A tracking poll of 306 likely or definite Republicans who plan or who have already voted in the hot Nevada 2nd Congressional District Primary show that Minuteman PAC endorsed candidate Sharron Angle has opened up a 13 point lead over second place candidate Dawn Gibbons.

Angle led the five way contest with 33 percent of the vote, followed by Gibbons at 21 percent and Secretary of State Dean Heller at 19 percent. 27 percent of respondents were undecided.

By misleading America in general and the Congress in particular as to the actual evidence for Saddam's being a threat. This ain't ancient history; we were there; we remember.

The premise of that argument is based on the faulty notion that one day the Bush administration just woke up and attacked Iraq.

Bull.
Bush himself says that's pretty much what happened. In fact, one of his own senior officials says Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he even took office. When I said the invasion of Iraq was a flawed response to 911, I was being charitable those that supported it, against their own better judgement. For Bush, it was a foregone conclusion even if 911 hadn't happened.

As I said in my post, save your psychological analysis and monday morning quarterbacking for the history books. We are there now and it’s a mistake for us not to finish what we started.

We do need to leave Iraq in some sort of stable situation. But I, and an increasing number of Americans, believe that neither Bush nor anyone in the GOP is competent to actually do that.

You’re wrong, Greg. You’re not on offense against terrorism, you’re just on offense. There’s a subtle, but critical, difference. Many commenters on the right supported the invasion of Iraq, even while questioning the threat they posed, by saying that we needed to invade _someone_ just to raise some hell and show the Moslems & the terrorists & the rest of the world we mean business. It’s natural to want to lash out after something as painful & tragic as 9/11. Invading Afghanistan was a completely relevant and reasonable thing to do. But invading Iraq was nothing more than bloodthirsty revenge killing - it did not damage AQ, it did not have any potential to capture, kill, or even stop Bin Laden, and it has not made the US one damn bit safer. The only justification for it is the bloodthirsty need to kill someone, _anyone_, for what was done to us.

That’s not the the policy of a global superpower. It’s the danger of a rabid, unthinking animal.

The premise of that argument is based on the faulty notion that one day the Bush administration just woke up and attacked Iraq. In fact, there was a long period of time when the Bush administration made the case against Saddam which, by the way, was convincin enough at the time to sway a majority of Democrats to vote to approve the Iraq war.

As I said in my post, save your psychological analysis and monday morning quarterbacking for the history books. We are there now and it's a mistake for us not to finish what we started.

Maybe Giuliani did want a break from public service. But, as the President reminds us constantly, we are at war. I am sure a lot of servicemen who are under stop loss would like a break too.

We are at war. The President called. He took a pass. Is that the action of a leader?

I was a fan of Giuliani up till that point. As for everyone having a right to make a living, I am pretty sure that the DHS job comes with a paycheck that is larger then most Americans see.

In my view, he did not want to give up his lucrative consulting business, nor take a job that could probably only hurt his political ambitions.

I clearly state that _nobody_ can say if these things would or would not have happened if we hadn’t invaded Iraq.

Well duh. Hoewever the whole premise of your argument, and those that think like you, is that Iraq has done NOTHING to assist the GWOT.

You have just refuted yourself perfectly.

commenters on the right supported the invasion of Iraq, even while questioning the threat they posed, by saying that we needed to invade _someone_ just to raise some hell and show the Moslems & the terrorists & the rest of the world we mean business. It’s natural to want to lash out after something as painful & tragic as 9/11.

Now you're just projecting. It's Friday. Get yourself a cold beer, sit outside, and listen to the wind blow. Chill.

He writes that “supporting the Iraq war doesn’t mean you’re ‘on offense against terrorism.’” Well, to some of us it does.

And I gotta weigh in on this too. You're wrong, Greg. You're not on offense against terrorism, you're just on offense. There's a subtle, but critical, difference. Many commenters on the right supported the invasion of Iraq, even while questioning the threat they posed, by saying that we needed to invade _someone_ just to raise some hell and show the Moslems & the terrorists & the rest of the world we mean business. It's natural to want to lash out after something as painful & tragic as 9/11. Invading Afghanistan was a completely relevant and reasonable thing to do. But invading Iraq was nothing more than bloodthirsty revenge killing - it did not damage AQ, it did not have any potential to capture, kill, or even stop Bin Laden, and it has not made the US one damn bit safer. The only justification for it is the bloodthirsty need to kill someone, _anyone_, for what was done to us.

That's not the the policy of a global superpower. It's the danger of a rabid, unthinking animal.

I can't get past the fact that Giuliani pushed a man who copped a plea to avoid jail time to be Secretary of DHS.

Okay, and the existence of fossils means "to some of us" that dinosurs drowned in Noah's Flood. The rest of us should be concerned about that?

What's mainly needed in Iraq is a strong gov't with a monopoly on force, to keep the place from turning into Afghanistan or Lebanon. Democracy alas is a distant priority.

Kerry President. No Iraq. Would he have discovered the plot?

Your arguments have a certain doo-doo quality as well.

And our alternative would be ...? (I assume he's talking about Iraq; otherwise, it's just gibberish.)

Either we settle down to 50 to 100 years of governing Iraq like the Brits did India, or else we recognize that a Shiite state will be the result of our invasion. Saddam himself thought that was his shield against invasion: what, the Americans will get rid of me so that a Shiite theocracy can rule Iraq? Fooled him, didn't we?