How would we respond if another country occupied the U. S.? Would our attitude change if they called themselves liberators?

You are delusional. Seek help.

Iraq was not a terrorist threat to the United States until your Dear Leader foolishly took us in there.

Why did he do it? Answer these three questions honestly (if you can — I know that people under the sway of cults have trouble discerning fiction from reality):

1. Yes or No: If the number one export of Iraq were olive oil, instead of petroleum oil, would we be there today?

2. One of the reasons Bush has given us for the occupation of Iraq is that we will create a foothold for democracy among the Arabs. Wouldn’t it have been less costly in blood and treasure simply to convince the Kuwaitis to hold elections? After all, we literally saved their asses from Saddam in 1992. Becoming a beacon for democracy in the Middle East would seem to be the very least they could do in return.

3. In the run-up to the war, did Bush and his team lie when they said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

No? Well, then the only other option is that they screwed up – and did so, as the vice president might say, big time.

In fact, this outrageously incompetent miscalculation has led to over 100,000 casualities, including almost 3,000 valiant U.S. service members and the fatalities of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. It will likely cost us upwards of a trillion dollars – and we’re not even halfway done yet. The Bush misadventure in Iraq will undoubtedly go down as the most monumentally inept war effort ever undertaken. (If they were Democrats the Bush team would be pursued by the media and the GOP for gross and homicidal official negligence.)

So, which is it, Dr. Dave, did they lie or were they merely criminally incompetent?

We await your answer.

(Just kidding! We know that Bush worshippers can’t abide the sunlight of reality, so you’ll change the topic to another pre-packaged screed you heard on the Limbaugh show. We understand that you are intellectually unable to answer these three simple questions. Again — seek help.)

9-11 was the loudest alarm clock to ring. the prior 11 attacks against just this counrty were “snooze buttoned” by clinton and most of us.some of us get it now. the radical islamics mean to kill/destroy our civilization. they have been trying for years and will not simply stop because you think they should.

Gee and the OK bombing was about Islamists too, or the anthrax attacks, or the Atlanta bombing.
To say nothing of the less “sucessful” Charles Ray Polk, “sons of Gustapo”,Willy lampley and crowd, “Commander Pedro” and dozens of Militia groups,aryan nations etc who have plotted or carried out dozens of attacks, many with the potential for much worse damage than 9/11.

Mr Krar planned and had the capacity to wipe out half of Manhatten, not just a couple buildings, and the FBI blew it, and was actually unraveled by local cops.

All of these people are Conservatives, none of them Islamists.

so “W” was quite correct is saying 9-11 was the reason. iraq was the next haven for the radical islamics. SH was one. his borders leaked like sieves allowing zarqawi and others in to plan, recruit, foment. don’t think so?? oil-for-money ring a bell??

Uhhh I believe that Zarqawi had a Base in KURDISH Iran helping the Kurds to OUST Saddam. Saddam was their avowed ENEMY. We were helping them by keeping a “no Fly zone” over them. They even welcomed us as liberators in the first couple of days of the war, till we abused them as well.

The Problem isn’t radical Islam, It is Radical CONSERVATIVES of all stripes and religions, who want to go kill everyone that isn’t them.

Osama wouldn’t even have had a base in Afganistan if Reasgan hadn’t Elbowed aside Liberal Secular elements of the refugees from the Russian invasion, to support the radical Conservatives.

Now Bush is “raising concerns” because an Afgani might get the death penalty for the “crime” of Apostacy. But Read the Dominionist own words on the web. They want the right to do the SAME thing. Shoot they want the right to kill for “crimes” even the Taliban only beat people for.

Read My notes to two other links Bush and Osama need each other, you might really want to get him/them, but Bush no more wants to solve the Islamist issue than he wants to solve the Narco problem, or anything else that allow attention to the wholesale theft of all America is about.

Long before the first attack at the towers i knew that such an end was possible. To make a structure that big and not have it fall of its own weight either financially or physically, means you have to skirt as close as possible to having it fall of its own without actually going over that line.

Cold Steel is very strong, but hot steel, even far below melting is like butter, and as mentioned above, it was already pushed close to its limits on a good day. the major shock of even a single floor hitting the one below was well over those limits.

When the first bomb went off it was amazing it did not fall then, and I understand it almost did. But any honest Architect/engineer would have been aware of their special vulnerability.

Now the kicking sand in Muslim faces, even to being aware of their plaotting but ignoring it, are easily believable, some october suprise type preplanning is less so.

But saying that they were actually faking the damage caused by the planes, discredits many more plauseable realities.

Real facts are a “target rich enviornment” we don’t need impossible extras.

dr. dave

It’s time for another tea party! Down with King George!!