treasonous liberals. You have no right to slap us with that label just because we don't rally to a war.

God, I'm ready to hit someone. It is tantamount to rascism to call us that. It's not a view. It's not an idea. It's disgusting and simple-minded hate.

I don't know what you think we're fighting for. We went over there to protect ourselves from WMD's. Fair enough. But what word were we throwing around when we did it? Oh yeah, Freedom.

But what F'ing freedom do I have if I can't say, loud and clear, "I hate Bush and the war in Iraq. We should not have gone in, and the administration was wrong." Here it is again:

"I hate Bush and the war in Iraq. We should not have gone in, and the administration was wrong."

And once more for good measure:

"I hate Bush and the war in Iraq. We should not have gone in, and the administration was wrong."


OMG, I'm gonna get taken away now. They're gonna kill me and I'll burn in the 9th level of Hell because I'm a traitor.


This isn't 1007. America allows its citizens to not only disagree, but even criticize. That is not treason. I may never know what's it like to called a n___ger, or have 8 million of my people killed, which is real rascism, but I sure as hell know what it's like to be discriminated against.

I hate Bush and his moronic war, and I am a patriot for saying so.

Dark Zarak wrote:

HoosierDaddy wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:I see.

What size bomb would you like to use and where would you care to drop it?

Hit the terrorists where they reside. Drop a few nukes in the mountains in Afghanastan so you can hit the terrorists head on with as little loss of innocent life as possible. The nukes used in this case don't have to be very large. Just large enough to do some damage kill a bunch of bad guys and let them know we aren't afraid to use them. Then, let the president get on TV and say that was your warning, if attacks against the west continues we will systematically continue using nukes until we get the desired result. Guarantee you will instanly see a sharp decline in violence before the US has to drop any more. Then we won't have to drop any more. It will make a statement that the US is ready to do what it takes to win and I guarantee they will take that seriously.

And then Iran will respond in kind. Nice one.

Oh and, stop right now with that bullshit about treasonous liberals. You have no right to slap us with that label just because we don't rally to a war.

God, I'm ready to hit someone. It is tantamount to rascism to call us that. It's not a view. It's not an idea. It's disgusting and simple-minded hate.

I don't know what you think we're fighting for. We went over there to protect ourselves from WMD's. Fair enough. But what word were we throwing around when we did it? Oh yeah, Freedom.

But what F'ing freedom do I have if I can't say, loud and clear, "I hate Bush and the war in Iraq. We should not have gone in, and the administration was wrong." Here it is again:

"I hate Bush and the war in Iraq. We should not have gone in, and the administration was wrong."

And once more for good measure:

"I hate Bush and the war in Iraq. We should not have gone in, and the administration was wrong."


OMG, I'm gonna get taken away now. They're gonna kill me and I'll burn in the 9th level of Hell because I'm a traitor.


This isn't 1007. America allows its citizens to not only disagree, but even criticize. That is not treason. I may never know what's it like to called a n___ger, or have 8 million of my people killed, which is real rascism, but I sure as hell know what it's like to be discriminated against.

I hate Bush and his moronic war, and I am a patriot for saying so.

I don't think your a traitor because you don't like the war, that one of the things about the US is that you can critize the government. However liberal politicians aren't critizing, they're lapooning the effert, making sure that success never happens no matter the cost, and uncutting the President at every turn. Liberal press are scandels out of every little action, they picking at every setback, and never report on the successes.
But it's my experience that liberals are extremely hypocratic when it comes to things. When all the reports suggested that Saddam did indeed have WMD, virtually everone ralleyed going to Iraq and putting a stop to it. And you know as well as I do that if Bush would not have sent troops in, everyone would have critized him for not taking action. So he takes action, and everyone jumps ship and turns on the situation when it's revealed the reports were not 100% correct. Now i'll give credit, there were people that never supported the war, but those were usually the ones that never support war anyway, no matter the justification.

Moonbase2 wrote:We are killing their people and burying 18 year old men for this bullshit war. It is BULLSHIT!!!!!

Another bias that a great deal of liberal press would like you to believe is the misdirection that our forces are the ones causing the death and destruction. So in effect, you're saying that your husband is killing innocent civilians. I don't believe that, and neither, I bet, do you. The civilian deaths are being caused by the insurgents, not our soldiers. But that's not what the press would like you to believe, to futher call up images of Viet Nam in the minds of the viewer/reader. One thing that I have to point out is that this war is far from Viet Nam. The military is completely changed in terms of how it handles civilians, and how they compose themselves has changed as well (i.e. I don't believe that they are even allowed Playboy magazines anymore).

Dark Zarak wrote:
And then Iran will respond in kind. Nice one.

Oh and, stop right now with that bullshit about treasonous liberals. You have no right to slap us with that label just because we don't rally to a war.

God, I'm ready to hit someone. It is tantamount to rascism to call us that. It's not a view. It's not an idea. It's disgusting and simple-minded hate.

I don't know what you think we're fighting for. We went over there to protect ourselves from WMD's. Fair enough. But what word were we throwing around when we did it? Oh yeah, Freedom.

But what F'ing freedom do I have if I can't say, loud and clear, "I hate Bush and the war in Iraq. We should not have gone in, and the administration was wrong." Here it is again:

"I hate Bush and the war in Iraq. We should not have gone in, and the administration was wrong."

And once more for good measure:

"I hate Bush and the war in Iraq. We should not have gone in, and the administration was wrong."


OMG, I'm gonna get taken away now. They're gonna kill me and I'll burn in the 9th level of Hell because I'm a traitor.


This isn't 1007. America allows its citizens to not only disagree, but even criticize. That is not treason. I may never know what's it like to called a n___ger, or have 8 million of my people killed, which is real rascism, but I sure as hell know what it's like to be discriminated against.

I hate Bush and his moronic war, and I am a patriot for saying so.

Amen.

Thanks Loki. I needed that.


However, wouldn't it just make more sense from your logic to just label "damn liberal politicians short-changing Bush"?

It's all the Anne Coulter crap that kills me. Hypocrisy is on both sides. I hate how politicians I (sort of) like voted for the war and now they hate it. Of course, my preferences are the reverse of yours, but I still hate the hypocrisy. But right wing hypocrisy is to fight in the name of American freedom and then call people traitors if they don't cheer Bush. Bitch out politicians getting the way of the train all you want, but don't lump people together.


And let's hope you're right about the way the military treats civilians. That's my only real hang-up with war. Bombings and civilian deaths.

But I'm afraid that what really happens is that all planning goes out the window when the **** hits the fan and it doesn't really matter what the new policies are. You're in the way, you get blasted.

The only point that matters to me is, why didn't we throw every single f#cking weapon and warrior to find Osama Bin Laden!

What is the point for war in Iraq? It doesn't matter, they are not, were not Alqeida. The only reason Bush even Looked at Iraq was for personal reasons.

Meanwhile OBL is still loose and if you belie the reports today, will be releasing a new video on the 6th ann of 9/11.

Bush has failed! Plain and simple. He has not made a true effort to find OBL. If he was truly intent on ending the terrorist threat, he would throw every single thing we have into Afganistan and the Mountains to find OBL. Instead, he puts more troops into Iraq to start a war that he knew, and if really think he didn't you're fooling yourself, had nothing to do with terrorism.

The straight forward truth is, he lied to the public and the world to go to war with Iraq and divide the US forces looking for Osama Bin Laden.

WHY, oh WHY is not every single resource that we have looking for OBL? This is the true failure of our leadership.

Now, we have pointless debates on when to get out of Iraq. Meanwhile OBL is still running loose and planning attacks on innocent people.

The next time you hear of a terrorist attack planned by Alqeida. You should point at Baby Bush and say, "It's your fault, for not going after OBL with everything you have!"

DJDrew&ScoobyDoo wrote: Instead, he puts more troops into Iraq to start a war that he knew, and if really think he didn't you're fooling yourself, had nothing to do with terrorism.

The straight forward truth is, he lied to the public and the world to go to war with Iraq and divide the US forces looking for Osama Bin Laden.

Well, then I'm not fooling myself, because the war wasn't started because of terrorism, but because of reports that Saddam had WMDs. There were also confirmed reports that Saddam's sons had met with Al Queda leaders, and terrorist training camps have been found. There is also the question of the ease in which Al Quada wormed their way into Iraq, if they weren't already there in some form to begin with.

I'm sure that there is branch of Alqeida in every Muslem speaking country. The reason, the language/culture/religion, it's easier to get more recruits if you speak the language/culture/religion. However, we are not are war with Indonesia. We have poor diplomatic relations with Iran, Syria, but those are for other reasons. However, you know there are cells of Alqeida there too. As well as every other country in the Middle East.

My point is, Baby Bush didn't follow the trail to OBL. He let it get cold and started a new war that had nothing to do with the war on terror and everything to do with his own personal agenda.

I think that most Liberal and Independents have a hard time saying this. I don't know why, it has been my complaint all along. Why start a war with Iraq when OBL is still loose.

Now, if it was done this way, everyone would still be Ok with the war.

*If* Bush would have send the same force into Afganistan that he sent into Iraq, he could have chased OBL all around. Alqeida, would have more trouble planning attacks if it is always on the run. Now lets say that they go into Iraq, then Bush could use the leverage that he used (too early) and follow them in. The point of this theory is to say that if you chased Alqeida into Iraq, then it's ok. However, He didn't, and he left Alqeida with less pressure.

Now, I'm not saying that he let Alqeida loose. We have troops in Afganistan along with some UN troops. However, and I want everyone to really think hard about this, If he had the same amount of man power that is currently in Iraq, fighting with the current manpower that is already in Afganistan, the situation would be entirely different.

However, he did not do this. He split our forces, stretching them way to thin and there are cracks in the defenses. Alqeida just slips through this. Most of Afganistan is ruled by Warlords and they get a lot of their $ from Poppy(Opium). Any when that runs out ands they still want power,, who do they look to? You got it, Alqeida.

If we had all of our troops in Afganistan, we wouldn't need the Warlords as much and we do. We would be chasing Alqeida out of there. They would run into the countries that are friendly to them. We would then follow them and continue the war on terror.

UURRAGHH! But this is not what happened and it is too late for it to happen because we have lost the support of the world who only see's us as attacking Iraq and letting the War on Terror, take a backseat.