CNN

The truth of the Matter is War is not nice and yes People will Die.Who are we to judge whats right or wrong.But i will tell you all this for all the cry babies out there,I am an American Citizen and i will back this Country Right or Wrong.But at least i am Man enough to Choose a Side then sit and cry on the side lines.Its really simple if you do not like the way this Country is you have the right to leave.LOL I doubt many other Nations would be so genorus.

Mr. Lugar, go home, you're old and you're tired.

Read what that says down below and see if you can "get my debate logic" that people who ONLY say Bush lied are idiots when other people in the know made the same rightful case.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Inspectors being barred", this coming from Clinton's Secretary of Defense in 2003. We might want to check Syria.

By the way Rick, I have no problem with these people making these statements, they were being honest.

Yeah, I know, Bush lied.

Tom in Dedham, Mass .. please take a course in debate logic. You can name and quote all the people you want who were WRONG about Saddam having WMD's – it doesn’t support your case that he had them or that Bush didn't lie too! EVERYBODY who said Saddam had those weapons is a liar until they are FOUND. It can't possibly get any simpler than that.

You, like Bush, chose to believe what people SAID about Saddam's WMDs. I, on the other hand, (as well s anyone with a brain in their head) chose to believe the results of INSPECTIONS done by people who did the searches – people who would therefore be the very ones to KNOW whether or not Saddam had them.

By the way, Clinton and his administration had hearsay as intel, while Dubya had the most recent results ... of real-time searches ... telling him Saddam was clean. BIG difference there!

Something tells me that, after reading this, you'll NEVER use the irrelevant "Well THEY said he had them too!" argument again.

J Tierney ... "the president believed the worst case intelligence estimates from multiple services and countries"? Umm .. guess who OWNS THAT INTEL as head of the executive branch and sees a far greater amount of it than anybody else (including members of congress)? The intelligence services didn’t oversell the extent of their development – Bush did, and knowingly so! There were plenty of holes in the intel that he spoon-fed congress and the people to get their support. And he knew it!

He paid millions of taxpayer dollars to Ahmad Chalabi and believed "curveball" even though he knew curveball was summarily dismissed as a liar by every intelligence agency on the planet. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997. And Dubya even had weapons inspectors telling him the sites he kept insisting held WMDs were CLEAN.

Think about it, Bush ignored the inspectors who told him they doubted Saddam had those weapons (based on actual SEARCHES) … and therefore chose to ignore the very people who would be the ones to KNOW whether or not Saddam had them. That’s like Bush demanding a lung be removed even though a licensed physician tells him there's no cancer! As has been the case for 7 years now, on a variety of subjects, Bush ignored the people he should have listened to and listened to the people he should have ignored.

See, here’s what Bush did ... and he was smart in a way. Bush knew that no weapons were being found ... and he knew that the longer inspectors searched and didn’t find them, the worse the US would look – especially if the US attacked, which was a foregone conclusion anyway. So rather than logically find the WMDs (that they weren’t finding) proof before he invaded, Bush decided to pull a switch and make a corollary that would put the burden of proof on Saddam rather than the US. Pretty much … “Well, we can’t prove he has them, so we’ll just make HIM prove that he doesn’t. We still can’t prove he’s guilty, so we’ll just make him prove he’s innocent.”

While I don’t deny the WMDs existed at one time, as far as CURRENT POSSESSION goes, I'm going to believe the INSPECTORS WHO CONDUCTED THE SEARCHES rather than hearsay from past administrations, blatantly forged documents, whackjobs like Chalabi, and known liars like curveball. Having something 10 years ago … or possibly having something 10 years from now … does NOT = CURRENT POSSESSION of those weapons. And that’s what the war was based on. THAT’S what Bush took to congress to get funding for the war and other nations to join in his attack.

By the way, the burden of proof is on the accuser. You’re innocent until proven guilty .. not visa versa. It was up to Dubya to prove he had WMDs, not Saddam to prove he didn’t. That’s like someone telling you if you don’t show them proof that you destroyed all the heroin you don’t have, they’re going to have you arrested for having it. Yes, your president IS a liar and your Bush-defending logic is a joke!

JAF in Los Angeles and BT in NYC... if you want to talk about moral responsibility, let's talk about the IRAQI'S moral responsibility and THEM fighting for their OWN freedom. THEY are the very ones choosing the instability you talk about. They've had 4 years to step up while we babysat them – and spent hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars and thousands of our own troops lives in the process. Their grace period is over! We owe them nothing more.

Steve H in Odenton, MD ... "We had plenty of choice regarding Germany in WWII." So you think Germany, who 1) attacked Russia (its own ally) during WW2 and 2) torpedoed several of our ships before the war – including the Reuben James which killed 26, would have just stayed out of it while we went to war solely with Japan? Thanks for that "idiotic argument" and for "knowing nothing of history" yourself! Then again, you think that spending 500 BILLION dollars to NOT defeat a third-world country with 1/1000th the military we have – after FOUR YEARS of trying with several troop level increases means the war is "actually going quite well" too!

When we, without provocation attacked a sovereign nation we made a commitment to install a pro western government. Intelligence told us that it would not work, yet we installed a puppet government that is full of corruption and is unable to get anything done (like ours). The military and police forces of Iraq are a joke.

We can not control the situation with the number of boots on the ground now, what makes anyone think a year from now it will get better. We do not know who our enemy is. They hate each other but they hate us more. Let’s pull out of the volatile regions and let the Iraqis fight it out amongst themselves.
What is left can either deal with us or be eradicated!

"WE THE PEOPLE"

The investigative reports that I've read indicate that Cheney/Bush's sole reason for invading Iraq was to make the country safe for U.S. based oil companies. If we pull out now we'll have to leave the oil behind. How will we fuel our gas hungry SUV's if that happens? Rather than driving our heavy duty 4×4's to the sports bar, we may have to walk.

Steve, your arguement doesn't hold water. As to WWII history, surely you must know that Germany, Italy, and Japan were all allies, before the Dec. 7th, 1941 attack. There was no way to avoid war with Germany or Italy because of this fact, not to mention that Germany actually declared war on the US, after the Japanese 12-7-41 attack, and doing this before we declared war on Germany. Enough on the WWII history.

As to Iraq, there is absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever, that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the Al Qaida sponsored attacks on the US, on 9-11-01. Therefore, how can anyone make a credible arguement that Bush was absolutely right in attacking Iraq, while pulling a considerable number of US troops out of Afghanistan and putting them in Iraq, when US forces were still in conflict with the very enemies who attacked us on 9-11, that being Al Qaida, sponsored by the Taliban? Does anyone remember Osama bin laden for that matter? The real enemy has always been in Afghanistan, and now Pakistan unfortunately. We lost a golden oppertunity to destroy Al Qaida once and for all, but that would have meant total effort and focus on that country, not Iraq. Surely you remember Afghanistan, sometimes now called the "forgotton war." It's high time to re-deploy!

This is to Paul Johnson, who claims he is a Professor of Political Studies at UCLA. First, don't you know how to use your keyboard and turn off all CAPs? Second, the president did not "lie" about WMD, he believed the worst case intelligence estimates from multiple services and countries. The fact, in 20/20 hindsight, that the intelligence services oversold the extent of their development does not make him a liar. Saddam used NBC weapons against his own people (gassing the Kurds) and if they destroyed their stockpiles he never bothered to explain/document where or when they did it. The fact that a college professor from a respected college can't figure this out scares the hell out of me. I think that you are the liar.

No Jake...English is Germanic and Latin is the basis for "romance" languages, like French and Italian...idiot.

So Dick wants to let George send Americans to their deaths for another year, then go from there.
Is that what they meant by compasionate conservative?
For everybody who can't see any difference between Iraq and WWII, I am surprised you can tie your own shoes.

I was anti-war from 2002 when we suspected Bush was about to attack Iraq. The reason is what would we do if we replace Sadaam? You can check what the French said back then: If the US goes in we would be stuck between sectarian groups for several years.
We act like this situation was not in the cards – it always was from the day we attacked. We just never listened to the experts because we had terrorism shoved down our throat as a proxy.

Starting the war was the biggest mistake. We took away an aging, at times ruthless, leader and replaced him with our army. It is now our obligation that we protect Iraq. We should accept that as a society we supported starting this war, it was our choice, and we took away the power that kept that society together without understanding it – even though our state deparment warned the pentagon. The casuality rate of 1000 Americans a year is acceptable to keep the peace for ten years until the country solidifies. If we leave now it will NOT be Vietnam. There is no organised other side ready to take over. It will be 100,000s of thousands killed and 1,000,000s of refugees de-stabilising the region.

And this time we cant say it isnt our problem. We've created it and we should sit it out. Otherwise we would have indirectly killed more Iraqis than Sadaam ever did.

Coming from a liberal, anti war peacenik..we already made a choice – now stick to it for the sake of saving lives.

Now, getting back to the subject issue posted, Im very glad to see Senator Lugar, along with a growing number of Republicans 'slowly but surely' becoming dissatisfied with the 'bush doctrine' for Iraq. I believe this will now set a trend for a Congressional showdown between bush and the Congress, for an eventual US Force withdrawal from Iraq. And again, 'slowly but surely' more Republicans will be voting with Democrats to accomplish this long overdue goal. With Senators like Lugar, and especially John Warner of Virginia, it sounds optimistic!

We had plenty of choice regarding Germany in WWII. Germany did not bomb Pearl Harbor, Japan did.

Idiotic arguments that Iraq wasn't directly responsible for 9/11 show their proponents know nothing of history. How is it that Bush was the only one who knew better?!? Wake up liberals, including you Republican libs, and realize a fourth World War is under way. And except for the mainstream media headlines, it is actually going quite well.

The comparison of US forces fighting in Iraq, compared to the US forces who fought in both Europe and the Pacific in WWII is absolute insanity! As was said the Japanese didn't give us a choice when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Bush "chose" to attack Iraq, based on lies, and Saddam made death threats against the father, so, despite 9/11, Bush always had his 'personal' sights set on Saddam.

What is very scary are the number of Americans, around 30%, who still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The truth be known is that Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other profusely, and had no alliance with each other. The last thing Saddam wanted was an "Islamic Theocracy" imposed on Iraq. Saddam's Iraq was a military dictatorship, and NOT a satellite state for Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Ironically, now Iraq has become an Al Qaeda 'safe haven.' Sheesh, wonder why??!!

English at its most basic form is latin you idiot.

Ha. Some of these comments are humorous. I enjoyed the attempt to fight back the "we'd all be speaking German comment" by saying that English is Germanic. Good point, but that doesn't address the comment. Also...we didn't lose the vietnam war, we were not on either side, so that is a terrible example. And the Germans did not adopt english because we are a peaceful society! We didn't force ourselves on their culture, unlike Hitler's plan if he had actually be victorious. He plan was for us all to speak German and have Berlin as the mega-capitol of the world! Oh, and for someone to sit at their computer and say "Nothing has happened but more dead bodies!" is one of the most ignorant comments i've ever come across. You have NO idea what is happening in Iraq. Do I think everything is working out in the best possible situation? No. Have nothing happened but people die?? Absolutely not. Come on people.

PRESIDENT BUSH JR. SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED 2 YEARS AGO OVER THE IRAQI 'W.M.D.' LIES. WHY HAS THIS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE DEMOCRATS WHEN REPUBLICANS PUT BILL CLINTON THOUGH THIS HELL FOR ONLY HAVING SEX WITH AN AIDE?? ARE THESE 2 PARTIES IN CAHOOTS? OMETHING'S VERY WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY TODAY!

another thousand could die by that time, where are your brains. bring them home now.

Carl Gillig ... lessons of Vietnam? WHAT lessons? That a conventional military is useless in a guerrilla-type war? And why is it that many of the things you guys swore would happen if we didn't win in Vietnam NEVER happened? Oh wait ... you didn't see that story because it wasn't on FOX news right?

Nobody likes a 500 BILLION dollar war they're NOT winning. And Dubya can't defeat a third-world country with 1/1000th the military might we have – after FOUR YEARS of trying! Why did he start a war on terror that he said himself he didn't think was winnable, and then lie and say we WERE ("absolutely") winning before his Sec of Defense busted him on it by saying we WEREN'T after the Nov 7th congressional elections? Why did he pay Baker God-knows how much money for a bipartisan report from the Iraq Study Group only to ignore its recommendations?

And speaking of Vietnam, here's another lesson on how to LOSE a war – elect and re-elect a guy to run a war who 1) never saw combat in one because 2) his daddy got him a gig in a champaign unit of the National Guard 3) flying for Viet Kong over TEXAS 4) in a plane not suitable for combat in Vietnam before he 5) flunked a physical for reasons he won't disclose and 6) refused to re-take the physical so he could continue doing the job the military paid him GOOD money to do.

Maybe you're all our troops need to make all those bad guys go away? The recruitment offices are probably open as you read this .. don't delay! After all, it's your patriotic duty to fight the war you support and voted for!

Too late sir, you have let us down too long for us to re-elect you. Take it from one of your constituents: You voted for a lie of a war, you helped get Bolton into the UN seat, and you repeatedly campaign on energy independence but side with the great Oilmen when it comes to energy policy. How does it feel to be the old man no one listens to anymore? Indiana needs a change. Take it from a real patriot, Ron Paul, and vote what you believe, not what you're strong-armed into. And being on the CFR hurts you too, you think your efforts for a North American Union aren't going to haunt you? Think again

The Bush administration will withdraw just like the Democrats (and the majority of the nation) wanted, but will say that his goals were accomplished and we didn't "cut and run." What a load!!

A lot has happened. The Oil companies who sell gas and oil for your car are making record amounts of money. The contractors who manufacture the weapons and ammunition are making record amounts of money. And Congress, the House of Representatives, and the President are making record amounts of money. Not much is happening for the many, but the few are making serious Bank.

To withdraw US troops without consideration to the implications on the Iraqi people and the regional effects is frankly immoral.

It is what has always bothered me most about the anti-war crowd during Vietnam. They are somehow viewed as having a superior moral positions when in fact it was selfish and led to the deaths of literally millions unnecesarily. The same will happen in Iraq if we simply succumb to the anti-war feeling being expressed by many Americans that seems only concerned with the deaths of Americans and an irrational hatred of Bush.

If you support any position where the needs of the Iraqi people are not considered primarily then you essentially are choosing the morally wrong path.

The blood of 10's of thousands of Iraqi children would be on your hands.

Do NOT withdraw American forces from Iraq in any way that does not enhance stability.

It is the RIGHT thing to do for us and the Iraqis.

Looking for safe and proven ways to progress in Iraq would impossiable. In order to create new forground you have to test a theory and learn from your mistakes. If the only perceptions of progress are baced on personal expectations, then you're bound to be disapointed.

I toyed with the idea that "battered wife syndrom" (too beat down and complacent with terror threats) was the cause for them failing to take over government. Yet the big motivator with them would be experiance from succeeding from their own trial and error processes.

The other big aspect is propaganda from two sides biting off more then they can chew and filling in the gaps personal perspective. If Jihad was really going to work, then God would perpetuate their actions. But they have hit a brick wall in communicating their opinion. Because if it was factual to all variables then it would be proven. So like all people that hit a brick wall and they don't know why they will hit the brick wall harder and harder as the frustraition builds.

How do you help them understand that change starts in the heart and in the law second.

As a religious humanitarian, I believe the cure for the problem will be in their own fruits of their labor. Let the good shine through the ugly. After all it's how you focus on the problem that dictates the answers you arrive at.

In religion it's becomming spiritually content so worldly things don't become perverted by biasness and missing the right prioreties. Maybe I could generalize that people who use sex as a bigger priorety then love, their life becomes unbalanced and they evolve toward how they "eat".

Hopefully that really happens! 4 yrs and counting and what? Nothing has happened but more dead bodies!

There is no comparison between WWII and Iraq simply because we had no choice but to fight in WWII and Iraq was a war of choice.
In fact, by continuing to pour our resources into fighting in Iraq we are running the risk of destroying our nation morally and economically.
BTW, we were almost speaking German way back right after our nation gained its independence. It came to a vote, and German missed becoming our official language by a few votes. Also, technically we do speak a form of German, because English at its most basic level is a Germanic language. Further, defeat in a war doesn't mean we are forced to adopt the language of the victor. Last I checked very few in this country speak Vietnamese, and the Germans did not adopt English after we beat them in WWII.

I hate to think that we as a nation have become a gutless jellyfish wonder of human excrament. I know from the lessons of Viet Nam and for many vets that served and the ones we left behind that this is all related to politicians that have no backbone. I often wonder what would become of us if these cowards had been in office during WW2. I guess everyone would've been speaking German right now!

Finally, some leadership. Smell the coffee, fellas?

You better reinvent the Republican party in a hurry or else it's curtains...

Ron Paul can help you with that!