#24 Well said. See my comments re Canada and Mexico.
"Lets get out of there and see what happens."
This is the basic fallacy of the argument for staying now. Those of us who opposed the invasion in the first place are now being tasked with solving the mess created against our will. Mrs. Pacman will back me if asked...when Colin Powell went before the UN and offered the bogus "evidence" I was barking at the TV about what a load of crap it was, and calling him a whore for selling the party line when he knew it was crap. He's a very intelligent man who used to have my respect...he lost that when he took the Dubbya sales pitch to the UN (and no, I don't think he would care about what I think, I'm still just utterly dismayed that he didn't call it what it was and resign, rather than go peddle that garbage).
"Can you really deny that Iraq was not funding the strikes?" I not only deny it, I challenge you, as a proponent, to back the claim. I have yet to see proof. The 9/11 commission reached the same conclusion, as I recall (you can download and read their report, which is available online).
"There are other factors involved other than Bush being a war monger. Reasons even your emince brain can not imagine." Enlighten me, Obi-Wan.
"The Mexican trucks being allowed to cross our borders should stop. But, who will stop it. Do you think Democrats will? No. GOP will not either." Great, so then we both agree both parties are a bunch of ineffectual nitwits.
"If we leave from over there then you can count on being hit here severely, and what would that do to the economy?" Right, we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. And if you're not with us, you're against us. And every rose has its thorn, and every cowboy sings a sad, sad song. And love is like oxygen, you get too much you get too high.
Spouting sound bites from an administration that can't support them with proof does not make one credible. Iraq had no present plans to attack the U.S. that anyone has demonstrated. The WMD's which were supposed to prove that haven't been unearthed, and even Dubbya finally admitted that. All he has done is increase animosity towards the U.S. and increase recruiting for terrorist groups.
I've been saying this since the invasion of Iraq was contemplated...we can't stomp out terrorism completely. However, we could have made huge strides towards reducing it when we had the sympathy of most of the world after 9/11. Dubbya could have taken that support and goodwill, and said, "we know Al-Quaeda and bin Laden were behind this. They've admitted it, and we have a pretty good idea where they are. Please help us stamp out this horrible problem which we all share and let's go get the bastids."
He could have taken that horrible event and turned it in favor of the U.S., banded together with our allies, made more allies, and together we could have gone there and snuffed enough of them to really make a difference. Moreover, I believe the prevailing world sentiment would have then been to keep an eye out for them and for one another and work together in cooperation to stop further attacks. We'll never know now, but we know what Dubbya tried sure as Hell didn't work. Some victims in London and Madrid could vouch for that fact, too.
For a "uniter, not a divider", he has united alright...united most of the world against us. His had been one of the most divisive administrations in this country's history.