You are an astonishingly rude young man, JaTo. I'm sorry to see this. But it certainly is in keeping with the behavior of your political soulmates (Cheney, Rove, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.). One's behavior is the mirror of one's character.
You concede that the insurgency is increasing its attacks. So, I take it we agree that Bush has not secured most of Iraq and its borders. Let�s call this what it is: a military failure. A competent commander in chief would not get bogged down in a guerilla war in a hostile region.
You try to excuse this failure by saying "it's getting closer to election time," but does that make it any less a failure? The insurgents have been increasing their attacks virtually throughout the occupation. The upcoming election may be one motivation, but they have never lacked for motivations.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Iraq has HUGE tracts of uninhabited desert. No sh!t it's not under government control; it's not under the control of the insurgent element either, Einstein.
The fact that the insurgents are not in control of all the remote areas and the borders does not make the occupation a success. As you know, the only "secure" area is the Green Zone, and even that is questionable lately, considering the recent attacks there.
Originally posted by JaTo:
EVERY intelligence agency around the globe had the same rap sheet on Saddam's WMD capability. Care to comment on that particular piece?
Sure, lots of agencies said they thought Saddam had WMDs. But most agencies also admitted that they had no solid recent intelligence, and that they could only really guess. The CIA was so badly burned by 9/11 (and so pressured by the Bush Adminstration) that they were overstating the threat dramatically. Bush chose to ignore the thinness of the CIA's evidence. That was a huge mistake.
Originally posted by JaTo:
You are also forgetting to addres numerous concerns by various UN committies (UNIMOVIC, IAEA, weapons inspection teams, etc.) of dual-use equipment that remained in Iraq.
What? Of course there were "concerns"; that is not an issue. Here's the real issue: the UN weapons inspectors found nothing! And the collective intelligence of the UN was that the evidence of a WMD threat was too weak to support an invasion.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Yes, it certainly has brought them out of the woodworks and kept more of them from focusing their efforts (albeit unintentionally) here stateside. I'm sure taking the war to them makes the US less secure. 
You are making a HUGE and dangerous assumption here. Do you really think the war in Iraq is preventing Al Quaeda and other terrorists from planning attacks on the US? On which facts do you base that opinion, or is it just a wild guess?
Originally posted by JaTo:
The US has always been one of the most hated countries in the world by terrorists
Then why did they start hating us at about the same time we started supporting Israel and supporting repressive dictators in the region, including (to name a few) the Shah of Iran, the Saudis, every oil-rich principality in the Gulf, and Saddam himself?
Originally posted by JaTo:
If this was the centerpiece on the war on terror, then why did we invade Afghanistan first?
BUSH and CHENEY call Iraq the centerpiece in the war on terror! Do you need proof of this? Their speeches have made that claim several times.
Originally posted by JaTo:
The US has a fairly long list of allies during the time of invasion and still maintains a vast number of them in support of our efforts on terrorism.
It really is best to concede obvious points, or your credibility is ruined, JaTo. Even Republicans admit that Bush has alienated a great many of our most important allies. They admit the "coalition" in Iraq is really just a fig leaf consisting of the UK and a few very small and weak countries. But I see you fail to concede even that. Please post a list of these "allies" that you think are so important. The rest of us could use a laugh.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Even if some countries don't support our efforts in Iraq, almost ALL have come to the realization that Islamic extremism/terrorism is something that SERIOUSLY concerns them and they are taking measures to address it. See Spain, France, Germany and a whole slew of other civilized nations for examples.
What does this have to do with Bush's performance in the war on terror?
By the way, you insinuated several times that my original post was a "cut and paste", or that it was written by some other individuals. I'm not sure why you feel that is meaningful, but I can assure you that I wrote it in its entirety. I drew on the many publications I read, but I wrote it after reading this forum for some time and seeing that many members assumed, without explanation, that Bush was worthy of our support almost solely on the basis of his performance in the war on terror.
This is getting too long. And I have only covered up to number 6! I'll end it here and finish later on.
