FNS panel: Does Obama saying "central mission" is to fix economy mean his "heart" isn't in "winning the war on terror"?

The reason we went to war with Iraq had nothing to do with the "Bush family honor". Remember everyone was sure they had WMD (including all Democrats of any stature)

Yes, they bought the lies of the PNAC crowd who had the Iraq invasion planned at least since 1998.

Stop drinking the kool-aid and learn something before you come off looking like a fool.

Oops, too late!

. . . I think the police call it "sweetening the evidence" every contrived piece of information was foisted on that congress to sell the war at all costs.

An announcer here said "there had better be some WMDs there, if they don't find 'em, someone better plant them."

They voted with their johnsons rather than the evidence.

Along the way, 25 million people were freed from dictatorship.

Along the way, at least 100,000 Iraqis were freed from their lives. F

urthermore, just because people believed Iraq had WMDs, didn't mean they wanted to invade Iraq, as Bush was determined to do, regardless of the evidence.

Stupid LIE, doofus.

When we actually invaded, we knew that the intelligence that had been telling us that Saddam likely still had WMD's was wrong... and so no, we could not possibly have invaded Iraq because of WMD's, since they weren't there and Bush knew that.

The reason we invaded Iraq? To make Bush look like a successful warrior who could protect us from the things that the right fearmongered about! To justify the righteousness of their fearmongering, to cement the idea in the heads of some righties that the Republicans were THE party that would protect our National Security.

onementalmidget, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to state facts, not opinions. For instance, "everyone was sure they had WMD" is an opinion. I, for one, did not believe they had WMD, because I had seen the weapons dismantling program on Nova. Richard Clark is on record as stating the White House inner circle was planning a war with Iraq regardless of the intelligence they had. The Bush Administration lied to us, they lied to the world. They also diverted focus and resources off the real threat, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. By looking away from the real threat, the Bush Administration allowed Iraq to fall into the morass of civil war which actually caused the spread of Islamic radicalism to places like Iraq and Pakistan. Also, Bush's attitudes towards Musharef in Pakistan lead to instability in that country. Then there's the sticky thing of all those dead civilians and the ruined infrastructure that makes for great recruiting tools for Islamic extremists. And one could argue, that all this instability is a worse threat to those 25 million people than Sadam Hussein ever was, but that would just be my opinion shared with a few thousand others, so it really doesn't count, does it?

You remember Paul O'Neill, omg? Bush's Treasury Secretary? A guy who got to sit in on all the cabinet meetings?

Well then, you might remember him being interviewed on 60 Minutes and revealing how Bush was looking for a reason to invade Iraq ten days after his inauguration.

That's the kind of thing that makes any "justification" for the invasion subject to serious doubt.

"25 million people were freed from dictatorship."

And what do they live in now? A country whose infrastructure was completely destroyed by allied forces, and much of that infrastructure still lies in ruin despite the billions of US dollars that have been disappeared under the guise of rebuilding. Not to mention they still don't have a fully functioning government.

Iraq was in the hands of a dictator, no question about that.

You claim that 25,000,000 people were freed. Are we counting the millions of iraqi expatriates who were educated and had the means to move somewhere else?

How many of the people who remain in Iraq today are better off than before the invasion? They were ruled over by a tyrant, for sure, but they had a functioning government, a working infrastructure and a standard of education higher than many countries in the Middle East.

Compare the Iraqis to the Afghans. Are they better off since we re-deployed our military assets away from the fight in their country and to Iraq?

If you want to be taken seriously, admit that we didn't have the ability to wage two wars and cut taxes too. And we should have listened to our military, not to Wolfowitz, Cheney & Rumsfeld.

War & tax cuts are all your side understands, as long as you're getting the tax cuts and someone else is sent to war.

Washington Post source By Leftists Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes. Pardon me if I think they'd spin worst case scenario against Bush.

Yup, you nailed it. Like I said above, echoing what you said here - fearmongering and making the right look the only side interested in protecting our national security!

I would take issue with "the Pentagon fuels our economy."

Over 40 years ago two smart guys named Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore realized that chasing military contracts was a money-losing proposition. They had this young company called Intel. Nearly every company around them, including their former employer Fairchild, were getting paid piles of money to build electronics for missiles, ships and jets. But nearly all those electronics were literally one-offs. Once you built one, you weren't going to make another design for a long time. It resulted in boom-and-bust, but not continuous growth.

Bob & Gordon realized that this new logic chip called the 4004 by Ted Hoff, Federico Faggin and Stanley Mazor might change all that and they could get into consumer markets representing millions of identical chips and the ability to evolve the technology.

Silicon Valley literally weaned itself off military gadgets - and I was there to watch. I remember a day I was at a production line looking at a 25 year old computer the size of an international suitcase, about 50 pounds, thinking it was museum piece. It was still being built for a military contract at $250K a copy. My $25 wristwatch had more memory, speed, reliability, at about 1 ounce. The taxpayers were buying 1,000 of those a year for cruise missiles paying 1,000 times the value.

No, the Pentagon is not fueling our economy, it's just spending our money.

Andy, don't think Fox would like a question like that one. It would interfere with their war against reality.