You need to be specific when you talk about descriptives right off the bat. What is “far from concrete?” My explanation of our global war on terror? The acts terrorists employ? You need to articulate what you talking about here. I have never argued in the affirmative that terror activity was more or less active- or at least apparent- after the events of 9/11, and you won’t find evidence to show otherwise, so don’t attempt to put words in my mouth.

You are mistaken if you think Al Queada is somehow the antithesis of freedom for the United States just because, as you state, “they directly attacked us.” The United States and her allies were the target of terror attacks long before 2001, and long before Al Queada existed, specifically in its current form. Additionally, you are sorely mistaken if you somehow believe there were not “multitudes of terrorists” until the United States invaded Iraq. Please. Do you know anything about terrorism? The working definitions of a terrorist group? Terrorist groups, as they exist and operate today, have existed for hundreds of years, in many forms, and in all parts of the world. You’re deluding yourself if you expect anyone here to get on board with your faulty belief that terrorism has only sprung up in the last 7 years.

Again, be consistent when you talk about the means in which to deal with this threat. If our involvement in Iraq is no longer needed, or warranted, and we need to evacuate troop presence, then do not denigrate the United States for giving any type of support to the Pakistani government to fight their own engagements against the same enemy, especially when you talk about any type of tax burden that this would create. Yes- it’s all Bush’s fault since Congress can “do nothing.” Good one. The Senate is evenly split and Democrats control the House. There is absolutely nothing standing in the way or Congress to redirect and redistribute our forces. Nothing. Add “blindingly partisan” to your list of achievements.

Again, you’re hypocritically partisan. Only denigrating McCain after stating that both “McCain wants us in both places,” and subsequently stating “Obama wants us over there too, but only in one place.” You just got done commenting on the economic and global burden this puts on the United States. Do not attempt to endorse one over the other, when you have already stated in favor of a blanket withdrawal, and expect to come out fair.

You’re getting way off topic here, and simply missing the point. The initial poster’s belief is that any kind of apparent progress we have made in Iraq does not matter, since the invasion was based on untrue information. That belief is spurious. It does matter, and it should matter. Saddam and like-despots should have been taken out long ago, and this goes to the larger, broader picture of global security. In forming partnerships with other countries and creating democratic nations, we ensure a climate of safe stability. I qualify the word safe, since it could be considered that Saddam’s Iraq was stable, stable meaning the government killed any unrest that stirred, as shown by his chemical execution of the Kurds, and any other people who wanted independence.