News-Record.com

"Freedom itself was attacked this morning"

I fail to see this as an attack on "freedom". I fail to see the war in Iraq as protecting our "freedom". Please tell me what freedoms were attacked and for what freedoms our soldiers are dying.

All I see is the freedom to wage war at will.

The terrorists don't hate us because of freedom; they hate us for many other reasons. Our unconditional support of Israel, our meddling with politics in the Middle East, and others of which none of us are aware.

And now will we end the war in Iraq only to escalate the war in Afghanistan? Does the USA think it can eliminate all terrorists in the world with the military? I don't think so.

Our wars for freedom have enslaved us monetarily to China. Is this freedom?

"The choice is never between war and peace, but between war and slavery."

Bubba, you need to come up for air. What ever you have been smoking has fried your brain.

"The choice is never between war and peace, but war and slavery. "

This nation has raised an entire generation that has little concept of the precious gift of Liberty. It is quite possible that we will see it vanish in our lifetimes, but hopefully there will be enough people willing to risk their lives to fight for it that those who would do it harm are neutralized for at least a while longer.

Attacking Iraq in response to 911 is like slapping an elementary school bully after a paroled felon raped your wife.

Mr. Torrer:

As Carol wrote, freedom had very little to do with those attacks. In addition to the issues that she listed, Bin Laden & co. were striking against the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries, our enforcement of sanctions against Iraq, and our support of oppressive governments, such as Egypt and Saudia Arabia, that squash freedom.

While we can argue the wisdom of the particulars of some of those policies, none of them justifies the cold, calculated slaughter of more than 3,000 innocent civilians. Those policies do go some way, however, in explaining why mass-murderers like Bin Laden enjoy the support that they do.

Finally, the biggest knowing harborer of terrorists was and remains Pakistan. It is also one of the gravest threats because it not only possesses nuclear weapons but has also cooperated in the proliferation of those weapons.

Great analogy, Zhack. Good comments, Dave.

Again, Hugh, Please tell me what freedoms were attacked and for what freedoms our soldiers are dying.

Carol, The right of freedom from terrorism for every American in any part of the world, examples of which preceeded 9/11 by a significant amount in the prior decades.

As to it's preciousness, I would suggest you participate in a wife exchange program with a woman in a less free country to determine for yourself if it's worth protecting at all costs.

Countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China...those we deem acceptable??? They would be great places to be female. Why aren't we fighting to free these people?

You, if you have a brain at all, know that Iraq was not about freedom, terrorists, or an imminent attack on us. I don't have a clue as to WHY we attacked or occupy Iraq; I just know the myriad of changing reasons given don't make a lick of sense.

Just watched the inauguration. It was impressive to watch the peaceful exchange of power. We can truly be proud of America today. Let's hope we will all work together to get back on track.

"You, if you have a brain at all, know that Iraq was not about freedom, terrorists, or an imminent attack on us. I don't have a clue as to WHY we attacked or occupy Iraq; I just know the myriad of changing reasons given don't make a lick of sense."

That's a little below the belt. I have a brain and I think that the war in Iraq was for one of those reasons. Specifically the imminent threat reason.

Some other people who have brains and thought that was the reason include, but are surely not limited to: Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell.

Did you ever listen to Powell making the case for war? About the necesity for it? I did. Many senators did too. Not just Bush's cronies either. And they voted for war.

Because they believed there was a threat.

It is now pretty clear that there wasn't a threat though. Everyone was wrong. Terribly wrong.

Many people, maybe even you, didn't believe that there was a threat at that time. They were right.

If forced to rely on the assertions of 2 groups, I would have put my bet on the (later proven erroneous) information supplied by those "in the know" over people who dislike war and simply didn't see a threat after watching dozens (or even hundreds) of hours of CNN.

Bush tried to revise history by throwing out the other accomplishments, such as Saddam's torture rooms and the gassings of his own people. That was complete BS.

Revising history to state that an imminent threat was not the reason is likewise a BS attempt.

The UN didn't seem to think there was an imminent threat (or believe Colin Powell). The IEA officers didn't seem to think there was an imminent nuclear, biological, or chemical threat and just needed a few more weeks to prove it conclusively.

People forget that.

The UN didn't believe it, that is probably why they didn't go in with us.

And, looking back, they were obviously correct in their assessment of the situation.

But we, as in those esteemed leaders of ours, DID believe it, hence the authorization for war.

Whether they SHOULD have believed it is a wholely different argument.

The fact is that they DID believe it, and acted upon it.

To suggest otherwise is to misrepresent history.

Blix, likewise, didn't believe they were a threat. He wanted more time to prove it. He didn't get it. Hindsight tells us that this was clearly a fateful decision. But, really, how long had he and his friends been poking around in Iraq prior to the plea for just a few more weeks? Several months? Several years?

It is truly unfortunate that, given what we know today, he wasn't granted an extension. But we didn't know then what we know now. People (as in our leaders, not you and I) probably decided that a few more weeks would be unlikely to substantially change the set of circumstances that had been dragging on for such a long time, re: weapons inspections.

We can argue all day long, very meritoriously, about what should, could and would have been done differently.

What we shouldn't have to argue about, however, are facts. The fact is that the Executive and the Legislative branch lead us into war based upon an erroneous believe in a threat from Iraq.

Actually, let me rephrase that. Many people believe Bush fabricated the evidence, and I have no desire or ability to argue that, so I will say that the Legislative branch, at the behest of the Executive branch, authorized us to go to war based upon an erroneous belief in regards to the immient threat from Iraq.

I'd say the burden of the blame...or whatever you want to call it...lies with the Executive Branch. It may be the go to excuse for Democrats when people say, "but YOU voted for the war," but my memory says that the authorization for war was given to bolster W's threat and to be used only after a good diplomatic and other efforts. These efforts weren't taken and Bush turned right around and gave Sadaam a 24 ticking clock to leave Iraq.

Bush didn't do what he told legislators he would do. He got his permission slip and ran to the zoo.

I don't believe any evidence was fabricated. Maybe it's naive, but I trust the process more than that, even with Bush at the helm.

What I do believe is that other evidence that perhaps would have led us to a different conclusion was left out. I believe that Iraq had been on Bush's agenda long before 9-11 and that, given the opportunity, his administration embarked on a massive PR campaign to sell war to the American people (and that the media was complicit). Neither the EB nor the media ever discussed the negative consequences of the war--cost, time commitment, reliability of evidence.

Remember the video of a younger Dick Cheney proclaiming that invading Iraq would be a quagmire? These are things they knew and didn't or wouldn't discuss. Instead they told us we'd be greeted with flowers.