On November 17th, 2008 at 11:53 am, brad_sk said:

This is the mistake in your logic..if so much money is really spent on fighting terrorists, I would support it completely…But no…Money spent in Iraq is way more than that spent in original and still terrorists hot beds of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I think you’ll be able to support it again soon. As ops in Iraq taper off, ops in Afghanistan will probably ramp up.

Cheney and Rumsfield did not go on Iraq war claiming to fight terrorists…There was no evidence then of any such activity there…They went to war based on WMD claim which we now know is a lie.

A lie, or a global intelligence failure? Also, the war was indirectly against terrorists that used the Clinton years of Iraq containment operations to justify their organization. Do you deny this?

On November 16th, 2008 at 9:19 am, conservative in europe said: at 153

One last thing and then I leave it – the deficit we have is due to a war being fought. Like it or not.

A single air strike costs more than the Ken Starr investigation did.

10 Trillion vs. continued terrorist attacks = money well spent.

This is the mistake in your logic..if so much money is really spent on fighting terrorists, I would support it completely…But no…Money spent in Iraq is way more than that spent in original and still terrorists hot beds of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Cheney and Rumsfield did not go on Iraq war claiming to fight terrorists…There was no evidence then of any such activity there…They went to war based on WMD claim which we now know is a lie. You should really check out Ron Paul’s arguments and his views on this and other policies by Bush…Ron Paul gives a true conservative view point.