Snce when were 100,000 lives lost in Iraq?

And since we know as public knowledge that Saddam was aiding Palestinian terrorists (he was very open on that point) I don't think it's exactly a stretch to consider that he might provide weapons and material to Afghanistan, especially since it's geographically closer than Israel is.

I would rather have US troops in control of all those weapons caches than Saddam. You left wingers apparently disagree.

Well since we've lost less than 1200 soldiers total, of which most were lost either before these events or due to accidents, it would appear not many troops have been affected by this hysterical event.

This is such a great discussion because it outlines the really basic difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals operate on emotion. No perspective is considered. No rational consideration. Just pure raw gut emotion.

Myrannder: This is what you wrote.

You said that Clinton had done "nothing".  *I* would not have impeached Clinton because I didn't think what he did rose to the level of impeachment.  But he certainly did more than "nothing". He lied under oath and this is the chief law enforcement officer in the land.  And he obstructed office.

Of course, I also think that the hub-bub about Watergate was quite overblown as well. Both, from a legal perspective, are quite similar.

But regardless, you did demonize Republicans over the Clinton impeachment. You (and I) may disagree with those who felt he had done enough to be impeached, but there have been interviews with congressmen who knew that by voting for impeachment they would loose their house seats AND that they didn't need to vote yes in order for it to go through (that they had the votes) but felt that this was a very clear cut case of obstruction of justice and lying under oath and therefore had to vote for impeachment.

Then anonymous guy says:

I'm not sure if he's trying to be ironic or what but it was Kerry that latched onto this story without any investigation and immediately started making accusations that Bush was personally incompotent.  It was Kerry and his supporters that jump to conclusions.  The odds are that either Saddam moved them or the US military removed them. 

Kerry and his supporters are making the assumption that somehow, while the roads were clogged with US troops that unknown "insurgents" managed to cart of 200 tons of explosives. I doubt even today that the insurgents have enough trucks in one place to move that kind of material.

That is why I am arguing that this is a good example of the thought process difference between conservatives and liberals. I can tell you that if the roles were reversed, conservatives would not have latched onto this (en masse anyway, nthere's always going to be a few loonies) because: a) it's not a significant amount in the big picture and it would be rash to jump to conclusions and c) Occam's razor would indicate that looters simply could not have carted off this stuff.  But liberals operate on emotion. They don't have the same analytical reasoning capacity as conservatives (engineers tend to be conservatives, poets tend to be liberal).

It's this same kind of thinking that allows liberals to buy into pie in the sky plans for "alternative" energy. They don't THINK through the ramifications, they FEEL through them. Same in this case.