* talked in tonight's speech about preventing Iraq from turning into another Afghanistan under the Taliban and becoming a safe haven for terrorists. There was no such danger of that before we invaded the country. Is this his admission that we are less secure now because of his war? Was this slip the result of trying to tie everything about Iraq to 9/11?

Here's the text:

The progress in the past year has been significant and we have a clear path forward. To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban — a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.

...$400 billion, but the Taliban can't grow poppies in Iraq!

He has admitted that we're in danger from the possibility of Iraq becoming an al-Qaeda base, just like Afghanistan was when they launched that attack on New York and DC, only imagine an oil-rich Afghanistan under the Taliban.

n/t

I think that we resemble each other, LOL! And I'm not just speaking of the avatar (though I just changed mine; I've been Jimmy Carter for ever so long), but I sure agree with your statement. The Dems should take this and run with it, but they won't. *sigh* Anyway, we're so glad to have you with us.:hi:

in Iraq and bring Iraqis their freedom and liberty and what was the other thing... Oh, yeah, democracy.

I hate it when they say that we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we won't have to fight them here. It's such an insidious argument because people don't take the time to think how morally repugnant -- and cowardly -- that really is.

brought them there. Saddam, for all his abuses, sure wouldn't have allowed them. So Bush* is justified in saying that Iraq is part of the war on terror, but he brought them there! The fact that the administration is outraged that the opposition dares to bring this up is just part of their delusion. I've sure known this for a long time, so members of Congress must have and should have brought this up long ago!!!:grr:

that you can't confuse terrorists with people defending their homes and tribes.

He kept talking about training the Iraqi's to "fight the enemy". Their enemy, or ours?

If Iraq could defend itself, of course, we would never have thought about invading them. That's incentive enough to build up your defenses.

But I'll bet you that they'll blow this opportunity, as they have so many. Iraq has become a recruiting ground for al-Qaeda. It's just a fact. Foreign terrorists are pouring over the border, and finding Iraqis, who are seething with hate towards the American occupiers, willing to sign up. Just this morning I saw an interview with an Iraqi who said exactly this. He told of an ordinary Iraqi businessman who is so dedicated to expelling the Americans that he sold his business and is using the profits to finance a terrorist training camp. Of course, this wouldn't have happened under Saddam. He ruled that country with an iron fist and wouldn't have put up with any terrorists in his country, al-Qaeda, or otherwise. But the media sure isn't reporting on this, and the Dems are missing an important opportunity to bring this to the attention of the American public!:grr:

At the next press briefing, someone should ask McClellan "Now that the President has admitted that Iraq is closer than before the invasion to becoming an al-Qaeda base, is the President concerned that this could ultimately lead to an even more widespread attack than 9/11 in the future?" That would be a "yes" or "no" question, Scott.

But do you really think that anyone in our "liberal media" would dare to imply that Bush* had actually made a mistake in invading Iraq?! Of course not. Nobody does, except for the comedians, who no one takes seriously, though they are the only ones telling the truth, these days. And even if one of the legitimate press did ask such a question, what would be McClellan's answer? Some mealy-mouthed excuse or he would just refuse to answer. The key is for our Congress to seriously start asking such questions. Some have, like Dennis Kucinich and Ted Kennedy, and certainly Howard Dean has been great on the subject, but they are criticized by their colleagues for speaking out! There's little hope until they agree to stand together on this. What they are afraid of is beyond me, since we are in a real mess, here, and our very future is in serious danger.
:scared::grr:

Must Credit Smudge

Candy Assed President Cries During Death Pep Rally

Rove,"The Meds had worn off...pay no attention...uh..HooHa!!"

Joint Chiefs meet in Emergency Session to plot overthrow of cry baby Commander in Chief"

"Was it a haven before? Is it a haven?" He, I was glad to hear, stepped up to the plate and said that we had to bring in international forces, especially to train Iraqi troops, out of the country. I'm glad that someone else is finally acknowledging that the Americans, alone, can't accomplish this. IMHO, the Americans should get out, bring international peacekeepers in. I stand with Dennis Kucinich. We can no longer accomplish anything in Iraq, since we have become the real enemy to peace.:-(

that Abu Abass rolled off the deck of a cruise ship.
He was once a long time guest of Saddam

Nobody here would support cold-blooded murder. The point being made was that Bush* brought terrorism to this part of the world, where it never existed before, and admitted it in front of the world. Saddam had his own brand of evil, but he wouldn't have tolerated terrorists, and was no danger to us. But now we're in serious danger from the terrorist cells that have sprung up since this ill-advised invasion. There's no other way to look at it, and Bush* seems to agree. Leon Klinghoffer, if you've also forgotten his name, has nothing to do with any of this.