Posted by Dubliner (anonymous) on October 2, 2007 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Unfortunately, there is no "world court of justice" and the US isn't a member of the International Criminal Court.

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 2, 2007 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I assume that all the Congressional or otherwise notable Democrats who fully supported the invasion of Iraq after looking at the same information that President Bush was looking at will have to face God as well.

Yes, the president is completely at fault here and no one else. It's not like a majority of the Senate voted to get us into this war. Nope, it's Bush's fault.

That's cute. Very cute.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on October 3, 2007 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah! Plus, "we are still here." Right, Alex?

Therefore, going into Iraq was totally the right thing to do. Right? If it wasn't the right move, we would no longer exist. I mean, it's not like we could make a mistake if we're still the sole superpower in the world, right? Superpowers don't make mistakes. If they made mistakes they technically wouldn't be "superpowers," would they? I can't stand it when people act like the United States is fallible! We're the United States, moron! It's like saying God doesn't know the answer to a question. It's God! If he's not answering you it's because he doesn't want to, not because he doesn't know the answer. God I hate liberals!

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 3, 2007 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's sad to me that you're still upset over a letter a 19 year old kid wrote. But to each his own.

Going into Iraq was the absolute right thing to do, whether you like it or not. Knowing the information I know now, I would go again in a heartbeat. Make an attempt to look at the big picture here. Saddam had used WMD's. He was insane. Insane people who aren't afraid to use WMD's on their own people are not the kind of people I want running anything in post 9/11 world?

The U.S. is fallible, and yes, Bush has made his fair share of mistakes, just like presidents before him. But this time, he was right, and you just can't wrap your head around it.

Besides, the point of my initial reply was to demonstrate how liberals are head over heels for making the president stand to justice on his decision to invade Iraq, yet without the Democratic vote, we wouldn't be there. Think about it.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on October 3, 2007 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Upset? Not really. But just like so many of the snide opinions we hear coming from the right these days, it over-simplifies a complicated issue and then calls everybody stupid for not recognizing it as "simple."

Saddam was bad, therefore taking him out was good. Nevermind the $6-$9 billion per month it's costing us. Nevermind the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost in the process. Nevermind the still (at over four years) uncertain political and general security future of the country we've "liberated." Nevermind the fact that even the General in charge of the operations in Iraq isn't quite sure if what he's doing there is making us any safer. And nevermind the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with the taking of over 3,000 American lives on September 11, 2001 and his ties to "terrorism" (which is allegedly what this whole thing is about) were virtually non-existant. He was bad, so what we did and what we are doing is good.

Believe me, I can wrap my head around it. I just don't buy it.

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 3, 2007 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are still missing the fundamental point. We can argue about the War in Iraq until we're blue in the face, and if you want to, we can.

But the real point I'm trying to make is seen in this letter to the editor. The liberals are blaming Bush for something that required action on the part of both parties. Democrats supported this war after seeing the same information as everyone else, and they voted to invade.

But today, they simply won't acknowledge it. Nope, it's all Bush's fault, because he got us into Iraq, and it is in no way, shape, or form our fault because we're liberals and we can get away with it.

Well you can't. Your Democrat politicians got us into this war as much as our president did. I'm not down talking the war, because I support it. But if you do feel the need to criticize the war, I do expect you to have the decency and honesty to disclose that your party is as much to blame as the Republicans and President Bush.

Will it happen? Not likely.

Posted by yepUbetchya (anonymous) on October 3, 2007 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to chime in and add one little itty bit of information. At the time of the vote, and the decision to attack Iraq, the Republicans put the matter to a vote, having and knowing they had a "super-majority" of both houses of congress. The mere vote was for show, which has in turn come back to bite every Democrat in the ass. Had each and every Democrat abstained from voting and walked off the floor like they had threatened to do, we would not have to listen to the dribble that without their vote we would not have this war. WRONG. What the Democrats did was take the bait of either voting no, and standing on the sidelines of a great and righteous war and losing in the next election, or falling into line and voting with what was already a done deal and making themselves look like they were standing up for their delegates in this Country. So, to simplify this as the Republican pundits do, it really sucks that our Democratic delegats did not have a backbone or mind of their own.

On a side note, I would like to direct this to Awelgraven. Holy Crap, are you kidding me? Who are we to decide who runs any other country than the United States? I don't like the fact that Canada allows its tribes to net the fish from its lakes, but that doesn't mean I have a right to force the Prime Minister's removal. So maybe you should climb off your high-horse and thank the communist world for not defending Iraq in what would have been world war III, as started by Georgie Bush.

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 3, 2007 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Canada has never used WMD's on their own people. Iraq has. As such, they were a threat to our national security. If you don't like that or think it's selfish, I don't care. I'm not going to support a party that thinks we should never step into other countries affairs.

If selfish nationalism is defined as our country removing a threat from another country, then so be it.

But I suppose people like Hitler should have been allowed to do whatever they want, simply because it's their country and it doesn't directly affect us. We're the major superpower in the world, but God forbid we do the right thing and liberate a country from an international menace. Nope, we should sit on our hands and talk about peace in our time, while genocide goes unchecked.

That'd be great.

Posted by Dubliner (anonymous) on October 3, 2007 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Two quick comments. First, why does Saddam Hussein using WMDs on his own people threaten OUR national security? Second, why do we have the right to decide how other countries are governed?

Ok, I lied. Three things. Three, if we really have liberated a country from an international menace, why are we still there and why is violence increasing?

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 3, 2007 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Quick comments: First, I suppose you're correct. What does it matter if genocide is going on. It's not our problem, right? As long as it's not us, it's not important.
Furthermore, if Saddam was happily willing to use WMD's on his own people, how far would've had to push him to use them on us if he was given the chance. Not very far.

Which leads us to deciding how other countries are run. If they run their country in a manner that directly threatens us, they can kiss their leadership goodbye. Simple as that.

We need to stay there as long as it takes to give the country a real shot at peace, and not some pseudo peace under a horrific regime.

Posted by sally (anonymous) on October 3, 2007 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

General Georges Sada, a former head of the Iraqi Air Force, reveals in his book, "Saddam’s Secrets", the truth about the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was hiding. He was quoted in Voice Magazine: “I want to make this very clear…Saddam Hussein hid weapons of mass destruction! That is: biological, chemical, and nuclear he was trying to do.” He goes on to say how many of them were destroyed. “Some weapons of mass destruction were destroyed by the American air strikes in 1991. Some were destroyed by United Nations’ inspectors. Some were destroyed even by Saddam himself, to show them to the inspectors, that he was finished. But that was not everything. He managed to hide these weapons up to year 2002 when he realized the Americans were coming.” General Sada goes on to explain how Saddam moved those weapons to Syria by air using airplanes, the 747 and 727. He explains his knowledge of this because of his personal contact with the pilots of those very planes which carried the WMD to Syria. Then General Sada, in his book, declares an eye opening truth. “If Saddam was still in power, the weapons of mass destruction would come to America.” “I know Saddam Hussein and his intention. I know his hatred. I know his revenge. I know how he used to think.” If you wish to read more from General Georges Sada you can go to this link, http://www.worldcompassion.tv/store_book... and search for Saddam’s Secrets.

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on October 4, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Impeachment? You have got to be kidding. That term has been used far too often over the last couple of presidencies. The president went to war based upon false information - the same info given to Congress who also supported the decision to go to war (don't just blame Bush for ALL of it, most of it but not all).

It is time for the USA to take care of it's own. We do not need to be the worlds policemen, lender, donor, military solution, etc. Pull back our troops from abroad and get them home to protect our own borders (I suspect an addition of say 10,000 troops along the Mexican border will help stem the tide of illegals - much to the outrage of liberals). Time to balance the nations checkbook with its' own expenses and not the worlds. Soc. Sec. is in trouble. Medicare is in deeper trouble. Health care costs increase at 9-13% / year (while wages are lucky to increase by 2%). 70 million boomers will retire over the next decade and our elected officials have absolutely no viable solutions about how to pay for their care/expenses. Pathetic. Our federal govt is pathetic - as are our current choices for the next President. The nation continues to spiral downward....

Posted by adamtroy (anonymous) on October 4, 2007 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Iraq was not a threat to our national security. They were possibly a threat to Israel's national security. There are numerous monetary motives for the invasion which the public has been allowed to hear: Huge government contracts to the Military-Industrial Complex, Israeli support, oil, drugs. What should disturb us more are the motives which have been kept secret, and are much darker.
Some of you may recall that shortly following the invasion some very ancient, very precious artifacts went "missing" from the museum in Baghdad. Their disappearance was blamed on looting rioters, which is completely absurd, if you know anything about museum security. The real reason for their disappearance was that these ancient relics were to be used in the dark rituals of our world rulers.
The real reason for this invasion, as well as the invasion they will soon forge into Iran, is to set into motion the events leading to the last Great War.

Posted by awelgraven (anonymous) on October 4, 2007 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. Is that it? Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Posted by adamtroy (anonymous) on October 5, 2007 at 2:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"thethinker" is correct, & the nation will continue to spiral downward until it becomes little more than a third world country. We may even find ourselves ravaged by civil war, an epidemic, or both. At this rate, we would consider ourselves lucky to merely be incorporated into the North American Union.
Our only hope is to stop looking at each other as the enemy & instead focus on the corporate elites, who view us as nothing more than commodities, & who are quickly pushing a fascist agenda while most of us are too busy fighting amongst ourselves to pay any attention.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on October 5, 2007 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is so dumb. The milk has been spilt. Perhaps our time would be better spent thinking about how best to clean it up, rather than pointing fingers at who knocked the glass over in the first place.

I think we need to send every single troop we have over there to clean up the mess we've made. I'm even willing to vote for a republican if one of them comes out in support of such a plan. And... ready for this? I'm a democrat. Some would probably even refer to me as a "liberal."

Posted by Rumpusgoopus (anonymous) on October 5, 2007 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People have been impeached for far lesser things...

Posted by bigkahunaburger (anonymous) on October 8, 2007 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You folks seem really defensive. "Someone who doesn't support George Bush like they are instructed on Charter Cable channel 57" is not a definition of the word "Liberal." Look it up. Develop a vocabulary. Try reading books written by scholars rather than pundits. Browsing through these comments used to be amusing. Now it's just embarrassing.

Posted by freda (anonymous) on October 12, 2007 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Scholar- a learned person, especially an academic specialist in one area of knowledge; a student who receives a scholarship; a student, especially one who earns high grades; academic; researcher; intellectual.

Pundit – a critic or authority on a subject, especially in the media; somebody with knowledge and WISDOM. Expert; specialist; authority; analyst.

Proverbs 4:7 “Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding”.