Can you direct me to the post where you tell everyone how we're not winning the war in Iraq ?

we are winning!
We Are Winning!
WE ARE WINNING!
we're losing ????

Let's see how this gets twisted.

oops that was me : )

I think you're confusing my supporting the war in Iraq with the concept of whether we're currently winning the war in Iraq. I do still support the war in Iraq. Want me to say it again? I do still support the war in Iraq.

I was referring to the Gates confirmation. Or more specifically the administrations sudden shift in policy away from denial and into reality.

If you have a link to a post where you say we are not winning the war in Iraq I would love to see it.

Or better yet just email me the link to the post that you write about Iraq being a mistake and a botched job by the administration. Because I'm sure it's coming.

Our soldiers are stuck fighting an ill-conceived, poorly planned (by politicians) never ending guerilla war.

Thank you Neo-Cons.

Dan, you supported the war. So...you know, it's cool that you're over it and all but we still have troops there so I'm not ok with just abandoning the mission on some ex-Republican whim and declaring it a mistake. We went there with a purpose, the purpose is still relevant today and just because you changed your mind doesn't make that purpose wrong.

Here's my post where I say we need to stop pussyfooting and kick some ass: http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/005389.html

So how have you been ??? Are you still wearing black for Rummy ??

I supported taking out Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction in a weapons ready state ready to attack the US or it's allies. Saddam also was aiding Al-Qada and his people met with their people and he helped support and fund the attacks on 9/11.

Unfortunately there was some deceit involved and I don't mean just by the Bush folks. I think the Bush Administration listened to people who where trying to trick America into getting rid of Saddam for their own reasons (read: Iran / Chalabbi) and it's what the Bush Admin. wanted to hear.

Saddam is no longer in power so our troops should come home. Iraq will never be a Germany or Japan. The best you could ever hope for is Iraq being like Venezuela. If nothing else it also takes away the "threat of invasion" that was a very powerful tool for the US in the past.

I support our troops 110% but I think we owe it to them to bring them home asap. If the occupation was planned for [properly] maybe more of them would be but that's already done. They need to come home.

I will also go on record as saying the invasion of Iraq was one of the greatest, most successful military actions in history. But the occupation / reconstruction will go down as one of the most mishandled in history. I can only imagine how many billions of Dollars has gone MIA.

On topic: it's all about money and momentum. McCain obviously won't have to worry about money, but I'm guessing that if he comes out early, he can establish himself as the prohibitive favorite, similar to how Spitzer practically walked out of the gate with 60% in the polls. The latter had essentially been running his campaign for governor for 2-3 years, not counting his opportunistic years as AG.

Hillary, the other worst-kept-secret, is in a similar position.

Saddam met with Al Quaida and helped plan and finance 9/11????

do you have some evidence for that complete load of crap?

It was a complete load of crap.

It was one of the pieces of intel the administration used to create support for the Iraq war but later had to admit that the intel false. It didn't take much to get Americans fired up at the time (myself included) and the Admin used that "nationalism".

Unfortunately the American people were deceived.

I can't tell K what to post but it's a shame there isn't more discussion about Gates and Iraq et al.

I don't know much about Gates but I think he's a good choice for the current conundrum.

We must bring a majority of the troops home. We can't bring the troops home because Iraq isn't strong enought to defend itself against Iranian (backed) insurgents. Iraq isn't strong enough because the U.S. invaded.

The biggest fear now supposedly is that if the U.S. leaves, Turkey and Saudi Arabia (Sunni's) will fight to stop Iranian and Syrian (shia) influence and the region will plunge into a wider war......hmmmmmm.......

Dan, Nick was asking you to back up your statement with evidence. He wasn't asking you to repeat it.

google it yourself dude. I'm not going to have a battle of symantics.

It's been insinuated over and over again by Bush and Cheaney in their speaches. Turns out Saddam hated Al-Qaeda almost as much as we do.

Also look at the transcript of Cheaney on meet the press. He was very slippery but again threw out lots of insinuations. Reading it now it looks like his statements were prepared by lawyers but he did throw out quite a bit of "proof".

Saddam is a bad bad dude, but he was a good Secular counterweight to the islamic fundamentalists and Iran. In the end Iraq will most likely need another secular strongman. Another Saddam.

google it yourself dude. I'm not going to have a battle of symantics.

Well, dude, if you can't do it then you should be man enough to admit it. It's not my place to prove your statements for you. A typical "dan the x-Republican" posting it seems.

If you want to look something up on the internet you can go to google and type in specific search words and hit .

Awww shucks I'll help the slow ones. !

Are you refuting that the administration attempted to link Al-Qaeda and Saddam to garner support for the war ? Shocking.

If you want Chris I know a good techie that can give you private lessons on how to use Google.

Censorship?????.....I guess we should go back to talking about blond wigs, good looking athletes and stars doing dumb things...truly alarming news.

Sorry that I wasn't around for 5 whole minutes to approve your last comment that got caught in my spam filter, Dan.

Well, Dan, I appreciate your offer, but it seems that you are the slow one in this thread. When you make assertions and statements, the burden is on you to back them up. I'm well versed on how to use Google, but thank you. Again, I'm not going to make your case for you. It is up to you to do that, if you can. Up to this point, you haven't. All you have done is come up with reasons why you won't.

Of course, if you are basing your argument on insinuations, it isn't hard to understand why you are so adamant against doing your own research.

This covers both points about the administrations saying Iraq was a viable threat to America and it's allies and Saddam was working closely with Iraq..when it wasn't.

There are literally thousands of speeches by the administration linking Saddam and Al-Qada, all you have to do is open your eyes or have had a brain during the months leading up to and after the war when the President made many speeches. For you not to recall that information is pitiful or you're just busting balls.

Which is it (and what would be a typical Dan the X-Republican post)?

I guess you will need proof now that Saddam wasn't supporting Al-Qaeda and that he wasn't about to nuke or biologically attack the United States and its allies. Can you contribute anything here ?

The argument is summed up pretty well here :
Saddam and Al-Qaeda Wikipedia

For Admin assertions see below.....

"Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. "

I especially like this paragraph

"Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family. "

white house

There are many others and Cheaney's meet the press discussion Sunday, March 16, 2003
I discovered this wonderful quote:

"But we also have to address the question of where might these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons? And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. We know he’s used chemical weapons. We know he’s reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization."

Colin At the UN

"Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida.

We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery.

From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization. "

Sorry K.

Very good, Dan. I'd give you an "A" but it took too much prodding (busting balls) to get you to do it. So, for now you get a C+.