No . . . I wouldn’t want Nazis in charge of Iraq either. Since neither of these two options had a snowball’s chance in Hell of happening prior to us invading (and next-to-a-snowball’s chance in hell of happening after), raising it as a “deflected scenario” is laughable.

“– Bin laden also wanted to fight us in Iraq.(his words.)”
Yes . . .AFTER we invaded and made complete asses of ourselves. After recruitment went up for AQ and other terrorist agencies. After arabs lined up to rush to Iraq to repel the infidels. Worked out great for him.

“– We stopped chasing bin laden because he became marginalized. He remains that way to this very day. The war is bigger than Osama. They radical islamist aren’t going to stop because osama bin laden was killed or caught.”

??? So the war in Iraq is focused on shutting down radical Islam? Given that the dictatorship of Hussein was pretty much the exact opposite of radical Islam, how did removing it help promote your goal? Take your time . . . this one might require some serious contoritions.
Bin Laden is marginalized? I assume that means that AQ is marginalized too. So they are not a threat to America? Interesting. Glad he doesn’t serve as a symbol that you can attack America and get away with it.
I agree the radical islamist isn’t going to stop because OBL is killed or caught — why would they stop because we invaded Iraq?

“– The reason bin laden escaped was because we sent in the Northern alliance when we should of sent in our paramilitary troops. Bone headed? sure.
Due to Iraq or deliberate? Your the first to ever claim that poppycock.”
Never said deliberate (as in deliberately let him go). Given that multiple requests were made for reinforcements, that briefers spoke face-to-face with W and stated the current reliance on the Pakistan forces was untenable, and given that the buildup for Iraq started shortly after . . . calling it “poppycock” seems laughably ignorant. Only person claiming reinforcements were rejected? http://www.madison.com/post/blogs/militarymatters/98800
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/9/27/84111/0004
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1996/

“However, You’re logic of comparing the war on drugs to radical islamic terrorism is weak. What you’re saying is you agree with radical Islam and everything they’re doing.”
. . . You mock my comments, then make this unbelievably unsupported, astoundingly ignorant, comically pathetic statement? How you draw the conclusion that I support radical Islam, or that such a conclusion is related to the metaphor of a War on Drugs, defies description. Your comment actually made some legitimate, thoughtful points. This reduces your comments to hysterical blather, and should fill you with embarassment and shame. Really, this is just ignorant. I’d say you should know better, but obviously you don’t.

As for the reast of your typical liberal diatribe:

- We are in Iraq until the government is stablized. Which appears it will be by 2013.

- The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America. This documentary puts your lies to rest about Bush not keeping us safe from more radical islamic terrorist attacks. This Film documents alot of evidence you claimed didn’t exist or was trivial at best. You’re wrong on both accounts.

- a new study showed radicalism is on the decline even with America in Iraq.

- Would you rather have Al-qaeda in charge of the Iraqi government? Would you rather have ethnic cleansing?

- Bin laden also wanted to fight us in Iraq.(his words.)

- We stopped chasing bin laden because he became marginalized. He remains that way to this very day. The war is bigger than Osama. They radical islamist aren’t going to stop because osama bin laden was killed or caught.

- I agree the war was badly named, it should of been called the war on Jihadist.
There tactic: Terrorism.

- The reason bin laden escaped was because we sent in the Northern alliance when we should of sent in our paramilitary troops. Bone headed? sure.
Due to Iraq or deliberate? Your the first to ever claim that poppycock.

- The Idea is to minimalize the radical islamic threat much like the pirate threat has been minimalized today. However, You’re logic of comparing the war on drugs to radical islamic terrorism is weak. What you’re saying is you agree with radical Islam and everything they’re doing. Thus, Just let them do it. To be comical about your ignorance; legalize radical islamic terrorism.

“We have not been attacked again. Something that was prediced to happen almost immediately after 9-11. And for that, you can thank George Bush.”

The fact that it was predicted to happen does not in any way mean it was going to happen. It was predicted we’d find the WMDs too, especially since Rummy knew where they were, the war would pay for itself in a year, we’d only need 40-50 thousand troops . . . but sometimes predictions turn out to be incorrect.

At this point, without specific proof of a plot foiled, you can’t “prove” attacks were thwarted anymore than I can “prove” that despite the hysteria we wern’t going to get attacked — both of those lie down the paths of alternate histories and faith at this point. We disagree on this point, but its an article of faith, not fact. I’ll say my “faith” is largely based on the “fact” that there hasn’t been any evidence of real attacks thwarted . . . and I believe that if the Admin did really thwart an attack they would have held a press conference like they did with those idiots in Florida (”Look! Terrorists! We’re on the case!”). You can look at the same facts and think they demonstrate that we’ve stopped attacks so massive in scale the Administration can’t say anything so as not to risk their highly advanced infiltration of the baddies organization. Since we’re drawing conclusions based on the lack of evidence rather than the interpretation of evidence though, its guesswork for both of us and I’ll respectfully disagree but admit you may well be right.

“busboy, you can use our military to plead your case, but sorry, that is why we have them. Are do you think they are handed a rifle during basic training for cutesy photo ops?”

Nope — I think they were trained to fight wars. The difference is your version has them acting as America’s personal Secret Service, throwing themselves in front of the bullets to save us back home, and I absolutely don’t think that’s what they’re there for.
They aren’t there to catch the bullet for you. They aren’t there to negotiate with local tribal warlords. They aren’t there to rebuild infrastructure. They exist to take control of land and defend it — period.
Frankly, that’s why the “War on Terror” was a great soundbite but a stupid policy. You can’t wage war with a military against an opponent that has no territory to capture. War against the Taliban? Well, we waged war against Afganistan, won it, and are trying to hold it. But against the Taliban? Against Al Quieda? The only “war” you can fight against them is metaphorical, like the “War on Drugs” or the “War on Poverty”.
The only way the military can defend us from terrorism is if they take and hold ALL the land, so the terrorists can’t just move elsewhere. In the War on Drugs, military units took over cocaine fields. They took and held the land. But the “enemy” just went somewhere else. Bin Laden ran to Afganistan, and we took and (to some extent) held the land. What did he do? He moved. But he clearly didn’t move to Iraq, so fighting there only protects us here if attacks were coming from that territory, or from the Iraqi regeime — and not only do you have ZERO evidence of that, but there’s some pretty solid evidence that it wasn’t true.
If there isn’t/wasn’t a massive bombing attack coming from Iraq, then the only way the military is “protecting” us from such an attack is by providing a decoy target that’s easier for anybody that might want to kill Americans but hasn’t worked out the logistics of getting over here — and they deserve better than that.

I won’t bother with the whole “inspiring more terrorists thereby increasing our risk” argument as I assume you simply don’t believe it, which is fine. Let me ask you this though: the majority of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia. How does the combat in Baghdad inhibit Saudis from plottong to attack us, or executing such an attack? Assuming bin Laden is in the mountains of Northern Pakistan, how does a military convoy outside of Tikrit getting hit with an IED slow them down?

It doesn’t. Not even a teensy bit. Those Americans dying aren’t doing it to “combat terrorism”, and their sacrifice isn’t making you any safer from the next jet liner being hijacked.

We didn’t have 8 years of a president that took “protect and defend” seriously — we’ve had 8 years of a president that hasn’t bothered to think about the consequences of his actions seriously because since we invaded Iraq we HAVEN’T been chasing bin Laden. Remember him? The one guy on the planet that we know for an absolute fact actually tries to figure out ways to attack you here on the homeland? The guy we know isn’t in Iraq? The guy who got his funding from Saudis . . . not Saddam? The guy we had cornered in Afganistan, and then W refused to send the additional troops needed to cut off the escape route to Pakistan because we needed to invade Iraq IMMEDIATELY, before we got the the most credible threat to that next attack you’re worried about? “Protect and defend” my slowly wrinkling ass.

I understand you don’t believe a word of this — it’s all lies propagated by the Liberal conspiracy. But I’m not “using the military to plead my case”. I call those Americans killed because of W’s presidency. You seem to claim that their dealths are expected in order to protect us here — and unless you can offer any rational explanation of how fighting in Iraq protects us from a terrorist offensive, then those men and women being killed (more than died in the collapsing buildings and crashing planes, and that’s not including all the scarred, maimed, wounded) have NOTHING to do with you not getting attacked . . . and I’m going to believe your hypothetical fairytale (”Saddam might have tried to work with terrorists or get WMDs more immediately than the threat from AQ, and mabye there were lots of attacks that we’re stopped but everybody’s just too damn modest towant to take credit for protecting us, bless their hearts . . .”) is just the same series of lies you’ve been spoon-fed for the last 8 years by the NeoCon despots.

By the way, you might want to look the oath up. W didn’t pledge to “protect and defend” you or I. He plegded to do so for the Constitution of the United States (the language of the oath is mandatory — U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 8).

http://www.amconmag.com/aboutus.html

Of course, there are also some others, as easily identified by the responses here, who lean towards militaristic solutions. All of us would probably still call ourselves ‘conservatives’.

We have not been attacked again. Something that was prediced to happen almost immediately after 9-11. And for that, you can thank George Bush.

We have had 8 years of a president that took the “protect and defend” requirement seriously. Now we will get a president that will spend his time apologizing to the rest of the world for us trying to “protect and defend” our nation. I am sure that once “The One” is sitting in that leather chair in the Oval Office all the terrorists will just give up and go back to their goat farms.

I never voted for bush once.

How are republicans bigots? While I agree with your economical points one only has to look at how bush ran his oil compaines into the ground. However, I’m sorry but I can’t throw bush under the bus when it comes to the war. That frat boy and congress as well picked the perfect geography for the battle with Al-qaeda.
If we had tried to defeat al-qaeda in Afghanistan we would still be in like a 2006 Iraqi condition today.

Also Don’t tell me what conservatism is it’s many different social groups and aspects.

I consider myself a Goldwater conservative on Social-issues.

I consider myself a freidman libertarian on economical issues.

I consider myself a Reagan/JFK conservative/democrat on defense issues.

If you seen the movie american carol you’ll understand why I cited JFK.

“I am not smart about these things; I admit to that. But I know one damn thing for sure, I am alive and no more Americans have been blown up in tall buildings since George Bush decided to take a hard stance.”

Very true. Blown up in convoys, ambushes, IED targeted set-ups, RPG attacks, random mortar drops into bases and/or the Green Zone . . . thousands of them. But I am unaware of any tall buildings blowing up with Americans in them . . . and if by chance a tall building DID blow up somewhere, then we can always change it to “no tall buildings blew up due to kenetic impact from a passenger airliner with a minimum capacity of X”, so your statement probably still holds water, at some level.

However, this revelation does make the liberals argument stronger when it comes to WMD/AL-qaeda in Iraq as being nothing more than fabrications.

Sounds to me like right wingers are turning judas. You’re like cock roaches!

But then, Bush will be leaving office in five weeks and then we will have the political player from Chicago with all his skills in oversight.

If you want criminal negligence, Rick, I suggest you start with the $700 billion bail out and banks, who have more money than they have ever had, taking taxpayer dollars to buy banks in China. Or maybe we could talk about the millions Franklin Raines managed to bilk out of the GSEs.

I am not smart about these things; I admit to that. But I know one damn thing for sure, I am alive and no more Americans have been blown up in tall buildings since George Bush decided to take a hard stance.

Why do I feel that after just a short time with “The One” in the Oval Office, you will be longing for the days of Bush’s “criminal negligence”?