Iraq The American public is misleaded concerning the war in Iraq.

Americans believe that the war is for freedom, 9-11, and the good of the Iraqi people.

Americans are misled.

What is the war really about?

The war is not about terrorism, freedom, WMD's or the "people."

The war is misguided and damaging.

Experts agree that the war is a bad idea.

Clarke and Leverett give opinions on why the war is a bad idea.

The Iraq war is compared to an insufficient dose of penicillin.

What's so wrong with attacking Iraq?

There are no WMD's, the main justification is gone.

One cannot clean one's kitchen by cleaning the living room.

So what's the big deal?

American citizens are not safer than before, and may be less safe.

Iraq, like American Muslims are perceived as fair targets, whether they deserve it or not.

Conclusion: Iraq is not the same as al Qaeda.

The war against terrorism is in recess.

The United States remains in danger, unabated by the war.

Where's the War on Terrorism?

Ah yes. "EyeRack." We certainly went in there and kicked some terrorist butt, now didn't we? Yeah. We caught Sadaam, freed the Iraqi people, and preserved the freedom of Americans -- Our men and women in the military are in the dusty fields right now, making sure that the people who died on September eleventh did not die in vain. Yes...Yes....And if you believe all that, I have a wonderful bridge available for immediate purchase.

It is often said that the American people are among the most heavily influenced by media hype and political spin on the planet. Although many Americans would beg to differ, I challenge you to try asking an any smattering of people entering, say, a Wal-Mart, in any "heartland" American city, and see what they say. I almost one hundred percent guarantee that you will hear the words "freedom," "terrorism," and "September eleventh" in most answers. Now, if...

In response, Flynt Leverett, a former CIA analyst and Middle East expert noted that "administration decision-making...did not balance the imperative of finishing the job against al Qaeda vs. what they wanted to do in Iraq." Further, " "We took the people out who could have caught them," he said. "But even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is two years too late. Al Qaeda is a very different organization now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job."(Gillespie).
Indeed, it seems that, according to experts like Richard Clarke and Flynt Leverett, the Bush administration only served to make the Al Qaeda organization stronger...much in the same way a doctor can make a virus stronger by hitting it hard with a good antibiotic, only to back off too early, allowing the strain to mutate -- "you've had enough penicillin, Afghanistan, lets share some with Iraq

And what of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction? Of course, there were none. But even if there had been, would that be a justifiable reason for going to war? What of North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel (to name a few)? If the mere presence (or imagined presence) of WMD's is enough to warrant bombing, then why not them, too? After all, don't we believe in equality? Further, if there were no WMD's, how is America safer post-war -- and how is it that thousands of American troops believe that they are fighting for "freedom?" (Fletcher)

What of terrorism and September eleventh, you ask.…