Val and Nu2Salt: You guys are upset about the President NOT apologizing about Iraq. I know there are liberals out there who want the President to apologize for 9/11. Everybody wants the President to apologize. Apologize for following intel on Iraq? If that were to set a presedence, then Presidents for the next hundred years will be less likely to follow their intel, let alone trust our intel services abroad. Remember (we can sing a song about it) that Clinton's Intel, Britain, Russia, Egypt, France and Jordan ALL said the same thing :Saddam had WMDs. I'd be singing a different song if the President knew all of that info yet did nothing for fear of the Liberal Front, becuase of what he did know and didn't do. It is because of them that we are trying to complete this war in Iraq with the minimum amount of troops.
Yet, I never hear anyone ask the terrorists to apologize for 9/11, nor beg Saddam to apologize for the mass graves where people were buried alive; to say sorry for funding Palestinian terrorists that kill hundreds of children on buses, nor to Saddam's tolerance to terrorism as a whole. Remember when those Brits knocked down an efigy of Bush in London? Where were those people when Saddam killed his own people, or when Kim Jong Il decided to starve his own people. We are fighting to remove a brutal dictator who is evil and you guys still blame America first. That is why LIBERALISM is dangerous because it is counter-productive, treasonous and just plain confusing. This has nothing to do with partisanship. I'd still do it regardless who is President.
Saddam did not have ties to 9/11. He did have ties to al-Qaeda. If you do not feel that is justifiable, then maybe we should withdraw our support in the Philippines, where our forces are helping that government fight against abu Sayyaf, an al-Qaeda ally, similar to Ansar al-Islam in Iraq. It was due to our cooperation in the Philippines that we gained information on the seizure of Abu Zubaydah, the highest ranking al-Qaeda (#3) agent in our custody (prevented at least a dozen major attacks becuase of his arrest). Abu Sayyaf didn't attack us on 9/11...so I guess we should return Abu Zubaydah back to al-Qaeda. Libya did not attack us either. Should we return his WMDs?
Be forewarned. Al-Qaeda's recent attack on Israelis in the Sinai, might mean that they will target Israelis more often (the last was a few years ago in Africa). This could mean interaction between them and Palestinian terrorist groups, hence their joined attacks o the US.
Saddam would have and could have very easily sold WMD information to terrorists, but we cut that risk in general. People like Ted Ked and others say a mushroom cloud is more imminent now because of Iraq. If the terrorists really want to nail us, it doesn't take invading Iraq. Do you think the terrorists will say "Let us not kill more Americans with this suitcase bomb we can sneak in...oh wait..they just bombed Iraq!? Go get them..Allah Akbar!"
P.S. Nu2Salt, I apologize if my words about liberalism and treason offend you. But if I said I truly did not believe that I would be lying, and since we are debating I do not lie.
Previous Topic
Index