The first debate is history. And I missed it. Others didn't.
But, my question is this: is anyone else buying the notion that Iraq was a part of the "war on terrorism" when we started out? Sure, now. But then? Iraq is now a magnate for extremists; the President would have us believe we're safer here at home with the jihadists in Baghdad and Fallujah killing soldiers and marines and children and Iraqi policemen and every-day folk. Sure. I feel safer. I feel safer 'cause I know they're practicing for the chance to come here.
September was a rough month for American forces in Iraq. And there's no break on the horizon.
But, I'm back to this idea from earlier: is this foray into Iraq really part of the "War on Terrorism," or is it something else? If we hadn't gone to Iraq, could we be further along in getting rid of those who use terror as their weapon of choice? Would so many young people have joined the jihadist movement if we'd stuck to Afghanistan and other key terror spots.