1 The general sounds like a smart, capable guy- and maybe the surge actually has lowered violence, but that doesn't change the fact that there was no reason for us to be there in the first place and that if we left the Middle East we would all be safer. Our continued presence only aids Al Qaeda's recruiting and puts us at more risk.

2 I think it's time to go -- as does the Democrats, this general, and Bush. But I strongly believe it was right to go in -- otherwise Saddam would have continued his rein of terror.

3 But Saddam Hussein was _already_ CONTAINED by the no-fly-zones: Shias were protected in the South by U.S. fighter jets and Kurds in the North already whupped Saddam;s ass in battle -- Saddam's army was no match for the Kurdish peshmerga (militia). All this was in place BEFORE Bush impatiently and unilaterally invaded Iraq for "WMD" which U.N. Inspectors would have finished their search in two months (approx. May or June of 2003). Bush knew there were no WMD and so he invaded before the U.N. Inspectors could finish their work (and pop the WMD bubble Bush was claimed) Not to mention the Sept 11 "terrorists" (criminals) were SAUDI ARABIANS, not Iraqis. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq :-) Well, we should have worked with international police forces to hunt and track al-Quada criminals, and not declared some vague "war on terror" with an undefined metric for measuring success. A "terrorist" is, by definition, anyone the Bush administration accuses of being a terrorist.

4 Ask yourselves -- do you really trust national security to Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy? As least Mrs. "Silky Pony" has the guts to express her opinion.

5 What about me? The Pentagon isn't going to turnover just because the "other" party is temporarily in power. Career civil servants and military service people are, for the most part, honest and do their best for our country. Re-read FIASCO and, or better yet, THE END OF IRAQ to see how George Bush has single-handedly ruined our national security and respect throughout the world.

6 I see-- you think it's okay for a person to murder and kill innocents at will as long as he "contained?" Sorry, but I think murder of innocents is wrong by a dictator. And that silly claim about there being no WMDs just won't die, will it? First, there were, and they've been found. Second, if there weren't, WHY would anyone attack a country? Seriously, do you believe that Bush, all his military advisers, AND the entire US Congress (who voted for this thing) ALL wanted to send troops to Iraq just for something to do?

7 Like some infamous European politician in the 1930's observed, "Tell a Lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe you." All official U.S. Intelligence Agencies acknowledge that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the horrific crime that occurred on 9/11/2001.

8 Oh, "CONTAINED" means that Saddam Hussein was no threat to the United States and he was severely limited by the Kurdish Army in the North and the U.S. "no-fly zone" in the south from murdering Kurds and Shias after the 1991 Gulf War. This doesn't excuse what he did before the Gulf War, he was as awful as Marcos in the Phillipines and our military dictatorship allies in Kazakstan and Pakistan. His cruelty is not excusable. But it was not a threat to U.S. National Security (please check the 9/11 Commission Report and the Iraq Study Group for details).

9 Gee, you mean like the lie, "No WMDs?" You say Saddam was evil -- but you're implying that since he was not a threat to US National Security that he should have been left alone to do whatever he pleases? Is that correct?