New Yorker - Hillary is good? Huh? Really?

Somehow the majority here believes we went into the Iraqi war in order to catch Saddam or to free the Iraqi people or seize their oil or to neutralize the bloody 9/11 terrorists' network or whatever. Did it ever occur to you that it was just the best excuse to start a war without end? I mean, it is said that this war costs some 2 billion dollars per month -- where do you think this money goes? Ever heard of the military-industrial complex? Prez Eisenhower said it during his farewell speech, that the rise of the m-i complex poses the greatest threat to the American society. This war is just the most lucrative and most elaborate scheme to put tax money into the pockets of New World Order architects and financiers. Wars are about power and wealth, nothing else.

So this is news? It's no secret that Sadamm feared Al-Queda influence as much as everybody else. I'll say ome thing for Saddam, as brutal and harsh as he was, there was no terrorism in Iraq when he ruled.

I don't care what people say about Hillary. I'm still voting for Hillary because Hillary is good.

Not one reason used by them to enter Iraq was true. Not one! Shouldn't they have to answer for something? How much oil stock do they possess?

How many have been killed? What's the cost? Who have been benefited? Who should take the responsibility? How could be so many have died for no reason?

risen - I DO blame them. I blame everyone who voted for this stupid wasteful war! But it WAS Bush and Company who were banging the war drums. Bush was the leader in this and therefore should get the lion's share of the blame.

You people really suprise me, well no you don't, since George W is "guilty of Lying" then so is Hillary, Bill, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and all the people in the DNC who said that Saddam was in league with terrorists.

HE WAS KEEPING THE PRICE OF OIL DOWN !

I think the only reason Bush and company still have anyone who believes their BS is because of talk radio. The 24/7 hate filled rants of Rush and the other conservative talk radio that goes on 24/7 on 90% of all the radios in the country. Can you say propaganda?

What is sad is that after numerous studies that have all reached the same conclusion, a substantial minority of Americans still think there is a connection. They unfortunately have been drinking the same Koolaid as the Shrub and Chain-Gang.

How much did this study cost? How many studies are we gonna do on what we already know?

The Bush administration knew that and ties between Saddam and Al Queda were tenuous, at best. More disturbing are the ties between the oil companies and the Bush administration. In 2006, Bush tried to convince the world that this war was not about oil. Yet in 2007 the new Iraqi government's draft on oil policy, although it nationalized oil resources, was forced to include a profit-sharing agreement with BP, Shell,
Exxon, and other major oil players.
This profit-sharing will continue for 3o
years. Economic terrorism at its best!

The Republicans are STILL trying to blame Clinton for what they did.

They said Clinton as "OBSESSED" with terrorism and wouldn't give him any support to stop it.

They also forced him to CUT AND RUN from Somalia because a few soldiers were killed.

Now they want us to stay forever and spend trillions more dollars in their hellhole of Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed or become refugees.

But we had to invade Iraq otherwise they would have invaded the US? That's the typical Bush supporters mindset. As Bush is ruining our country his chicken little supporters have their heads in the sand. Sadam kept Iraq stable,Iran was kept in check,and there were "NO" terrorists in Iraq. Sadam was big on the bs.Bush supporters are the dumbest Americans of all time,to dumb to realize that Bush has played them like a fiddle. I have no doubt Bush supporters check under their beds every night for the Boggeyman.

Bush........what a complete idiot! he is getting our soldiers killed for something that he wasn't even right about. He is just too stupid and proud to accept what he did as stupid. the fact that we have lost almost 4,000 soldiers is ridiculous! they should not have to play the price for something that Buhsm messed up!

>>But Mr. Bush could have, too. He should have painted a big target on bin Laden the minute he got in office. He only painted the target after 9/11, and then he foolishly decided to go settle a score with Saddam<<

Another falsehood dispelled by the 9/11 Report. It showed, on pages 199-206, that when Bush took office he repudiated Clinton's passivity against Al Qaeda and immediately planed an offensive against Al Qaeda. He said, well before 9/11, “I’m tired of swatting at flies.” The President reportedly also said,“I’m tired of playing defense. I want to play offense. I want to take the fight to the terrorists.”

He had Rice and Cheney head committees that ramped up to do just that. They armed Predators to be offensive strike weapons instead of just recon craft. He tasked Tenet, Clinton's former CIA chief whom Clinton never met with, with organining strike team capabilities against Al Qaeda. But just 7.5 months into Bush's starting term, 9/11 struck first.

HEY SUE T...HOW DO YOU KNOW OBAMA WILL GET US OF IRAQ? HIS 2 FORIEGN ADVISOR QUIT ON HIM AND HE HAS NO CLUE OF ANY FOREIGN AFFAIRS BESIDES BEING RISED IN INDONESIA AND TRAVELING TO KENYA AFTER BEING ELECTED AS A U.S. SENATOR...THIS MAN WILL GET US MORE IN DEEP WATER...

I didn't say Clinton was solely to blame for 9/11. Just that his role immediately proceeding it was over 10 times longer than Bush's. And that his actions are easily linked with negative results we saw on 9/11 and during his term we took mass casulaty terror hits wevery 1-2 years. There is blame on all sides. But mostly on the Jihad who declared the war and prosecutes it against us constantly. Despite Democrat continuing self denial.

If Clinton is solely to blame for 9/11, logic dictates that George Bush, Sr., and Ronald Reagan are solely to blame for the first attack on the World Trade Center. And I don't believe that's the case, do you?

What's clear is that terrorists are sneaky little ######## who can easily pull off unsophisticated attacks--which is exactly what the WTC bombing and the attacks of 9/11 were. By "unsophisticated" I mean not technologically advanced enough to draw attention, and often hard to trace. Almost every terrorist attack is "unsophisticated," especially the ones that occur daily in other countries.

We're never going to stop EVERY SINGLE TERRORIST. We need to get used to that fact and focus on intelligence and covert ops rather than full-scale warfare abroad and a gradual police-state here at home.

Clinton certainly gets a lot of the blame for 9/11. There were massive intelligence failures, and he could have pursued bin Laden much more aggressively. But Mr. Bush could have, too. He should have painted a big target on bin Laden the minute he got in office. He only painted the target after 9/11, and then he foolishly decided to go settle a score with Saddam.

Impeach the war criminal and throw all those who still defend him in prison. Or better yet move to another country. Strip their right to speak and vote for another corrupt criminal again. America needs to progress away from war.
Saddam was just fine where he was. Bush is much worse than him anyway. He lied to take us to war so he can get all that oil for himself.

So Al-Qaida has admitted defeat in Iraq? Then who are we fighting there?

Ben - Ron Paul has some great ideas but I do not agree with a total hands off approach because the republican "rule" with its failed economic policies have lead us into the economic problems we have today as they have always done. Obama is the "increase taxes" dem candidate. Clinton is not - in fact her proposals save money and I believe she will apply the fiscal measures needed to turn things around. McCain is clueless on economics by his own admission and his experience is limited to military and being an Arizona Senator - not broad-based. As an independent, I look at all the candidates equally. Clinton is the left-leaning moderate that fits the bill and has earned the respect and support of many Reps in the Senate including McCain. You are correct that Obama's plans would bankrupt the country but that is not all dems.

>>RufusLeeKing: Those attacks weren't on American soil.<<

I said American shores, ships and embassies. They all were located there. Mass casulaty hits we took every 1-2 years under the Dem surrender party.

>>Oh yeah, RufusLeeKing, we've toppled the Taliban? Then who are those guys we're fighting and losing to in Afghanistan? <<

Losing? You mean replacing their former fortress state of a government with a democracy that lets women and people rise from their former squalor and brutality is a loss? Eliminating their open terror camp hosting was a loss? I'd sure hate to see your and Obama's ideas of a win. Showing other would be terror hosts how they, too can perish, and so getting Khadaffi to surrender all his WMDs out of fear, is a loss?

And you forgot to mention the huge number of Al Qaeda thats not in Afghanistan because they are dead. Like the ones in Iraq. They are so decimated in both places that Al Qaeda itself has admitted defeat there and squabbles over which of their factions caused it.

You and Obama want to give those victories all back ASAP.