Why don't republicans ever comment on this wort of thing?

I'll comment on this WORT of thing.

You're comparing President Bush's comments on anti-war protests (policy to PREVENT terrorist attacks) to Secretary Ridge's comments on security (policy to keep people from panicking in the event of a terrorist attack).

You don't think this year-long 'rush to war' hasn't been affected by protests? It is the protests that have prevented Saddam from being ousted months, even a year ago.

Does THIS sound familiar?

It is those whose opinion is that Saddam has ran out of last chances YEARS ago who's voices are not being heard.

The hypocrisy is that on the one hand, Bush says he's not going to base policy on focus groups, while on the other hand, they do base policy on focus groups. In other words, only when they act in our best interests will we use focus groups. Ridge's point isn't how to prevent panic in the event of a terrorist attack, but how to prevent panic when the administration says "we're pretty sure that the sky might be falling, but don't worry about it, just let the professionals deal with the issue."

And while we're on the topic, let's not forget that we DID go to "war" a year or so ago in Afghanistan. That whole bin Laden, wanted dead or alive thing, bombing caves, all of that. That's supposedly the war to help "prevent terrorism," and protests against that were few and far between.

War in Iraq? That's another story. Without the clear and obvious links to 9/11 that allowed us to go into Afghanistan, the administration correctly worked with the United Nations. In NOVEMBER, the current resolution was passed. Weapons inspectors returned in late December, with a commitment to deliver a report within 60 days (umm... that's right about now).

After those initial reports, the goal was for the security council to reconvene, assess the situation, and decide whether or not military intervention was required.

Which is why it does seem kind of like a rush to war that instead of waiting for a decision, the US started immediately shipping troops to the Middle East. That the spin, almost non-stop since December, has been inspections don't work, inspections don't work, even before they had a chance to get started again.

Finally, it's interesting to note that in 1998, Hussein apparently had enough biological material to "blow away Tel Aviv," plus crude, working missiles, and yet, even without inspectors or a strong presence in the Gulf, those weapons somehow never got used.

So, WHY were there no protests over our 'war' in Afghanistan?

Was that 'war' good, while this one is bad?

Or was the Taliban bad, while Saddam is good?

Talk about hypocrisy!

That Saddam was given his 'last chance' 5 years ago, but Clinton did nothing, is hypocrisy.

That Saddam has YET to comply with any UN resolution in the last 12 years, threatening him with another resolution would be hypocrisy.

To threaten use of force without showing that you are ready to use force would be hypocrisy.

To say that by not using weapons he's not supposed to have that Saddam is complying with the UN resolution is hypocrisy.

You are absolutely correct.

If I say "I oppose war," but have no issues with Afghanistan, then it is hypocrisy.

I'm not saying that, though. I'm saying that I supported what we did in Afghanistan for very specific reasons. I do NOT support what we are going to do in Iraq, also for very specific reasons.

Suffice it to say that it's not as pedantic is "good" or "bad." I felt that there was both a more compelling reason to act in Afghanistan (like the fact that bin Laden took credit for the 9/11 attacks, on audio AND video), as well as a more clearly defined endgame. That we didn't achieve our clearly defined (and stated) endgame there is only one of many reasons I'm reluctant to start another military operation.

There are more, but I won't bother. Your other uses of the word "hypocrisy" are as ironic as rain on a wedding day.

That Saddam himself has words of praise for the 'anti-war' protesters speaks volumes about that cause.

I'm sure he remembers Stalin's term for those in the US who supported his cause, while he extermintated 20 million of his own people.

Maybe so, but unless you americans distance yourself from the madness of dubya bush you'll only bring greater hate upon yourselves. i have nothing against america, but there is a growing feeling over here that the country is just a mad farm - and britain is meant to be your greatest ally! people don't tell jokes about the french or irish anymore, its about the yanks, or yankees. america has done some great things, no one denies, but WHY BUSH?????