Of course bin Laden attacked us on 9/11 - and as Alyssa admits - Iraq had nothing to do with that. Iraq never attacked us. But as Tim Russert reported on Meet The Press: "In 2003, Osama bin Laden sought and received a religious ruling or fatwa from a radical Saudi cleric authorizing the use of a nuclear bomb against U.S. civilians as permissible under Islamic law. The ruling concluded that their use would be mandatory if it were the only way to stop U.S. actions against Muslims. 'If a bomb that killed 10 million of them and burned as much of their land as they have burned Muslims' land were dropped on them, it would be permissible,' the ruling concluded."

In response, Republican Senator Richard Lugar warned: "[T]here are a number of young people in life now who are prepared to commit suicide. Whether they are people in madrassa schools in Pakistan, quite apart from al-Qaeda - in other words, a different psychology, like the 9/11 people who went into the Trade Center. Now, because of this, we need two more things we haven't discussed today: better intelligence. And this means a lot of meshing of gears with every country, with the Germans, with the French, with the Russians, so that even if Osama has these objectives and there are even instruments, these suicidal young people, they can still be stopped if we know where they are, where they're coming from." See: NBC News' Meet The Press May 29, 2005.

During their appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" program the co-chairs Bush appointed to run the 9/11 Commission - Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton- as well as Senator Richard Lugar, Republican former Senator Fred Thompson and former Senator Sam Nunn - a defense expert - all confirmed Iraq was not a threat to the US, and the occupation there distracts from and undermines attempts to address the single greatest threat. They identified the Bush Administration's failure as a dire threat to Americans.

Host Tim Russert quoted from the September 11th commission report: "A nuclear bomb can be built with a relatively small amount of nuclear material. A trained nuclear engineer with an amount of highly enriched uranium or plutonium about the size of a grapefruit or an orange, together with commercially available material, could fashion a nuclear device that would fit into a van like the one Ramzi Yousef parked in the garage of the World Trade Center in 1993. Such a bomb would level Lower Manhattan."

Former Senator Thompson conceded, "We can do a lot better than what we're doing. But you can tell from that that it is a tremendous challenge to keep that small a quantity of material of any kind from crossing our borders. We've got to do a much better job because the consequences of this particular action would be so devastating if it occurred." This is from a Republican.

Another Republican, 9/11 Commission Chairman Kean confirmed Bush's failure to protect us from nuclear terrorist attacks: "we've had something, evidently it didn't work very well, that we spent a lot of money on. So we're going to try again, and we're working on it. In addition, we're working, of course, on border security, but we've got very long borders on both our sides, plus the container ports. And it is very, very difficult, will take a long time. And that's why Nunn-Lugar is so very important. If we don't get this stuff at the source, if we don't lock it down, once it's escaped from those sources, once it's away and moving around the world, it's going to be very hard to stop."

Russert quoted the Bush appointed Robb-Silverman Commission's alarm: "The intelligence community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's most dangerous actors, including Iran and North Korea. In some cases, it knows less now than it did five or 10 years ago." All these experts agreed that Bush is not dealing with the most serious threat to American lives: an alliance between nuclear North Korea and al Qaeda or terrorists gaining access to "loose nukes."

Sen. Thompson confirmed, "These loose nukes and so forth have been around. The destruction they could do to an American city - that threat has been there for a while. What has changed now is the number of people who are willing to carry out an operation to use those weapons. So you have the addition of the suicidal terrorists, plus the new nation-states, rogue nations, if you will, that are clearly developing the similar capabilities. So it's - we're just in the very, very beginning, in terms of attention, in terms of need for leadership, in terms of money in this nation in addressing this problem, which surpasses all the other problems that we think we have in this country."

Bush's continued occupation of Iraq is wasting hundreds of $billions and alienating allies we need to prevent nuclear attacks on American cities. Thompson calls an alliance between North Korea and al-Qaeda "realistic" and explains, "The nation-state developments - it takes a country, basically, to have the infrastructure to really develop these things, and so any kind of nation-state that has that capability and alliance with a terrorist organization is the ultimate threat, seems to me, and very realistic one."

Republican 9/11 Commissioner and former New Jersey Governor Kean adds, "I believe that, and we talked to nobody who had studied this issue who didn't think it was a real possibility. And if we don't perhaps head Lincoln's advice and, at this point, think anew and act anew, I worry very seriously." His co-chair, former Representative Hamilton confirmed, "Oh, yes, I think it's a distinct possibility" and warned "terrorism is spreading; radical Islam is spreading. You've got an explosive mix here." Senator Nunn agreed, saying "I think, though, that the message ought to be: It is certainly possible, but it is also preventable. There are a lot of things we can do that we have not done." NBC News' Meet The Press May 29, 2005

There it is. The biggest threat to American people remains terrorists using nuclear weapons, and Bush refuses to do what must be done to protect us. Instead, Bush ignores and exacerbates these threats. He offends and refuses to cooperate with our allies. He is afraid to engage North Korea directly but provokes and threatens them instead. Rather than fix the several disastrous intelligence failures confirmed by various commissions he appointed, Bush rewards those who continue to deliver flawed and false intelligence.

The risk of mushroom clouds over American cities continues to grow while Bush neglects the highest priorities and keeps squandering American lives and scarce resources. Bush occupies harmless Iraq while the real threat - bin Laden - remains free to plot nuclear attacks against us. Bush's lies and failures to confront the real dangers present is the real threat to American lives. Iraq is not.

I went through all of your sources, and none of them confirm Bush's and Cheney's lies were anything but lies. Some of your comments misstate the content of the articles cited and your reliance on the Duelfer Report is bizarre considering that report clearly stated that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction when Bush attacked. None. Only one of your articles applies to post-9/11 or post-invasion reality, and none of them - not one - conform with known facts.

Here are the facts: Iraq had no WMDs, Iraq posed no threat to us, and the Bush Administration knew this long before invading Iraq. Remember, Bush never claimed we had to attack Iraq because Saddam had "plans" to start "programs" to get weapons. Bush and others claimed that Saddam already had and could use WMDs in a matter of minutes to attack America. Those claims were lies, and these lies were the entire basis for Bush's demands that we attack Iraq. Bush lied about that, and the Duelfer Report confirmed Bush lied. Nothing Bush did or does in Iraq made, makes, or will make America any safer.

As CNN reported "Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes. In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War." CNN noted "The report was released nearly two years ago to the day that President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."

As "Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the committee, said 1,750 experts have visited 1,200 potential WMD sites and have come up empty-handed. 'It is important to emphasize that central fact because the administration's case for going to war against Iraq rested on the twin arguments that Saddam Hussein had existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that he might give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda to attack us -- as al Qaeda had attacked us on 9/11,' Levin said." See: Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq, CNN, October 7, 2004.

Bush shows his disdain for truth and accountability when he rewards those who misstated Iraqi weapons capabilities. The Associated Press' Walter Pincus reports: "Despite sharp critiques from the president's commission and the Senate intelligence committee, no major reprimand or penalty has been announced publicly in connection with the intelligence failures, though investigations are still underway at the CIA. George J. Tenet resigned as CIA director but was later awarded the Medal of Freedom by Bush. The president's commission urged the Bush administration to consider taking action against the agencies, and perhaps the individuals, responsible for the most serious errors in assessing Iraq's weapons program." Bush refused to address these serious problems. Instead he rewarded failure and promoted the inept.

CNN added: "Richard Ben-Veniste, who was a member of the Sept. 11 commission and whose government experience goes back to service as a Watergate prosecutor, said it is important for the administration to hold the intelligence community accountable for mistakes. 'It matters whether it was carelessness or tailoring [of intelligence], whether it was based on perceived wants of an administration or overt requests ... It is time now to demonstrate the need for the integrity of the process,' Ben-Veniste said."

CNN confirmed, "In its report, the commission, chaired by former appellate judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), said 'reform requires more than changing the community's systems: it also requires accountability.'" But Bush delivered the opposite. See: Analysts Behind Bad Iraq Intelligence Were Rewarded, Walter Pincus, Associated Press May, 28 2005.

Bush relies on lies and blocks accountability. After even Bush's own investigators confirmed that US claims about Iraq's WMD were dead wrong, he supports and repeats known falsehoods - lies. How can anyone still claim there were WMDs in Iraq? Charles Duelfer - upon whom Alyssa (or her mis-informer) relies - confirmed there were no WMDs in Iraq. The CIA admitted there were none. The 9/11 Commission admitted there were none. No one has found any despite extensive searching. Anyone who denies the known facts and repeats Bush Administration lies sacrifices their credibility in favor of a failed ideology. Or to be blunt - whoever claims Iraq had WMDs is lying to support a known liar - namely George W. Bush.

People dishonestly allege close cooperation between Saddam and bin Laden. Suppose those men were best friends rather than mortal enemies, where is any sign of any cooperation between them? There is no question who masterminded the 9/11 and who still represents the real threat to the USA - it is and was bin Laden and al Qaeda, not Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had closer ties with Iraq and Saddam than bin Laden ever did.

There's no reason to think Saddam and bin Laden ever met or did business, yet we know Rumsfeld and Cheney both helped Iraq. So why attack Iraq and let bin Laden go free? The attack on Iraq took personnel and equipment away from the effort against al Qaeda. Bush squandered hundreds of $BILLIONS we don't have as well as some 1600 American lives, and 100,000 Iraqis for a lie. And counting. All this instead of destroying bin Laden and al Qaeda or even making that his top effort. Anyone who claims the opposite is just ignorant or lying.

Bush's lies about Iraq - which only a few still believe - and his illegal invasion of Iraq have made us less safe. Where is bin Laden? Bush promised to bring back this monster dead or alive then said he doesn't think about bin Laden that much. Bush lied. That made us much less safe. There is no serious question about this from any thinking person. If that's not enough, let's test the supposed benefits from this war. Terrorism around the world is way UP. So much so that the State Deptartment no longer publishes the figures after they were caught LYING when they claimed terrorism was down.

Our troops are dying in Iraq as they're killing Iraqis by the 10,000s - most of them innocent. Our world standing is way down. Our allies know Bush is lying. Our enemies celebrate our waste of lives and resources in the Iraquagmire. Iraq is in civil war, and it's likely bin Laden's friends and supporters will win.

Terrorists are getting more recruits while our military is forced to lie to young people trying in vain to meet recruitment needs, and the Pentagon has to keep troops in combat far longer than is wise or safe - or legal. These are not opinions. These are all 100% proven facts. As for the unfounded claims Alyssa repeats, they don't pass the laugh test.

For example, if Egyptian President Mubarek and Jordan's King Abdullah - or Turkish leaders for that matter - really feared Iraq as a threat, then didn't any of those nations support Bush's invasion of Iraq? Why don't they send in troops now to prevent this supposed threat on their doorstep? Why did they all strongly oppose the invasion of Iraq? Because there was no threat from Iraq. They knew it. The Bush Administration knew it. The latter group chose to lie about it.

King Abdullah warns that toppling Saddam opened the door for a regional radical Islamicist pro-terrorist "crescent" which would destabilize Saudi Arabia, Egypt and his own Jordan. The Washington Post reported Abdullah's concerns that "a new 'crescent' of dominant Shiite movements or governments stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon could emerge, alter the traditional balance of power between the two main Islamic sects and pose new challenges to U.S. interests and allies.

The Post quotes Abdullah's fear that "If Iraq goes Islamic republic, then, yes, we've opened ourselves to a whole set of new problems that will not be limited to the borders of Iraq." That represents a real threat to US interests, a dire risk only increased by Bush's policies. "Even Saudi Arabia is not immune from this. It would be a major problem. And then that would propel the possibility of a Shiite-Sunni conflict even more, as you're taking it out of the borders of Iraq," according to Abdullah. See: Iraq, Jordan See Threat To Election From Iran, Washington Post, December 8, 2004.

As for Tommy Franks, he is a pro-Bush partisan who lied about where bin Laden was hiding, and denied bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora directly because the Bush policies relied on local warlords loyal to bin Laden rather than letting American troops do their jobs in Afghanistan. Franks also made the insane claim that diverting troops and most of our intelligence resources to Iraq from Afghanistan didn't hurt our effort to capture bin Laden. Franks is a known Bush apologist and liar who cannot be trusted on his bizarre claims which contradict known facts.

Alyssa (or her ghost writer) cite a Guardian article as proof that "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons" but that was only "according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials" - the same people who got everything wrong from the presence of such weapons in Iraq to the reaction of Iraqis to US invasion. The Guardian accurately reported that inept and / or dishonest sources made inaccurate claims and predictions. There was no such cooperation because there were no such chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. By going back years and to rely on refuted reports, Alyssa reveals a complete lack of current or credible evidence to refute accurate proof Bush lied.

Alyssa claims "Russian intel that revealed that Saddam Hussein had plans to attack the US," without any support. However, Russian and American intel revealed Bin Laden was "Determined to Strike in US." In fact, the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6th 2001 informed Bush of this fact in its headline. We know bin Laden DID attack us after Bush IGNORED this intel. Talk is cheap. Actions cannot be denied. By his actions, we must conclude that Bush cared far less about defending our people from attacks inside our nation than he cared about attacking the nation of Iraq. Of course Bush is lying about all of this and trying to blame others for his failures while lying about his failure to protect us from terrorism.

Alyssa (or her ghost writer) claims "The 'no support of al-Quaida' is very questionable"? OK then list any support Saddam gave to al Qaeda. I'll wait. Offering "assylum to bin Laden" is "very questionable." The 1999 AP report CNN used offers no support for this assertion. We know Bin Laden never operated in Iraq, but as your own article explains, the Taliban welcomed and protected bin Laden: "Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities. However, in recent weeks, both the United States and Britain have renewed their pressure on the Taliban to expel bin Laden."

The AP adds: "Pakistan, a strong ally of the Taliban and one of only three countries to recognize the movement's control over Afghanistan, also has been asked by the United States to use its influence to have bin Laden expelled from Afghanistan." Bush - before stealing the White House - embraced Pakistan's terrorist-supporting, nuclear proliferating military regime! Bad as this was, that's only part of the story.

President Clinton dedicated himself to neutralizing bin Laden, but Republicans in the Congress thwarted his efforts. Republican Senators like Phil Gramm blocked legislation to freeze al Qaeda financial assets because special banking interests told them to, and they opposed recommendations to improve airline safety out of deference to the airline lobbyists. Still, the Democrats didn't stop trying to keep Americans safe from terror. The Clinton Administration warned the Taliban that America would hold them personally responsible if Osama bin Laden attacked us. By contrast, Bush welcomed the Taliban to the White House!

The Washington Post confirmed, "The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order." See: See: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden: Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks Washington Post, December 19, 2001.

As the Washington Post reports: "Assistant Secretary of State Michael A. Sheehan, the department's counterterrorism coordinator, delivered the new message directly to the Taliban. He telephoned Foreign Minister Ahmed Waqil and read him a formal declaration known as a demarche. 'If bin Laden or any of the organizations affiliated with him attacks the United States or United States interests,' he told Waqil, 'we will hold you, the leadership of the Taliban, personally accountable. Do you understand what I am saying? This is from the highest level of my government [if] you're protecting him, you become responsible for his crimes.'"

Clinton's third-ranking State Department official Thomas Pickering "met with Mullah Ahmed Jalil, Taliban deputy foreign minister [and] told him, as Sheehan had told his boss, that 'people who are helping other people kill Americans are our enemies and should consider themselves as such.'" See: Clinton's War on Terror: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden, Washington Post, December 19, 2001.

Why did Bush reverse this "get tough" policy against the Taliban, and why did Bush reward the Taliban in the weeks and months before 9/11/01? We know the Bush administration withdrew the Clinton safeguards, and entered into negotiations with the Taliban to construct a pipeline. Clinton directed his national security team to brief the incoming Bush advisors on the al Qaeda threat. Bush, Cheney, Rice and the rest pointedly ignored this. We know Bush gave the Taliban $25 Million and withdrew the nuclear subs which threatened to retaliate against the Taliban if al Qaeda attacked us. After Bush kissed up to the Taliban, al Qaeda saw this as weakness and attacked us within weeks.

Bush gave more support to bin Laden (via the Taliban) than Saddam ever did directly or indirectly. Also, Reagan, Rumsfeld, Bush I and Cheney all supported Saddam - Cheney (via Kellogg Brown and Root) as recently as 1999! If Iraq was such a threat to the US, then Dick Cheney committed treason in 1999. When Alyssa calls for the arrest and prosecution and punishment of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush's daddy and other top-level Republicans who helped Saddam, I will credit her consternation about the mythical threat from Iraq which she claims justified Bush's war and all its costs to Americans and Iraqis.

Alyssa relies on a single article that claims Iraqis trained al Qaeda members - according to one single unnamed source - as justification to invade Iraq. Flimsy at best, but let's accept this for a moment. Let's accept that such marginal "proof" of marginal support requires American invasion of any nation that helps al Qaeda. That same article references a well-known and widely-reported fact: the Saudis supported al Qaeda more than anyone else. We know that from the article Alyssa presents: "Al-Qa'ida Group Headed by a Saudi Cleric. 'I remember that the leader of the group was a Saudi cleric called [Muhammad], who was a fervent and audacious individual and did not require much training. He was highly skilled, and could fire accurately at a target while riding a motorcycle. Additionally, he used to deliver fiery sermons calling for Jihad and for fighting the Americans anywhere in the world."

I looked at your source - The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and found this report: "On April 23, 2005, Saudi newspapers reported that 40 Pakistanis were arrested by the Saudi religious police in a Riyadh apartment for conducting Christian religious activity." See: 40 Christians Arrested in Saudi Arabia for Religious Activity By Saudi Religious Police: 'For Spread[ing] Poison' . By contrast, in Iraq under Saddam, Christians could celebrate holidays and pray to Jesus. In Saudi Arabia, our troops had to hide tiny Christmas trees in their tents during Desert Shield. News viewers in the US recently watched your beloved champion Bush sauntering hand-in-hand with the de facto Saudi dictator who supports this and other anti-Christian extremism, as well as pro-terror anti-American activities far more extensive than ever ascribed to Saddam.

As I also found from your source: "The Saudi daily Al-Riyadh recently published an article titled 'My Son's Teacher Was a Terrorist,' by Badria bint Abdallah Al-Bishr, a lecturer in social sciences at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. She described her children's experiences in school following September 11, 2001 and recounted her astonishment at discovering that one of the terrorists in the December 30, 2004 car bombing of the Saudi Interior Ministry in Riyadh had been her son's teacher. The following are excerpts from the article: 'Mother, Did You Know that Osama bin Laden is a Hero.'"

In shocking detail, Badria bint Abdallah Al-Bishr explains: "One day after the events of September 11, my son, who was then in fifth grade, came in from school. He entered my office as I was reading, [sat down and] crossed his legs, and said to me: 'Mother, did you know that Osama bin Laden is a hero who left the entire world behind him and went to the mountains to fight for the sake of Allah?' 'When he saw my astonishment, he cockily shifted position, confident that he hadn't yet finished surprising me, and asked: 'Mother, why don't we stop [exporting] oil to America so it will surrender to our terms?' [I replied]: 'What grave words you are saying! Watch your mouth!'" In case there's still any question in your mind, consider that this Saudi woman reports "My Son in Third Grade Drew Two Airplanes Blowing up in the Twin Towers" and when this happened. "The day after the events of September 11, my other son, then in third grade in elementary school, showed me his charming drawing, the subject of which was: 'Draw the sight of the two airplanes blowing up the twin [towers].'" See: Saudi University Lecturer: My Son's Teacher Was a Terrorist.

If - as Alyssa insists - one article in MEMRI supports Bush's attack against disarmed and sanctions-wracked Iraq for cooperating with al Qaeda, then articles from the same source demand even more strongly that we attack the Saudis! Note: I am not advocating war against Saudi Arabia, merely exposing the recklessness, ridiculousness and hypocrisy of Bush's insane "with us or against us" doctrine. After all, nearly all of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were Saudis. The Saudi government-supported clerics and schools teach and preach jihad against America, as her articles proves.

Osama bin Laden is a popular Saudi who - if Bush's blunders continue - could become the leader of that nation. Why did Bush ignore and even embrace incubators of al Qaeda terrorism - the Taliban and the Saudis - to wage war against the helpless nation of Iraq? Why did Bush start to attack in Afghanistan, then pull back and let bin Laden escape if as Alyssa claims: "Bush didn't back down"? Where is Osama bin Laden? The facts remain, even if Bush constantly lies about all of this.

Bush especially lied and still lies about his intentions and the conditions in Iraq from late 2001 up to the eve of his attack on Iraq. Unlike the Saudis, Iraq had no air force when Bush attacked. Iraq had no weapons capable of striking us and no WMDs. Iraq was a broken nation which posed no threat to its neighbors. Confirming all of this, inspectors were combing Iraq mere days before Bush attacked.

As the Downing Street minutes reveal, Bush ignored all of these known facts and lied when he promised to exhaust all diplomatic and non-military means to resolve the Iraq situation. Bush fit the facts and intelligence to his premeditated decision to wage war. He lied to the US public, the world and the Congress in order to gain support for a war he intended to wage no matter the facts or the costs. So many lies and failures, and now so many cover-ups. So many lives squandered and so many opportunities wasted.

Alyssa demands I read Bush's mind and tell her why Bush lied: "Lies for what? What's the incentive? Sully your reputation forever for nothing?" I can guess at answers, but why should I? I proved Bush did lie us into war. Alyssa can ask Bush or one of his supporters why he threw out his and America's credibility, standing and reputation by lying and committing international and war crimes this way. I proved Bush and his top officials lied over and over and over. It's not my job to explain why they lied. Remember Alyssa's original challenge? She demanded I "Point out the first 'lie' from the Bush team."

I did what I promised and what Alyssa demanded I do. I listed several lies, and as expected Alyssa lied by claiming I "never mentioned any specific lies." Later, she wrote to admit I did mention several lies, but took exception with things she thinks I said she said. What she thinks I said isn't important. Bush's lying with keeps people dying is important.

Denying the facts doesn't make them go away. I just listed even more lies the Bush Administration used to take us into war. For more, see books by Richard Clarke and several others. Also see: Articles on Iraq at MikeHersh.com. The Bush team lied several times in several ways over several months. Alyssa cannot refute or even argue against any of that. No matter how much she may wish Bush wasn't a liar, he remains a liar. As people repeat Bush's lies, they become a liars as well. All for nothing but death and destruction. Maybe Alyssa can tell me why she's lying? What's her incentive? Why is she sullying her reputation when all the lies, rumors, misquotes, misrepresentations and BS in the world cannot change the truth?

Here's the truth: Bush lied us into war. None of these lies and deceptions support the massive waste of American and Iraqi lives and hundreds of $billions of tax dollars in an illegal, needless war. Nothing anyone can claim justifies any of it. I hope Alyssia's family won't suffer as Cindy Sheehan suffers from the loss of her son Casey. I saw her speak about this Friday evening, and her compelling testimony establishes the case for impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and many others who lied us into war and catastrophe.

I hope it doesn't take the loss of a loved one before Alyssa and others open their eyes and ears to see the truth and hear Cindy Sheehan's testimony. I really hope Alyssa's brothers don't suffer the same fate as Casey Sheehan or the other 1600+ Americans killed or the several 1000s injured for Bush's lies. I urge everyone to speak out and act now to end the illegal occupation of Iraq before more Americans and Iraqis die for Bush's lies. Alyssa's brothers' and thousands of others' lives depend on your telling the truth and refuting lies.

----------------- First Original Message -----------------

Speaking as someone with two brothers serving in Iraq (while you sit on your a$$ and complain), your faux-patriotism and idiotic slander of a president is neither appreciated, wanted, or regarded with the slightest degree of respect.

You're a third-rate hack. Care to differ? Point out the first "lie" from the Bush team.

Of course, you can't. You can point out intelligence failures (thanks largely in part to decades of cuts in the intel community), but that's about it.

*yawn* Your type bores me.

Here's one huge lie from the Bush team: They knew there was no evidence Iraq had any WMDs and they knew Iraq posed NO threat to the US or its neighbors. They also knew Iraq played no role in 9/11 and had not supported al Qaeda - thus there was no reason or justification for war. We know all of this, thanks to the "Downing Street" minutes. Have you read them?

Unlike Bush, I would never risk your brothers' lives for a lie. That's what all the Bush & co. reasons for this war are. Lies. Why do you support something that is making us less safe, and is risking the lives of people you love? Please tell me how you can reconcile this waste of lives and money for lies? How many innocent American troops and Iraqis must die before you stop supporting this?

"Here's one huge lie from the Bush team: They knew there was no evidence Iraq had any WMDs and they knew Iraq posed NO threat to the US or its neighbors."

This is absolutely false. Did you read General Tommy Frank's book? Both President Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan both told General Franks that Iraq possessed chemical weapons, and that he could expect them to be used in battle, as Saddam was a mad man. For starters.

"They also knew Iraq played no role in 9/11 and had not supported al Qaeda - thus there was no reason or justification for war. "

The "no support of al-Quaida" is very questionable. Particularly given the fact that, oh, Saddam Hussein offered assylum to Osama bin Laden: http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

And these meetings: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html

And Russian intel that revealed that Saddam Hussein had plans to attack the US (not through al-Quaida, but further evidence to be leary):

And Saddam Hussein's army training al-Quaida operators: http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iraq&ID=SP59203

These meetings in which Iraqi officials sought a relationship with al-Quaida operatives:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html

These meetings: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/iraq/6764376.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

These plans to attack US ships in the Persian Gulf under the Iranian flag: http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iraq&ID=INW302..I

And the administration never claimed Iraq played any role in 9/11. Don't repeat the hackneyed lines made over and over again. Weeks after 9/11, Dick Cheney said on national television when asked of any involvement between the two that he had no evidence that would suggest that Iraq was linked to 9/11.

"Unlike Bush, I would never risk your brothers' lives for a lie. That's what all the Bush & co. reasons for this war are. Lies. Why do you support something that is making us less safe, and is risking the lives of people you love? Please tell me how you can reconcile this waste of lives and money for lies? How many innocent American troops and Iraqis must die before you stop supporting this?"

And no, I don't think this is making our nation less safe. If anything, the extremists are being forced into the open, their leaders are being assassinated, their bank accounts being frozen, and this nation is slowly awakening to the fact that we need to secure our borders a bit more. And I'll remind you that it's not Americans that are killing innocent Iraqis. It's extremist nutcases...Syrians, Iranians, Saudis, and yes, some former Baathists, who should have been interred in internment camps as we did in Germany after WWII.

Would you continue to wait and do nothing? The Doelfer Report clearly stated that Saddam had plans to restart his weapons program, and given the recent Oil-for-Food scandal in the UN, with the Security Council bribed, we would have had no way of knowing if Saddam Hussein even restarted the program. This war could have easily been averted if Saddam Hussein didn't act like he possessed the weapons in the first place. Indeed, why did he present the same fraudulent data he did in 1998? Why did he refuse to allow weapons inspectors into the nation until the very eve of the invasion? Why? Because he thought he bought off France, Russia, and China. Because he thought we wouldn't go to war w/o the UN's (corrupt) approval.

Instead, Saddam Hussein acted like he had something to hide, and Bush didn't back down. In the above, you never mentioned any specific lies. You just threw a blanket statement with no evidence. I highly doubt Bush would just throw away his political career and his legacy over lies. Lies for what? What's the incentive? Sully your reputation forever for nothing? I don't buy the "lies" line. You can argue that the evidence wasn't as substantial as it should have been, but lies? I don't think so.

Accusing informed, honest Bush critics - Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike - of demanding we "do nothing" is a lie which does nothing to defend or rehabilitate Bush and the other liars who claim killing innocent Iraqis makes Americans safer. Even as they ignore real threats. National Guardspeople who we need to protect us from natural disasters are risking their lives in Iraq - making us less safe - when they should be home keeping us safe. Soon, Americans will die needlessly from forest fires and in the aftermath of floods and hurricanes because the people we need here are far away killing and dying as Bush keeps lying.

It doesn't really matter if someone says Saddam "acted like" he had WMDs. It doesn't matter who else thought he might have WMDs. The fact remains that he didn't, and on the eve of Bush's war inspections were proving there were no WMDs in Iraq. The fact remains the Bush Administration knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, and Iraq posed no threat to the US. It doesn't matter what one young woman "thinks" about these facts or if she "buys" or believes the facts. It doesn't matter if she ignores them. The facts remain the facts. No matter why Bush and his people lied and continue lying, the facts remain facts and the lies remain lies. Bush keeps lying and people keep dying. That's all that really matters. That, and that we must prevent Bush and his accomplices from invading another nation. We must demand an immediate end to the Iraqi occupation, and we must impeach Bush, Cheney and the rest for their lies and policies that directly caused the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis and 1600+ Americans. If you care about the facts and the lives at risk, please Openly Oppose Bush.