...starting with this one: 'We're fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here.'
So I take it that terrorists can't multi-task? It took 20 hijackers to bring down the two towers, the pentagon and (almost) the capitol. Do you really think they can't spare a dozen men from Iraq to attack us here or in Britain? All we're doing in Iraq is increasing the risk for us being attacked.
No, the above line sounds more like empty rhetoric than a legit reason. There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went. So our role over there is as terrorist flypaper? Please. It's after-the-fact justification for us being in Iraq, and you should call them all on it. And yesterday's attacks in London show that this strategy is not even working.
I have also heard that we are in Iraq because of Saddam's human rights abuses. Well, there are atleast a half dozen African nations where genocide is occuring right now, death and torture and rape on a much greater scale than ever happenned in Iraq. Don't you think we should have gone there first, given that bleeding heart conservatives care so much about human rights abuses all of a sudden? Wait, I forgot. This is another one of those after-the-fact justifications for the Iraq war.
So maybe prominet Democrats need to start calling Bush on his Bushit. See, its easy! Just point out how much less safe we are now.
And see this thread for some nice evidence on that:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4036053