Are the liberals tricked by the cons into a false argument about Iraq??

Question

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47717/

Answer 1

Hopefully the politicians (or their staffs) are shrewd enough not to be tricked into any arguments. Some will say Iraq should not have been invaded. Others will say the war was mishandled.
Both could be valid arguments.
Ideally, neither of those would be enough to win an election. I know I want to see a plan for the future before I vote. But I think at least some of the democratic candidates have some plans, and are developing those plans further. And there certainly is a place for debate about the recent past in the political rhetoric.
Personally, I think that the case made to the people was not the correct case for going to war in Iraq, but there was a case to be made for it, which depended mainly on mideast strategy and a desire to influence the region.
So they made the wrong case for war, but once we got there they incompetently handled it and botched achieving the regional influence that would have been a good case for war.
In other words, the dems can win either argument or both at the same time.

Answer 2

Try watching this New Jersey morning show, in which the host interviewed 3 former, now 'tolerant' terrorists. You're going to be in for a huge shock when you find out where the money is being funneled from, and how they are still training here 'in cells' in the U.S.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK07B70&f=PW07B04&t=e

Answer 3

Naw - liberals are best at tricking themselves out; they don't need us.