12.30.2006

Peace On Earth, Good Will Towards Men

I note that The Drudge Report had a link to the actual video of the hanging. Ah, yes, a civilized society. "In addition Saturday, the U.S. military announced the deaths of two more American soldiers. The casualties raised the number of American personnel killed in Iraq this month to 108 and made December the deadliest month of 2006."

64 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ten or twenty thousand Iraqis have also visited the twin hanging stations that are in Saddam's palace. He had them brought there daily, as seen in photos and videos, for regular hangings. Some families lost more than twenty members. It's too bad he can only hang once. What would we, as decent Americans, want the punishment to be for someone that killed every living soul in Decatur and Bridgeport.

Anonymous said...

Is it "God's plan" for the guy on the right to put on a black mask and hang somebody? Well, it MUST be God's plan, because that's what your typical God-fearing Baptist believes. And for the sake of consistency and avoidance of hypocrisy, it can only be concluded that God, way back before the beginning of time, concluded that guy would put on a black mask and hand Saddam. It's his plan for that guy.

TXsharon said...

Let's hang Bu$h & Rummy too then. They've killed & tortured about as many Iraqis as Saddam did. They also gave Saddam his weapons.

Anonymous said...

I don't blame Bush for all of this. Our government officials voted for the war and we put these folks in office.

So who is really to blame?

And we ask God to bless this country?

Anonymous said...

TxSharon:

Are you that big of a blithering idiot to believe what you just said?! If you don't like the way things are, then GET OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!! You liberal idiots amaze me! No matter what Pres. Bush does or doesn't do, it's the wrong thing. What would YOU do to fight terrorism? Would you invite all the Muslims over for a "feel good" conference so we could talk out our differences?
Muslims have been wanting to destroy everything about America and its culture for many, many years, BEFORE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE!! Do you understand that? DO YOU?!
I agree with many of the posts that I read on here that simply say, "Shut up, TXSHARON!"

Anonymous said...

annony 11:06...amen. You are an idiot txsharon.

TXsharon said...

To answer your question:

"What would YOU do to fight terrorism? "

I would have stayed in Afghanistan and I would hang the terrorist, Osama bin Laden.

Pretty simple.

Anonymous said...

Man I liked the way this all played out. Found guilty and wham it's done.No years of appeals costing tax payers untold tens of thousands of dollars to house and feed scum while they pump iron, get all tattooed up and sodomize each other everyday they are in prison.

All I can say is NEXT!

Anonymous said...

TxSheehan, And then the world would be of one. Liberals have all the simple answers. Too bad the world is not a simple place.

Anonymous said...

No worries, tx sharon. It's not your fault the mouth breathers who still support the worst president in American history prefer killing someone who posed no threat to our country rather than hunting down the man who was actually responsible for 9/11.

They're stupid. They can't help it.

HHL said...

For anyone who is interested, the New York Times has a definitive, 7 page obituary of Saddam on its front page (nytimes (dot) com). For those of you worried about liberal bias, this obit appears to me to be pretty much straight down the middle. Very interesting read.

Anonymous said...

Simple.. good vs evil. It's in the Bible..and it will remain a battle until the end of the earth. Saddam was EVIL and has now returned to his place in Hell. Those of you who do not believe in good vs evil.... you are in for some rude awakenings. EvIL will destroy any and everything that is good. Saddam needed to be destroyed!!

Anonymous said...

TONIGHT (Dec 30) please watch CW33 news at nine...followed by a one hour special on prosecutors who continually probate sentences of sex offenders/molesters. Our Wise County DA will be one of the targets of this report. Voting public needs to know this information!

Anonymous said...

12:14 I am not blinded from evil and this country's current administration is very evil. Add Rummy to that mix also.

Anonymous said...

Hey 12:14, what does the Bible say about turning the other cheek?

What does the Bible say about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, and caring for the sick?

If you want to use the Bible, at least be consistent and use the whole thing, you hypocrite!

And while we're at it, did you ever stop to think how the first users of the Bible interpreted the passages on capital punishment? Then ancient Hebrews taught that a court that imposed the death penalty even once in 70 years was bloodthirsty. In those terms, Dubya is a genocidal maniac.

Anonymous said...

12:18 - thanks for this information.

Our judicial system is horribly overloaded. How can we expect these folks to solve these massive people problems?

The church isn't doing a good job helping either. We are way too busy fighting among ourselves as to who will have the most exciting services or the biggest mega church.

wordkyle said...

ANON 11:55 AM: "someone who posed no threat to our country"?

With remarks like that, your description of other people being stupid sounds envious.

shpilk said...

Hussein may have deserved what he got, but the process by which he got it was distorted and aided and abetted by criminal actions of the Bush administration. So the end result it is tainted justice, at best.

The nature of Sadaam Hussein is like other dictators in that part of the world: brutal despots and their behavior is part of the expected package. It is sadly nothing out of the oridinary in that part of the world.

On the other hand, we have GW Bush, who is supposed to know better than to illegally invade another country and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and maiming of a million.

In the long view of history, the crimes of Hussein are just a continuation of the misery that have plagued the Middle East for centuries.

However, history will view the crimes of George W Bush as truly precedent shattering. The very foundation of what the United States was founded upon and the basis for international law has been seriously damaged by the illegal invasion of Iraq. The extensive corruption and waste associated with Iraq and the lack of clear goals and vision in our foreign policy are an insult to every American that has given their life, been horribly mangled or has served our nation's military.

Bush has destroyed our professional military, our international reputation and rule of law within the United States in less than 6 years of being in office. The crimes of Sadaam Hussein {many committed with US support} pale in comparison and are similar outrages are happening in neighboring countries, even today.

Should the US invade Saudi Arabia to enforce Western law upon the Saudis? They torture and kill much as Sadaam did, just on a lesser scale. Or perhaps, maybe invade Saudi Arabia to finally invade the correct country that was REALLY behind the attack on us on 9.11.2001? {That will never happen, of course - and just where is Osama Bin-Laden, anyway?}

Anonymous said...

wk: sigh... It's been well documented that the reasons for going to war in Iraq were false and that Saddam posed no threat to us. You know that. What is your investment in carrying on the myth?

wordkyle said...

ANON 1:12 PM & 1:26 PM: Before badmouthing religious people about not helping others, consider this:

People who attend houses of worship regularly are 25% more likely to give [to charity] and 23% more likely to volunteer [their time to charity], and the religious give away four times the amounts of money [to charity] that the secular do. (Source: "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooks)

Mr. Brooks concludes that four distinct forces appear to have primary responsibility for making people behave charitably: religion, skepticism about the government's role in economic life, strong families and personal entrepreneurship. Those Americans who have all four, or at least three, are much more likely to behave charitably than those who do not.

By the way, Mr. Brooks is a self-described longtime Liberal who was astonished at the results of his research.

wordkyle said...

anon 1:59 PM: What's been "well-documented?" Some of the reasons given were inaccurate (with 20/20 hindsight), but none have been demonstrated as "false." If it's been "well-documented," you'll have no problem citing sources. Got any?

Bush repeatedly gave three main reasons for invading Iraq: 1)WMD; 2)Iraq's support of terrorism; 3) Saddam Hussein's criminal mistreatment of his people.

#3 is not in dispute by anyone.

Regarding #1: Over 500 WMD have been found in Iraq since 2003. While they may not have been present in the quantities intelligence sources thought, saying "Iraq had no WMD" is incorrect.

Iraq also had a developing nuclear weapons program, according to the New York Times. They developed missiles that exceeded UN limits.

Regarding #2: Iraq provided aid and support for terrorist organizations similar to al-Qaida.

"No threat"? Yeah, right.

wordkyle said...

shpilk: "illegally invaded" ... "destroyed our professional military [and] the rule of law" ...

Considering that we enforced seventeen UN resolutions, and Bush acted by virtue of a Congressional resolution; and that the US military is bigger and better than ever, and laws seem as strong as ever -- you're not only wrong, you're also sounding a wee bit on the shrill kook side.

TXsharon said...

Word Kyle, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you because it's obvious that you listen to too much Bill and Rush. We have had this argument before. As for me, I believe the 9/11 commission report and the other reports that verified that Saddam posed no threat to the United States. If you want to believe something else, then take comfort in knowing that as much as 1/4 of America is right there with you. LOL!

Anonymous said...

I'm getting into this discussion late but let me remind some of you who have forgotten or never knew; the US Congress authorized the president to use force in Iraq IF there was no other course available. Bush used this to do as he had long planned - to invaded Iraq. Congress DID NOT authorize a war on Iraq unconditionally. I repeat, DID NOT authorize a war. It certainly is partly congresses fault that it did not pull in this administration all along its path to war, but that Republican dominated congress has abrogated many of its responsibilities (and got a bunch of them defeated in the recent elections).

Anonymous said...

Hey, Wordkyle, now that you attempt to justify the war due to WMDs, how many of those dangerous 500 weapons were supplied to Saddam by the USA? How many were still functional after 15 years? Let me suggest answers, most all came from the USA and almost all were no longer functional. And you think this justifies a war that has cost us trillions of dollars and 3,000 American lives and hundreds of thousand of Iraqi lives? You must be a silly person.

Anonymous said...

Maybe, despite what he did to others, God simply called him home.

ER Doc said...

Wordkyle: << Considering that we enforced seventeen UN resolutions, and Bush acted by virtue of a Congressional resolution; and that the US military is bigger and better than ever, and laws seem as strong as ever >>

1) We "enforced" 17 UN resolutions without the authorization from the UN to do so. How many UN resolutions is Israel currently in violation of? How happy would we be if, say, China decided it would be a good idea to "enforce" the UN resolutions condemning Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza?

2)As noted above, the Congressional resolution did not authorize premeditated war against Iraq. The gutless Republican leadership refused to exercise their Constitutional responsibility.

3)In what world is our military bigger and stronger than ever?? Our military, except for the currently deployed troops, is a hollow shell. The much-discussed "surge" of troops will take every bit of deployable reserve we've got.

4) The condition of the "rule of law" in this country depends on whether you believe in things like habeus corpus, the Geneva Conventions, and the 4th Amendment. As far as I can see, we were on the verge of despotic rule until the recent elections, and I'm hopeful things will turn around and this can become the United States again.

wordkyle said...

txsharon: Argue or don't, it's fine with me. You might try checking your facts, though. The 9/11 Commission reports: "In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin."

anon 6:55 pm: I'm not trying to justify anything. I pointed out that Bush has remained consistent in his reasons for going to war in Iraq, and that in 2003 those reasons were logical. 20/20 hindsight points out mistakes that have been made.

As for WMD, their functionality was addressed by Army Col. John Chu, the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center:"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction."

Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said: "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

Anonymous said...

wordkyle, you seem incapable of independent logical thought. Your citation of some Iraqi "contacts" with al Qaeda people in absolutely no means indicates that Iraq was "working with" al Qaeda. This is what diplomats do to learn what others are doing or contemplating (something Bush has been totally incompetent at). Saddam was totally opposed to the politics of al Qaeda. The fact that he was talking with them only demonstrates how he was a better diplomat than Bush.

BTW what Col Chu says about the “possible” uses of these ancient chemical weapons does not mean Saddam even knew they still existed in Iraq. You also avoid acknowledging that those weapons were supplied by the USA. And even if these were currently viable, they would not constitute justification for the huge costs (militarily and diplomatically) of this invasion.

Anonymous said...

OK, all you libs, answer this: WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO THE IRAQ PROBLEM?
Everyone wants the troops pulled out. So, lets pull'em all out. What happens? Do the muslims ANY LESS want to fly planes into our buildings, kill our women and children and destroy our way of life?
What would all you smart people do? Wordkyle's quoting actual documents (with links, I might add), and all y'all can do is call him names and quote things you don't know anything about!
Someone answer me...WHAT WOULD YOU DO???

Anonymous said...

The libs would cut and run. They believe the U.N. is the world's police even though they have never won a war or prevented genocide. But they were in bed with Saddam on the oil for food scandal. Passing 17 resolutions without teeth or consequences was a smoke screen. At least Bush had balls to enforce or face the consequences. I think Saddam might be a believer about right now. Burn in Hell.

Anonymous said...

9:58 - let's start with identifying your false premise - that Muslims hate us and want to kill our women and children. Some - repeat - some extremist Muslims want "western" (not necessarily US) influence out of what they perceive "their" area of the world (Middle East). Lots and lots of Muslims in Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bosnia, the USA and other counties have no problem co-existing with western peoples and other religions. The violent extremist Muslim minority is mainly opposed to our support of a state of Israel in Palestine. This creates a fundamental conflict. Until the Muslim governments actively accept Israel's existence, I suspect extremists will continue the conflict. Our incursion into Iraq has further destabilized the entire Middle East. This has played into the extremist's hands and weakened cooperative Muslim governments. We can only hope the next American administration can repair the disaster of the Bush policies. Until the extremist Muslims are marginalized by their own governments, we will have to deal with sporadic problems. It should be readily apparent that we cannot solve this situation militarily. Therefore, we must get our troops out of there so that those governments can deal with their own political problems. We Americans will survive if we realize that, as Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

TXsharon said...

9:58 anon: I repeat: I would find Osama bin Laden and hang him. He and not Saddam is the one responsible for using our planes as weapons against us.

Terrorists shouldn't be able to fly planes into our buildings any longer because we should have taken measures to prevent that from happening again. We should have but we haven't. Bu$h has dropped the ball on taking measures to make us more secure here at home. We should be spending those hundreds of billions of dollars that we are wasting in Iraq on new technology to inspect all cargo entering the US, to make our airports safer and to secure our borders.

Remember that Bu$h was warned repeatedly that Osama bin Laden "was determined to attack." He has spent 40% of his time in office on vacation so he is out-of-touch with the situation. After one such warning that interrupted his vacation he quipped, "Okay, you have covered your ass."

There are numerous plans on the table for dealing with the situation in Iraq. If you are paying attention, you cannot miss them. ANY of them would have to be better than what we have now and there is no possible way that Democrats could do any worse than what Bu$h has done.

If the US were diplomatically more fair in its dealings with Palestine, it would go a long way toward establishing peace in the Middle East.

Word Kyle is giving links to references but he is cherry picking quotes from those references to further his arguments. I have been over this previously with him. When the ancient and no longer dangerous weapons were found buried and forgotten in the desert, officials admitted that they were not usable. He forgot to use that quote. : )

Finally, not all Muslims want to harm Americans. There are some extremists Muslims just as there are extremists Christians. Extremists are dangerous no matter what their religion.

Anonymous said...

11:27 you're an idiot.

"some"... yah right.

After hearing that so many times I want to throw up.

If there is one thing that the past 5 years have shown us, it's that the LARGE majority of muslims want the U.S. (that's all of us) gone.

TXsharon said...

12:04 anon: If what you say is correct, which it isn't, then we need a smarter president!

Anonymous said...

I blame the democrats.

Anonymous said...

ROFL...

Both sides of the aisle... (and the ocean for that matter) agreed with military actions against Iraq. It turns out that the information presented to make those decisions was inaccurate. So that makes GW & Co. Satan now? GMAFB!

You make the best call you can with the facts presented. At the time, they tried. Now I find it interesting how everyone is distancing themselves from their earlier positions... Typical pols...

And TXSHARON... pull that stick out of your pompous ass and quit acting like you are some kind of lesser deity... "I would hang OSAMA..." No Shit?! Wow... that is awesome advice you are giving our Military.

I guarantee you our military and intelligence forces are spending every $$$ necessary to kill this guy. If you think this is not still going on then you are an idiot. And while he is being hunted like the POS he is, how many more attacks has he been able to pull off? How many?

I hope some of you people have a life outside of your computers... (Although I doubt it.)

Gavortnik said...

In reply to anon 3:20 p.m.:

"The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added." - straight outta
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.html. Y'all.

It goes on to say that the stuff is still toxic and that terrorist could still have used the agents. True... but not by Saddam.

These "weapons of mass destruction" sound more like a Superfund site than an organized WMD program.

TXsharon said...

2:25 "Both sides" did not authorize military actions (read upthread). It has been proven that false intelligence was presented to both sides. Nevertheless, at lease one side is willing to admit that "Stay the course" when the course is wrong is lunacy.

Pull out your own stick and remember that Bu$h is "not that concerned with Osama..." and that he missed his chance to kill him. He should never have taken his eye off bin Laden to go into Iraq.

wordkyle said...

anon 9:57 PM: Don't presume to know my thought process. You're not up to the task.

The 9/11 Commission in no way indicated that Saddam was "no threat." (txsharon's words.) I used information from the report to refute her claim. I made no claim that al-Qaeda was "working with" Saddam. You created a straw man and argued against your own words.

The WMD that were found a) Could be used to kill thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people; b) Said WMD could be sold or given to terrorist groups, with whom Iraq DID have contact. Everything else you mentioned is irrelevant.

Every argument people like you and txsharon make is based on your core hatred of George Bush. When exposed on one lie, misrepresentation or inaccuracy, you simply slip to the next one. They all have the same root: We hate George Bush. I press for evidence (txsharon) to expose you for what you are: non-thinking disciples of the Liberal Democrat High Priests of Hatred.

TXsharon said...

word kyle Your "evidence" reminds me a great deal of Clinton's statement that the did not have sex with that woman.

No matter how hard you work at presenting said "evidence", thankfully, at least 3/4 of America and the majority of our military has now seen the light.

Happy New Year from the pot to the kettle.

Anonymous said...

Shut up wordkyle. Or better yet, go move to a state where you can still find a Bush to vote for. You sicken me with your blathering.

wordkyle said...

11:57 a.m.: Your response to my posts is encouraging. You really can't handle the truth.

txsharon: Happy New Year to you, too. I sincerely wish you the best. Now that you're reduced to arguing in tiny nonsensical circles, maybe you'll soon be able to let some "light" into your oh-so-closed mind. Enlightenment is right around the corner for you.

Bonne année à tous!

Anonymous said...

Word Kyle you arrogant ass! Let some light into your own oh-so-closed-mind. I've seen your corner of the world and you only have one point of view.

wordkyle said...

anon 2:28 pm: And what would that "one point of view" be? I'm interested to see what you think -- if thinking is the correct term.

By the way, name-calling is unbecoming. It reflects poorly on you as a person.

Anonymous said...

Barry, peace on earth, good will towards men, is a statement from the Bible, by putting this statement on this blog spot, tells me you do not have a clue what that statement means!

Maybe someone could tell Barry what it means

TXsharon said...

4:13 How arrogant! Clearly, Barry knows exactly what it means.

Anonymous said...

everyone knows that Barry is gay

Anonymous said...

well txsharon tell us? Maybe you don't know

Anonymous said...

TxSheehan, I wish Uday and Qusay would have snatched you up and taken you to the rape room for some snatch liberalism.

Anonymous said...

Dear Daddy:
Saddam's dead now. We hung him good. Can I come home now?
Love,
Your son, Georgie

mzchief said...

WOW!
For a while, there was a fairly interesting discussion based upon INFORMATION being conducted until the likes of anonyNOTHING 11:08, 11:55, 11:57, 2:28 and with special note, the hate filled comment by anonyNOTHING 5:30.

I ALWAYS appreciate reading the opinions of THOUGHTFUL commentators based upon information. I am MORE than DISGUSTED by the commentators who INSIST upon wallowing in the mud by stooping to name calling and making hateful comments such as wishing harm on another commentator. Those people seemingly LACK the ability to grasp the concept that making such comments actually damages their position on the topic. How horribly sad it must be to be those muddy people. In other words;
IT SUCKS TO BE THEM!

mzchief said...

I supported the United States invading Iraq based upon the "intelligence" provided by at the time Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi as well as Saudi Arabia and Jordon in which BOTH countries claimed to have MAPS to Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. I support what is currently being attempted in Iraq. HOWEVER I nor the troops in Iraq have EVER supported the method by which the troops are being forced to ATTEMPT to conduct the mission.

CURRENTLY in Iraq, prior to a U.S. troop discharging a weapon SEVEN criteria MUST be met unless they are engaged in a conflict in which THEY have been REPEATEDLY fired upon by insurgents. After a troop discharges a weapon they have to fill out FOUR times the paper work as a police officer within the United States.

The last well fought war in which the United States participated was World War II from 1939-1945 in which 500,000 U.S. troops were killed and approximately 26,000,000 (YEP! that is 26 MILLION) civilians were killed.

IF the United States troops are permitted to FIGHT the WAR in Iraq MORE troops need to be sent to Iraq. IF current troops in Iraq are NOT permitted to FIGHT the WAR in Iraq then ALL of the current troops in Iraq need to LEAVE Iraq NOW!

MY position is NOT unique, retired Secretary of State, General Colin Powell has the SAME opinion and it was this opinion that was the CHIEF reason he left the Bush Administration in 2004.

TXsharon said...

Ask why.

I never believed Powell because I was listening to the weapons inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq and were saying 1) they had not found any WMDs and 2) begging for more time. We should have listened. Another question: Why the rush?

Anonymous said...

AND the hypocrit Mischief has to appear yet again to throw her snot at those she says are "calling others names!" Idiot... it is YOU, mzchief, who calls others names and attack those who TRY to have a sensible conversation here. The blog runs along fine until YOU step in!

Anonymous said...

mzchief attempts to provide some rationale for our misadventure in Iraq. Please, people, recognize that NOT ALL intelligence professionals believed the propaganda proffered by the Bush administration before the war. I was an intelligence officer during Viet Nam and am familiar with several sources of information at code word security levels. One key intelligence requirement was ignored by Bush - that sources be verified and independently authenticated. This was not done for several key "intelligence" claims Bush used to justify immediate war in Iraq. So it is not just 20-20 hindsight, it is with considered judgment that condemns the decision making process used by the Bush administration.

As for the claim that we should use WWII-like military action in Iraq - well that's just crazy. Iraq is now a civil war - not an international aggression with identifiable government, armies and fronts. Our troops are caught in the middle of a mess and are being shot at by all elements of Iraqi and external forces. Even Viet Nam was a more classical war with fronts and identifiable enemy (at least some of the time). Iraq is more like our Revolutionary War, and you should know how that turned out for the British occupier.

Anonymous said...

After 9/11 our government turned its attention to "getting" the perpetrators. We were to catch/kill Osama and bring him to justice. That hasn't worked for 5 years but we continue to kill a bunch of guys labeled “Osama’s second in command.” Then we were to get Saddam and a whole deck of cards representing the key bad guys in Iraq. We did but the war got worse. Then it was all due to Zaquari. Got him, too, but the situation continues to deteriorate.

Our government (and our electorate) tends to put too much emphasis on individuals - not ideas. We can fight people but have a heck of a time fighting ideas. We kill people with guns, but conquering ideas takes intelligence and understanding. The Bush administration has the guns, not the understanding.

ex-eagle said...

dumbass 9:44 - The problem is not with Mzchief making a comment on the blog. The problem is with dipshits like you losing your shit every time Mzchief makes a comment on the blog.

Keep up the good work because everyone here in my office laugh our asses off at you and the other losers who hate Mzchief.

TXsharon said...

The buildup to war started before Bu$h was ever in office and certainly before 9/11. That proof is everywhere for those who want to know the truth.

A spy speaks out

The Downing Street Memos

The Price of Loyalty

Anonymous said...

The only thing that would be better than what he got would be to dig him up,revive him and hang him again.

Anonymous said...

fathead 1:04, you must have no dignity or even know what it is. Hope to God I don't find myself in need of your "office", because obviously you and your co-workers lack class and most likely, sense.
LOSER!

Anonymous said...

Shut up Mzcreep, SquareHead!

Anonymous said...

Will the movie be coming out on DVD soon?

Anonymous said...

Have you ever wondered why America is loosing its allies in the recent past. I think some presidents and leaders have the common sense to realise their stupid mistakes and back off!!!!

Americans on the other hand are so brainwashed and so narrow minded with over inflated egos. Rather than admit to being played by Bin they will kill any Muslem for terrorism when they should be hunting down Bin Laden ........ He is still out there and may strike sooner than you think....... then what? Hang the president of Iran?

Stop being cowards and chase the enemy. I think its time we get the next assassination......... Bush style.