[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST LETTERS

War in Iraq

Saturday, October 20 at 2:00 PM

Grant D. Cyrus of Boulder writes:

Anyone left in this country that actually believes that this illegal and unsupportable war in Iraq is meant to protect this country and the world must be as delusional and/or deceiving (deceived?) as those who’ve implemented it. I suppose that would be alright if it only affected their lives but when they try to impose their ignorance on the rest of us then they need to somehow be restrained.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Here we go again, another blind SHEEP. You must be an idiot. First you have no concept of the American Political System. CONGRESS (THE SENATE and THE HOUSE OF REPRESENATIVES) AUTHORIZED the USE OF FORCE. This makes the WAR in IRAQ and in AFGHANASTAIN LEGAL. Second you are extremely NIAVE about WORLD/ GEOPOLITICAL SITUATIONS and the CAUSE/EFFECT of ACTIONS AT THE WORLD level. It is to late to take back the damage caused and to just simply withdraw would be even more disastourous. Educate yourself some more before entering into subjects you are ill informed about.

Posted by Scott on October 20, 2007 06:34 PM

Why the hell does the RMN continue to let this moonbat a-hole bloviate? Grant seems to think he could buddy right up to a Jihadist without getting his infidel head sawn off with a dull knife. In his world Bush is the terrorist and radical Islam is a non threatening hoax.
Even with the scant media coverage of success and stabilization in Iraq ,like a good little Dhimmi , Grant and the useful dem idiots must counter any good news with a slew of "spontaneous" letters with moveon and mediamatters talking points.
Talk about delusional and ignorant.

DEMS ARE TRAITORS

Posted by on October 20, 2007 08:11 PM

lol....man you gotta love those bloggers from the vast minority.

does anyone still support this failure of a war?

Posted by jay on October 20, 2007 10:32 PM

Your DAMN right I support this war. Having spent a year over there, seeing thier oppression and hatred , religious zelotry to anything associated with the west and Christianity. i whole heartedly support this war.

I wonder Jay who are you going to complaign to , or be allowed to type on your computer to should sharia law be inacted here. Seeing how you Old Grumpy, DMZ, Banged Skank Sharon all are atheist how long will it be before they drag you out for being an infidel and stone you. Or being the liberal progressive thinkers you are , how fast will you convert and believe in Allah?

Your leftist koolaid will only get you so far. If you do not stand for something you will be stood upon.

Posted by on October 21, 2007 12:17 AM

Another brave - and anonymous, of course - individual warning us about the flying carpets, and great bronze horses powered by the djinn, that are just over the horizon, bearing the hordes of human monsters who - without supply lines, modern arms, armor, weapons, or even basic organization - will "take over" this Nation.

I guess his Mommy and Daddy never did manage to show him how to get rid of the closet monsters, and the boogey men under the bed when he was growing up - to become a Republican, of course.

Posted by Old Grouch on October 21, 2007 09:04 AM

Old Grouch...you are just as anonymous as anyone else here. And thats a good thing because our brave vets would give you a bloody nose. If you have a valid point, make it...stop the ridiculous name calling.

I SUPPORT THIS WAR AND OUR TROOPS!

Posted by on October 21, 2007 10:17 AM

cruton...first of all supporting the war and supporting the troops aren't the same thing....in fact it is hard to say that you support the way in which this war was perpetrated....and claim at the same time that you support the troops. When you start realizing that our troops continue to be in harm's way...despite the fact that they don't have the resources needed to be successful....you may finally shrug off the rose-colored, blindered glasses given to you by that far right ideology of yours.

Secondly....and this is important because it completely invalidates your point.

The Iraq was has nothing to do with a threat to the US. It had nothing to do with WMD's or AQ. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Now that we have those facts on the table...your assertion that this war keeps me safe from being under the oppressive rule of religious fundamenatlists from the middle east (as opposed to the religious fundamentalist here at home) is just about as ridiculous an argument as I've seen on this site in months.

Any questions?

Posted by jay on October 21, 2007 10:22 AM

grant,Unlike you I find out he facts before I write.Your post makes you the village idiot of the week.

Posted by Keith on October 21, 2007 10:32 AM

Again, we have those posters who preach hatred of the Muslims. General Petraeus would not want people of that ignorant and bigoted ilk on his team because his mission is to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. This strategy may have helped us get out of the mess Bush has gotten us in if it had been applied some years ago, but the "hate the Muslims" crowd had too much influence. Unfortunately the "hate the Muslims" crowd have probably had their way too long for Petraeus' strategy to work now.

Posted by Truth on October 21, 2007 11:15 AM

Grant Cyrus thinks the war is "affecting his life".Is his son fighting in Iraq?If he were he "volunteered"!! Is Grant fighting in Iraq? If he is he "volunteered"!! How is the war affecting Grant?The media is giving him negitive reports day in and day out to "affect" his life.Grant we have brave soldiers in the US willing to fight this battle if reading about it turns you into a Democrat coward put your newspaper down.It is a good thing the soldiers do not have to read the lies about the war in the newspapers.They are actually there and after seeing the truth chose to fight.

Posted by An American on October 21, 2007 11:21 AM

Truth, It is RADICAL MUSLIMS we are talking about.

Do you pull the racist card on people against ILLEAGLE immigration also ?

Dick

Posted by on October 21, 2007 11:26 AM

I don't know any soldiers who "volunteered" to fight in a needless war without the resources necessary for success.

Do you, UnAmerican?

Posted by jay on October 21, 2007 11:38 AM

WHAT ARE THEY SAYING TODAY???

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
------
Their tune has changed the moment it became obvious that the I raq effort was more difficult than bombing of an empty asprin factory.

Posted by Hank on October 21, 2007 11:38 AM

October 21 ,12:17 PM.Thanks for your posting.You will learn that the Democrats that post here are terrorist loving,US hating cowards.In fact most Democrats are the same.

Posted by An American on October 21, 2007 11:39 AM

Well Jay if you get your information from the Democrat controlled media or the lying Democrat party you would probably think the way you do.No matter how well supplied the troops are the Democrats and media want the terrorist to win the war so they will try to spin it in a negitive way.Jay you as a Democrat coward probably think any fighting or defending yourself as "needless".Let's let the soldiers that are fighting the war decide if it is needless and supplies are lacking.If you are right they will stop signing up and we will have no soldiers.If I am right their will still be soldiers fighting there.Oh I guess I am right!!!

Posted by An American on October 21, 2007 11:52 AM

jay,

As to Iraq's not being a threat to us, when Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and the American Embassy there in 1990, that was an act of war against an ally and us that touch off the Gulf War. That war did not end in 1991. Only a cease fire was declared.

The invasion in March of 2003 was not intended as punishment for 9/11, but in response to Hussein's repeated violations of the terms of the cease fire. It was merely a continuation of the same war that began in 1990.

As to any assertion "that that this war keeps [us] safe from being under the oppressive rule of religious fundamentalists", nobody ever made that assertion. But as I pointed out in another thread, in the 20 years prior to the invasion in 2003, Americans were killed in terrorist attacks somewhere in the world an average of about once every 13 months. Since then, there have been none. That evidence alone says we are safer now than before.

Posted by Dave on October 21, 2007 11:57 AM

Hank.good posting but the Democrats do not want the truth.Remember if there were no lies there would be no Democrat party.

Posted by An American on October 21, 2007 12:10 PM

Dave, It is usless trying to reason with Jay. He is broken beyond repair.

Posted by on October 21, 2007 12:13 PM

Man I love winding up the far right wingers here.

I'll say it again folks...as confirmed by the NIE, the ISG and the 9/11 Commission.

NO threat.

NO WMDs.

NO link to AQ.

NO link to 9/11.

Any questions?

Posted by jay on October 21, 2007 02:03 PM

Oh....

And don't forget...again confirmed by the NIE, the ISG, the 9/11 commission and our own Counterintelligence Unit.

Less safe.

Destabilized the Middle East.

Again....any questions?

I don't blame you guys for running away from that track record...but you own it...and I for one will never let the far right forget it.

Posted by jay on October 21, 2007 02:06 PM

jay,

The NIE was the same NIE that insisted that Iraq was developing WMDs before the invasion in 2003.

Nobody on the ISG (I presume you mean the Iraq Study Group) was an active member of the military. And the recommendations it made were things that were already being done.

The findings of the 9/11 Commission were compromised when one of its members, Jamie Gorelick, was part of the anti-terrorism policies that were being investigated, and when Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, stole and destroyed classified documents pertinent to the investigation.

And none of their findings change the fact that if the terrorist attacks had merely continued the same trend, we would have been attacked somewhere in the world at least four times since 2003. There have been none.

Posted by Dave on October 21, 2007 02:42 PM

Ah! Uno,

I figured you would pop up, sooner or later.

September 11, was an event. No one - least of all myself - has ever challenged, or denied, the fact that it was a terrorist act. Also, I have never challenged, or denied, the fact that other terrorist acts are still possible, in and out of this country.

What I do challenge is, simply, the weird notion that, somehow, were we to leave Iraq, the unorganized, unequipped, and internally quarrelsome peoples of the Middle East - in the form of some kind of "conquering force" - would suddenly land here, in America, and be able to wage a war of conquest in this hemisphere.

If you think that this is the great "danger" facing our Nation, I really would like to have you explain how this is to happen.

They have no really organized Army, no Air power, no inventory of arms and armor, no great number of armored vehicles, and - most important of all - NO SHIPPING, or other major suply lines., as well as NO major production capbilities in the area of armament. Add to that the reality that they have been fighting among themselves for close to 12 Centuries; and even today have no unified military leadership - don't even begin to mention political leadership - and also would have to conquer a vastly better armed, equipped, and motivated Eurasian Continent before even beginning to launch an invasion for the Western Hemisphere.

Yet you and yours keep insisting that we are in some kind of immediate "danger" of being put to the sword, made to place our women in harems, under burkhaas, and all sorts of other rather infantile and really silly and stupid other "horrible" things happening to us.

Yes, it is possible - we may even say, probable - that another terrorist activity will happen here. But, an invasion? An actual war in the Western Hemisphere?

Ah! Well! You kiddies will go right on shouting about how much braver you are than anyone else, no matter what facts are presented to show that your "bravery" is imaginary sham to begin with; a bravery in the face of an imaginary illusion, as with Chicken Little and the falling sky.

Posted by Old Grouch on October 21, 2007 06:46 PM

Old Grouch-

As you should know,

All it would take is one nuke or large scale biological weapon set off in an American city ,or cities,to kill possibly hundreds of thousands and cripple the economy and the U.S.

They don't need an air force or navy to accomplish this , evident after witnessing 911 , which hopefully you'll concede was not perpetrated by the U.S. govt.

This very real global war on Radical Islam must be fought offensively and due to the nature of our enemies will most likely last for decades.

Downplaying its domestic threat is insane , but you have to or else admit a Bush success.

When we do get hit you will most likely be the first to cry "connect the dots" and Bush/govt incompetence, like you guys tried after 911.

What if people dismissed and ignored Hitler's ideology and its threat to mankind?

As time goes by your posts become more and more ridiculous signaling the natural degradation in the thinking process one experiences at your advanced age.

Your lucky your kids let you touch the remote control much less a computer.

For once I'll agree with a common lib excuse-

It's not your fault.

Posted by Get Real on October 21, 2007 08:29 PM

Get Real,

Seems as we've all heard this "song" before. Last time round it was "nuclear attack" from the "evil empire of Communism"; and everyone was supposed to rush right out and build bomb shelters in the backyard - which wouldn't have been worth spit in a nuclear attack anyway.

Oh! And even before that, it was "missles in Cuba", and who "blinked" first.

Always, of course, as "domestic threat", which required in response ever increasing fear of the boogey man of the moment, and every increasing surrender of our own rights and freedoms to "protect" us from . . . whatever "threat" was next up in line, and "greater" in intensity.

As one goes along with your posts, one sees the continuing regression to the nail biting, teeth chattering, juvenile terror at what might happen - or come out of the closet, or from under the bed - when Mommy turns out the light after you go to bed.

Indeed, sonny, it is possible that there may be another terrorist event in the future; one even more damaging and disasterous than the loss of the World Trade complex.

But, this Nation need not look for a host of flying carpets, bearing hordes of Islamic warriors, all ready to take over and turn us into slavery, as you quaking, shivering, shaking, cowering little kiddies would have us all believe your fears and fantasies predict.

Grow up! Get a little perspective on reality. Are you so unable to understand the strength of the Nation to deal with singuar events that you must have everyone else turned into blobs of shaking jelly because you can't face problems in the future?

And, in the event of another terrorist event, it will NOT BE any credit to Bush that it didn't happen sooner. Rather, it will be because Bush, and his crew of equally ignorant and deceitful damn fool idiots, stirred up the hornet's nest, bogged us down in the Iraq quagmire, and then left us to take the consequences of his, and their, total incompetency.

You're the one using the screen name, "Get Real". Why don't you actually try it for yourself?

Posted by Old Grouch on October 21, 2007 09:56 PM

Grouch-

You have quite an imagination don't you?

And it's Bush's fault no matter what happens?

Way to cover your bases there Grand dad.

You're old enough to know better-

Was it Winston Churchill who said "If you are not a liberal by age 20 you are heartless and if you are not a conservative by age 40 you are brainless"?

What's your excuse?

Could it be possible you are the one who needs to grow up?

Posted by Get Real on October 21, 2007 10:43 PM

Get Real,

Are you positing Winston Churchill as some kind of "deity", whose words are, somehow, now to be taken as a sort of new "gospel"?

You are good at slams, and slanders. But, how good are you at developing a sound and logical position presentation?

You insist that - other than terrorist events, of differing magnitudes, which have already been granted as potentials - that "Radical Islam", or whatever your boogey-man be called, is a "domestic threat", of such proportions that the whole Nation is in such danger that it is necessary to look forward to a form of "crusade" - "global war" as you have it - against a whole peoples that might "last for decades".

You do this on the basis of elevating an example of a potential incident to the point where it would "cripple the economy and the U.S." Are you then positing the Nation as having such a weak economy, and such a fragile ability to respond to even worse than the World Trade Towers event, that it is unable to survive? If so, what is your evidence for this?

Rather obviously, you feel that there is an equitable comparison here between Hitler's Nazi Germany and this "Islamic threat". Yet, you give us no real information as to how this equation exists. What is your evidence for the parallel between an industrial nation setting out to conquer Europe - and such other places as might be future targets - and a culture whose industrial foundation is the single one of happening to possess oil under its grounds; which oil, itself, is always at risk from any other Nation with air power, or even an army of foot soldiers marching in and taking it over? Or, are you positing the idea that, somehow, we have become "less" in power, capability, and strength of arms than we were in Kuwait?

You remark in passing that a terrorist incident does not "need an air force or a navy" to happen; a point that has already been granted, in granting the potential of the terrorist incident in the first place. Yet, you do insist on "global war" against whatever it be you see as the enemy.

If a terrorist incident does not need basic military strength, in and of itself, how then does "global war" PREVENT the incident?

Or are you positing a situation in which there is to be a form of "crusade" against a whole peoples for actions of small groups among them? Or, to be blunt about it, are you now positing a form of either "ethnic cleansing", or "extermination of religion", as the goal of American involvement in the Middle East?

I really would greatly appreciate your answers to the questions.

Posted by Old Grouch on October 22, 2007 08:34 AM

Old Grouch and Jay will not listen to any fact that does not back their Democrat coward view.That view is they will not fight for any reason or for any cause.They will not defend their women and children.I have a friend that is an activist in the Democrat party and he told me and said on talk radio that he would not shoot someone that was going to kill his wife and child to save their lives.I know another Democrat that was on city council and admitted in front of thousands of people that he was a coward.He now works for Ken Salazar's office.As you can see these cowards will not listen to an fact that would point to going to war.

Posted by An American on October 22, 2007 10:09 AM

"The NIE was the same NIE that insisted that Iraq was developing WMDs before the invasion in 2003."

Myth

"Nobody on the ISG (I presume you mean the Iraq Study Group) was an active member of the military. And the recommendations it made were things that were already being done."

Myth

"Americans were killed in terrorist attacks somewhere in the world an average of about once every 13 months. Since then, there have been none"

Myth.

Any questions Dave?

Posted by jay on October 22, 2007 02:14 PM

I do Grant, you dumbass

Posted by on October 22, 2007 04:02 PM

Generals are paid $186,000 yearly plus perks and amenities; Presidents are paid $400,000 yearly plus perks and amenities and Air Force One (two of them) that cost $56,000 per hour to transport Bush to his ranch and elsewhere; Saddam snuggles between his 72 virgins laughing that in the end, America's bushwhacker lost in Iraq. Sen. McCain said it in 2003. Admit it mf Christians, you voted for a Hitler-type personality. Mf means wretch and this is what Christians call themselves: dictionary.com

Deicide Corner: “Christianity persecuted, tortured, and burned. Like a hound it tracked the very scent of heresy. It kindled wars, and nursed furious hatreds and ambitions. It sanctified, quite like Mohammedanism, extermination and tyranny. . .” -- George Santayana

Posted by Richard Grimes Deicide r22037@yahoo.com on October 23, 2007 10:03 AM