sick, queasy, afraid, ANGRY

that's how i feel. remember the words to the who song...........WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN

now i think iran is being run by madmen, no doubt about that. iraq was as well. HOWEVER, we had NO RIGHT to invade. sure saddam SHOULD have been taken out but not like he was. look at what we did. are we going to allow this to happen again? oh yeah and remember, iran is MUCH BIGGER than iraq. how many more men and women are we willing to lose? my answer, NONE
was ANYONE a threat to us BEFORE we invaded iraq? well certainly NOT iraq....THEY didn't bomb the world trade center, the pentagon and crash the plane in pa
Hersh: 'War with Iran will be about protecting the troops in Iraq'
Greg Wasserstrom
The only thing different about the Bush Administration's rhetoric about Iran and statements made regarding Iraq before the US invasion in 2003 are the words chosen, says journalist Seymour Hersh.
"They've changed their rhetoric, really. The name of the game used to be nuclear threat," Hersh said on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, adding a moment later, "They've come to the realization that it's not selling, it isn't working. The American people aren't worried about Iran as a nuclear threat certainly as they were about Iraq. So they've switched, really."
The Bush Administration is all but set to authorize a campaign of limited, surgical airstrikes against Iranian targets, Hersh reports in the New Yorker's latest edition. In his piece, Hersh writes, "During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British 'were on board'... Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution."..........