300,000 Iraqis

[rexbo 104]

300,000 Iraqis

Over Saddam's 30 year regime, that works out to almost 28 innocent Iraqi's per DAY that Saddam was murdering. And our Democratic friends are still mad that Bush ended this daily horror. The killing of innocent people by the dozens every day has stopped in Iraq, would someone tell me how that is not a good thing?

[WarEagleFL 0]

absolutely sickening..

if that's the only reason we went in there, that's good enough for me.

[Tiger Al 0]

Yep. When you can't find WMD's, nukes, terrorists, a brutal dictator or any of the other "reasons" we're in Iraq, then I guess 10-15 year old graves will have to do. I'll bet Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other stooges won't have any trouble finding the oil fields, though.

[Tigermike 3,715]

Every time I think you liberals can't be more sickening, one of you write something like this & then one of you quote it like it should rank up there with the Magna Carta or Declaration of Independence.

Travialize the hurting, anguish & despair of others all for political gain. You people truly make me sick. But you are the party that cares more, bull****! You are the party that knows what is best, bull****!

Are there NO mass graves? Were those people NOT jailed, beaten, raped and killed at the pleasure of Soddam & his sons?

The price, the cost of freedom is high and Americans have been willing to pay that price ofr over two hundred years. Well the Iraqi people are now free & have the chance to make their lives something good IF the terrorist & damn democrats will allow it.

There is only one thing to say about you folks thinking!

[Donutboy 0]

Before the war:

We must go to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein has weapons of Mass destruction; weapons that he can use against us in 45 minutes or less. He's an imminent threat. He's tried to purchase enriched uranium from Africa. He's purchasing aluminum tubes to use as a centrifuge in the making of more atomic weapons. We have evidence that he has mobile labs that he is using to hide these weapons from the UN inspectors. The Iraqi scientists are not being truthful but once we have overthrown Hussein, they will show us all of his hiding placesand the proof that he was manufacturing these weapons. He has ties to Al-Quieda and Osama Bin Laden.

Today, after all pre-war claims have been disproven:

There's evidence of mass graves. Even if he didn't have these weapons of mass destruction, the world is better off without him. He was a brutal dictator. Geez, and this is the same people who tried to make a campaign issue about Gore being a liar because he stated truthfully that as a senator, he helped to create the internet.

Yes people, Saddam Hussein WAS a brutal dictator. The person who eventually replaces him will be a brutal dictator, but we'll consider him a friend in the same way that we consider the brutal dictator of Saudi Arabia as a friend. Why? Because he'll be willing to cut deals with American corporations, most notably the oil industry. Most of you on here aren't old enough to remember when we helped overthrow the Iranian government and replace it with the Shah of Iran. That's one of the reasons we're hated in the region by every Arab nation, especially Iran. The Iranians thanked us for liberating them from the brutal dictatorship of the Ayotollah by running the new brutal dictatorship of the Shah off and bringing the Ayotollah back.

So if you can sleep better at night knowing that this president is killing off and maiming members of our military on a daily basis in a war that was based on a pack of lies and that this war could last decades in the estimation of Bush's own top administration officials, go for it. Me, I'm going to do my best to end this Supreme Court appointed regime in 2004.

[Tigermike 3,715]

So if you can sleep better at night knowing that this president is killing off and maiming members of our military on a daily basis in a war that was based on a pack of lies and that this war could last decades in the estimation of Bush's own top administration officials, go for it. Me, I'm going to do my best to end this Supreme Court appointed regime in 2004.

Are your eyes brown? Cause you are so full of S_ _ T they must be!

If he had not recently died, you could be a propaganda writer for Idi Amin! With the way you democrats write, Idi might winn a Pulitizer Prize for humanitarian efforts.

[Donutboy 0]

So if you can sleep better at night knowing that this president is killing off and maiming members of our military on a daily basis in a war that was based on a pack of lies and that this war could last decades in the estimation of Bush's own top administration officials, go for it. Me, I'm going to do my best to end this Supreme Court appointed regime in 2004.

Are your eyes brown? Cause you are so full of S_ _ T they must be!

If he had not recently died, you could be a propaganda writer for Idi Amin! With the way you democrats write, Idi might winn a Pulitizer Prize for humanitarian efforts.

Thanks for pointing out onvce agin the difference between a liberal and a conservative. One approaches the issues and discusses them. The other uses profanity laced language and makes persoanl attacks against the character of his political opponent rather than debate the issue. I'm certain Rush, Sean and Bill would be very proud of the way you just handled yourself. Of course, since the site owner is a conservative, I'm sure you're free to attack at will. However, you won't draw me into that. Thanks for your response!!

[rexbo 104]

The person who eventually replaces him will be a brutal dictator, but we'll consider him a friend...

You haven't been listening to your President, the United states of America and its soldiers are fighting for DEMOCRACY in Iraq. If a brutal dictator comes to power in Iraq, it will be because we have failed. And if we fail, you Democrats will have the blood of this new dictator on your hands because of the fierce resistance you are putting up for this fight against tyranny and terrorism.

The surest path to installing a new brutal dictator in Iraq is to vote a Democrat President in 2004.

[Tigermike 3,715]

The person who eventually replaces him will be a brutal dictator, but we'll consider him a friend...

You haven't been listening to your President, the United states of America and its soldiers are fighting for DEMOCRACY in Iraq. If a brutal dictator comes to power in Iraq, it will be because we have failed. And if we fail, you Democrats will have the blood of this new dictator on your hands because of the fierce resistance you are putting up for this fight against tyranny and terrorism.

The surest path to installing a new brutal dictator in Iraq is to vote a Democrat President in 2004.

The surest path to installing a new brutal dictator in Iraq is to

AMEN

Contrary to what the democrats are preaching, the main stream is not somewhere in France!

[Tiger Al 0]

rexbo, your president is installing an American puppet government to insure an uninterrupted supply of oil and to establish a U.S. military presence in the Middle East to maintain that supply and to launch further attacks on other "terrorist regimes" who possess "WMD's" and "nuclear capabilities." If they don't exist, no problem. We'll invent them, too. Pre-emptive strikes are a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[rexbo 104]

rexbo, your president is installing an American puppet government to insure an uninterrupted supply of oil and to establish a U.S. military presence in the Middle East to maintain that supply and to launch further attacks on other "terrorist regimes" who possess "WMD's" and "nuclear capabilities." If they don't exist, no problem. We'll invent them, too. Pre-emptive strikes are a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And there is something wrong with this scenario, you would prefer Saddam, and no oil supply and a resulting world depression, along with another country to harbor and support Islamic terrorists???????

Oh, I guess you would, that means the Democrats could blame Bush for; not getting the economy on track, gas costing $4 a gallon, Palestinian bombers with sufficient funding to slaughter Israeli civilians, and another country for Al Queda to hide and train in. That would insure the Democrats are elected in 2004, your only goal, not true peace in the Middle East.

[DKW 86 7,899]

Yes, preemptive strikes are such a bad thing. We need to go back to pre WWII and the negotiations we had with Chamberlain. Remember we had 'Peace in our time...' for about 6 months.

Saddam Hussein gased his own people. We KNOW this! Where are the gas weapons now? Why was the UN searching for them for 12 years if they did not exist? Are we all that stupid, the Clinton Admin, the Bush Admin, and the UN.

[Tiger Al 0]

And there is something wrong with this scenario, you would prefer Saddam, and no oil supply and a resulting world depression...

It occurs to me that if the world is so dependent on Iraqi oil then...maybe we should work on creating and improving renewable, non-fossil energy sources. Why do we permit ourselves to be held hostage when we can create viable alternatives?

...along with another country to harbor and support Islamic terrorists???????

You know, when you repeat a lie, you are guilty of either ignorance or lying.

Oh, I guess you would, that means the Democrats could blame Bush for; not getting the economy on track

The economy is his responsibility. He derailed it due to a reckless economic policy that caters to the ultrarich at the expense of the middle and lower class people (you and me) who are losing jobs, financial security and their piece of the American Dream. Fortunately for the Ken Lays and Richard Scrushy's of the country, they have little parrots like you to do their dirty work for them.

Palestinian bombers with sufficient funding to slaughter Israeli civilians

Yes, 15 or 20 Palestinians hurling rocks at well-equipped Israeli soldiers can also wreak a lot of havoc, especially if they hit one of them.

and another country for Al Queda to hide and train in

Remember, ignorant or a liar.

That would insure the Democrats are elected in 2004, your only goal, not true peace in the Middle East.

Bush DOES have a stellar record of building peace in the Middle East. He might even win a Nobel Peace Prize for his work there this year.

[rexbo 104]

It occurs to me that if the world is so dependent on Iraqi oil then...maybe we should work on creating and improving renewable, non-fossil energy sources.

I agree, that's why I don't drive a gas guzzling pickup.

You know, when you repeat a lie, you are guilty of either ignorance or lying.

Saddam was supporting terrosim, did you not read about the terrorist camps and wanted terrorists found when his regime was removed? And if you don't think if Saddam was still in power he wouldn't be welcoming al Queda and other terrorists in to his country right now, after standing down the US, you are either ignorant or niaive.

The economy is his responsibility. He derailed it due to a reckless economic policy that caters to the ultrarich at the expense of the middle and lower class people...

The recession and the stock market started dropping before he took office, and WAY before any of his policies were taking affect. Oh, and along with the worst attack ever on our country, that paralized the travel industry. Looking at the economy and stock market in Oct of 2001, I would say Bush has done an incredible job of bringing things back.

Yes, 15 or 20 Palestinians hurling rocks at well-equipped Israeli soldiers can also wreak a lot of havoc, especially if they hit one of them.

Throwing rocks? The hundreds of innocent Isreali citizens that have been killed by Palestinian bombers since Clinton's peace plan failed wish they were just throwing rocks. Saddam wasn't paying Palestinians for throwing rocks, he was paying them for blowing up civilians.

Bush DOES have a stellar record of building peace in the Middle East. He might even win a Nobel Peace Prize for his work there this year.

Certainly his record right now is no worse than Clinton's. Clinton's attempt at appeasing Arafat has created the worst violence there in 20 years. If the US is successful in creating a true liberal democracy in Iraq, he should be a slam dunk for the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Tiger Al 0]

Saddam Hussein gased his own people. We KNOW this! Where are the gas weapons now? Why was the UN searching for them for 12 years if they did not exist? Are we all that stupid, the Clinton Admin, the Bush Admin, and the UN.

David, are you under the impression that for that twelve years the UN inspectors were doing nothing? Do you think they were running around that country LOOKING at weapons and doing nothing more? For those twelve years, UNSCOM was seeking and destroying Iraq's weapons. If UNSCOM had failed, why would both Colin Powell AND Condoleeza Rice have said in 2001 that Iraq posed no threat to their neighbors, let alone the U.S.? If they were there, why did UNMOVIC inspectors not find them in the three months they were allowed unfettered access to everywhere our intelligence sources told them to go? IF Powell and Rice's assessments were wrong in 2001, why didn't Iraq use those weapons against us when we were invading them? If they had hidden them in another country, why would they do that? During Desert Storm, Saddam hid over one hundred of his fighter planes in Iran and never got them back. Why would he make that mistake with WMD's when we were about to attack him, giving rise to their necessity? Why is it totally outside the realm of possibility that Iraq simply no longer had in its' possession WMD's?

Read this article from a former UN inspector.

[CCTAU 3,536]

Anybody who sees these atrocities and still does not relent that going in there was the right thing, might as well be numb to any emotion. But we know these people aren't numb. They still feel bad fo the poor little welfare voters, ah I mean citizens, and want to give them compassion. It's sad when death gets less compassion than laziness.

And like I've said many times, you are the same people who bitched that we could have save millions of jews in WWII by going in earlier,but don't give a $hit about dead Iraqis. Your politics sicken me.

[MDM4AU 338]

All of these sources are just lying about the harbouring of terrorists in Iraq, and their writers are Ignorant!

Link #1 regarding terrorists camps in Iraq

Link #2 regarding terrorists camps in Iraq

Link #3 regarding terrorists camps in Iraq

Link #4 regarding terrorists camps in Iraq

[Tiger Al 0]

This quote from the article you posted.

It should also be noted that the two defectors interviewed for this report have been brought to FRONTLINE's attention by members of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization seeking to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

These guys were proven unreliable by the CIA.

Shortly after 9/11, the INC furiously disseminated stories of Iraqi dissidents claiming a Hussein connection to al-Qaeda. One dissident, Sabah Khodada, claimed he saw a commercial jet parked in a terrorist training camp near Baghdad, Iraq. The CIA flatly rejected the claim. The location in question was actually a counter-terrorism training camp; during the Iran-Iraq war it had provided counter-terrorism training to the Iraqi military to help it thwart pro-Iranian airplane hijackings. Another dissident who the Pentagon claimed had trained at an al-Qaeda camp in Iraq told CIA officials he had never done such a thing—he had trained at a nonterrorist Fedayeen camp.

LINK