As to the people who were detained without due process, those were American citizens of Japanese ancentry. Most of them supported the U.S. without question. We don't have a similar fight with terrorists. It is a different war because it is between countries and an international non-state terrorist group intent on spreading hate and violence across the planet until all are like them.

As for Saddam, yes he was a sick man. He needed to be tried for the crimes he committed and ordered. It was a good thing that he was removed from power. The problem with toppling when we did and how we did it are many fold. First, he was somewhat contained in Iraq. Second and more importantly, we were still working on Afganistan where the real problem was going on and not fully resolved. Third, there was a limited amount of support from the rest of the world. I think Alan Greenspan was correct in his statement stating that war was mostly about oil. The oil which we use so much of is often a point that we need to take into account when foreign policy is made.

It is too bad that we don't have the political, economic, and scientific will to advance our technology to the point where we don't need oil. If we could do that and hold onto to the rights to the technology, we could become a wealthy country.

Since when is it a novelty that Americans would show a "complete lack of respect...to our elected leaders and honerable military generals?" What country and whose country is this anyway? Perhaps you should heed the words of Theodore Roosevelt: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

You need to read more history because you obviously don't know what this country is about nor why it was founded.

Get some Preparation H and vanquish him post haste!

Didn't George Washington say something about avoiding foreign entanglements?

I don't know when you last took an American history course, but your statement is unfortunately quite false. Our history is one of Empire. In the 20th century alone, we toppled many legitimate governments in Latin America and supported puppet governments that implemented our interests. During the Cold War, we helped destroy many governments in favor of dictators who pledged to resist communism. We even supported Saddam Hussein at one point because he was fighting against Iran. And what about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? They are our allies, aided by our weapons and tax dollars, and yet the former is a dictatorship and the latter is nothing like a democracy.

While we should all love our country and seek unity, let us not have any illusions about our own history.

"LAST THROES," anyone?

Spreading democracy and toppling evil dictators is what has made this country great since our founding. Our 4 fathers are truly rolling over in their graves at this lack of unity and anti-United States liberal attitude. Someone should remind these idiots that it is the United States and what we stand for that his given them their freedoms to share their hateful comments of their own country. Sad indeed!

It's the former. Surprisingly, many conservatives and other people with memories and working frontal lobes feel the same anger as those liberals about the mess this, "bumbling, liar", and his henchman, Dick, "the Penguin", have wrought.

Bush (& Cheney for that matter) have no credibility with the American public (for good reason) so they put Gen. Petraeus before Congress because the US military doesn't have the same integrity issues that the White House has (We know why and they know why that is the case).

But it puts our military leaders in a position where they have to justify a war that they did not create and show indirect support of Bush's failed/failing policies. Why is a military commander and not the Commander in Chief asked to justify/support failed policies for this war?

It's unfortunate that Petraeus is inconsistent (at best) with his facts and I personally would like to see him either retract his statements or justify/clarify them given the facts contrary to them (see Moveon.org among other sources).

Cheney is not fooling anyone. He wants the Dems to be associated with Moveon.org and his tactic of giving a speech to a group of 'supporters' (lackeys) to address important issues shows his cowardice (the same cowardice he demonstrated during the Vietnam conflict). He would never engage in honest debate with these issues because he knows it's not a winnable argument and not a winnable war given the same failing policies and the same failed arguments for it (if I hear one more time about how much "progress" is being made in Iraq despite the obvious facts, I'm going to scream–Just because you repeat it doesn't make it true).

This is all a distraction anyway. The real issues concerning the war are deflected once again with a focus on an administration that misleads and deflects from the truth.

Swift Boat ads – these were soldiers that had served in Vietnam aside Kerry. These soldiers were disputing Kerry's account of actual events.

Moveon.Org ad – liberal rich kids sitting behind their desks attacking a decorated General who is on the ground in Iraq – leading our soldiers.

VERY DIFFERENT.

But no doubt most of you won't understand and will go back to your "swiftboat" mantra. And assuming your version (swift boat ad = wrong) some how liberal "swiftboating" is ok when a 4-Star general is attacked but cry and cry when it was done to Kerry?

Thanks for the laugh this afternoon, but how could you compare Punxsutawney Phil with Cheney? What did that fat, little critter ever do to deserve such a critique.

Has everyone forgotten that Saddam was given ample opportunity to PROVE to the international community that he no longer posessed WMD? He CHOSE not comply with a UN resolution! The US was and Britain were pretty much the only ones to realize that letting him get away with non-compliance made the UN obsolete. Why do the members of the UN agree to pass a binding resolution if they are not prepared to enforce it. So...we were, and still are justified in being in Iraq. If we leave, the insurgency will just follow our toops home.

Finally, we wouldn't be in the mess that we are now with the "privatization" of our military had our military industrial complex not been cut to a shell of it's former self under the Clinton administration. Without the Halliburton's, KBR's and Blackwater's; we would have absolutely no chance of defending ouselves abroad. That is not the fault of "W".

Think about what the poor guy has been through.

How many of YOU have ever shot a Republican? And kept the story quite for five hours so you could leave the scene of the crime/accident. And gotten the shootee to back up your version of events from his hospital bed? No Democrat could ever do something like this.

How many of you could stand being cooped up in an "undisclosed location" for lengthy periods of time? Only to be brought out when your medication kicks in or your pacemaker needs a new battery. All the while hearing your boss say, "Bring it On!" or "Mission Accomplished." I bet his Secret Service detail is tired of keeping him from getting out, joining the military and kicking ass in Iraq.

I mean every time poor Punxatawney Dick pops his head out, you people take pot shots at it.

No wonder we don't see the poor guy that much.

BTW-Someone please tell Cheney that he is only supposed to make an appearance on Feb. 2. Looks like six more months of war.

He can be outraged all he wants. I know most Americans can think of a lot of other things Cheney-related that they can be outraged about instead. The PATRIOT Act, for starters.