What evidence at all have you seen that Saddam was even tangentially involved?

The only sense in which the Iraq war is related to the September 11 attacks is that they put enough fear into the American people that the press and politicians were unwilling to challenge the flimsy rationales of a "popular president." So we took a fatally wrong turn in the campaign to prevent further attacks.

Let's get back to basics. Who attacked us on 9/11? I think we can all agree that it was Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden and supported by the Taliban. Right?

So we attack in Afghanistan -- again we can all agree that this was a good move. But after that it gets fuzzy, at least for me. I always wondered why we did not send 100K+ troops into Afghanistan but we sent them into Iraq. If we had sent that size of a force after Osama would we have caught him? I think we would have stood a much better chance than we did using 10K troops.

But instead of "staying the course" as our chicken-hawk in chief likes to say. We strayed from the course and now everyone forgets where this all started and that we have unfinished business.

Any of you who support the Iraq war should quit your jobs and go there yourself. It is that simple. If you want to free the Iraqi people go there. Get off the blog and go to Iraq. Also you should pay extra in taxes to off-set the $1 billion per week this is costing.

Any takers?

Oh, that's where you're wrong. When we didn't take out Saddam after Gulf War I, we WERE a part of the bloodshed that went on afterwards--from gassing the Kurds to the shootdowns of our pilots in no-fly zones.

How do I sleep? Fine. I accept responsibility for my choices at the voting booth. Do you?

I was wondering why oil prices keep going up. Can somebody explain to me the newest and best conspiracy i can use to understand new the bushhitlerroveenstein agenda?

I'm not sure where you're going with that comment about North Africa, but it's widely understood Roosevelt (and, ironically, his British cohorts) was after the French Vichy troops which were nominally in control of Morocco, opening up an avenue to attack the occupying German forces in Tunisia from the rear.

Perhaps you're suggesting that our Iraq invasion is just a gateway into more threatening Middle Eastern countries? Iran? Syria? That it is in fact a brilliant military strategem? I guess we'll see.

Nothing could be quite as stupid as your proposition that pointing out obvious deficiencies in someone's argument about "innocent victims" suddenly makes one a "terror symp".

Oh, wait, there is something as stupid. Your suggestion that our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan (the latter being a fully justified response to the attack on our country) were motivated by a desire to free Arabs from oppression.

That takes the cake, when it comes to stupidity.

OK - let's try to make some sense of this. I think it's real clear that jihadist aren't 'god-hating' misguided as they may be they clearly believe they are doing God's work.

'hate-filled' - Well the jihadist are real clear about their feelings for infidels, Jews and apostates.

'proclivity to spread their social disease.' Since their 'social disease' is terrorist murder yes I would like to stop it.

It's interesting to read the projection from the terror symps. We've sacrificed American blood to depose the Taliban and Saddam freeing 45 million Afghans and Arabs from brutal terror police states because 'The only good Arab is…'.

I mean how fucking stupid is that.

There wasn't an insurgency in Iraq before the US went in.

There was just institutionalized killing, torture, and oppression of not only the regime's political opponents, but of anyone the regime wanted dead.

IT'S CALLED A "DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE".