[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
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."

Completely specious argument. The Middle East has to be remade, and going into Iraq was a geopolitical decision. That region was not going to change while Sadam was in power, and after 9-11, Iraq became the #1 nation in the world that funded radical Palestenian organizations. Sadam was destabilizing the region, and he had to go. If the region doesn't change, we may see an attack on American soil that would dwarf the number of homocides in Detroit that occur in a decade, let alone a month. These myopic analogies are par for the course with most of the criticism of the current American strategy.

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.

What was more important than going after the only entity in the world that actually attacked the US during the Clinton presidency? If getting Osama was so lacking in importance, than why do Bush critics point to the fact that Clinton warned Bush that Osama was America's biggest threat before he took office. You can't have it both ways. Clinton did recognize that Osama was a huge threat, and the plain simple truth is that his inaction was the catylyst that caused 9-11.[/B][/QUOTE]

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.

Actually when it comes to operating on American soil, it looks like Bush has been very effective. Al Qaeda continues to operate, but its safe to say that they would rather kill Americans on American soil, than Muslims on Middle Eastern soil. Bush has crippled their effectiveness on our soil, and that's an effective defense of the American people in my book. Will Al Qaeda attack here before the elections? It could happen, but they better do it more than two months before the election. When this nation, or the president, is attacked, the "rally 'round the president" effect kicks in, and the president's popularity jumps up.[/B][/QUOTE]

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.

Awww, how nice of Clinton to worry about the kids in Waco. He also took his sweet time to helping the kids who were being raped or murdered in Bosnia. Oh yeah, he completely stuck his head in the sand when it came to the worst genocide of his tenure; Rwanda.

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.

Or truly educated people will actually study the region, and understand that it wasn't purely symbolic.