We actually discussed this post on another message board I post at . . . as pointed out, it contains a lot of half-truths, blatant lies, ambiguous phrasing and misresearched facts. I'm trying to remember all of them but here are a few:
As AGDee pointed out -- the first statistic about Detroit can actually work against the writer's point. Why should we be spending all this money in Iraq when our own cities apparently have bigger problems to be cleaned up? Plus, what the author means by "combat-related killings" isn't exactly clear. There could be a lot of deaths tied to the US's precense in Iraq that might not fall under the category of "combat-related killings."
It was actually Eisenhower, not Kennedy, who got us involved in Vietnam.
Comparing the war in Iraq to WW2, Korea, Vietnam or any of the other above wars is comparing apples to oranges. I'm not sure what point they're trying to make . . . not to mention that these days, it's pretty widely considered a mistake that we were in Vietnam in the first place -- not something I think anyone who supports this war wants to compare it to.
People can blame Clinton for not catching Osama but the truth of that matter is that during Clinton's presidency we had much bigger stuff to deal with than Osama. Bin Laden was involved with the death of about 35 Americans during Clinton's time in office. Bin Laden was connected to the deaths of thousands during Bush's presidency . . . and he hasn't caught Osama yet either. Do I blame Bush for that? No . . . but you also can't blame Clinton for it. Hindsight is 20/20, but before 9/11, we had no clue that bin Laden was going to be as big as a threat as he was. There was more important stuff going on.
Bush has hardly "crippled" the al-Quaeda . . . the most recent reports say that they are stronger than ever and are planning more attacks on the U.S., possibly as early as this summer.
Again, comparing the "liberation" of Iraq to other situations is hardly an accurate measure. When you're looking at something like the Waco situation -- it took so long because they didn't want to injure anymore of the kids! If the American army had tried to free Iraq without harming any children, you can bet it would have taken a little bit longer.
Plus I think that anyone educated can see that the "taking of Iraq" was purely symbolic and that what matters more is the fact that our troops will be involved there for years.
One of the people on the other board posted that military morale is actually lower than it has been in a long time, and from articles I've read I would tend to agree, but I don't have data to back this up so I don't know what the truth is on that.