Leonardo wrote:
How can you say that you are less safe? Have you been attacked lately? Has our Country been attacked since 9/11?

On 9/10/2001 you could have asked "Has our country been attacked since 1993?"

What is the difference between 2008 and 9/10/2001? Well, first of all we DID attack Al Qaeda--in Afghanistan. But we didn't finish the job. We got distracted--by Iraq.

Remember Osama Bin Laden? Maybe not, because it has been an awful long time since President Bush has uttered that name. Osama is alive and well and still making videos.

Osama Bin Laden stated his goal in a video he made before 9/11: That the attack was not meant to break the U.S., but meant to draw the U.S. into a conflict that would bleed us dry. He accomplished that goal of miring us in a quicksand war, but he is laughing because we aren't going after him! We're fighting in... IRAQ. And we are spending $5,000 every second of every day to do it.

You don't think that in this country of 300 million people with tens of thousands of foreign visitors flying in daily, that there isn't somebody right now, waiting for the word to go buy some drums of diesel fuel and bags of fertilizer?

Some of you think freedom is free. Well it isn't. There are bad people out there who would like to kill every last one of us.

But can they? I highly doubt it. You will NEVER live a risk-free life. The question is: How much are you willing to pay? We are paying a lot in liberty, and a lot of dough, to just get a tiny bit closer to a goal that we will never reach. And that isn't a price I am willing to pay.

Those 4000 brave young men and women haven't given their lives in vain. They have helped to preserve our safety. We owe them a debt of gratitude and we should never minimlemize their contribution and their ultimate sacrifice.

Who has done that?

By the way, in the minute it took for you to read this post, President Bush just spent $300,000 on his war in Iraq.

The reason it was done from the inside is because they are so close to the terrorists and so many of them move into those countries. That is one of the reasons they were not being safe.

Leonardo wrote:
The reason it was done from the inside is because they are so close to the terrorists and so many of them move into those countries. That is one of the reasons they were not being safe.

Man, oh man. Your lack of the command of the facts is so typical for a Republican.

Of the four bombers in the London attack, three were born in Leeds and one was born in Jamaica. Again, how does that square with your assertion that "they are so close to the terrorists." And those born in Leeds had Pakistani parents, which if you recall from listening to the Great Leader Bush, Pakistan is a fantastic partner in our "war against terror."

Again, you simply do not know what you are talking about. Iraqis are NOT traveling to London, Madrid or Omaha to do us harm. It is people in our own backyards, or in the case of 9/11 the Saudis. Wake up. Learn the facts before you waste your time here.

The escalating warfare in Basra underscores that the conflict is a civil war between political and ethnic factions in Iraq, not attacks by "Al Qaeda." Republicans keep their head buried in the sand, wanting to forget that 140,000 soldiers who have been trained to kill with deadly efficiency are instead being asked by the President to do the impossible: Police a civil war. Every Iraqi that a U.S. bullet or bomb kills just creates more enemies.

Another measurement of losses in Iraq:

In 2007 alone, the U.S. military in Iraq burned more than 1.1 billion gallons of fuel. (American Armed Forces generally use a blend of jet fuel known as JP-8 to propel both aircraft and automobiles.) About 5,500 tanker trucks are involved in the Iraqi fuel-hauling effort. That fleet of trucks is enormously costly. In November 2006, a study produced by the U.S. Military Academy estimated that delivering one gallon of fuel to U.S. soldiers in Iraq cost American taxpayers $42—and that didn’t include the cost of the fuel itself. At that rate, each U.S. soldier in Iraq is costing $840 per day in fuel delivery costs, and the U.S. is spending $923 million per week on fuel-related logistics in order to keep 157,000 G.I.s in Iraq. Given that the Iraq War is now costing about $2.5 billion per week, petroleum costs alone currently account for about one-third of all U.S. military expenditure in Iraq.



From The American Conservative magazine.

Roger,
It is sad to say that at least here in Happy Valley facts are not looked at in making decisions.

It is what the "Decider" says that keep the flock in line.

Heaven forbid free thinking or factual information entering in the equation. If the flock really wants to support the troops they would be supporting a draft. The "volunteers" have more than carried the weight now it is time for the war supporters to stand up and help this country out!

Getting out there and spending $$$ or putting those "I support the troops" magnets on the car just hasn't made the case for the war yet. The "terrorists" have won!