McCain leadin both Hillary and Obama in National poll

[HAL 9000 96]

Cut taxes without cutting spending = Deficit

Cut taxes and increase spending = Bigger Deficit

Keep goverment running = borrow money

Borrow money from other goverments = Decrease in value of dollar

Decrease in value of dollar = Cost more to buy imported products/commodities

More expensive oil = More expensive transportation and more money to fill up your tank

More epensive imports + more epensive transportation = Higher prices at stores

So in the end

Money gained from tax cuts - Money lost in more expensive economy = No gain (For most people anyway)

A smart investor already knows to earn his or her money in the US (lower taxes) and invest his or her money outside of the US (more potential for growth).

Yes. For those with any common sense. Politics aside.

[mawilson 2,133]

Exactly. Top 1% of earners. Not anyone on VJ, is it?

I know someone who is.

[HAL 9000 96]

We *can* re-legislate it to reward the middle class while making sure the upper crusts pay their fair share.

Maybe. That would be better than repealing the Bush tax cuts.

They can make them much better. Make real tax cuts for Gary (and the rest of us) and structure the tax code so that tax shelters are not in the Hamptons.

[HAL 9000 96]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

You can say Clinton was elected because of a bad economy, but what other Democrat was elected because of that?

Carter?- Nope, people were pissed about Nixon.

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. [33] The prime rate hit 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.[34] Investments in fixed income (both bonds and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable. The high interest rates would lead to a sharp recession in the early 1980s.

Carter=Bad economy=Reagan Election. Reagan was a Republican I think

Johnson?-Nope, he took over because people loved Kennedy.

Kennedy?-I don't so. The economy was not in that bad of shape in the early 60s. In fact, the odd thing is that Eisenhower expanded social programs and Kennedy cut taxes. Kennedy was elected more because he offered a nice fresh face with social changes as opposed to the grumpy face of Nixon.

Were not going back to the depression for comparison are we?

Reagan's election in 1980 and then Clinton's in 1992, both of whom were elected because the American people had lost faith in the incumbent president - that's what I'm talking about. In other words, look back at all the President's with low approval ratings and tell me how many times the incumbent Party won anyway?

2004?

2004=Patriotism=Fear of 9-11.

What is wrong with patriotism? And are we no longer under threat?

Zzzzzzz... really, brother Gary.

Patriotism is not being blind to common sense and actual intelligence in how we carry out our foreign policy- that coincidentally has the potential to drain your kids' future tax rebates and refunds by 1000%.

[GaryC 7]

We *can* re-legislate it to reward the middle class while making sure the upper crusts pay their fair share.

Maybe. That would be better than repealing the Bush tax cuts.

They can make them much better. Make real tax cuts for Gary (and the rest of us) and structure the tax code so that tax shelters are not in the Hamptons.

I want tax cuts for everyone. The rich are the investors and the ones that fund new business. Without them we would not have an economy. Unlike you I don't have the rich envy syndrome.

[HAL 9000 96]

We *can* re-legislate it to reward the middle class while making sure the upper crusts pay their fair share.

Maybe. That would be better than repealing the Bush tax cuts.

They can make them much better. Make real tax cuts for Gary (and the rest of us) and structure the tax code so that tax shelters are not in the Hamptons.

I want tax cuts for everyone. The rich are the investors and the ones that fund new business. Without them we would not have an economy. Unlike you I don't have the rich envy syndrome.

The rich will be rich regardless of whether or not they pay an extra 0.0001% of their gross income or a whole extra 10%. As for your sudden bout of clairvoyance, well, just leave it at that.

[GaryC 7]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

You can say Clinton was elected because of a bad economy, but what other Democrat was elected because of that?

Carter?- Nope, people were pissed about Nixon.

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. [33] The prime rate hit 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.[34] Investments in fixed income (both bonds and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable. The high interest rates would lead to a sharp recession in the early 1980s.

Carter=Bad economy=Reagan Election. Reagan was a Republican I think

Johnson?-Nope, he took over because people loved Kennedy.

Kennedy?-I don't so. The economy was not in that bad of shape in the early 60s. In fact, the odd thing is that Eisenhower expanded social programs and Kennedy cut taxes. Kennedy was elected more because he offered a nice fresh face with social changes as opposed to the grumpy face of Nixon.

Were not going back to the depression for comparison are we?

Reagan's election in 1980 and then Clinton's in 1992, both of whom were elected because the American people had lost faith in the incumbent president - that's what I'm talking about. In other words, look back at all the President's with low approval ratings and tell me how many times the incumbent Party won anyway?

2004?

2004=Patriotism=Fear of 9-11.

What is wrong with patriotism? And are we no longer under threat?

Zzzzzzz... really, brother Gary.

Patriotism is not being blind to common sense and actual intelligence in how we carry out our foreign policy- that coincidentally has the potential to drain your kids' future tax rebates and refunds by 1000%.

You don't like Bush's foreign policy. I do and support it 100%. He fukced up by not putting enough troops in Iraq to start with but other than that I think he has done a great job. I want that job to continue. I want to confront those that want to do us harm. Not turn tail and hide like the dems do. So the money spent for defense is money well spent IMO. I know you don't agree but thats life.

[GaryC 7]

We *can* re-legislate it to reward the middle class while making sure the upper crusts pay their fair share.

Maybe. That would be better than repealing the Bush tax cuts.

They can make them much better. Make real tax cuts for Gary (and the rest of us) and structure the tax code so that tax shelters are not in the Hamptons.

I want tax cuts for everyone. The rich are the investors and the ones that fund new business. Without them we would not have an economy. Unlike you I don't have the rich envy syndrome.

The rich will be rich regardless of whether or not they pay an extra 0.0001% of their gross income or a whole extra 10%. As for your sudden bout of clairvoyance, well, just leave it at that.

Sure, take money you didn't earn. They have plenty! Don't you see the class envy you are spouting? Have a pet project? Take from the rich! Don't like the fact some don't have everything they need? Take it from the rich!! WooHoo! The rich will make us all our dreams come true!

[HAL 9000 96]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

You can say Clinton was elected because of a bad economy, but what other Democrat was elected because of that?

Carter?- Nope, people were pissed about Nixon.

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. [33] The prime rate hit 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.[34] Investments in fixed income (both bonds and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable. The high interest rates would lead to a sharp recession in the early 1980s.

Carter=Bad economy=Reagan Election. Reagan was a Republican I think

Johnson?-Nope, he took over because people loved Kennedy.

Kennedy?-I don't so. The economy was not in that bad of shape in the early 60s. In fact, the odd thing is that Eisenhower expanded social programs and Kennedy cut taxes. Kennedy was elected more because he offered a nice fresh face with social changes as opposed to the grumpy face of Nixon.

Were not going back to the depression for comparison are we?

Reagan's election in 1980 and then Clinton's in 1992, both of whom were elected because the American people had lost faith in the incumbent president - that's what I'm talking about. In other words, look back at all the President's with low approval ratings and tell me how many times the incumbent Party won anyway?

2004?

2004=Patriotism=Fear of 9-11.

What is wrong with patriotism? And are we no longer under threat?

Zzzzzzz... really, brother Gary.

Patriotism is not being blind to common sense and actual intelligence in how we carry out our foreign policy- that coincidentally has the potential to drain your kids' future tax rebates and refunds by 1000%.

You don't like Bush's foreign policy. I do and support it 100%. He fukced up by not putting enough troops in Iraq to start with but other than that I think he has done a great job. I want that job to continue. I want to confront those that want to do us harm. Not turn tail and hide like the dems do. So the money spent for defense is money well spent IMO. I know you don't agree but thats life.

I know, life sucks. It has for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocents and 4,000 US troops.

However, given that there are people willing to support foreign policy that is not only controversial but extremely lacking in any credibility... then perhaps these people should be the ones footing the bill. Then we can consider that as a tax cut for the rest of us that do not support illegal wars.

Any takers?

[HAL 9000 96]

Sure, take money you didn't earn. They have plenty! Don't you see the class envy you are spouting? Have a pet project? Take from the rich! Don't like the fact some don't have everything they need? Take it from the rich!! WooHoo! The rich will make us all our dreams come true!

OK.

[GaryC 7]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

You can say Clinton was elected because of a bad economy, but what other Democrat was elected because of that?

Carter?- Nope, people were pissed about Nixon.

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. [33] The prime rate hit 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.[34] Investments in fixed income (both bonds and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable. The high interest rates would lead to a sharp recession in the early 1980s.

Carter=Bad economy=Reagan Election. Reagan was a Republican I think

Johnson?-Nope, he took over because people loved Kennedy.

Kennedy?-I don't so. The economy was not in that bad of shape in the early 60s. In fact, the odd thing is that Eisenhower expanded social programs and Kennedy cut taxes. Kennedy was elected more because he offered a nice fresh face with social changes as opposed to the grumpy face of Nixon.

Were not going back to the depression for comparison are we?

Reagan's election in 1980 and then Clinton's in 1992, both of whom were elected because the American people had lost faith in the incumbent president - that's what I'm talking about. In other words, look back at all the President's with low approval ratings and tell me how many times the incumbent Party won anyway?

2004?

2004=Patriotism=Fear of 9-11.

What is wrong with patriotism? And are we no longer under threat?

Zzzzzzz... really, brother Gary.

Patriotism is not being blind to common sense and actual intelligence in how we carry out our foreign policy- that coincidentally has the potential to drain your kids' future tax rebates and refunds by 1000%.

You don't like Bush's foreign policy. I do and support it 100%. He fukced up by not putting enough troops in Iraq to start with but other than that I think he has done a great job. I want that job to continue. I want to confront those that want to do us harm. Not turn tail and hide like the dems do. So the money spent for defense is money well spent IMO. I know you don't agree but thats life.

I know, life sucks. It has for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocents and 4,000 US troops.

However, given that there are people willing to support foreign policy that is not only controversial but extremely lacking in any credibility... then perhaps these people should be the ones footing the bill. Then we can consider that as a tax cut for the rest of us that do not support illegal wars.

Any takers?

Illegal war? Your liberal side is showing. That was a war we needed and was authorized by reps and dems alike. If you have a problem with it talk to the dems that voted for it and continue to vote to fund it. I for one am glad we did it.

[HAL 9000 96]

Patriotism is not being blind to common sense and actual intelligence in how we carry out our foreign policy- that coincidentally has the potential to drain your kids' future tax rebates and refunds by 1000%.

You don't like Bush's foreign policy. I do and support it 100%. He fukced up by not putting enough troops in Iraq to start with but other than that I think he has done a great job. I want that job to continue. I want to confront those that want to do us harm. Not turn tail and hide like the dems do. So the money spent for defense is money well spent IMO. I know you don't agree but thats life.

I know, life sucks. It has for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocents and 4,000 US troops.

However, given that there are people willing to support foreign policy that is not only controversial but extremely lacking in any credibility... then perhaps these people should be the ones footing the bill. Then we can consider that as a tax cut for the rest of us that do not support illegal wars.

Any takers?

Illegal war? Your liberal side is showing. That was a war we needed and was authorized by reps and dems alike. If you have a problem with it talk to the dems that voted for it and continue to vote to fund it. I for one am glad we did it.

LOL, Gary, LOL:

Here.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)

Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country.

Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.)

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know -- we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history.

May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Edited April 1, 2008 by maviwaro

[mawilson 2,133]

As much as I'd like to support Bush's foreign policy (I honestly don't care if the war was legal

or illegal - if it's good for the US, I support it), it's just too damn expensive.

We simply cannot afford to fight this war any longer. The 500 billion dollars spent in Iraq so far

could have built a lot of schools, hospitals, bridges and highways here in the US.

We could have built a real Israel-style 2000-mile wall to keep the illegals and terrorists out

once and for all.

We could have done a lot of things with half a trillion dollars.

I understand the idea of creating a Jihadi paradise in the Middle East to prevent those nutjobs

from attacking us here, but 500 billion dollars is really too much to keep that idea going.

There must be a cheaper and more effective solution.

[GaryC 7]

Patriotism is not being blind to common sense and actual intelligence in how we carry out our foreign policy- that coincidentally has the potential to drain your kids' future tax rebates and refunds by 1000%.

You don't like Bush's foreign policy. I do and support it 100%. He fukced up by not putting enough troops in Iraq to start with but other than that I think he has done a great job. I want that job to continue. I want to confront those that want to do us harm. Not turn tail and hide like the dems do. So the money spent for defense is money well spent IMO. I know you don't agree but thats life.

I know, life sucks. It has for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocents and 4,000 US troops.

However, given that there are people willing to support foreign policy that is not only controversial but extremely lacking in any credibility... then perhaps these people should be the ones footing the bill. Then we can consider that as a tax cut for the rest of us that do not support illegal wars.

Any takers?

Illegal war? Your liberal side is showing. That was a war we needed and was authorized by reps and dems alike. If you have a problem with it talk to the dems that voted for it and continue to vote to fund it. I for one am glad we did it.

LOL, Gary, LOL:

Here.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)

Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country.

Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.)

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know -- we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history.

May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Great speech. Thank you for posting it. This was a right and just war. I am so glad we had a strong leader when we needed it. I only hope McCain is able to continue the good fight.

[Dan J 277]

Patriotism is not being blind to common sense and actual intelligence in how we carry out our foreign policy- that coincidentally has the potential to drain your kids' future tax rebates and refunds by 1000%.

You don't like Bush's foreign policy. I do and support it 100%. He fukced up by not putting enough troops in Iraq to start with but other than that I think he has done a great job. I want that job to continue. I want to confront those that want to do us harm. Not turn tail and hide like the dems do. So the money spent for defense is money well spent IMO. I know you don't agree but thats life.

I know, life sucks. It has for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocents and 4,000 US troops.

However, given that there are people willing to support foreign policy that is not only controversial but extremely lacking in any credibility... then perhaps these people should be the ones footing the bill. Then we can consider that as a tax cut for the rest of us that do not support illegal wars.

Any takers?

Illegal war? Your liberal side is showing. That was a war we needed and was authorized by reps and dems alike. If you have a problem with it talk to the dems that voted for it and continue to vote to fund it. I for one am glad we did it.

LOL, Gary, LOL:

Here.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)

Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country.

Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.)

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know -- we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history.

May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Great speech. Thank you for posting it. This was a right and just war. I am so glad we had a strong leader when we needed it. I only hope McCain is able to continue the good fight.

I disagree with you, so I will invoice you for the cost of the war that I will end up paying. I don't see any benefit so why should I pay for it?

That might actually be a good idea, those who support our country going to war can do so by paying a war tax. That way the goverment can pay for a war without putting the cost on the country, and those who support it will be more likely to hold the goverment accountable for its spending (or realize that true finacial cost of thier dulusions).

Of course, those who pay the tax would get a part of the spoils of war, if there is any.