You do if you are refering to the war on terror vs the war in Iraq.

He's talking about whether or not he would support this same war under Clinton or another Democrat. Not in response to:

"Matthews asked the pastor of the church a question about the President bringing up 9/11 in the speech so much."

Not even close, infact he didn't even mention 9/11.

My mistake on the set-up, I was wrong and must have been conflating that as an earlier question (or perhaps a Fox or CNN question) with this answer.

Doesn't change the pastor's response and intent though Len.

And why can't I conflate things and bush can?! Doesn't seem fair.

So be it, I'm done on that.

Quote:

He's talking about whether or not he would support this same war under Clinton or another Democrat

Well, lendaddy, what's wrong with Clinton's reasoning? At one time the conservatives in America were preoccupied with presidential blow jobs and certainly not the troops serving in true coalition style in Kosovo and other parts of the world under unified UN command.

Thirty thousand lives lost in the building of the canal and somehow you see a connection to Iraq. Is this something you heard on the Limbaugh radio show?




http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/clap.gif

So they really do allow dope in Alaska.

Come back when you promise to make sense.

desperation is not becoming of you lenn.

It's my fault really, I'm sorry. I'm not sure Len could deal with the concrete knowledge that someone, indeed an entire congregation, believes that 9/11 and Iraq were linked. Especially spouting it off on television.

If I had attacked Clinton you might have a point, but he might as well have come out swinging about PETA or something.

Concrete Shaun? You are delusional.

What does just for tech but he needs friends mean?

He asked me to put it in my Sig since I used it so much:)

The "he needs friends" part meant I will still include others in my posts, but it came out wrong. It made me laugh when I read it, so I just left it. Now that I've been asked about it I will need something new, it's lost its sheen.

LOL!

Perhaps because this is the last sphere of post-modern life in which the terms are not considered primitive in polite company. If you need some help digesting the distinctions you might want to review the videotape of the engineer from Wisconsin getting his head sawed off with a dull knife by the black-masked Fedayeen.

I agree. That is the proper debate: the worth of it.

Many object to what they as Bush’s deceit in selling a WMD threat when there was none. They believe his reason was to foment fear for political gain. Yet they make this argument in a historical and moral vacuum – as if there was no Hussein, no 20 years of nuclear pursuit, no history of development – and deployment! -- of genocidal weapons. The only relevant history for them seems to be the abeyant period of Iraq’s economically debilitating sanctions (which we now have learned enriched mainly Hussein and a network of UN-enabled profiteers.) That is to say, they do not permit into the debate the question civilization must periodically ask itself: do we tolerate people like Hussein, for how long, and what cost? What is civilization’s obligation to itself?

Aside from all this, I can’t imagine a more serious indictment of a leader or man than that he invented a cause for war in order to advance his own interests. It requires a truly inspired hate to sustain such a notion. And on what evidence? There was far more reason to doubt Hussein, an aggressive tyrant, a chronic liar, a genocidal killer, as there was to believe or trust the UN (remember, Hans Blinx was the UN’s inspector for North Korea), its reflex anti-Americanism, and its indifferent enforcement of its own resolutions.

(My theory is that the hatred of Bush is a subconscious reaction-formation on the Left to the reality of a future of unavoidable threat and war and fear represented by the Islamic movement. For years many in the Left pushed or at least tacitly supported the cause of Islamic movements all over the world. So any president who faced the threat of Islamicism head-on, without ambivalence or apology, was sure to be hated. He reminds the Left of one more of their many tragic errors of sympathy.)

But ultimately, the “no WMD” arguments are moot. We are at war with a culture of violence that seeks our destruction. That war just happens to be in Iraq. We fight them there now, or (and probably also) someplace else later. Soldiers will die and suffer, citizens will die and suffer, our economy will be hobbled, our pleasures postponed, our lives inconvenienced, our future darkened, and our fortitude tested. We fight now, we fight later. There is no way out but fighting. Now, how do we fight better, how do we kill more of them, how do we win? That is what we should be talking about.