When you hear people crticize those who are questioning the War In Iraq for a ... "cut and run" postition/strategy, those folks are blasted for making opposition to war a political issue. When the opponents of President Bush and the War raise questions and issues everyday, the main stream media, such as Mr. Gregory, not only ask questions but aggressively support the naysayers ... this is appropriate, necessary, and patriotic??? Hmmm, and the media wonders who fly over country considers main stream TV and print to be in lock step with Michael Moore and the DNC?!

I am blown away by the this administration, as well as those who follow this administration, twist the opinons around about those who do not support their agenda. Just because one doesn't support the war doesn't mean they don't support the troops; they support them so much to make enough noise about it so they can come home-ALIVE. Then this administration wants to talk about choosing your statements carefully but no one questions the statements that comes out of Geroge W. Bush's mouth as if he is the ALMIGHTY. Which brings me to the comment that he made about him being "called by GOD" to restore peace in the region. Now, I am a person of faith and believe dearly in the word, but those who know the word, read it and live it on a daily basis also know that this will never happen until the Messiah returns; is this who President is proclaming to be? I can recall not to long ago a man by the name of David Keresh believed he also shared a similar calling, except his followers were not called supporters, they were called a cult. I believe in separation of church and state. What I believe may not be what the next person believ's, but this MY belief. Who am I to force my beliefs upon some one. I do believe in abortion, but I am pro choice. Reason being I don't have to live with it and I don't have to answer for it. So many in Congress are pro life but for the death penalty; that seems a bit basis to me.
I am just deeply concerned on the administration feels that there are some things they don't have to answer as well as some things you shouldn't ask. What makes this group different from all those who came before the them; RIGHT doesn't change over the years, agenda's do. The new slogan for the agenda is "spreading freedon and democracy around the world". I know there are other places who are begging for freedom to come to them, yet the only place this administration found to spread it is Iraq. I just have one question; if this administration is so much for freedom and democracy how can it continue to deal with and turn a blind eye to China?

More than 53,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese died during the Viet Nam war. For what purpose? Did we win? What did we gain? Nothing

Iraq is and will be the same. We will have gained nothing and won nothing.

Our troops die in vain just as the 53,000 did in Viet Nam.

Bush made a tactical error, as usual, by dismissing Murtha's statements out-of-hand. Understandibly, Bush had to return and parse his points on the Iraqi conflict with a greater penchant toward his old patriotic endeavor and support the troops again as if the issue of proper armor still hasn't sunk home. Murtha's statement how he has turned 180 degrees is most meaningful to a veteran and especially to one who relates Murtha's brotherhood with the armed forces more so than Bush's command of it, which is why Bush changed his point of view. Murtha could have undermined Bush's partison aspect toward the war. Murtha has fought and has been associated with the armed forces while Bush essentially fled from it by going through the National Guard and sidestepping Vietnam altogether(which Bush doesn't want to revisit). Bush simply had to regain the higher ground against Murtha by stealing it away from him. "I am the Commander-in-chief," saith Bush and that man, Murtha, cannot fully appreciate the waging of war as I can. Therefore, I have greater empathy for the troops and all Americans should concur. Really, Mr. President?

I think we sometimes get so involved in the domestic politics of the war in Iraq that we forget about what has continued to occur in that country for year after year after year. That is the indiscriminant killing of innocent Iraqis by terrorist Iraqis and outside terrorist who will do anything to prevent the majority of Iraqis from creating their own form of democracy. We are trying to make that possible.

I find it amazing that the Bush administration, after comparing John Murtha to Roger Moore, has the audacity to demand "responsible debate." It appears that responsible debate, as defined by this administration, means mindless agreement with the most recent "justification" for the war in Iraq - "Would you believe . . . weapons of mass destruction?" "Would you believe . . . links to Al Qaeda?" "Would you believe . . . truth, justice and American corporate interests?"

Our soldiers put their lives on the line to protect us from genuine threats, not bogeymen thrown up in the aftermath of 9/11. Supporting the troops, rather than the politicians, requires debating fully and openly both the original justification for the war and the justification for maintaining our troops in Iraq nearly three years after Bush declared an end to major fighting. A scheduled withdrawal of U.S. troops, replaced by a combination of Iraqi troops and U.N. peacekeeping forces, would send a strong message that we really do have the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart, rather than the best interests of Bechtel and Haliburton.

I think that the prez is largely correct to make the assertions that he made. We need to express our opinions with some class and respect. Both sides of the debate need to understand this. Each side, I think, is capable of accepting constructive criticism and "agree to disagree" without becoming a bunch of babies. This becomes even more important when men and woman are risking their lives for freedom, human rights, and democracy over seas. I wasn't comfortable with our mission in Somalia at that time in 1993 but i knew it was for a noble cause and I don't think that anyone with a decent heart would have wanted to throw president Clinton under the bus. The saving grace is that American public is becoming savvy enough to see right through this petty infighting....polititians and the press should take notice.

Point of clarification for you, Mr. Gregory. Your paraphrasing of Bill Maher is not quite on target. I believe he stated not that there was "no difference" between the 9/11 hijackers and the U.S. military, but was disputing the Administration's portrait of the hijackers as "cowards." One of the direct quotes I've found reads as follows: "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly." His larger point is that if we're going to beat the terrorists, we had better first understand them, not make caricatures out of them.

Mr. Gregory, I appreciate your observations about the strategies that the White House uses to marginalize those who not only question the basic premise of the war on Iraq but how the Administration has conducted it. In both the premise and the conduct of the war, the White House doesn't have facts on its side. One would think that the Administration would put as much effort into implementing a workable strategy to conduct the war as they do in demonizing those who point out that the war isn't going very well. They are excellent at running political strategies but they certainly haven't shown that they can actually govern. Even Paul Bremer, at this point, concedes the point.

I do take exception to your observation about the "animus" toward our military during the Vietnam War. That is actually a myth. A draft was in place during the Vietnam War, and, then even more than now, those soldiers were our brothers, our lovers, our sons, our best friends. The "animus" wasn't against the SOLDIERS, but the rationale and the conduct of the war, the military and civilian leaders who were lying to us, misleading us, and sending our brothers to die. Lying about the casualties, lying about the secret bombing campaigns, lying about the "Domino Theory."

The myth that soldiers were routinely spit upon when returning from the war is just that: a myth. Please stop perpetrating that lie. The reality is that the Viet Nam Vets were rejected by the veteran's organizations such as the VFW, refused membership for many years on the basis of something so trivial as having long hair. Hard to believe now, but it is true. If there was a "Viet Nam Syndrome" it was not the young people of that day who created it.
You are correct in observing that

Immediately after we lost 3000 people on 9-11 every politician was asking what did we know, and when, and if we knew what did we do to stop the attack. Please read the obligations of the President contained in the oath of office. He is to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic. We lost ground in information because of regulations and short sighted legislators. The failure of our CIA, FBI, NSA, and Police agencies to first be able to cross talk and exchange information is attributable to the Criminal Ineptitude and Mis/Mal feasance in office by both the house and senate. All of these people should be held personally responsible for their failure to act. If anyone does not believe that the US is at war and her citizens are at risk, they need only to study recent history and take a brief trip abroad. This is a war of beliefs and those wanting us dead are just like the Japanese pilots flying thier planes into our Navy ships in WWII. They just use cheaper planes! It is ALL idology. The refusal to admit the facts, broadcast them, reveal secret information,impeade efforts to gain informnation, put our personnel at greater risk is the way the press and the left coast get back at Sen. Mc Carthy. Those citizens of my country like living in a dream world. I pray these idiots don't have the opportunity to smell burned flesh as we did on 9-11 in their back yard before they wake up. Thank God president Bush takes his job seriously. He damn well better keep doing all he can by way of every means possible to learn how, why, when, where so he can put into play the proper defense. thank God there is 1% of our population that are there to protect the rest of us. And, if you care to, review history and past Presidents actions. Every one of them did intercept foreign communications and did undertake spy actividity to uphold their oath of office.

David, your memory on the Bill Maher thing is not quite right. On ABC on November 17, 2001 he said America was cowardly compared to the terrorists: "We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from 2000 miles away, that’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, not cowardly." Fleischer merely said you might want to think your statements through. Maher certainly didn't seem to do that. He got canned.

The same can be said of irresponsible debaters like Cindy Sheehan, who make wild-eyed comments about the president and call the Iraqi terrorists "freedom fighters." How can people know what irresponsible debate is when the news media censors out the embarrassingly stupid statements from "peace moms"?

Attaboy David! Imagine trying to win a debate on the merits! What a NOVEL idea! Unfortunately, one that will never reach the occupants of the White House--given their disdain for the MSM. Nevermind, keep pushing. There is always hope!

For far too long this administration has clouded the minds of too many americans. Americans who want to believe that those seeking to lead this country are honorable and have the best interest of all americans at heart. Americans too comfortable in their level of financial existence to want to upset the status qou and threaten what they have.
The administration wants to dictate what, when, and how, things should be debatede because they're starting to lose thier grip on a complacent populace. A populace who is beggining to become aware of the truths that this administration has hidden for too long. The truth that's aparent in all of the areas that the administration is loath to allow the debate's expansion.
American's are starting to become aware that the promise of this administration has yet to yeild any of the fruits promised in its words.
This has never been a war for democracy, or against, WMD's, or against terrorism. From the beggining, which has its roots back in the 80's, it's been a war for profit and control. Just look at the contracts that have been gifted since its inception. Look who has profited an continues to profit. Not the american people. AND WE'RE FINLLY STARTING TO SEE!

It's plain and simple to see the manipulation by the administration ,since 911 everyone in this country has become so sensitive to debate the actions of the government and when debates do arise the same phrase is used "since 911 there has not been a major terrorists attack inside the US". Okay no attacks in the US but abroad weve' seen a few and what's the catalysts for these attacks ? The American public tend not to look beyond the relm of the americas but this same ignorance has brought the world dislike or hence diapprove of american intrusion and the arrogance of this administrations policies tend to fuel these perceptions. So the president should really debate on the merits of the war instead of attacking people who disagree with his policies cause this just tells me that he has no merit to debate on.

I find your point well taken but how come you don't apply it to yourself and as well as other critics. No matter what Bush says or do you will find fault. You just don't accept that you are the minority view and you lost the election! Period end of story. When you provide fair, balanced and objective reporting...I might have some respect for you.
So far...I haven't seen any evidence of it.

Which is worse, irresponsible debate, or the irresponsible killing and maiming of innocent women and children? This has happened not once, but many times in Iraq. William Calley was held responsible for a massacre
in Vietnam, who will hold Bush responsible for attacking
a country that could do us no harm. Lest we forget, this was termed a pre-emptive strike. Now we have King George the Curious spying on Americans, to pre-emt terrorists. IRRESPONSIBLE DEBATE????????????? HOW DEEP IS THIS RABBIT HOLE?

With regards to debating the War in Iraq and the overal War on Terror, FREEDOM of speech should always prevail.

When citizens, politicians and othWith regards to debating the War in Iraq and the overall War on Terror, FREEDOM of speech should always prevail.

When citizens, politicians and other engage in thoughtful debate that discusses the merits and shortfalls of any issue, including the current War, that is the healthiest thin that can happen in a democracy.

When one critiques and agrees or disagrees with the cost, the mission, the pretense and the success of the War in Iraq that is totally justifiable.

However, last night I saw a segment on MSNBC where a guest called the President a terrorist and the War in Iraq illegal - that is without a doubt unhealthy debate and unneeded language. When those who oppose the war start calling our troops terrorists for carrying out the duty and mission set forth by our elected government, that is wrong and that does hurt troop moral.

If someone wants to debate the war, they should critique the government that authorized it. Our troops protect Americans everyday. If a citizen has an issue that the war costs to much, they should direct that comment to their politicians and to the community - AND NOT bad mouth the troops.

Debating the pro's and con's of war, the mission the cost, the leaders who authorized it is healthy debate and no one should set limits that takes away those kind of talking points. But, equating those who support and execute the mission of the war terrorists is just plain wrong and they need to think long and hard.

No limits on freedom of speech, but there is a difference between freedom of speech and responsible speech!er engage in thoughtfull debate that disucusses the merits and shortfalls of any issue, including the current War, that is the healthiest thin that can happen in a democracy.

When one critiques and agree's or disagrees with the cost, the mission, the pretense and the success of the War in Iraq that is totally justifiable.

However, last night I saw a segment on MSNBC where a guest called the President a terrorist and the War in Iraq illegal - that is without a doubt unhealthy debate and uneeded language. When those who oppose the war start calling our troops terrorists for carrying out the duty and mission set forth by our elected government, that is wrong and that does hurt troop moral.

If someone wants to debate the war, they should critique the government that authorized it. Our troops protect Americans everday. If a citizen has an issue that the war costs to much, they should direct that comment to their politicians and to the community - AND NOT bad mouth the troops.

Debating the pro's and con's of war, the mission the cost, the leaders who authorized it is healthy debate and no one should set limits that takes away those kind of talking points. But, equating those who support and execute the mission of the war terrorists is just plain wrong and they need to think long and hard.

No limits on freedom of speech, but there is a difference between freedom of speech and responsible speech! I say, God Bless The Troops!!!

Congressman John Murtha should applauded by anyone with common sense, and listened to by the Bush administration. The lack of candor and out-in-out lies by the administration concerning the war and just about every aspect of its attempts at government is beyond reprehensible. Hopefully it's impeachable.

President Bush and his loyal henchmen prefer to argue that anyone who does not agree with their position is either: Unamerican, defeatist, abeting the terrorists, or worse. He seems to forget that it is ok to disagree, as long as one is respectful of the other side's perspective. Bush and his colleagues are neither respectful, honest or trustworthy.

They believe their interpretations are accurate because THEY say so; no one else is allowed to interpret things differently. I guess he thinks all voting Americans are dumb enough to believe that he knows everything there is to know about everything.

I only hope that the press continues to cover those individuals and organizations that do not agree with Bush on all the issues; a healthy debate of the issues, on the issues, is an integral part of the American democractic process.

It's just a little hard for me to accept that the men and women in the service are fighting to give rights to a nation, when our government is taking away those very same rights from its citizens.