Something To Remember

[Rohirrim]

"We are a nation in danger."
- President George W. Bush,
August 2, 2004

I don’t buy it.

I think America in 2004 is about as far removed from fundamental danger as any nation in history has ever been. We may be scared, but we are, in fact, safe. Safe, at least, by any reasonable historic measure.

No other country on earth has military might even close to ours. Has such a global monopoly on armed power ever existed? Has any nation had less to fear from its neighbors and foreign armies?

Modern America does know real danger. The nuclear duel of the Cold War was real danger. America is safer than it was when the Soviet Union existed. The threat of nuclear proliferation, of a nuclear attack from a small state or terrorists, existed then, too. The country is probably better prepared to prevent that now.

We are safer from plague, pestilence, famine and weather than any of our ancestors ever were.

We have one of the most stable governments in human history. There is no risk of a dictator, a Gestapo or a civil war.

I'm quite certain that I've never been accused of being an optimist. But even I can't accept the dark, frightened dictate the president issued, ironically, from the Rose Garden.

America does have enemies - crazy, sadistic, tenacious, growing and wily enemies. America is an open and ethnically diverse society with vast borders, huge tourism and immigration.

So the country is of course vulnerable to terrorism. After 9/11, Americans feel that acutely and perhaps that is sad. But no one in government underestimates the country's vulnerability or the power of the unconventional enemy.

This does not, however, add up to a nation in danger. It adds up to something that sounds too callous for politicians to say out loud. America is vulnerable to the tragedy and trauma of a terrorists attacks. There is a much more remote danger of an act of terror with a nuclear device that could eclipse 9/11. But there is no danger of the equivalent of war on our soil, of mass loss of life, of a crippled economy, disrupted civilian life and destabilized government.

Israel is in danger. Palestinians are in danger. Iraq is in danger. Sudan is in danger. Colombia is in danger. America is not in danger.

And America is not at war.

What happened in Afghanistan and Iraq was war. We should have stuck to that old-fashioned use of the word war. The battle now and ahead with the evildoers is not likely to be helped by calling it war any longer.

Perhaps it was necessary to use the rhetoric of war after 9/11 to marshal an adequate and swift response to the newly real threat. Perhaps. We’ve had wars on crime, a war on drugs and even a war on poverty. Why not a war on terror? There is no intrinsic reason why not.

But war, and even war rhetoric, can rationalize unwise and uncharacteristic choices at home – restricted civil liberties, plundered treasury, over-reaching bureaucracy, fear-mongering, and misplaced secrecy. Both the administration and the opposition party have bungled that balance; the glaring example of that is the dishonest case that was sold and bought for invading Iraq. Both sides have squandered credibility.

"War" is a word that ends arguments. So is "danger." The president has tried to sell a lot of policy by saying it was necessary because we are at war and in danger and so have the Democrats.

We don’t need to declare ourselves "a nation in danger" or "a nation at war" to carefully reform the intelligence bureaucracy, to respond to discovered plots and threats, to catch terrorists or to get other nations to help our cause.

We don’t need to be a nation of crybabies or a nation that cries wolf.

[Exile_In_SJ]

I wonder what people will say if a suitcase nuclear weapon is detonated in some American city?

We are a nation in danger. Al Queda has stated it's aims and we're wise to be concerned.

Adolf Hitler laid out his plan in Mein Kampf and the world ignored it, much to it's loss.

The question is, are we a september 10th, 2001 nation or a september 11, 2001 nation?

[Rohirrim]

Maybe you should hide under your bed. Or you could build a bomb shelter. The average American has as much chance getting killed by a terrorist as getting killed by a shark attack. The point is, the overwhelming fear is unjustified - unless you want to use it for political manipulation. I agree with this writer - the American people are better, and braver, than that.

[TexanBob]

We have one of the most stable governments in human history. There is no risk of a dictator, a Gestapo or a civil war.

Would you please convince LABF and his friends on the loony left of this? I don't think they'd agree with you.

[TexanBob]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The average American has as much chance getting killed by a terrorist as getting killed by a shark attack.

Tell that to the 3000 families that lost loved ones on 9-11. When was the last shark that killed 3 people, much less 3000?

BTW, we are not hiding under our beds - we are meeting the challenge. What do you think Afghanistan and Iraq were all about? America clearly told our politicians "tell us all you can, give us warnings", so when our politicians issue warnings, folks complain that they are scaremongering. I personally think they don't tell us even 25% of what they know precisely because they don't want to create a panic.

If I knew more of what they knew, I might be upset with how little or how much they are saying but since I don't I can only conclude they are warning us on a need-to-know basis.

[Exile_In_SJ]

I'm not gonna hide under the bed, but to say we aren't in danger is silly. We have to be vigilant. They just arrested two members of the 'religion of peace' for trying to obtain a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile for a terorist. That is a sign that we are in danger.

I fly once a month and the threat is real enough I don't mind the extra security. I'd prefer the Israeli methods...

[watermock]

This is the osterich patrol calling in to check their cell signal. What? The WTC went down? I have to change my provider! That antenna was mine!

WTF are you talking about?

Do you think they are going away?

Didn't you watch Clinton stand on his hands, eventually tipping the balance in Bosina to the Muslims?

You missed the Embassy Bombings? The Kohbar Bombings? The Cole Bombings? The first WTC Bombing? It goes back further. WTF are you talking about? There are these damn cockroaches running all around the world and we have to exterminate them, not appease them.

Every time times get rough, the USA is expected to put the ****ing world back together again. This time might be the hardest of all. It's demonic religion based on treachery and deciet and murder, kidnaping and slavery.

Call it what you want. I have gone thru this without a peep but have been told to cool it. The very nature of the movement says it's going to lead to a bigger war. So whatever. Keep believing in tolerance when they just this week blew up 6 Christian Churches and their Export pipeline.

Keep telling us while they hold weapons in hospitals, schools and mosques they are peacefull. Go and keep deluding yourselves.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

Tell that to the 3000 families that lost loved ones on 9-11. When was the last shark that killed 3 people, much less 3000?

BTW, we are not hiding under our beds - we are meeting the challenge. What do you think Afghanistan and Iraq were all about? America clearly told our politicians "tell us all you can, give us warnings", so when our politicians issue warnings, folks complain that they are scaremongering. I personally think they don't tell us even 25% of what they know precisely because they don't want to create a panic.

If I knew more of what they knew, I might be upset with how little or how much they are saying but since I don't I can only conclude they are warning us on a need-to-know basis.

I'm still trying to figure what Iraq was all about. I guess it's just nation building - for their own good. Hell, I don't mind if my grandchildren have to pay for it. They need a new infrastructure and new schools more than we do.

[watermock]

The problem is that Saddam tried to kill Dubya's father in 1992.

The mistake was leaving the hiway of death after 48 hours when we could of killed half a million and marching.

The mistake was asking the UN for permission when it's totally worthless.

It would of been much cleaner to totally mop up the highway of death and totally wipe out the enemy. Ten years later, we had to finish the job, and it's not been pretty.

Anyone seen this clown dyke under courtmartial, this England Broad? What a joke. She behaves like a recent brain transplant. And I don't even care that much, but there were liberties taken. WTF. what the hell do you think this is, T-Ball?

She was an idiot broad unsupervised. Don't even get me going on women in the military.

At any rate, The Iraq War was about finishing the job, despite the possible consequences of a theocracy flooding up from Iran. I find it humorous noone even realizes this.

I talked to Seals, and the strategy was to let them fight a war of attrition, but eventually, someone had to take control of the Basara Oil Depot and the Persian Gulf.

You people amaze me.

At the Point we had emasculated Saddam in Basara, and given the continuing corruption of the Food for Terrorism Program, the descision was made to change the regime in Iraq, and yes, we knew the Fundamentalist Shia would try to take control. At least I did.

They are weaker than you think. It's only our own temperance that allows this baloney while we try to prevent a general insurrection. It's not much different than the dance we have played for a decade, except 1000 men are dead in this stupid war that is benevolent.

Hell, I am a liberal, so don't go there, but I'll be damned if I led these animals push me around.

[Captain_Poncho]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Maybe you should hide under your bed. Or you could build a bomb shelter. The average American has as much chance getting killed by a terrorist as getting killed by a shark attack. The point is, the overwhelming fear is unjustified - unless you want to use it for political manipulation. I agree with this writer - the American people are better, and braver, than that.

So now it comes down to odds, then?

Since my chances of being personally killed by a nutty Islamic Taliban bedwetting psychopath are low, I shouldn't care if they're looking to off some more of us. Chances are, I won't be the one, so let's just be merry!

On the other hand, we probably ought to have the government invade shark-infested waters and off a few of those Anti-American bastards!

Who's with me?!

[alkemical]

i live near tmi - i am not really worried about terrorists - i'm more scared of the righties & lefties tearing this country apart

[watermock]

Well, call me crazy, but I want to kill terrorists. Let me qualify that remark.

It wasn't kill terrorism. It was KILL TERRORISTS. I am not in the mood to wast time an energy on this scum. I have no problem capping them and going to see my maker. None At All. I have no problem with these cockroaches. Give me the gun. You might think this is bravado, it isn't. I'm too old to fight unless called at 44 but I have no problems capping these cockroaches..I'll fight them till 94.

[watermock]

When was the last time the Muslim Nation offered a truce?

[mosca]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I think America in 2004 is about as far removed from fundamental danger as any nation in history has ever been.

this says a lot about your stance on terrorism. i find it unbelievable that you can't see the effect another devastating attack would have. countless more americans dead, those who survive forced to deal with the economy taking another hard hit... imagine if they destroyed the stock exchange? it's the economy stupid? these aren't far-fetched ideas of anyone crying wolf, either. this could easily happen. sure our country wouldn't be as bad off as iraq or colombia or sudan, but i like it the way it is not and sure as hell don't want it to get any closer to resembling those countries, either.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

What happened in Afghanistan and Iraq was war. We should have stuck to that old-fashioned use of the word war. The battle now and ahead with the evildoers is not likely to be helped by calling it war any longer.

i agree with you here. while our forces may be fighting still in afghanistan and iraq, i don't think the situation there is accurately described as 'war' in the old-fashioned sense of the word. if we truly decide to go to 'war' with the evildoers they will know it for sure because then the gloves will be off.

[TexanBob]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'm still trying to figure what Iraq was all about. I guess it's just nation building - for their own good. Hell, I don't mind if my grandchildren have to pay for it. They need a new infrastructure and new schools more than we do.

My personal opinion as to why we invaded Iraq (in no particular order):

1) Overthrowing Saddam stablizes the region, maybe not short term but I believe long-term, we are removing a madman from the region and implementing a government that, it is hoped, will be more U.S. - friendly.

2) Enforcing the U.N. sanctions placed against Iraq at the end of the Gulf War as a requirement to end hostilities. IOW, we got a cease-fire *provided* Saddam stuck to the terms of the agreement. He didn't, so we are enforcing the agreement they signed back then.

3) Greater security for Israel. Not to be overlooked is cutting off the cash flow for suicide bombers and removing someone with the capability to shoot missiles into Israel at a moment's notice.

4) A military presence in the region. Instead of being based in a tiny land like Qatar or Yemen, we can set up a base that can easily reach Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. in a matter of minutes. It should make those governments easier to deal with now that they've seen how quickly we can overthrow Saddam. They know now we're serious about rooting out terrorists.

5) A new source of oil. Once the hostilities die down, I will expect us to make agreements with the new Iraqi government to buy oil from them. This will, in turn, make us less dependant on the Saudis who have been ambivalent about going after terrorists. We could, if necessary, wean ourselves off of Saudi oil if they don't cooperate with us. Right now, we're the b**** of the Sauds cause we need their oil. With a new competitor in the neighborhood, we can better control the prices.

6) Taking out a nest of terrorists. There should be no question by now that there are terrorists in Iraq, whether they were already there or if they came in after Saddam was toppled. But they're shooting their wad in a country halfway around the world instead of setting off their bombs in Manhattan and D.C. And while the loss of American lives is unfortunate, at least they were mostly U.S. soldiers and others who are trained in combat and not Ma and Pa Kettle on their way to the supermarket in Anytown U.S.A.

So what about the WMDs? We needed to know if Saddam had them or not. He acted like he was hiding them and maybe he did hide them or maybe he dismantled them or shipped them off to Syria or Libya. Nobody knows right now. But if it turned out that the threat was exaggerated, I still support what we've done there for the reasons I've enumerated above.

Call it opportunism or "the end justifies the means", but I think the Middle East is on the road to greater stability with what we've done and we've put the remaining rogue states on notice that if they don't play ball with us, they could be next.

[Northman]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

My personal opinion as to why we invaded Iraq (in no particular order):

1) Overthrowing Saddam stablizes the region, maybe not short term but I believe long-term, we are removing a madman from the region and implementing a government that, it is hoped, will be more U.S. - friendly.

2) Enforcing the U.N. sanctions placed against Iraq at the end of the Gulf War as a requirement to end hostilities. IOW, we got a cease-fire *provided* Saddam stuck to the terms of the agreement. He didn't, so we are enforcing the agreement they signed back then.

3) Greater security for Israel. Not to be overlooked is cutting off the cash flow for suicide bombers and removing someone with the capability to shoot missiles into Israel at a moment's notice.

4) A military presence in the region. Instead of being based in a tiny land like Qatar or Yemen, we can set up a base that can easily reach Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. in a matter of minutes. It should make those governments easier to deal with now that they've seen how quickly we can overthrow Saddam. They know now we're serious about rooting out terrorists.

5) A new source of oil. Once the hostilities die down, I will expect us to make agreements with the new Iraqi government to buy oil from them. This will, in turn, make us less dependant on the Saudis who have been ambivalent about going after terrorists. We could, if necessary, wean ourselves off of Saudi oil if they don't cooperate with us. Right now, we're the b**** of the Sauds cause we need their oil. With a new competitor in the neighborhood, we can better control the prices.

6) Taking out a nest of terrorists. There should be no question by now that there are terrorists in Iraq, whether they were already there or if they came in after Saddam was toppled. But they're shooting their wad in a country halfway around the world instead of setting off their bombs in Manhattan and D.C. And while the loss of American lives is unfortunate, at least they were mostly U.S. soldiers and others who are trained in combat and not Ma and Pa Kettle on their way to the supermarket in Anytown U.S.A.

So what about the WMDs? We needed to know if Saddam had them or not. He acted like he was hiding them and maybe he did hide them or maybe he dismantled them or shipped them off to Syria or Libya. Nobody knows right now. But if it turned out that the threat was exaggerated, I still support what we've done there for the reasons I've enumerated above.

Call it opportunism or "the end justifies the means", but I think the Middle East is on the road to greater stability with what we've done and we've put the remaining rogue states on notice that if they don't play ball with us, they could be next.

all of that you just wrote will NEVER happen. you still dont get it, we are hated by a entire culture and the ones who dont hate us are too scared to do anything about it. the Iraqi's are already getting tired of us being there this long and you think they will allow us to put up a base there? lmao! come on TexasPete, snap back into reality now.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

1) Overthrowing Saddam stablizes the region, maybe not short term but I believe long-term, we are removing a madman from the region and implementing a government that, it is hoped, will be more U.S. - friendly.

Stablize the region? I think it's just created another target for the fundamentalists.

[Exile_In_SJ]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

My personal opinion as to why we invaded Iraq (in no particular order):

1) Overthrowing Saddam stablizes the region, maybe not short term but I believe long-term, we are removing a madman from the region and implementing a government that, it is hoped, will be more U.S. - friendly.

2) Enforcing the U.N. sanctions placed against Iraq at the end of the Gulf War as a requirement to end hostilities. IOW, we got a cease-fire *provided* Saddam stuck to the terms of the agreement. He didn't, so we are enforcing the agreement they signed back then.

3) Greater security for Israel. Not to be overlooked is cutting off the cash flow for suicide bombers and removing someone with the capability to shoot missiles into Israel at a moment's notice.

4) A military presence in the region. Instead of being based in a tiny land like Qatar or Yemen, we can set up a base that can easily reach Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. in a matter of minutes. It should make those governments easier to deal with now that they've seen how quickly we can overthrow Saddam. They know now we're serious about rooting out terrorists.

5) A new source of oil. Once the hostilities die down, I will expect us to make agreements with the new Iraqi government to buy oil from them. This will, in turn, make us less dependant on the Saudis who have been ambivalent about going after terrorists. We could, if necessary, wean ourselves off of Saudi oil if they don't cooperate with us. Right now, we're the b**** of the Sauds cause we need their oil. With a new competitor in the neighborhood, we can better control the prices.

6) Taking out a nest of terrorists. There should be no question by now that there are terrorists in Iraq, whether they were already there or if they came in after Saddam was toppled. But they're shooting their wad in a country halfway around the world instead of setting off their bombs in Manhattan and D.C. And while the loss of American lives is unfortunate, at least they were mostly U.S. soldiers and others who are trained in combat and not Ma and Pa Kettle on their way to the supermarket in Anytown U.S.A.

So what about the WMDs? We needed to know if Saddam had them or not. He acted like he was hiding them and maybe he did hide them or maybe he dismantled them or shipped them off to Syria or Libya. Nobody knows right now. But if it turned out that the threat was exaggerated, I still support what we've done there for the reasons I've enumerated above.

Call it opportunism or "the end justifies the means", but I think the Middle East is on the road to greater stability with what we've done and we've put the remaining rogue states on notice that if they don't play ball with us, they could be next.

very good post. forget the naysayers, people were saying similar things about Japan and Germany after WWII. It just takes guts to act and not be intimidated by the naysayers.

[Northman]

Originally Posted by Exile_In_SJ

very good post. forget the naysayers, people were saying similar things about Japan and Germany after WWII. It just takes guts to act and not be intimidated by the naysayers.

fighting soldiers is one thing ( japan, Germany ). fighting terrorist is another story all together but go ahead and live that pipe dream.

[Exile_In_SJ]

What pipe dream? Can you predict the future? You're guessing just like anyone else.

You stick with negativity and I'll stick with why not?

[Hogan11]

Originally Posted by Anubis_Zyklon

fighting soldiers is one thing ( japan, Germany ). fighting terrorist is another story all together but go ahead and live that pipe dream.

I could almost buy the WWII occupation theory if it was just remnants of the Fedadeen and Saddam loyalists out there raising hell...but we're also dealing with fanatical fundementalists of one of the world's largest religions here coming into the country from all over the place and that makes things just a little bit different than the occupation of Germany and Japan because they didn't have a seemingly steady stream of foreign fighters coming in to screw with the occupying force/new goverment back then.....this is a whole new and different ballgame.

The only way to deal with that effectively is to kill them all with no hesitation...you want Al-Sadr? then level the mosque he's hiding in, destroy the militias and flatten the city...holy place or not. Whatever it is, it can be rebuilt.

[enjolras]

1) Overthrowing Saddam stablizes the region, maybe not short term but I believe long-term, we are removing a madman from the region and implementing a government that, it is hoped, will be more U.S. - friendly.

2) Enforcing the U.N. sanctions placed against Iraq at the end of the Gulf War as a requirement to end hostilities. IOW, we got a cease-fire *provided* Saddam stuck to the terms of the agreement. He didn't, so we are enforcing the agreement they signed back then.

3) Greater security for Israel. Not to be overlooked is cutting off the cash flow for suicide bombers and removing someone with the capability to shoot missiles into Israel at a moment's notice.

4) A military presence in the region. Instead of being based in a tiny land like Qatar or Yemen, we can set up a base that can easily reach Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. in a matter of minutes. It should make those governments easier to deal with now that they've seen how quickly we can overthrow Saddam. They know now we're serious about rooting out terrorists.

5) A new source of oil. Once the hostilities die down, I will expect us to make agreements with the new Iraqi government to buy oil from them. This will, in turn, make us less dependant on the Saudis who have been ambivalent about going after terrorists. We could, if necessary, wean ourselves off of Saudi oil if they don't cooperate with us. Right now, we're the b**** of the Sauds cause we need their oil. With a new competitor in the neighborhood, we can better control the prices.

6) Taking out a nest of terrorists. There should be no question by now that there are terrorists in Iraq, whether they were already there or if they came in after Saddam was toppled. But they're shooting their wad in a country halfway around the world instead of setting off their bombs in Manhattan and D.C. And while the loss of American lives is unfortunate, at least they were mostly U.S. soldiers and others who are trained in combat and not Ma and Pa Kettle on their way to the supermarket in Anytown U.S.A.

So what about the WMDs? We needed to know if Saddam had them or not. He acted like he was hiding them and maybe he did hide them or maybe he dismantled them or shipped them off to Syria or Libya. Nobody knows right now. But if it turned out that the threat was exaggerated, I still support what we've done there for the reasons I've enumerated above.

Call it opportunism or "the end justifies the means", but I think the Middle East is on the road to greater stability with what we've done and we've put the remaining rogue states on notice that if they don't play ball with us, they could be next.

Many of those are very good reasons. But I'll ask you the same question I always ask when this comes up (at the risk of skating off on a tangent).

Why didn't our 'leaders' choose to sell us the war based on those reasons? Why didn't they say "Sacrificing 1000 American lives will give us these 6 things..." and then give us that list? This is something that I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to, and I'm hoping someone can give me one.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I don’t buy it.

Neither do I.

We already know 9/11 happened because Gigglekill was asleep at the wheel.

When Kerry replaces this record-number-of-vacation-days-taking poseur, we can all breathe a sigh of relief where our safety is concerned.

[Rohirrim]

The point is (IMO) that terrorism cannot win. Here's OBL's agenda - in order: Get all infidels out of Arab lands, restore the Caliphate in Turkey, win back Andalusa in Spain, destroy Vienna for stopping the Ottoman empire, restore the Arab world of 1100 A.D.

I mean, that reminds me of one of those Bond villains from Thrush or something - "I will take over the world! Everyone will come under my evil dominion!" His whole line of bs is like something out of a comic book. If it wasn't for the maniacal killing he has carried out, he would be laughable.

This guy and his organization comes nowhere near the threat of Japan, or the Nazis or especially the USSR. Hell, people in our parent's generation kept their cool much better during WWII than we are now.

Maybe it's the media influence. We've been conditioned to be afraid. Every day it's some new threat: Mad cow disease, West Nile Fever, Anthrax, obesity, heart disease, breast cancer, environmental threats, etc. Every day on one of those morning shows there's some new terror to look out for: "Can this kitchen appliance kill you?" "Could your furnace be your worst enemy?" "Teen Suicide: Are Your Children At Risk?" Constant bs.

My point is - we are going to win. OBL and Zawahiri are going to die. The Arab world, at some point, is going to wake up. They're going to look over at India and say, "Look what the hell those people are building! Look at the lives they're creating!" In Iran, it's already happening. Young Iranians are coming back from India with stories to tell, and the young Iranians who hear those stories want that life. And that's where we beat the terrorists.

I'm just sick of the fear. And I'm sick of a government that manipulates that fear. We're going to win. Maybe more of us will die. No doubt. But we will win. And I don't want to sell out the heart of America - our ideal of liberty - to fear in the short-term. Like Ben Franklin said - those who are willing to trade freedom for security, deserve neither.

[TexanBob]

Originally Posted by enjolras

Many of those are very good reasons. But I'll ask you the same question I always ask when this comes up (at the risk of skating off on a tangent).

Why didn't our 'leaders' choose to sell us the war based on those reasons? Why didn't they say "Sacrificing 1000 American lives will give us these 6 things..." and then give us that list? This is something that I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to, and I'm hoping someone can give me one.

In all honesty, I don't think the war could have been sold that way. When you say "one benefit is security for Isreal", all the anti-Semites will howl their opposition. If you say "one benefit is a better oil market", you get the no-blood-for-oil crowd taking to the streets (although they did anyway), etc.

With the Afghan phase of the war a rousing success and the leads that Saddam may have/had WMDs (which had been shouted by Democrats during Clinton's reign), this became the headline reason for going when I don't honestly believe it was the chief reason we went. But even when we were before the UN, this was not the only reason we invaded. I haven't even mentioned the liberation of millions of people and the crimes against humanity caused by Saddam.

I'm just speaking for myself but I think the opportunity was there to sell a war in Iraq and there were justifiable reasons to overthrow him. But, in this day and age, you can't be completely honest with why you want to do certain things because the hatred of the opposition is so shrill that even efforts done with the best intentions are recast as sinister and evil.

Victory in Iraq *does* enhance our ability to fight terror. My goodness, how much intelligence do you think we've gained by infiltrating some of these nests? How many attacks might we have thwarted simply because we now knew more of their targets and techniques?

Remember all the naysayers when we first went to Afghanistan? Why those people are still listened to by a segment of our society eludes me.