These are the facts. If you dont agree then you have been unfortuneately liberlized by the media.
Bush was blamed for not stopping the 9/11 attacks because he had prior information. These same Liberals say we shouldnt be in Iraq even though he had information saying they are a threat, imminent or not. Should we preempt attack or shouldnt we if we are leaked info from our central intelligence agency?
Should we attack first or wait till another 9/11? If Bush waited for another 9/11 then he would be flamed for not stopping it or seeing it coming.
This is bullshit. He is attacking a country that has already used chemical weapons and a country i consider a threat. I dont think they are the top threat but they are a threat that is going to be made an example of. Is it smarter to start off with a smaller less significant country that you know you can take? Yes it is. You start off in Iraq setting an example for the rest of the World saying. Dont fuck with the US.
I think the biggest problem in America today isnt the terrorists, its the liberals that poison our country. terrorists die after their suicide cause. Liberals peck at your half gone leg as you sit in the sun roasting, waiting for your medivak. Liberals are the scavengers that wait for the carcus to be weak before they make there hit. We either need to conform to communism or socialism and get rid of our capitalist country, or FIGHT for our freedom and security. That means to kill those who want to inflict any harm or dismay on the US. Do i think we need to hit N. Korea straight on, No i dont think so. See this wouldnt be smart because we know they have nukes. So we will make an example of Iraq and put fear into other countries.
I vote for #2, Lets kick there ass!!!!