RateItAll: The Opinion Network

Well this is no longer true. The Republicans have their war in Iraq. They were in the majority of both house of Congress and had the President. The Iraq disaster is all theirs.

Good point. If a democrat made the declaration, TIME magazine could instead focus all it's intention on looking the other way and finding other, unrelated left-wing topics to talk about.

Actually the so-called hawk-dove divide is one that has constantly split the Democratic party since the 1960's. Politically speaking, it is best that a Democrat say no to war, unless you want a divided base and party.

Regarding Canadasucks' characterization, I have it on pretty reliable authority that the Whore Lobby supports the war, so he's essentially right. I don't remember anti-war demonstrations by conservatives when President Clinton sent US troops to Kosovo, against the wishes and endorsement of the UN. In a funny coincidence, I don't remember many liberals protesting either. If a republican president "launched" a war baased on the conditions he described, I'd oppose IT, too. Au contraire, Bush predicted that the War on Terror would be conducted in Iraq (as it has been in Afghanistan) and, by golly, we sure seem to be fighting the "insurgents" there, unless I'm mistaken in my interpretation of the news accounts. I don't recall the Iraqi Army utilizing suicide bombers to conduct the war when they were still under Saddam Hussein's authority.

Aggressively stupid. If a democratic president launched a war in Iraq based on (1) lies about weapons, (2) false ties to 9-11, and (3) ignored questions about intelligence failures the republican chicken-hawks would have never, ever supported it. Those party-slaves who blindly support this republican leader with his false war are no better than whores.

Truman nuked two cities of innocent civilians- have you ever heard a peep from the libs on this site about this ethical outrage? Of course not. But a couple terrorists die in detention or are humiliated with some panties and photographs- and there we have a true moral problem. Why? Because Bush is the Commander In Chief. Clinton bombed Kosovo (what was our national interest in Kosovo? were the Serbs a threat to our vital interests? Were they a threat to the United States?) from 20000 feet up causing very high civilian casualty rates- a peep from the Dems? Of course not! But they'll argue that we have no interest in fighting in Iraq- though the terrorist seem to think other wise. Clinton half assed a military action in Somalia (what was the vital interest there again? what was the threat to the United States?) and in the process got 19 soldiers killed and draged through the streets- then bailed out. Hey but the economy grew while Clinton was president right? But how did his foreign policy fare? He did nothing when our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. Did nothing after the Trade Center was bombed the first time. Did he launch a commission? Did he create a new tax force to hunt down terrorists? NAHHHH! Instead he gutted our military, reduced intelligence in the Middle East by half- pulled all our agents out of- OH MY!- Afghanistan (and where did Osama set up camp?). He did nothing when the USS Cole was bombed. Nothing while Saddam violated 16 UN resolutions. Did nothing when he kicked out inspectors. He brokered a sham deal with North Korea which was broken the day the deal was signed (but we sure did give then food and materials to build nuclear reactors). He did nothing about Iran's nuclear ambitions. And you wanna talk about clueless? India set off a nuclear bomb in the desert and we thought it was an earthquake! He let Islamofascism grow in strength and did nothing about it- but Bush lets beat him up for doing something about it! Liberals are simply slaves to their ideological dogma and will abandon truth or any sense objectivity for the advancement of their agenda.

And no to fixing Social Security, and any and all appointments, and a dozen other things.

Another one of my favorites. Ever notice how so many democrats in congress found Saddam Hussein to be a threat only when Bill Clinton was in office? Sadly, war is not the only thing Democrats will say no to unless a democrat is president.