This offensive in Iraq is one big cover-up for all our weaknesses at home

[mtnsnake]

when it comes to self-defense, and our Democratic leaders should be exploiting this to the hilt.

Among other things corrupt, it allowed Bush to buy time.

Democrats are viewed upon by much of the population as weak and anti-war. The second part is okay, but the first part pisses me off because I know for a fact that all the people here who share our views would do anything to DEFEND our country if need be. We need to turn the tables and let the country know that Democrats might be anti-war but they're also PRO self-defense, which puts us on a more level playing field when it comes to perception of strength.

I believe a main reason, besides corruption, that the Bush administration has gone on the offensive in Iraq is because they know our homeland security is SO weak, which means our ability to defend ourselves is very much questionable. They've even admitted by saying, and I'm paraphrasing, that the best defense is a good offense. How many times have you heard repukes saying they'd rather fight terror on foreign soil, so as to keep THEM from coming here. That alone tells me Bush is afraid of getting attacked here at home because he's not prepared, just like he wasn't prepared the first time. We need to get the message out that BUSH IS AFRAID AND UNPREPARED to defend us, and THAT is why he attacked Iraq OVER THERE like a big bully.

Shouldn't our Democratic leaders be exploiting this "homeland self-defense weakness" to the media? It could have a double whammy for the repukes if we start harping on this. At the repukes expense, we'd perceived as the ones with backbone because we'd be the ones looking to beef up our self defense so we don't have to attack ANY country for no good reason. With a stronger self defense system in place, inlcuding beefed-up border security, we wouldn't be seeing 1000's of innocent people dying right now for nothing AND we wouldn't be subject to the fear tactics we've seen employed by our government when it comes to terrorism. Each time someone like Cheney employed those fear tactics that he did, when he said a vote for Kerry would be a vote for another attack upon us, we should've countered by saying a vote for Bush is a vote for continuing our status quo on the homefront, which is one that is WEAK, porous, unprepared, and WILL lead to the likelihood of more attacks.

Our leaders need to be vocal about how weak Bush is here at home, security-wise, and link it to his pre-planned war in Iraq for the reasons I mentioned above. It's time for us to employ some fear tactics of our own about how weak we really are on the homefront....only ours will be truthful ones.

[Tuco Ramirez]

1. "War" in Iraq

The war in Iraq is simply a proxy war for the zionists; Americans would never support sending troops directly into Palestine, so they took the war to one of the Arab aggressors under suspicious pretenses.

[mtnsnake]

2. I used "offensive" cuz it wasn't self defense.This shows Bush's weakness

and reason for attacking.

He attacked from a position of weakness.

Why this isn't harped on by our leaders is mind boggling. We have the perfect way to show that Bush and his minions are the weak ones, not the Democrats.

[pleiku52cab]

4. I think you're stretching it here with Zionists/Palestinian connection

Pretty much already proved that awol misled us to war with Iraq under the major influence of the neocons in his administration. Remember that PNAC (Project for the New American Revolution) had been advocating for a decade this imperialistic course of action - especially in regards to the middle east. Many of them and their cronies in the AEI (American Enterprise Institute) had been planning for a preemptive war since right after the 2000 election and over a year before 9/11. Most of the same people from PNAC and AEI hold major positions in the decision making apparatus that Chaney used, and is even now continuing to use, to slant and control awols lame brain policy fuck-ups.

[RafterMan]

6. It's the neocons that prove his case

Richard Perle worked as a Likud party hack in the years before the infamous PNAC document came out, as did several other prominent neocons. The "make the world safe for Israel by deposing Saddam" plan was presented to Netanyahu in the mid 1990s. This is not tinfoil hat or jew-bashing stuff. The strongly-pro-Israel Wes Clark mentioned it in one of his Wespac events:

"Question: Why hasn't there been any discussion about PNAC, its signers -- many of whom are in the administration -- and how we see the plan for the Middle East written in the PNAC manifesto?

Clark: You're talking about the Project for a New American Century and how Richar Perle and Doug Feith and the rest maneuvered this country into executing Bibi Netanyahu's plan that the United States would attack and destroy Saddam Hussein and then conquor the Middle East for them. I don't know why there hasn't been a discussion on it.

Probably because when you get down to public opinion and you're trying to communicate ideas, that idea is going to get all convoluted in the press. It's out there for the people who know it. We need a really simple idea. And a simple idea is, "Iraq is a strategic mistake -- it was not part of the war on terror. The Bush administration as made us less secure and less safe as a result of going to Iraq." That's what we need to say."

Where I would disagree with the original post is his use of the word "simply". The greater-Israel crowd had their reasons, the Iranians had their reasons, the imperialists had their reasons, the Iraqi exiles had their reasons, the do-gooders had their reasons, the fear-mongers had their reasons and so on. But it was a factor.

[Gyre]

3. "Our democratic leaders"

Is an oxymoron. Sad to say. :(

Gyre

[mtnsnake]

5. You're right, and that's why we don't point out the things that

need to be harped on.

We need to get leadership that's not afraid to point out the other side's true motives...and expose those motives as the cover-ups they really are, when it comes to Bush's weaknesses such as why he invaded Iraq. One of the reasons he invaded is because he felt it would prevent another attack on our homeland, which he knows he is unprepared to defend...just like the first time.

[pretzel4gore]

7. go after the mediawhores!

it's the mediawhores who are covering up the truth....not bushinc...whatever the mediawhores try to advocate, whatever they try, hit them again and again...tell them 'you are lying bastards from hell and deserve to be executed! period!'
the word mediawhore should be the hoola hoop word of modern times...the novak crowds shits when they hear the word, cuz it means we're going after them! and if only a few are shaken loose.... truth will out :)

[mtnsnake]

8. Yup. The mediawhores are not getting enough pressure placed

upon them by our Democratic leaders, and that's one of the reasons why simple facts remain as little known secrets.

I'm sick and tired or our leaders and spokesman being such chickenshits. Things that are so obvious to us and talked about all the time on this forum are completely ignored by our leaders for fear of political reprisal. Spineless bunch they are.