Please go back and read this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

As it clearly shows: The rationale is, and always was, 3-fold:

(1) Saddam’s refusal to co-operate fully with UN weapons inspectors. (Whether or not he still had ready-to-go WMD stockpiles.)

(2) Saddam’s ever-increasing links with international terrorism of all sorts, (including, but not limited to, al Qaeda links).

(3) Humanitarian – that Saddam was killing, imprisoning and torturing (I’m talking real torture here) tens of thousands of his own people, every year.

All three have been borne out to this day.

On that note, I’m formally abandoning this thread for the new one: http://gaypatriot.net/2006/12/05/thanks-to-dems-appeasement-is-back-in-vogue

Easily fixed; I also have video of Democrats sobbing over the genocide in Kosovo and in Darfur, demanding immediate military action — against people who, when compared to Saddam, look like pikers.

You’re not dealing with the Democratic base here, Chase; we actually want to know why brutal regimes that tortures, imprisons, and murders thousands of white Europeans and black Africans stir you to action, even to the point that, as in the case of Kosovo, you ignore the UN, Russia, and China and launch an attack…..but not a dictator who has done the same to hundreds of thousands of people, for decades, in complete and utter defiance of the UN.

And, as a nice completion, I have the text of Bush’s speech on October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he not only lays out completely Saddam’s intransigence and noncompliance on the matter of WMDs, but includes these ringing statements:

Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own. 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.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq’s people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

For your information, that was BEFORE the war.

Just like Kerry learned firsthand about his newly crafted military patriotism being questioned by his fellow SwiftBoat Veterans, Bush and surrogates should have been hammering the opposition hard –relentlessly. Like SlickWilly would have done if he had been Prez another 8 years (shudder). No quarter given. No prisoners accepted. Total vanquishment and victory and no second option. Savage. Civil men have never occupied the corridors of power.

Finally, on the notion that the “American people” said anything on election day –which they most decidedly did NOT unless you have a dog in the hunt you want to snag the bear– there was no national election. The only major race where the war was highlighted clearly was the Lieberman4Senate race and that one was fought by Lieberman as a no prisoners-no quarter given politicial campaign.

And the biggest supporter of the WOT and Iraq won, for the record.

We invaded Iraq because _______. No, we actually invaded for _______. And again, it’s changed to _______.

Fill in the blanks.

That’s why you aren’t coming up with the ads for the RNC.

I don’t buy it either. It’s a bunch of BS.

Actually, Chase, it wasn’t said nearly enough.

As I have said, the RNC missed out on a golden opportunity to do a compare and contrast.

Imagine the advertisement.

It starts with a split-screen shot……the photos taken by US troops abusing detainees at Abu Ghirab on the left, a video of Teddy Kennedy ranting about how evil it was on the right.

Screen changes…..now it’s a video of Saddam’s torturing of prisoners at Abu Ghirab on the right, and Teddy Kennedy arguing about how it was unnecessary to do anything about Iraq on the right.

How do you think the American public would have taken to this, when the outrage of the Democrats over our troops’ behavior was so palpable and their blindness to Saddam’s far worse torture so obvious?

Have you seen any exposes on Saddam’s prisons and practices anywhere near the scale of the ones you’ve seen on Abu Ghirab, Chase?

No you haven’t, and you won’t; the same media sources that admitted they covered up for Saddam Hussein and the same Scott Ritters who refused to talk about Saddam’s abuses in the name of “waging peace” haven’t changed their tune.

In fact, they and the Democratic Party are absolutely terrified of any such thing that would talk about what Dems turned a blind eye to — as we saw in the Democrats’ threat to strip the broadcast licenses from stations that aired material critical towards the Clinton administration.

Most of what you’ve both written was said often and repeatedly by Republican candidates during the campaign. It’s not like the American people didn’t hear it. They just weren’t buying it.

I don’t buy it either. It’s a bunch of BS.

The situation in the broader Middle East is vastly better than it was 5.3 years ago, and vastly better than it would have been today if we had not launched 2 wars, for these reasons:

(1) 25 million people in Afghanistan have a hope of freedom – even if al Qaeda are now trying to crush it from bases in Pakistan.
(2) 25 million people in Iraq have a hope of freedom – even if al Qaeda and Iran are now trying to crush it by fomenting sectarian violence.
(3) Millions in Lebanan have a hope of freedom – even if Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are now trying to crush it.
(4) Thousands of al Qaeda terrorists captured or killed, and more each week.
(5) End of the Libyan nuclear program.
(6) End of the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network.

The problems we continue to see are problems of progress and of “coming out of denial”. When you set out to clean the house, or the turkey pan, at first (and for a long time) it is all far dirtier. The important thing is that you (a) set out, and then (b) finish the job or follow through.

But because the likes of Crazy Nancy Pelosi, Kerry and others don’t want to see it that way, and do want to re-play Vietnam and see America humbled (for psychological and political reasons of their own), point (b) is now in doubt.

In structure and logic, the arguments that they’ve offered for us to abandon the Iraqi people, hate Bush, etc. are identical to arguments that Axis propagandists offered to bring about American defeat and Roosevelt-hate in WW2.

American prospects were terribly bleak right up to about, oh, 6 August 1945. As late as 5 August, it still looked as though America would lose hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives trying to subdue the Japanese home islands. Even after the war concluded a few days later, with shocking suddenness (thanks to the Hiroshima atomic bomb), literally millions of American servicemen had to be deployed in Japan and in Germany – and to actively fight local terrorists – for seven more years.

There was a time when Democrat leaders were indeed patriotic and in favor of American victory and success. Think Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy. To our great detriment: times have changed.

Chase: the Democrats have been knocking our troops, spreading confusion and lies about our purpose, and (in some cases) spreading quite FALSE tales of atrocity for partisan gain, from the beginning of 2003. When they should have been supporting the President and presenting a consistent, united purpose – as Republicans did for Roosevelt in WW2.

It is indeed the Democrats’ fault that terrorists rejoice over their victory and that we have APPEARED to be in bad shape – and that, because Democrat policies of confusion and defeat are now about to get some degree of implementation, we may soon really be in bad shape.

Compared to what?

Did you prefer Saddam Hussein?

Did you prefer everyone, including the UN, being blind to Iran’s plans to build nuclear weapons and their carrying it out?

Did you prefer Afghanistan under the Taliban and their sheltering of al-Qaeda?

Did you prefer Lebanon’s government being nothing more than a puppet of Syria?

Notice that, in all these cases, the people who are fighting us are fighting to restore those states of affairs. The insurgents want the Ba’athists back, Iran wants the UN to ignore it, the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies want them back in power, and Hizbollah, aka Syria, wants control of Lebanon’s government.

There is a reason all these people are cheering the ascension of the Democrats; they know damn well that, if Dems are in power, the pressure is off them completely. Dems will let Syria dominate Lebanon, they will stop pushing the UN to deal with Iran, and they will summarily “redeploy” and seal US troops completely out of range of doing anything from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Basically, yes.

But here’s a crucial difference:

In your view, I guess the American people couldn’t possibly support the programs unless they were uneducated about them? I think i’ll just call you Gwyneth from now on.

It’s not that Americans are stupid; it’s just that they haven’t been told the details or encouraged to find out more about them.

Take the bend points I mentioned above. Do you think most Americans know that the rate at which you accrue your Social Security benefit relative to your income peaks at $8k a year and then falls almost two-thirds — and then is cut in half again once you get just a little bit above $45k a year?

Do you think they know that, if they’re a dual-income family, that, thanks to the household payout rules, the amount of money they can receive as a couple is almost always less than the amount they would receive as two single individuals?

And do you think they’re all aware of the fact that Social Security actually taxes people twice — once on their income, second on their benefits?

Nope.

There is a reason that Europe, which is the Democrats’ wet dream in terms of cradle-to-grave social welfare, is trying its darndest to CUT benefits — because they suddenly have realized that, when given the choice between working and saving and not working and saving, people will choose the latter — especially when the net financial impact of doing neither is the same or slightly more than doing both. Leftist union contracts that, as Democrats want, guarantee high salaries and benefits regardless of attendance, quality, or productivity produce low attendance, shitty quality, and bad productivity.

I disagree with Speaker-elect Pelosi on this issue cause Al Qaeda is fermenting the violence in Iraq. That was their goal and they are succeeding at it. But the Bush Administration is responsible for allowing them to be in such a position. It can’t be the Democrats fault we are losing the war when it’s been the Republicans running the show!

You look at the broader Middle East and it’s a very bleak picture. We are losing on all fronts: in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Lebanon. The President is responsible for that.

And for extensive particulars on how al Qaeda was in Iraq even BEFORE the Coalition invasion in 2003, as Saddam had worked out an accommodation with them in the 1990s and grew his ties with them in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, look into some back articles here: http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/

Nancy Pelosi won’t even so much admit that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq.

If you confronted her, of course she would CLAIM to want America to win. It would be political suicide for her not to.

But – Who, i.e., which side, does her weird, lunatic denial of reality actually help? Hint: Not ours.

Case closed.

I wish I was as rich as you seem to think I am! I’m not sure where you got the idea from that I own multiple houses. I don’t even own one yet…

Also, your argument against Social Security and Medicare seems predicated on the idea that Americans are ignorant to how they work.

In your view, I guess the American people couldn’t possibly support the programs unless they were uneducated about them? I think i’ll just call you Gwyneth from now on.

I think YOU need to recall that snarking and sniping from the cheap seats doesn’t indicate intelligence or wit –just that you got in here “free” and reminds us that you’ve laid claim to raj’s seat as GP’s premiere nabob.

Long doesn’t mean substantive.

Is this my stop yet?

monty

As I said, JAQ, driving you to feeble and spiteful factiousness like this is the entire point.

Chase claims Democrats want to fight terrorism, but hasn’t said word one against your rhetoric, your lack of citations, your obvious misreading of what sources you did cite, and the numerous other pronouncements you have made about how what he wants to do is racist.

Relative to the elections, Rahm Emanuel and the DNC correctly read the temper of the nation and put out candidates that act like Chase — Democrats who at least paid lip service to fighting terrorism.

However, their crucial miscalculation was in believing that the electorate, like their syncophants like Chase, will handle being lied to with such rationalizations. We’ll see what said candidates look like when, in two years, they, like you, are claiming that trained professionals who recognize and act to intercept terrorist activities are “racist”, and that passengers who keep their wits about them and demand that people who are acting strangely be dealt with the same, are stupid and ignorant.

Chase is already demonstrating here that he won’t confront the rhetoric of the Democratic leadership — which is what you represent.

And now to deal with him directly.

I know Republicans hate social programs like medicare and social security and would love to do away with them. Yet, and much to the GOP’s dismay, those programs are untouchable because they have the popular support of the American people.

Of course, Chase; if you tell people you’re going to give them free money, most everyone will support that.

However, what if you phrased those two programs differently?

For Social Security, how about you phrase it this way:

“You will be taxed 6.2% of all of your income for the length of your working life. Assuming that you start work at age 22 and retire at 70 with an average annual salary of $50,000 dollars, that is $148,000 you will pay into the system.

But here’s the fun part. First, since you made too much money, you’re only entitled to a fractional portion of it, since we give proportionately less of it back the higher your income goes, like over, say, $6000 a year. Second, once you’ve run out your entitlement to that fractional portion — not to the whole amount — we’ll then raise taxes on your kids to pay for it. Meanwhile, they’ll also be paying for the people who chose not to work or get an education, but are entitled to proportionately more benefits than you are — and, as a final present, you’ll be paying taxes on your income.

Now, had you been able to invest that money yourself, not only would you be entitled to every dollar you put out — no fractional requirements here — but you would also be able to earn interest on that money, growing it even larger; plus, when you died, you could then will whatever was left over to your children. Plus, you’d be taxed when you took it out, but not when you put it into the account — or you could choose to be taxed when you put it in, but not when you took it out.”

How many people do you think would still sign up?

Or how many people do you think would still sign up for Medicare when you told them that it was a 2.9% tax for the entirety of their working life — but the same rules applied as Social Security AND they couldn’t elect for full care without having to pay extra?

It’s no surprise that you support this, Chase; after all, your major concern, given your inherited wealth, is in which house you wish to spend the next month. But for those of us in the working world who see the government siphon away money from us that we know we will never get back, that is putting a future liability on our children, that we could invest ourselves, and that they are using to buy votes, isn’t going to fly. Rich Democrats like John Kerry who pay only 17% income tax rates while demanding that those of us who pay higher rates — or worse, are hit by the AMT — be forced to absorb even more of the cost of their government vote-buying projects know better.

You claim to be for the underprivileged, Chase; if so, give up one of your own f’ing houses to a poor family rather than trying to force those of us who are paying for our first to finance it for them. It should be no surprise to anyone that studies show that liberals are tightwads compared to conservatives when it comes to charitable giving; conservatives know that giving money directly is far more effective than laundering it through the government, but liberals know that giving money directly requires YOU to pay for it. When conservatives want to give a dollar, they give a dollar; when liberals want to give a dollar, they give 17 cents and use the law to force everyone else to give.

Since FDR, the Democrats have advocated for capitalism with elements of socialism mixed in. What you are describing is not new.

I know Republicans hate social programs like medicare and social security and would love to do away with them. Yet, and much to the GOP’s dismay, those programs are untouchable because they have the popular support of the American people.

Ronald Reagan said the most feared sentence in the English language is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” But as we learned from Hurricane Katrina, it can be far worse to need help from the government and find that no one is there at all.

What you are describing, the Democratic political vision in terms of domestic policy, has nothing to do with the war.

Poll after poll for years have shown, when it comes to domestic issues, particularly economic issues, the American people overwhelmingly support the Democratic vision for the country. That has always been our strongest suit. But that alone was not enough for us to win in the current climate. We won in this past election because the public also lost faith in the Republican leadership on what had been their strongest suit: defense and national security.