For those that haven't noticed. There is a bombing in Baghdad.

[Renew Deal]

Watching this is making me sick. I am just putting this message here as a heads up. 18 dead, 28 wounded so far.

[seventhson]

1. Were these people REALLY worse off under Saddam?

It doesn't look like it to me. Tens of thousands apparently dead.
Many many thousands maimed and injured for life,
civilian children and innocents dead

mayhem murder and chaos.

Dean is right. Kucinich is righter.

This war was very wrong and continues to be INSANE,

12,000+ Americans maimed and wounded.

dozens of American suicides in Iraq (they don't mention many here, but I'll bet there are plenty here too).

FIVE HUNDRED AMERICANS DEAD THANKS TO BUSH AND THOSE SPINELESS DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED TO LET HIM GO TO WAR OR WHO ENDORSED IT (Kerry, Clark, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards)

Voters who vote for those who supported this war are helping to perpetuate what I consider to be crimes against humanity.

[Renew Deal]

2. Clark not only didn't vote for it. He told congress not to vote for it.

That's a cheap shot.

[seventhson]

3. I respectfully disagree

Clark IMHO lobbied FOR this war, He may have disagreed on HOW to do it. But he sounds to me like he was 100% in favor of it - he just wanted international support.

But even with this support the results would have been the same IMHO: FUBAR

[clarknyc]

Clark advised a congressional candidate TO vote for it.

Am I wrong?

[Tatiana]

10. I don't know?

Have a link? Which congressional candidate. All I have is his testimony before the Armed Services committee in which Perle said after Clark left that he was not supportive of America going to war with Iraq.

[clarknyc]

15. I'm guessing your question is addressed to me.

The candidate is Katrina Swett. Here is the link:

http://www.jsonline.com/election2000/ap/oct03/ap-clark-iraq102903.asp

On Oct. 9, 2002, Clark was campaigning with Swett, a Democrat who was running for Congress in New Hampshire. He told an Associated Press reporter that day that although he was concerned about the country's move to war, he supported the resolution and would advise Swett to vote for it if she were in Congress.

[Renew Deal]

22. She was worried about getting elected and wanted to vote for it.

That's what's funny about it. It was a if you want to vote for it, you should issue. She is such a disloyal tool that she turned it around on Clark. I think the people of NH realised she is a tool and elected someone else.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[clarknyc]

6. What's your point?

Can we not share our opinions, as wrong as you may find them?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[clarknyc]

12. Are you responding to your own post?

n/t

[Tatiana]

13. Look in the upper right-hand corner of Pete's post.

He is responding to reply #1.

[clarknyc]

17. I did.

On my screen, it said reply to #4. No big deal. Just confusing...

[Tatiana]

7. Saddam was a brutal dictator.

That is a fact. That doesn't negate the circumstance of this war being wrong and possibly illegal. The fact that Rumsfeld and others did business with Hussein only shows how corrupt those same officials (currently in this Bush's administration) truly are.

We have to be very careful with our words. Saddam can, in no way, be viewed in a positive light.

Are the Iraqis better off at this very moment without Saddam? NO.

Is America safer at this very moment without Saddam in power? NO.

But I can envision, under competent American leadership, a place where Iraqis are better off in the future.

[IndianaGreen]

9. "competent American leadership" = colonialism

The only solution is for the US to withdraw from Iraq immediately and unconditionally. Any delay will only increase the body count!

[Tatiana]

11. IG, I understand where you are coming from.

The goal of our nominee should be the withdrawl of American forces from the region. But at the same time, we are stuck with the same problem most Democratic administrations following Republican administrations are: cleaning up their mess.

We will plunge the country into Civil War or something even worse if we don't make sure the country is stabilized before leaving the region. We need an international peacekeeping presence, possibly UN or NATO forces to get our men and women out.

It's not fair. It's not an easy solution. But irrespective of Bush's fuck up and wrong invasion, we have to have a responsible solution to ensure the safety and prosperity of the Iraqi people.

[IndianaGreen]

14. We are the victimizers!

We wouldn't dream of letting a victimizer remain with his victim to help her "get over it." Iraq had a thriving civilization thousands of years before there was even a village in Europe. They will do fine once we leave them alone!

[Tatiana]

18. Not 'we.'

Neither you nor I had anything to do with his disgusting invasion.

The Bush administration is the victimizer. Once our own dictator has been overthrown, and the Iraqis have a true representative government, we need to withdraw and allow the UN to provide humanitarian assistance.

But we can't just trash their country and leave them struggling to fend off those who would capitalize off their misfortune. It wouldn't be right.

[spooky3]

23. well said.

[IndianaGreen]

5. 2 dead Americans

DOD personnel.

Body count still going up!

[corporatewhore]

16. we need to get the fuck outta their now

[salinen]

20. Once there were 2 brutal

dictators, now there's only one, gwb.

[Leilani]

19. This looks more & more

like Israel/Palestine occupation, with us playing the Israeli role.

I hate this.

[Tinoire]

21. Agree- One huge Gaza Strip is what it is n/t