" That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."

They voted for the president ot have authority. Who's re-writing history now?

So, voting to give the president the authority doesn't mean giving him the authority???

Absurd!

Thank you President Bush and well about time.

What does one need to do to obtain the full text of this speech in line?

shortz . . . for what purpose do you think they gave him that authority? I'd be interested in knowing what convoluted logic would preclude the removal of Saddam.

..way to grow a set of big ones Mr. President! Don't stop there; tell the Gutless Obsequious Politicians in congress to get off their duffs and tell the lying, sniveling Democrats like Reid, Pelosi, and Kennedy to get stuffed!

And, while you're at it, start building that fence on the border!

One big thing I think W should be doing (and should HAVE been doing all along) is to have weekly, or at least more regular than now, speeches to the American people. FDR had fireside chat radio addresses. Reagan had well-timed televised speeches from the Oval Office. W should be doing more of that. The drumbeat of truth has to be consistent...constant...or the American people will believe anything they are fed by the Left - no matter how ludicrous. Jim Jones and the Guayana tragedy proved that people can be made to believe anything - even to the point of their own personal destruction. And, judging by the polls, many Americans ARE lined up for the purple Kool-Aid that Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and the MSM are more than willing to dole out to them.

Our good friend Barbara Streissand is not about to give President Bush any love. Read: Babs Seeking Bush Impeachment

-MZ

It's about friggin time! Thank you mister pres., hope this is the beginning of a series of prove it or shutup speaches. I'm getting sick of saying it for him. I trust him, and believe in this war, now let's get the majority back and leave these peaceniks to crawl back into the hole they crawled out of.

Lets not stopp with the war. The President needs to hit eqally hard on the economy. Needs to remind people that we have 4 straight years of growth becaus eof his tax cuts. I hope this is the beginning of the reincarnation

People need to understand that those who are now questioning the President in regards to the war, are the enemy...what our poor troops must be feeling. But do you know that those who are anti-war and anti-military, i.e. Pelosi, that want the troops to feel bad so that recruitment will go down and our military will be a weak. Wake up people, she's a tyrant! Open your eyes!

Shortz,

There ya go again...look, the President had authority in 1998 to liberate Iraq...the law was passed, Clinton signed it and GW could have sent the troops in on January 20th, 2001 if he wanted to and it would have been perfectly legal.

For anyone to say that a vote in favor of the 2002 resolution wasn't a vote to authorise military action is, well, a Kerryesque attempt to flip flop his way into favor with the lunatic left.

They voted for the president ot have authority. Who's re-writing history now?

Is this a trick question? I mean just by asking it, the answer would be....you!

The "authority" was to a) enforce U.N. Resolution 1441; and also b) enforce the clearly stated U.S. policy toward Iraq since 1998. Do you recall what that policy was? You guessed it....regime change.

Now again....who is re-writing history?

Sbulka,

I think everyone on the right is hoping that this is the start of "grind up a lefty" month for President Bush...we're ready for the battle.

"So, voting to give the president the authority doesn't mean giving him the authority???"

It means giving him the authority. The president can then use or misuse that authority as he sees fit.

"shortz . . . for what purpose do you think they gave him that authority? I'd be interested in knowing what convoluted logic would preclude the removal of Saddam."

For him to make the decision to invade as a last resort. Just like he promised.

"The "authority" was to a) enforce U.N. Resolution 1441; and also b) enforce the clearly stated U.S. policy toward Iraq since 1998. Do you recall what that policy was? You guessed it....regime change."

They voted for him to decide. They didn't decide.

The text of laws is important people.

Every other month for the last two years Bush has trotted-out the same old tired speech. Bla bla bla 9/11, bla bla bla Nick Berg, bla bla bla the insurgents are bad, bla bla bla the democrats had the same intelligence.

Well America is not buying it (see the latest polls). Do not forget that the war powers act gave the president the power to invade if Iraq did not turn over their WMD, and from Oct to the start of the war there were over 700 UN inspector missions and reports that disproved many of this administrations' claims, so in the end, it was Bush's decision despite overwhelming evidence that Iraq was not a treat

Todd,

nice post

Mr. president. Where in the world have you been? The conservatives I know has had your back covered, we are now happy you have ours.

I would like you to come out once a week like Reagan and yes, even Clinton and talk to the people and let us know what is going on. The ONLY words we heard, until your speech today, was from the other side.

shortz,

Yeah it sure is...and you're trying to say that the Donks voted to allow what they disagreed with all along...

ROFL

Barney,

Well, you're right about Iraq not being a "treat"...but Saddam was a threat; and you're either deliberately lying or are terribly misinformed about what the UN inspectors found.

Oh, and notice how Barney downplays 9/11 and the horrific nature of our enemies...as I said, they don't want us to remember the war, they just want us to surrender in Iraq...

It is about time this administration went on the offensive. Our very first post on RightViews dealt with the Forgotten Words of the dems. It is amazing that they are not being held accountable for what they said when it was in their interest to portray Iraq as a threat. Check it out.

http://www.rightviews.com/article.php?id=33

"Yeah it sure is...and you're trying to say that the Donks voted to allow what they disagreed with all along..."

I'd say we'd have a hard time convincing Saddam to allow weapons inspectors if our congress had voted that our president did not have the authority to invade.

"Bla bla bla 9/11, bla bla bla"

You know, we all know that democrats have a seething hatred of our military but for them to hate the victims of 9-11 is truly stunning!

The minions of the World Allied Conspiratorial Kongress of Idiotarians Everywhere ( better known as W.A.C.K.I.E. )are already frothing in anger, and outrage, and the speech is only a few hours old. ;-D.

Think he hit a nerve? ;-D

How insulting to veterans to misuse their day of recognition for partisan politics. To lash out at Democrats on Veteran' Day is evidence that Mr. Bush is really in his "last throes."

The 37 to 39 percent of Americans who still approve of Bush's job are the real GOP "dead-enders."

Americans for the most part see through the propaganda now. Too bad it was after the election.

Now we're stuck with Bush for another three long years.

God help us!. I know He will in 2006 when Democrats retake Congress.

Wade

This whole debate is just a smoke screen by the republicans because they are afraid to admit to the truth.

When Clinton waged war in Kosovo the republicans ridiculed his air attack strategy, and they were wrong. Clinton won the war without the loss of one American’s life.

In Iraq, Clinton’s strategy was to maintain the sanctions and the no-fly zones, and after four years without any weapons inspections when Saddam could have reconstituted his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs he did not.

Clinton’s plan worked while George-All Guns Blazen-Bush has turned Iraq into the largest terrorist training camp the world has known.

Did I miss the front page post here about the Fox News poll pegging the dear leader at 36 percent? IMO, just goes to show that Fox is another liberal, biased organ of the MSM. If Fox was really objective, and "fair and balanced," then their polls would show GWB at 60% approval or higher.

Wade,

44% according to Rasmussen, who is the most consistent and fairest pollster of Presidential approval...that is a rise over the past 10 days...and now that the President is hitting back, I expect it to rise even more (Rasmussen also notes that the President's approval among veterans is 60%...those who know best, support the President).

But you are right, it is a bit odd that the President launched a partisan attack on Veteran's Day...but there's no choice, now: it is you lefties who have overtly politicised the War on Terrorism. It is the GOP's war...you made it so; only part of America is engaged in this war, as you on the left have determined that American defeat is in your political interest. So be it. We'll fight this war, we'll win this war and we'll defeat you again and again in the political arena.

What Mark just said

Mark,

Your silly post only serves to display the depths of your moral and intellectual bankruptcy. To suggest that those who don't support the war want our troops to die is beneath reprehensible, it is sickening.

Bush and people like you who hang on his every word are playing a rear-guard defensive battle not against wacky leftists but against the increasing outcry of public opinion. The public increasingly understands (as would you if you were honest with yourself) that this war has made the world less safe. You can keep arguing about who said what to whom, who had what evidence when and all that stuff; in the end, as a practical matter it does not matter. The rubber meet the road for ordinary Americans on the issue of whether this war was good for their security and the security of their children. The answer is that it was most assuredly not good. The people of the world, that includes you too, Mark, are all at greater risk because of this war. If Bush had attacked those responsible for 9/11 we would be more safe. Instead Bush attacked Saddam and we're at risk. Our kids are at risk, Mark; my kids, you're kids. Stop cheerleading for a moment and think about your kids.

2055 of our soldiers have died, over 15,000 have been left permanently disabled. As a justification for the war in which this happened you can only argue feebly that Kerry and Hillary were wrong too. Some justification, that. And as for our continued presence in Iraq, you justify that by saying that if we left now the place would implode. Is that the appropriate measure of success for an operation that has cost us over 2000 soldiers and over $250 billion?

I fervently hope that you believe in God, Mark, for if you do you will need to wake up and look at yourself in the mirror each morning with the thought that He sees your vain attempts to impugn the motives of those with whom you disagree for what they are, a stomach-turning batch of crap from the sick mind of a desperatly sick man.

Have a nice weekend!

Barney,

Nice try at revisionism - but the truth of the matter is that Saddam was breaking out of the sanctions regime while Clinton turned a blind eye, and it was Clinton's cut-and-run in Somalia which emboldened bin Laden to attack us directly.

Clinton bombed a small, Balkan country...I supported him when he did it because patriotism requires us to support the CinC during wartime, but it was an absurd campaign, and something Europe should have handled on its own. We had bigger fish to fry, and Clinton was asleep at teh switch.

mattfwood,

Polls go up, polls go down...we'll see you in November of 2006.

Mark:

What better day to launch an attack. Afterall, it is those risking and sacrificing their lives who get the most hurt from anti-war lies and revisions.

OT - Today Was a Bad Day at School in Minnesota...

Today, my son's teacher took a poll to find out who was Republican and who was Democrat in the class. Of the 32 kids, my kid was the only admitted Republican.

The taunts began, and all day he found himself being verbally abused by other sixth graders. When picked up at school my son immediately broke down crying in the car due to the viciousness of the attacks.

My son is a quiet kid who, like most Republicans, keep their opinions to themselves. It was only when the teacher dragged this out did he give up this information. Then he was attacked.

Long story short...it is gonna be a long time before the donks get it...because they currently are giving their kids the same Kool Aid they drank.

Perhaps the next time George Bush comes through Minneapolis he could make a stop and talk about the importance of democracy and tolerance with my son's class!

"I'd say we'd have a hard time convincing Saddam to allow weapons inspectors if our congress had voted that our president did not have the authority to invade."

So in other words, Shortz, you're saying it's OK for the 100+ Dems who voted for the war resolution to attack Bush now for having gone to war, because in 2003 they were really only authorizing Bush to BLUFF Saddam? If that's what you're saying, then that's utter B.S. for a whole host of reasons, including:

1.) Bluffs against Saddam had been tried repeatedly for 12 years before the vote. They all failed to induce compliance with UN resolutions. Every Democrat who voted to authorize the war knew that prior bluffs all failed, that Bush was not bluffing, and that this vote was for REAL.

2.) Even assuming there was at least one Democrat in Congress who voted to authorize the war thinking Bush would only use it as a bluff, that Democrat was a fool, and an irresponsible fool. It was clear to everyone that Bush fully intended to use the authority given him sooner rather than later unless Saddam immediately disarmed. Further, since the Constitution makes it exclusively CONGRESS's power to declare war, it is utterly reckless for a member of Congress to vote to authorize a war he or she is unwilling to support.

Democrats can run, lie, weasle, and try to re-write history, but they can't hide from the truth, which is this: Over 100 of them supported the war before and right after it began. The ones who now claim to have been against the war all along are lying solely for short-term political gain, regardless of how they're damaging our national security. They are dishonorable, spineless worms.

Quite right, Mark.

Terrorism didn’t just happen with Bush. It had been going on for countless generations and it was about time that someone stood up and yell ENOUGH! Tell me, what has the rest of the world done to at least curb terrorism? Nothing. Not one damn thing! The UN had continued to turn a blind eye and over the years have become a den corruption and terrorist sympathizers. I was proud of President Bush when he stood up to the UN. It was about time that someone did!

Terrorism affects everyone. They will kill you just as easily and without regret just as much as they will kill anyone else. I find it astonishing that people still believe that just because they have been against the war from the start, that they feel immune to the effects of terrorism. Various countries that have been vehemently against the war have been hit by terrorism. It just broke my heart when around 150 Russian School children were killed by these murderous bastards.

Concerning Bush’s speech on Veteran’s Day, I wouldn’t say that it was misused. If anything it was an affirmation of the sacrifices that have been made for our country. Not only do our soldiers need to know that they have our support, but those that we are fighting against need to know that we are not going to back down. If there were any indications of misuse, it would be those who would disparage their memory. For this Veterans Day, it is one thing that over 2000 little crosses with pictures of the fallen had been placed in the sands here in Santa Monica beach. Yes, people that have sacrificed their lives should be remembered (God bless them all), but to twist it as an anti-war protest is quite another and only serves to embolden the terrorists even further.

Bla, bla, bla? Yes, I guess that is the reason why you don’t understand what is truly going on in the world as you tune everything out that does not fit your paradigm.

Well, there are those of us who have been listening and paying attention a great deal as to what has been going on in the world.

Let me give you just a “few” quotes in chronological order as to what the Democrats had to say about Saddam and WMDs. Please note the dates as there are a number of quotes during the Clinton era as well (and in case you did not understand that simple logic… that was BEFORE Bush’s administration) not to mention some of the findings of the UN.

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

President Bill Clinton > February 4, 1998
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

National Security Advisor Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Bill Richardson (D-NM) > May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats > October 9th, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection processes."

President Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) > September 30, 1999
"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Letter to President Bush signed by Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN), Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) and others > December 6, 2001
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > February 24, 2002
"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002
"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002
"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) > August 4, 2002
"I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > August 25, 2002
"[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously."

Jane Harman > August 27, 2002
"I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > September 14, 2002
"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) > September 19, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) > September 27, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) > September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > October 9, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) > October 10, 2002
"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > October 10, 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) > October 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

French President Jacques Chirac > October 16 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > January 23, 2003
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003
"One bottleneck for Tabun production is the availability of precursors. Iraq may have retained up to 191 tonnes of NaCN [potassium cyanide] and up to 140 tonnes of DMA.HCl [dimethylamine hydrochloride]."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003
"In total, at least 300 to 350 R-400 and R-400A bombs remained unaccounted for by UNSCOM."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003
"A document submitted by Iraq in February 2003 outlining the production of Clostridium perfringens [gas gangrene], did not add any detail to previous Iraqi declarations. No evidence to support the declared destruction of the agent was provided."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003
"Based on its estimate of the amounts of various types of media unaccounted for, UNSCOM estimated that the quantities of additional undeclared agent that potentially could have been produced were: 3,000 - 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 - 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003
"There are 550 Mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for since 1998. The mustard filled shells account for a couple of tonnes of agent while the aerial bombs account for approximately 70 tonnes."

Phil i will ask you again, how many attacks have happened in the U.S. since 9-11? Answer the question. Then tell me we are less safe. How many terrorist attacks have happened around the world in the same period? Hundreds if not thousands. Is there a correlation, you bet your as$ there is. What is happening in France now, with its "cant we just get along" attitude towards terrorists? hundreds of cars burning in the streets every night. Pure pendemonium and impotence. And please dont try to bring up Osama Bin ladin. You libs claim we should have simply contained Saddam, well Bin ladin is most likey contained fairly well, hiding in a spider hole, incognito for over a year. Our troops are going to start coming home next year. Every major goal has been met. Must make you losers shed a tear.

I guess it's a day for fighting back! Bush and his ideological soul brothers Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson and the Kansas School Board are all fighting back!

O'Reilly wants to have the military take out San Francisco. Of course Bill won't be leading the troops; like Bush all O'Reilly's military action photos show only his back. Says Bill: "First Iraq, then San Francisco!"

Pat Robertson says that God is going to take out Dover PA for forsaking the teaching of intelligent design. Of course Pat said that God was going to take out Massachusetts over gay marriage (maybe it's still on God's list, I hear He's pretty busy). Pat also said that God (or was it Bush...same difference to the right, I guess) was going to take out Hugo Chavez. Maybe that's still on the list. Pat also said that God would take out San Francisco, it now looks like God has subcontracted the job to Bill O'Reilly.

And the Kansas School Board is fighhting back against science, substituting creationism as part of the science curriculum. Their plan is to equip Kansas high school graduates for exciting careers in faith based fast food. After all, how much science do you need to cook a freedom fry?

So you're right, Mark, it's a great day for you conservative fighters, and an even better day for those of us who appreciate your continual attempts to keep the sentient among us amused. Thanks!

To suggest that those who don't support the war want our troops to die is beneath reprehensible, it is sickening.

and the Truth

try reading Democrat undergound sometime they wish/pray for our troops death to get back at Bush. So tell us again Phil, how the left supports out troops? Guess what! the military, they despise folks like you.

Great speech President Bush! I am behind you 100 percent. The democratic party would sell out the United States to get their power back, which is what they have been doing. The democratic party has become the political wing of al queda. Ted Kennedy is now the new star of al jazeera. President Bush has made me more than ever to be an american. The dem party makes me feel ashamed to be an american. The dems are so transparantly political, while giving aid and comfort to the enemy. God bless you President Bush, the greatest leader in my life time. America will defeat the terrorists and democrats!

Bush is beginning to gear up for a comeback. Watch for a SURPRISE trip to Iraq. You know he wants to visit the troops.

Just saw Ted Kennedy being interviewed on CNN. Suprisingly, Wolfe Blitzer stayed on his case, including quoting his own words about WMDS in 2002/03? He had him backing down all the way until Teddy fell back upon the BIG IMMINENT LIE.
Unfortunately Wolfe let him off the hook on that one. It would have been sweet if Wolfe had asked him which side is really lying.

From the posts so far, Mr. Bush is excused because, well, 100 Democrats voted for the war resolution too. It's the "everybody does it" excuse from the self proclaiming "leader" who claims to restore "integrity" to the White House.

The truth is that evidence was WITHHELD from the Senate. More evidence surfaces daily that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal cooked the books Enron-style to force this unnecessary war.

The absolutely un-American accusation that somehow Democrats and other war-critics are undermining our efforts in the "War on Terror" just shows how bankrupt the Republicans truly are at this point. It's so easy to smear someone who disagrees than truly address the issue and provide a solution.

With every one of the ever changing justifications for invading Iraq having been smacked down, Bush replays the tape from the beginning hoping we forgot the opening number. It's all about 9/11 and terrorism that we deposed our "friend" and ally Saddam Hussein.

How many more Americans are going to have to die or be permanently disabled before a real solution to this mess in Iraq is crafted and executed?

How many more billions will be spent before we attack the causes of war and terrorism, such as poverty, political disenfranchisement and racial bigotry?

How many more lies will the Bush Administration now try to pass by the American public now that almost 60% view Bush as untrustworthy.

Gauging by today’s speech, many more graves will need be dug, many more billions borrowed and spent. And as for the lies of Mr. Bush……we can expect the same. More of the same.

PS: 2006.....Bring IT ON!!!!!

Ummmm Duh!! Of course the Senate voted for the war resolution because Bush and his pals, gave them evidence that made them believe they needed to give the President the power to invade Iraq. But now it is painfully obvious that that information was at best, false, and more than likely completely fabricated. Even Colin Powell was skeptical at the time and has said that his speech to the United Nations was his biggest embarassement. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see what happened here. And even if the reason for invading Iraq was just back then, guess what? It isnt anymore!!! So why are we still there? Oh,,first it was WMD's, now its the freedom and liberation of the Iraqi people. Guess what folks, our constitution does not provide freedom to Iraqis at the price of american blood. It is all so pathetic, and such an obvoius blunder when will you wake up and smell the crap right in front of you. I love this country, but you will not get one once of my sons blood on account of Mr. Bush and his lies, to build schools and roads for Iraqis!!,,,I dont think so...

Im waiting for an answer Phil.

thank you!!!!!!!

In his desparate attempt to recover his popularity and reverse the growing trend of Americans believing he lied about the war, what did Bush do? He lied. Claiming that democrats had access to the same information he had is untrue. Particularly, it doesn’t address the proven instances where intel was stove-piped to support the war, while dissenting intel was shoved aside and the messengers smeared. Democrats were shown the results of this approach to intel, which is far from the unvarnished truth.

If Bush really wants the American people to view him as honest, and if he really wants to dispel the notion that he lied to get us into war, he should simply answer these questions:

Why did you mention the Niger connection in the SOTU address when the CIA had already debunked that claim?

Why did you repeatedly claim an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection when stories from an al-Qaida member about an Iraq connection had been called into question?

Why did you allow Colin Powell to discuss mobile weapon labs at the UN when those claims were not based on solid evidence?

Why did you allow Condoleeza Rice to discuss aluminum tubes when that issue had been discredited before she spoke?

Why did Rumsfeld state unequivocably that there was “no doubt” about Iraq’s WMDs and that we knew exactly where they were, when there was plenty of well-documented doubt and we knew no such thing?

He could answer these questions this very day in order to put to rest this whole issue. But I’m betting that he won’t. Why? Because these issues all point, accurately, to the notion that he intentionally cherry-picked intel to support invasion, which is what a growing majority of the public views as misleading. So you see, if he wants to regain his credibility, he has no choice but to lie. How’s that for irony?

Phil i will ask you again, how many attacks have happened in the U.S. since 9-11? Answer the question.

Rich, every time I hear that remark I am amazed at the stupidity that would lead you to accept that as proof of Bush's success. Answer this question: how many attacks happened in the US prior to 9-11? Was Bush also responsible for our safety then?

Phil, the defense of desperate lies of the left make you a sick man, have a nice weekend.

DaveD,I am amazed at the stupidity that would lead you to accept that an alleged lie is proof that President Bush hasn't kept present and future attacks from this land. Especially since you lefty's feel the whole world hates us for what we have done. Oh yah, did you hear the demonstrations, and chants from Jordanians. At least they understand with whom the fight is with. Slacker!

It wasnt a remark Dave, It was a question. Phil wont answer it. You wont answer it either. The U.S. is the number one terror target in the world, correct? Why are we not being hit DaveD? After all we made thousands of terrorists by invading iraq right? It would make sense that the terrorists would be hitting us if Bush were so inept right? The answer is because we are on offense and we are whipping the pants off the terrorists. Why are the appeasers being hit Daved? Because they are weak. Weakness invites problems. Weakness is the cry of the emasculated liberal. Sounds kind of pitiful to me.

Phil,

I don't argue that Kerry and Hillary were wrong - I argue that they are lying when they say now that there was no justification for going into Iraq, or that the liberation of Iraq was a mistake.

The plain fact of the matter is that we are tremendously safer now than we were on 9/10/01 - al-Qaeda no longer has a safe haven; Saddam no longer bribes the west and sponsors terrorism; Lebanon is freed from the grip of Syria, Syria and Iran totter and crack and daily risk revolutionary outbreaks, Libya has voluntarily given up its WMD programs, democracy is proving itself adaptable to the Arab/Moslem world, Pakistan is no longer a nuclear weapons bazaar for all comers...I could go on for quite a while about the improvements in the world situation since President Bush acted after 9/11.

Your children are safer because, Phil, they are much less likely to face a WMD attack here at home, or be forced to go overseas and fight a war 10 or 20 years from now.

Absolutely!

It's about time the President struck back at those liberal traitors. What we really need is t open up some of those prisons we have in Eastern Europe for our liberal terrorist sympathizers in the USA.

Watched the speech on CSPAN. The MSM only took clips that the KKK (Kerry-Kennedy-Klan) and Pelosi could react to. Harry must have been out in the Desert today.

He should nail them every day for the next 60. Keep em' on the run. GWB does best on the campaign trail, and this subject brings back the passion. The MSM would just "throw-up" if they had to follow the Pres around on this subject. No Thanksgiving hiatus, no Christmas (or whatever the Dems/MSM call it these days)hiatus. Once he gets done with the MSM/Dems he can take on the RINOS(the ultimate gutless wonders).

Paul,

The President never mentioned Niger in any speech; he stated that British intelligence believes that Saddam sought uranium in Africa. This is indisputable.

You see, what you've done here is simply buy the lies about what President Bush said and did - the President hasn't lied, not even once, about the war...but his critics on the left lie about him all the time. It is just a monstrous thing - using lies to accuse the President of lying.

It is, however, in the nature of the left to lie as leftwing thinking was born of a lie and is sustained only by lies.

Thank you Mr. President for standing up for freedom and reminding us why we fight. Critics from the left and their media counterparts have been trying to destroy the war effort and the Bush Presidency through lies and half truths and as the true leader that he is Bush answered them and set the record straight today. I only wish that he had quoted more than just Kerry for EVERY Democrat has said much the same thing yet they conveniently forget their statements based on the SAME information and also the WMD's and biological and nuclear material tha HAS been found in Iraq !

One thing is obvious from reading all the blogs left and right from today

The left hates the military and all that it stands for and I for one question the Liberals patriotism. That is what you do when they don't have any. What else would you call it when they root for the other side.

In the Good 'ole days they use to put traitors in Levensworth. we need the good 'ole days back

This is wierd. In order to get everybody's minds off how poorly the invasion in Iraq is going, Bush is gearing up to invade Syria.
Bush singled out Syria for particular criticism, saying its government had taken "two disturbing steps" in recent days. He cited the arrest of Syria pro-democracy activist Kamal Labwani and a "strident speech" by President Bashar Assad.
Bush said Syria "must stop exporting violence and start importing democracy."
Does that sound familiar?

Noonan: If Bush did not lie, where are Iraq's WMD?
No doubt he is lying again about Syria, but this time 60% of American's polled believe he is a liar and close to 70% think is a poor president.

He's a lame duck and the smartest thing Republicans running for office in 2006 can do is keep Bush at a distance. Some people specifically came out to vote for Kaine because Kilgore appeared with Bush.

oorah , vero, couldn't agree with you more. They already have the blood of many american & vietnam soldiers on there hands(not to mention the 2million civilians deaths after we withdrew). I for one will not stand for that again. If the try to treat our soldiers with the disdain they treated vietnam vets, they may experiance the truest meaning of war, in their own backyards. i'm as tired of there sh.. as I think our president is.

Bearman -- what are you talking about? are you saying America should have never left Vietnam? Should we still be fighting there today? Or are you saying Nixon should have nuked them all? what exactly are you talking about. And, while we're at it -- do you think we are conducting the war in Iraq the right way or do you think we need more soldiers and marines there to get the job done with overwhelming force?

Gentlemen, President George W. Bush!!

Well done, Mr.President. Well done!
:)

The best defense is a strong offense. Stay on the offense. Refute the lies of the Democrats with the truth.

I salute you, Mr.President, and I salute the brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces past and present. HOORAH!!

john, I'm all for overwhelming force. The battle in vietnam however was lost(according to my father an other vietnam vets I hang with in the DAV)because #1. politicians wouldn't let our guys fight it and end it. #2 The kerry's of the war came back and turned the majority against our men. Do you know what that can do in a time of war? Lie, after Lie, after Lie. Don't get me wrong, I am not niave to the fact that there were some crazyM.Fers out there that did some dumb, sensless, diabolical things. But that was not the majority and never would be.

Christian,

First off, WMD's were found...you just don't want to pay attention to the truth because it would prevent you from hating President Bush. You're desire to hate a center/right American President takes precedence over all.

Secondly, WMD's were NEVER the sole reason, or even the main reason, for liberating Iraq...if you'll just get out of your leftwing echo chamber for half an hour you can go to the White House website and read all the speeches President Bush made in the runup to the liberation of Iraq...in none of them does he say that WMD is the main or sole reason for liberating Iraq. Additionally, he never implies that Saddam was an imminent threat, nor does he say that Saddam had any ties to 9/11. You've taken a huge dose of leftwing BS...hopefully, it will wear off in the by and by.

As for Syria - we may have to fight there; alternately, that Iraqi army you lefties said we'd never get off the ground might take care of that problem by itself...man for man, the Iraqi army is superior to any other Arab military force, and with US air support it would be unstoppable...and Iraq has plenty of cause for declaring war on Syria.

I sit here reading some of these moonbat comments. Reading them you would think this is France. all about surrender. Hate to tell ya libnuts but dont Surrender to anyone especially Traitors to their country. I am all for free speech and dissent however what the Left has done has crossed the line Especially the Left Politicians. It makes me sick to listen to Kennedy, Durbin, Pelosi, Schumer, Kerry et all and their Continuous mantra of lies. For all those who drink the Kool-Aid i have some swamp land in the California desert to sell ya

This is the response to Bush's speech.
"On this Veterans Day, the President had the opportunity to honor our troops, both those who have served and those who are currently serving, by laying out a clear strategy for success in the war in Iraq. Instead, the President resorted to his old playbook of discredited rhetoric about the war on terror and political attacks as his own political fortunes and credibility diminish.

"Attacking those patriotic Americans who have raised serious questions about the case the Bush Administration made to take our country to war does not provide us a plan for success that will bring our troops home. Americans seek the truth about how the nation committed our troops to war because the decision to go to war is too serious to be entered into under faulty pretenses. While the Bush administration continues to stonewall the Congress from finding the truth about the manipulation of prewar intelligence, Democrats will continue to press for a full airing of the facts. We stand with our troops when we ask the hard questions, and with their families when we fight to get them, their families and our veterans the benefits they deserve.

"We fear Iraq has become what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists. We can no longer simply pledge to stay the course, we must change the course. The American people are demanding a comprehensive plan and the benchmarks by which to measure our success for the war in Iraq. The president's continued refusal to provide that plan does nothing to support our troops or their families."

HIS OFFICE ALSO ASSERTED THE FOLLOWING:

President Bush said today that Democrats in Congress "had access to the same intelligence" as he did in deciding to go to war in Iraq. [Bush, 11/11/05]

Fact: Congress did not have access to the same intelligence the Bush Administration did. And intelligence passed through the White House before getting to Congress.

According to Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack:

The Bush Administration showed Saudi Prince Bandar more intelligence than was shown to Congress. (p. 264.)

Senators Not Shown the National Intelligence Estimate Until Three Days Before the Iraq War Vote. It is not until October 8, 2002, three days before the Senate vote on the Iraq war resolution, and after debate has already started, that 47+ senators are briefed or shown the entire NIE with its key judgment that Iraq "has chemical and biological weapons," writes Woodward. (p. 203)

Christian, are you saying that as well as being liars, the democrats were also irresponsible and incompentent. If the dems did not have time to examine all the evidence or that they needed more time, then they were negligent in voting FOR the war resolution. You can't have it both ways. Bottom line, the dems look like irresponsible, incompentent morons trying to back away from a vote they cast of their OWN FREE WILL.

Christian,

Its a funny haven if there are Marines and Army Rangers available to kill them...

It is the height of leftwing hypocrisy to be upset that after months of being slandered, President Bush has struck back.

I only hope there's a special place in hell for those who lie...

"So in other words, Shortz, you're saying it's OK for the 100+ Dems who voted for the war resolution to attack Bush now for having gone to war, because in 2003 they were really only authorizing Bush to BLUFF Saddam?"

It wasn't a 'war resolution' it was an authorization for bush to do what he promised: use war as a last resort. Its up to bush to use that auhority right or wrong.

Shortz,

I think you've got a misunderstanding here - "last resort" can mean a lot of different things. For those who think our liberation of Iraq is wrong, "last resort" would translate as "never"...but things don't work like that.

We could, of course, have drawn things out even longer...but once the United States says "do this, or we'll attack" (and that is what the resolution was about), then we have to attack unless the target completely and without reservation surrenders to our will...regardless of what else one might think, Saddam was clearly not giving in to our will.

War, you see, is the act of imposing politics upon an unwilling party - Saddam, post-9/11, had to give up the ghost and essentially exit from the world stage. There was really no other alternative...and we gave him his chance to observe things as they were and draw the proper conclusions. He didn't. He figured he could ride it out...and now he's going to be hung by his own people when he could be in comfortable exile.

His choice.

Bush is plunging headlong into a debate that he cannot possibly win and cannot afford to lose. The problem for Bush is not merely that Americans overwhelmingly believe he misled the country into war. The problem is that the folks whose minds Bush would have to change took this view slowly and reluctantly. Perhaps 25% of us believed/knew Bush was lying from the get go. The other 30% or so who now feel this way are moderate voters who placed a great deal of faith and trust in Bush for many years. They did not decide overnight that he lied. They did so after much thought and reflection. These folks are not going to be swayed by Bush pounding on the podium. Much more likely, they are going to take it personally and resent Bush for it. There's no doubt we do. Given the facts as they are, there is simply nothing George Bush could say or do to convince anywhere near 50% of the American public that he was honest in the runup to the Iraq war.

So, why is he doing it? I've racked my brain, and I can only come up with two answers. The first possibility is that they felt that Bush was in such a free fall that it was worth sacrificing 60% or so of the electorate in order to keep his approval rate from going any lower. The argument would be that it became paramount to do something, anything, to stem the bleeding. Even if that means focusing on the 35% or so in Bush's camp and ignoring the others. How better to rally these folks, the real Kool-Aid drinkers, than to put Bush into fist-pounding attack mode.
This is a quote from an article.

Christian,

Actually, what happened here is that after the elections, we figured you guys on the left would cease and desist with your lies and politicization of every single issue, including national security. We were wrong - we did not understand the depth of your hatred, nor the shallowness of your lives. So, for months now there has been a relentless drumbeat of Big Lie tactics used against the GOP and President Bush to a point where, now, people were beginning to wonder if the lack of fight back was due to some truth to the slanders against us.

President Bush has got the political ball rolling again - if you really want to debate us over the politics of war, then we'll engage in that debate and the result will just just as last year's election result...we'll win.

While you've been patting yourself on the back over some bogus polls showing 35% support for the President, we on the right have watched the Rasmussen survey go from 40% support for the President to 46%. And this is just the start...remember, everything you believe about the war is a lie, and a lie cannot sustain itself in the light of day. Consider us one bright, bright light...

First, there is no rewriting history, unless it was by the President. There was a vigorous opposition to the war before it started, and despite the best efforts of Judith Miller and the rest of the cheerleaders in the conservative media, the opposition to this war was around then, and it is still around (and has become larger and better organized since the war itself is still around, something that NOBODY in the administration predicted would be the case in March 2003).

And as to the argument that Democrats like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted for the war in October 2002, the President has it wrong on two counts. The first is that they voted to authorize the use of force in order to get Iraq to comply with allowing in UN inspectors. He did allow them in, it was Bush who told them to get out because we were going to invade anyway (it now turns out that if we'd let Blix do his job, he would have told us there were no WMD's in Iraq and saved us having to invade). Voting for this resolution was not voting for the war. Second, the fact that some may have voted for it in no way invalidates the opinions of anti-war opponents. Hillary Clinton does not speak for anti-war people, in fact my guess is she won't win the 2008 nomination largely BECAUSE of her stance on Iraq, but we will see that later. And, if you cooked the intelligence with a pre-determined outcome coloring it (which we know happened from the Downing Street memo, which the right wing MSM refused to report on), and fed it to people who then believed it (heck, I believed what I read at the time) then you can hardly use the fact that they believed it as an excuse not to completely investigate the intelligence failure.

Eli,

Long time no see - but, dude, you really have bought kool aid of the so-called, "anti-war" movement, now haven't you?

It is, of course, a "so-called" movement because it isn't really anti-war so much as anti-Bush in the specific, and anti-American in the generality. The people who run the show are decidedly in favor of war, as long as the United States is on the losing end of it...they never, in decades past, called for the Vietcong to cease-fire, now did they?

I like how you've classed Ms. Miller in with "conservative media"...as if a reporter from the relentlessly inaccurate and decidedly anti-Bush New York Times can be classed as anything conservative. You know better than that, Eli...I'm surprised to find someone of your ability taking such a weak dodge.

As it is, there was no make-believe in Bush Administration statements or policies...the truth as best could be determined was forthrightly stated. In hindsight, the left is now trying to claim that it was all made up...a Big Lie can work for a while, Eli, but not forever.

We'll have this debate and we'll see in November of 2006 who prevails...you can imagine my prediction: it will be a GOP triumph.

(it now turns out that if we'd let Blix do his job, he would have told us there were no WMD's in Iraq and saved us having to invade).

Oh come on, you can do better then that. You come to a conservative blogsite toting blix and the failed U.N. You should know better then that. Now if you want to convince us repubs, and conservatives alike, tell us that the majority of the soldiers have grown a consience and come out against the war(a majority, not 2 or 3), or that prominent republican leaders grew consciences are ready to spill the beans. Your problem on the left is that you have theories based on a whole bunch of republican corruption, corruption so wide spread it reaches into the very recesses of the military & the public at large. If your going to try to convince us of corruption you better come with something better than the U.N. Eli. Peace!

I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I VOTED FOR BUSH BECAUSE I BELIEVE HE IS THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB. I DONT KNOW ABOUT ANY LIES OR DECEPTION ABOUT WMD'S IN IRAG; BUT I STILL BELIEVE THAT HE DID THE RIGHT THING. AND NOW THAT WE KNOW THAT SADDAM HAD NO WMD'S OR AT LEAST WE HAVENT FOUND ANY, YOU PEOPLE WANT TO JUST GIVE UP ON THE WAR ON TERROR. YOU THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT LIED ABOUT THE REASONS FOR GOING TO WAR, SO NOW WE JUST LEAVE IRAG,THAT'S LIKE A QUARTERBACK WALKING OFF THE FIELD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME BECAUSE HE'S NOT SCORING WITH EVERY RUN.

Mark,

People who are against war, are against war. In fact, if you will recall, I remember arguing with you on the CNN message boards over Kosovo-- I was against it then (and despite the fact that we fortunately lost no American soldiers there-- I still don't see much gain out of it.) I did support the war in Afghanistan as a necessary war (and think it should still be the top priority), but the fact is, that people who are against war are not necessarily just anti-Bush (and since you bring up Vietnam, there were continual calls for peace talks AND a cease-fire. Of course, as you know, a cease-fire is an agreement that must by necessity involve all parties. And frankly, there are some real parallels here. Lyndon Johnson's rhetoric about 'staying the course' is almost identical to what Bush has said.

And we will see about next November. It is certainly good for the GOP that there was so little at stake this November, since almost everything except for the NYC mayor's race and the Ohio ballot initiatives, went the Democrats way. And the mayor's race in St. Paul, pretty much sums it up. Even moderate Democrats are in trouble if they endorsed President Bush last year.

BearmanUSMC:

If the UN inspectors and Blix don't count, then why did President Bush insist on them going back in for awhile during the run-up to the war? Are you in effect saying that he was only playing politics there and was only using them as an excuse for a pre-determined decision to go to war?

prominent republican leaders grew consciences are ready to spill the beans

No, they have a conscience and are ready to push for a full investigation. We will see where that leads.

Do the two most visible Republican veterans in the Senate, John McCain and Chuck Hagel, count as 'prominent'?

Eli,

If you want to consider maintaining the status quo a Democratic victory, then that is fine...I can, by the way, point to a GOPer beating a three term incumbant Democrat in a mayoral race to counter-balance your moderate Democrat aced out in MN...this years election was a wash, and that is at the peak of Democratic good fortunes...any improvement in the GOP position over the next year will result in a definitive GOP victory...you do know, don't you, that the economy is booming and the troops will start to come home in 2006, don't you? Its a little thing called victory...we've won in Iraq, and only the so-called "anti-war" people don't see it.

And they are "so-called" because they aren't against war...you, personally, have the honesty and integrity to be forthright...but the people who lead the charge in the anti-war movement, well they are a different matter entirely...they love war, when the US is on the losing end of it.

I wonder when people are going to wake up and realize that we need to do what we need to do! If all these people don't do it soon, it may be too late because they won't be able to wake up because of another attack and they would all be dead along with all the other ACLU Woosies. It amazes me how many ignorant idiots there are. With traitors like jimmy carter, al gore, ramsey clark and all those other jackasses, many of our own citizens are our worst enemies!