Why is that when arguing with people like Sully do I always feel like I'm pledging Omega House?

"I'd like you to meet Mohammed, Jugdish, Sidney and Clayton."

"Uh, we've already met."

"Great! Then you'll have lots to talk about."

Round and round we go, old arguments over and over again. . .

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Not to mention the $25K check the butcher gave to the families of Palestinian freedom fighters who blew up themselves along with as many innocent men, women, and children as possible.

No terror there. Nope. None.

Sullivan aveus est.

Intellectually bankrupt morons are a tough audience.

Arguing with liberals is now proving useless. They are too far down the blinded by hate trail to even know the sun is out.

Uh, panic in like Bush won't get elected in '08? lol!

Only the neocons claimed a Al Qaeda-Saddam connection and the neocon's creds are pretty much shot.

There was no Atta with Iraqi Anthrax, no secret negotiations where Saddam wanted packs of fanatic Jihadis in, unless they served his purpose by being isolated anti-Iranian fanatic Jihadis he could use to harry the Iranians and screw with the Kurds up North. There were no vast stockpiles of WMD, no work on WMDs, no secret buried stashes of WMD in Syria or Lebanon for terrorists to use against American troops (not a single American or Iraqi has been killed by any person coming in from Syria or Lebanon using any such weapon).

Saddam probably would have used terrorists to screw with Americans and get some revenge - but he concluded the risk of detection was too high. Paying for Palestinian suicide bombers just put him in the company of other Arabs, Asians, and Europeans also giving aid to the bomber's families. He didn't stand out as being worse on this than the UK or Saudi charities....and we didn't urge war against Britain or Saudi Arabia.

Guy walks into a bank, says he will will shoot a five year old girl. Represents as if he has pistol in coat pocket. Refuses to surrreder the weapon to the cops. Is threatening the girl and other people. Cops shoot the perp dead. Find out he had no gun (though they thought he did).

COPS LIED, PEOPLE DIED!

PS: The bank robber also murdered, raped and enslaved millions of people. BUSH LIED, JEEBUS CRIED!

Only the neocons claimed a Al Qaeda-Saddam connection and the neocon's creds are pretty much shot.

Do the neocons include the Clinton administration? I seem to recall that they sure presented a lot of circumstantial evidence for the 93 WTC bombing, the Sudan pharm bombing and Phillipine HiJack connections between Al Queda and Iraq.

I must have been channeling Andrew McCarthy at NRO.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp

War is strategic, and the war in Iraq is part of the strategic war on islamofascism. I have asked the following of the blame bush crowd:

Why did the US enter WW 2? Who did we invade first? What connection was there between the two?

Well, we all know the answers. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. So we invaded Japan first, right? Uh, no. Germany, right? In 1944? No again. Italy? Closer. Try North Freakin' Africa.

We went into North Africa because it was part of the strategic plan. Iraq is part of a strategic plan.

People need to wake up and understand that the war is going to be long, and it is going to be ugly. And we are going to win, of course.

Bottomline: I'd rather see terrorists and islamofascist nut-jobs fighting (and dying) against the 3ID and the IV than agains you and me and my five year old son.

Rob.

In addition to Rob's comments, the primary cause of 9/11 was US troops in Saudi Arabia, troops that were there because of......Saddam Hussain.

We removed Saddam, then we removed the troops, and we tackled the 'root causes' of 9/11. Isn't that what the left is always going on about?

Really, you'd think with all their nuance and intellectual musing they would come up with something a bit more complex than 'war for oil'.

'war for oil' is supposed to be bad...yet lefties whine about gas prices!

I didn't see the speech hence the president's demeanor but I have noticed a little bit of a groundswell in the MSM recently that seemed to begin with a poll (within the last month or so) that Liberals spun as support for the war is waning. This is precisely why W should stop trying to justify the war by linking it with OBL and 911 with Saddam, and should instead focus on why we must win this war and what the future will be like if we don't. There is no arguing about it, even the wackos don't generally try to deny that if we give in to terrorists, we will be rewarding them and proving them stronger than we are, a deadly precedent for Moslem savages in the middle east and all over the world. And this truth generally will shut them up because they don't want to support W in any way. Besdies, they're so sly, devious, sneaky and underhanded, that because they're always looking to sound clever and score rhetorical points no matter what, they assume that conservatives are the same way and they're afraid to admit that we MUST win the war though they know it, and they know that everyone else knows it, so they can't deny it and generally try to change the subject or say there must be a better way without offering any.
Though it really may be true, the link between OBL/911 and Iraq is a dead end and that horse was DOA for lack of a smoking gun, so give it up George and concentrate on the thing we can all agree on:
we are locked in a contest of will, and the whole world is watching.