GOP Talking points/sound bites on Funding Iraq War -

[papau]

"1. We are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq."

"2. The funds in this legislation provide both direct support for our soldiers fighting in Iraq, as well as an investment in creating a safer environment for our soldiers serving in that country. Remember, the $65 billion is for sustenance and support of our troops; the $20 billion is to make them safer, and to get them home sooner."

"3. Replacing the defeated regime of Saddam Hussein with a stable democratic Iraq is an essential turning point in bringing modernity and freedom to a part of the world that has produced extremism and terrorism for decades."

"4. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. The legacy of his oppression is found in mass graves and torture chambers across Iraq. He pursued weapons of mass destruction and used them against other nations, as well as his own people. The Iraqi people, the Middle East region and the world are better off for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime."


So what is the Dem sound bites to counter the above? Seems we all agree that the "world are better off for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime" - or do we? And if not - how do we sound bite it?

[trotsky]

1. Some responses

1) At war with whom?

2) Mind if we can see some receipts? Or should we just make the whole check out to "Halliburton, Inc."?

3) Why, then, have we been responsible for promoting and protecting that extremism for decades?

4) Again, we knew he was bad back in the days when we were sending him money & weapons faster than he could ask for them. We created Saddam, and now the world should be grateful that we got rid of him? I don't think that a kid who cleans up his own mess should be praised - that's part of basic personal responsibility.

[papau]

3. I like # 4 :-)

:-)

[NJCher]

2. shoot your way to democracy

I've already heard a number of academicians remarking that democracy is near impossible to bring about at the end of a gunpoint.


Cher

[terrisel]

5. Talking Points

1. The war should be over in Iraq. Other countries are already participating in rebuilding Afghanistan. It is a tough job and we still need to provide some assistance but we need to rely on our allies.

2. The presence of American soldiers and contractors in large numbers Iraq inflames the population and makes it more likely the war will not end.

3. The U.S. is negotiating with the UN to have the UN and member countries take over in Iraq. If we are willing to end our occupation of Iraq and give up our control of contracts to private corporations we can bring our soldiers home, reduce our presence in Iraq to a very small force, and also save a significant part of the almost 90 billion and more we will have to pay.

4. We have great problems to solve here in America. As soon as we end our occupation of Iraq we will be able to concentrate on rebuilding and securing our country and economy.

5. Time is of the essence

[AmandaRuth]

4. what I wanna know is

What I wanna know is

if we are gonna spend all that money and have this horrendous lose of life and I especially mean average joe citizens along with our brave soldiers, couldn't we have attacked a country that actually posed a risk to the USA, like Saudi Arabia, or perhaps stayed in Afghanistan or removed the nukes in Pakistan, while calm for now, could become very unstable at any moment.?

I hate the feeling that after all of this, we are no safer now than then, only the next attack will not come for a few years, maybe quite a few years, and could possible be carried out by men recruited right now in Iraq with unknown possible disastrous results.


But, if we started a big war in Iraq just to draw the terrorists there in sort of a big playground battlefield, don't we owe them a rebuilt country? And a sound exit strategy, along with explanations to the people of Iraq and America of our true motives and an investigation into the Bush regimes charge to war.