I sit corrected. The date was 9/11/2001. George Bush was President of the United States. Clinton was not. Sorry. I didn't think my grandson was born before 9/11/2001. I was wrong. Still, Clinton had nothing to do with going after Osama Bin Laden. I remember them showing President Bush in a School in the South, when he was told about the attack on the World Trade Center. I knew Clinton wasn't involved as Commander of the Armed Forces.

9/11 was not the first time America was attack by Islamic Extemeists. Do you not remember the first trade center boming, Kobar Towers bombing or the Embassy bombings abroad? All on Clintons watch. And the 9/11 events were very much planned during Bills time as well. He was offered Bin Laden prior to 9/11 but he refused. The blood of 9/11 is on his hands. And you ask me about the chase for Bin Laden after 9/11. I was part of the special forces that chased him to Tora Bora. Donnor... your ignorance would dishonor my service to this country. I am highly offended.

With all due respect to my fellow vetreans I think the biggest discrace to them is how 911 was used to justify an invasion of Iraq. may god keep them safe and punish George Bush and company for there crimes

Bush did not need 9/11 to justify invading Iraq. Saddam was in defiance of 14 UN resolutions. After his capture he admitted he wanted the world to believe he had WMDs. The world wide intellegence community fell for this ploy. After all, he did use them on his own people(Kurds). He harbored terrorists and ruled his people with an iron fist. How can you be one that would let that continue. Now, I do agree the strategy after the initial invasion was bungled. The lack of logistics support was a disgrace. Abu ghraib... disgraceful. Now that our stategy has change we have turned the corner and things are getting much better. I can't even begin to count the number of friends I have personally lost in this war but I can tell you we can think for ourselves, know what is at risk, and willingly do our jobs.

mrtxstar,

I agree with you that anyone
who goes into the miltary knows
the risk of death (or should).

I corrected a nurse last
week on that.

She was talking to an Army
guy about how he shouldn't
go back to Iraq because he
could be killed.

I told her that since he's
in the military he's aware
that he could be making the
ultimate sacrifice.

I also agree with you about
the initial invasion, and
that Abu Ghraib and lack of
logistics support in Iraq
were disgraceful.

As to the surge, it remains
to be seen. There seems to
be progress and American
deaths are down, but the
big question is, will
former insurgents keep
their new alliances with
the government or could
that change?

A valid point. Thank you brother.

Frankly I see no differance between Saddam and any other petty dictator we support in the world. take Saudi arabia for example or even Isreal both have as much or not more human rights violations than saddam, the difference being of course they are our "friends" its unfortunate that the rest of the world sees through our hypocracy. How funny that when saddam was commiting the worst of his attrocites we turned a blind eye, in fact when the kurds were gassed I believe there is a picture of rumsfeld shakeing saddams hand floating around on the net sealing some type of oil deal, I can find you the link and the historical fact of it if you doubt me.

Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include:

The handshake happened in 1983, the Kurd gassing happened in 1988. I fail to see the connection. It's not like he was congratulating him for the gassing. As an envoy for Ronald Reagan he was required to meet world leaders. Does not mean he was in bed with him. As for not seeing the difference between Saudi Arabia and Iraq... I've been to both countries and I never got shot at in Saudi Arabia. The people were very kind to me. Now I know there are those there that would harm me but I did not see it.

So that being said its rather laughable to bring up his horrible crimes against humanity 15 years after they happened and then try to claim some kind of moral justification for our own war crimes. I truly wish things were differant guys but that is the reality

I think 911, was used for information.

I am sure they were kind to you being that they live in a brutal police state. go to amnesty international and check out all our allies, doesnt it even raise your eyebrow that all our allies are dictatorships, well except england our 53 state

Just to clarify... can you tell me what out 51st and 52nd states were? And what are the dictatorships within NATO?

Old news. Conspiracy theories are a great diversion from reality. Other then that they are a really good way to get checked out for a mental health problems, if taken seriously.

The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.

During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them. But the full nature of the program, as described by former Defense Intelligence Agency officers, was not previously disclosed.

Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was "dead wrong," but declined to discuss it. His deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons.

The Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment, as did Lt. Gen. Leonard Peroots, retired, who supervised the program as the head of the agency. Mr. Carlucci said, "My understanding is that what was provided" to Iraq "was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence."

"I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages," he said, "and doubt strongly that that occurred."

Later, he added, "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons."

Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.19B.reagan.iraq.htm

Isreal and mexico :)

I have alot of doubts my friend. I dont just dismiss things out of hand without checking facts, and that is were I began to have doubts

My joke was this.....isreal and mexico are the other two states (joke) dicatorships witin nato? dont you mean (old Europe) rumsfled called them that when they didnt support our irag misadventure and who does now by the way within nato?

madisonman,

This might interest you.

http://www.total411.info/2006/10/video-metal-of-honor-ironworkers-on.html

I almost wish I hadnt looked but thanks for the link. At this point I think i wish I would have not looked into this topic as it seems the more you do the more weird thing you find out.