If it was a war about freeing the Iraqi people, then why was it labeled a war against terrorism and Al Queda? If you support overthrowing governments, why aren't you demanding that we go Burma? As for the tea party, if you understood it, you would be questioning it as well. "No taxation without representation", how in the hell does that apply today when you do have representation?
SamFisher would be against our founding fathers like John Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere, Samuel Adams, etc. They were all wing nuts.
You think your best interests are being represented in Washington? Then why do these power hungry politicians keep pushing garbage through the system and always growing government and never shrinking it? Most people in this country want less governmental intrusion, lower taxes and pretty much to be left alone to their own devices. I would have to say exactly the opposite is happening today. Revolutions always start at the grass roots and its time we got back to being a representative republic as was our original intention where the states controlled their own destiny and it was easier for citizens to keep an eye on politicians. Not this bloated federal government we see today dangling carrots in front of us with ulterior motives of just wanting more control over our lives and making us dependent upon them.
wow, haha Repeat after me. The war in Iraq was about WMDs. They were never found. The war in Iraq was about 9/11. There was no link found. The war in Iraq distracted troops from the significant unrest developing in Afghanistan, with a quasi-tyranny being set up right across the border in Peshawar. The only way you could justify the war in Iraq is to say that we were liberating people from tyranny. in which case, I have a newsflash; the US and A should probably be working on Saudi Arabia and most of the emirates employing near-slave labour to prop up underwater hotels, something that can be accomplished without ya know, spending one trillion taxpayer dollars.
Looks like the Tea Party protest is catching on.... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0M0ZOMXPzQ0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0M0ZOMXPzQ0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Correction, there were known links to terrorism in Iraq and he was producing weapons AND had gas which he used on the Kurds after the first gulf war. If you do your research you will remember that there was a whole stink going on about the UN weapons inspectors not being allowed into Iraq, which of course the UN (which is worthless) did absolutely nothing about.
The connections to terrorism were tenuous at best. Money to families of Palestinian martyrs(only some of whom were actual bombers or terrorists) isn't exactly the same thing. He had not effective gas left after the first gulf war. They were wiped out by previous inspections, and Clinton's strikes at the facilities where they were. What little samples they had left were old and no longer effective as a weapon of mass destruction.
