[scooobiedooobie]

didn't i hear this routine on talk radio today? and yesterday and the day before...infinitum? the neocons keep trying to stake out that moral high ground like our friend Scoobie here but it doesn't fly...

i don't listen to talk radio..unless it's early in the morning, at that time of day i like humor...not politics.

the war serves the GOP's political agenda as neatly as war criticism fits the Dem's political agenda...saying we went to war with Iraq "to fight terrorism" is every bit as inconclusive as as saying we went to war "under false pretenses".

make no mistake: conservatives support the war in Iraq largely coz it's being waged by a conservative president. period. not because it's the right thing to do, not to save the poor Iraqi people, not to "fight terrorism". you can bet your bottom dollar that, had a Democratic president invaded Iraq, the most vocal critics would be the conservatives.

so don't get on a high horse about political agendas and propaganda...the spin goes both ways.

when i say false pretenses i refer specifically to two falsehoods: iraqi wmd's and the hussein al-queada link. no speculation. neither are in dispute. both are false, and both were pretenses for war.

when scoob's case is collapsing apparently she resorts to finger wagging. save your shame for your bizarre bush apologists.

oh come on...falsehoods, false pretenses....
we know hussein had weapons of mass destruction. he used them against the kurds, against the iranians and against his own people.

and, as david kay said.."we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

you don’t seem to see any relevance in that statement.

kay also had this to say…

"We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq, and we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapon capabilities. I think it shows that Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, there were terrorist groups passing through the country - and no central control."

this war was necessary, and it was the right thing to do. it was a direct reaction to 9/11, wmd's, terrorism, and a murderous dictator defying ceasefire accords. it's these components which clearly makes iraq part of the war on terror and is why saddam had to be removed.


on another note....good debates aren't about trying to pound your point of view into others. a good debate is about exchanging ideas and info intelligently with other people.. and making people think about things they may not have considered. try to use those quidelines, guidelines liberals don't seem to like. as it is, all you two manage to do is come off sounding like typical single-minded bush-hating terror apologists.