from what Ive gathered this "debate" has boiled down to exactly what you would have expected. The Republicans say that anyone who isnt supporting this indeffinate mission isnt supporting the troops and are therefore supporting the terrorists. ie the same tired line they have been using since Al Qeada, NOT Iraq, attacked us. So the Repubs attack and the majority of Dems cower in the corner quivering begging not to be hurt, crying Uncle as soon as anyone comes close. Then of course there was Murtha who I mentioned in an earlier post as being the one person with balls. And the final paragraph from this Common Dreams article says it all, at least for me.
The resolution relies on the Bush administration tactic of falsely equating
the quagmire in Iraq with the greater "war on terrorism," emphasizing that
terrorists "have called Iraq the central front in their war." It fails to say
that the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq are the primary reasons
the country has become a breeding ground for terrorism
This is what our ignorant Fox watching public never can grasp. Bin Laden hated Saddam. He hated the fact that women had rights in Iraq the held jobs even in the government. Bin Laden wants a fundamentalist islamic nation that encompasses a stripe across the globe from morocco and all of sahara africa, the middle east, and across much of south east asia. Saddam wanted nothing of the sort. He had at one point absolute control over a nation with massive oil reserves. He had become friends with one of the worlds superpowers (thats us, albiet back when there were two) So to make himself look better in the worlds view he gave women rights. He was very strick on seperation of chur.. er Mosque and State. He knew that he was a nation of many different religions (or at least very oppositional sects of the same religion) and so it was logical that he would keep religion seperate so the competing religions could not fight for political power. This is very similar to the rules we have that no one pays much attention to anymore. The point of this is that Saddam was able to keep Iraq free of terrorists, with the exception of a small area I believe in the north east of the country. He was brutal but brutality against terrorists is hardly some thing we can be mad at him about. Under Saddam Iraq was basicly off limits to the terrorits, now under american rule it is probably the number one site for terrorist actvity.
I cannot believe that the republican guard is still getting away with simply questioning peoples loyalty and that is what passes for political debate. I know this is nothing new but it was to be expected five years ago imediatly after the worse terrorist attack ever. But five years later when we have launched two wars one against an innocent country based on evidence proven to be false, and without capturing the one target that was responsible for that attack. I say anytime time someone says im not supporting the troops (including friends of mine) then we simply ask wheres Bin Laden? If this war is about terrorism why havent we captured Bin Laden? they claim well he's one man with connections he is excellent at hiding. I believe Saddam had lots of help and a great deal of money to but we found him. you think he didnt have people trying to protect him? so that argument is bullshit. If we honestly wanted to capture Osama then we would have. But as Bush said hes only one man, I dont think about him that much.... maybe you should have. had he actually acomplished a single goal from this war on terrorism mess then maybe he could have an approval above 30%.