Thanks, Tom Coburn, for trying to make congress accountable.

We have weapons of mass destruction right here. Let's invade ourselves and give the rest of the world a break.

So, T.A. if Sadaam sent his alleged weapons into Syria, as you claim, then why didn't we invade Syria? After all, THEY would then be the country that had weapons of mass destruction?

I fight back tears, too, every time Coburn opens his mouth.

Whatever else may be in question on this topic, surely we can agree that Coburn's position as the Oklahoma co-chairman for the Republican presumptious presidential nominee, fellow U.S. Senator John McCain would definitely prejudice his view as an "independent observer." "Fighting back tears" when defending the surge is a clue that "teary eyed Tom" has something clouding his vision.

I wonder if Nobama has read the book "Saddam's Secrets" by Former Iraqi General Georges Sada. I highly doubt it. That would require too much common sense for someone who thinks so highly of himself.

Ambrooke, If Saddam didn't have anything to hide, why did he needlessly provoke the U.N. and the U.S. into going to war against him? Shortly before the war, it was reported that U.S. satellites spotted truck convoys moving from Iraq to Syria at night. One possible explanation is that Saddam had WMD and removed them before the war. Various reports claim that the Russians helped move convoys and plane loads of materials from Iraq into Syria to at least three heavily guarded locations, identified, at least two years ago, by Debka.com and other news sources. There was also a report of Syrians and Jordanians being captured sneaking a truckload of WMD into Jordan and no one seems to know where it originated. Why are your favorite media sources ignoring these reports? Politics, that's why.

Oh I forgot, the bases for the Clinton administration's assertions were removed from evidence in Sandy's socks.

Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and other Democrats, all saw the same intelligence back when Clinton was President and George Tenet headed the CIA. They all claimed Iraq had WMD which threatened America. If there really were no WMD, why are they not held equally accountable for misleading the American people? Shouldn't they be required to reveal the basis for their assertions? George Bush retained Clinton's CIA chief who reportedly assured Bush that it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Other intelligence services including those of NATO. Bush never said there were no WMD. He admitted that there were mistakes made. The first and foremost being that he retained die-hard liberal Democrats in high positions of national security. Up to a week before our troops invaded the inspectors were still complaining that they weren't getting the cooperation out of Saddam that they needed. After twelve years of little to no cooperation and cat and mouse games, Ritter really wants us to believe that if given a few more weeks or months he'd been able to find out the truth? Give us a break. He and his team was no more effective than the sanctions. And NO Ambrooke, that was NOT the sole reason for this invasion. Saddam's

Well we all know nothing is there NOW. Are you trying to tell me that - sitting there in Pocasset - you knew there WEREN'T any WMDs? Oh - and be sure to forget the simple fact that Hussein USED WMDs many times over the last several decades. They weren't there THEN either, huh.

Let's see: The inspectors were there before the war and according to their testimony, they believe there were no WMD's. Our military blitzted place and turned over every stone (with the Bush admin. just itching to show the world everyhting it found) and found nothing. Even GW Bush eventually admits there was nothing there. The place is crawling with press and military from multiple nations, and nobody produces any credible proof that there were these vast stockpiles of WMD's that were imminently going to be used against us (remember--that was the sole reason for invading Iraq). So, exactly how is being skeptical of the whole WMD story a problem?

Randy, you can't convince most of these people like Armbrooke of the truth because the only truth they want to hear about is what comes off their favorite politicians websites.

Still insisting that those stockpiles of WMD are really there someplace, but the worldwide 'liberal' media have comspired to suppress the story? Wow. Really desparate. And sad.

In response to an earlier statement you made, Armbrooke, Bush did not take us into this war. He presented Congress with the information he had and a bi partisan Congress, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton, voted to invade Iraq. Even ex-president Bill Clinton said the intelligence he had received while in office showed the Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. Also there was evidence that Saddam did possess weapons of mass destruction and moved them just before the invasion has been found and down played by the left wing main stream press. Our troops went in and did a fantastic job of causing the collapse of Saddam’s government in record time. From that point one, we had the moral responsibility to rebuild the government just like we did with Germany and Japan after World War II. Over military leaders did make mistakes on how they went about rebuilding the country, realized their mistakes, adjusted their tactics and now they have been successful. Because of this success, the Iraqi government is now beginning to stand on its own and is earning the trust of the Iraqi people. Insurgents who were once fighting against us are now joining forces with our troops to help drive out the terrorist. If you were to talk to these same insurgents, many former Iraqi army soldiers, you would hear that even though they do not want our troops in their country indefinitely, they need our help now to drive out the remaining terrorist and to hold Iran at bay until Iraq is strong enough to stand on its own. They also do not hesitate to say that if our troops continue to stay in Iraq after Iraq is capable of defending its self, then they will begin attack American troops again until they do leave. Now if you would conduct an impartial examination of all of the facts of this war from beginning to end, you would be able to find these same facts. Please stop relying solely on the left wing media machine and , for God’s sake, do not rely on the right wing press, instead exam all of the information that is available and pull out the impartial information that is out there and available.

My oldest son was in the first Iraq war and my youngest son has served two years in Iraq this time. The day he got ready to come home this last tour, his interpreter cried because he was afraid that if the "American Christians" as he called them, left he and his family would have to leave too because he knows that if our troops are ever completely pulled out of Iraq, Iran is going to move in and take over, just like Syria did in Lebanon.

Armbrooke, no one said anything about it being a football game. In fact it's much more serious than that. To continue this argument that we never should have gone into Iraq is ludicrous. The media here has made absolutely certain that the American public never knows the truth about what was and what wasn't. But the fact now is that there will be a great many more lives lost if our troops are pulled out of Iraq before this job is finished and no the Iraqi government and people are not saying it's time for us to leave. Every time this enemy believes it's won a war it rallies an even stronger force than it had before. Iran is feeding itself fatter and fatter on the dissent of the American public and that dissent is only there because politicians in DC and their bought and paid for media keep telling you it should be there.

For the record, I don't think my husband agrees with me on war. I have no idea what he thinks on this as he took an oath to serve and does so without comment.

Sorry Desert Storm.

Well, should we go into lose? No one said it was football. People are dying. My husband was in the Desert War and has made too many trips to Iraq and Afganistan since this began and he did not start it. If we win or get out, then not he or anyone else would have to go. When I read comments like these Ambrose, I wonder if they have ever served there country in any fashion much less something as awful as war.

Sounds to me like some of you guys confuse war with a football game--where the idea is, "right or wrong, we're in it to WIN WIN WIN." We're talking something bigger than Oklahoma football here folks, we're talking about people's lives, and it shouldn't be about our vanity wanting to prove we can kick butt and be winners. The Iraq invasion was wrong. It was unrelated to 9/11. The terrorists we want are (were) in Afghanistan. Period. We do have an obligation to try to leave the Iraq in survivable shape when we leave, and recently we've seen that become more of a reality. The Iraqi people and their government tell us that now its time for us to leave or start gearing up to leave. Its their country.

No need to apologize Sallie, I agree with you 100%. If the professional politicians hadn't used this war to support their own political agenda's it would have been over long ago.

My apologies for the swear word. We are a military family and I get worked up real quick.

Now how did I know this article was about Coburn criticizing Nobama? If it had been McCain the Dilly Okie Dokie would have made sure his name was in the headline. This rag is getting so predictable.

All you folks who are sold on Nobama better wake up and smell the stench. He's the most dangerous thing to happen to this country since the first Civil War.

Mistake or not, it happended and it is real. We could have been out of there already if the politicians would stay out of the war. I don't know how a soldier can do his job if he has to be politically correct. I hate war, but when we get into one we should go in with the intention to win the damn thing and not sleep with enemy.

For once--just once--I would like to hear one Republican admit that invading Iraq was a mistake. Not that our forces haven't fought and died bravely to make the best of it--and they've had their successes. But someone just admit that Bush took us to war wrongly. The Repubs seem to want to wrap themselves in our troops and the fact that the troops have worked so hard to justify the fact that their decision to invade was at best an idiot's mistake and at worst a liar's deception. Coburn's vanity and sanctimony couldn't allow him to admit that Obama was right about the war in the first place, and is left with trying to justify the original decision based on the successes of the surge period. The good news is that repudiation by Coburn is a strong recommendation for any candidate. If he had really wanted to nail Obama, he could have endorsed him.

Coburn will block a bill that sends $100 K to a construction project in Podunk USA, but gladly signs on to spend TRILLIONS on an unwarranted, poorly planned, and misguided war in Iraq.

Coburn is a joke in the U.S. Senate and a black eye to Oklahoma. I doubt if Obama ever wastes his time to criticize Coburn. Two years from now Oklahomans need to deny this guy another term. His own partisan-edged agenda and his personal battles mean that we're not really represented in a position in the Senate that is 1% of the voting body.

Steve's right. And we need to spend that money to rebuild our own infrastructure, balance our own budget, and keep it here along with the $700 billion we're sending to the Middle East for oil. Iraq, blossom in 10 or 15 years? There's too much sectarian friction. It should be three countries. We can't patch it together forever against their wishes.

Sen. Coburn needs to know that a lot of us are tired of our tax money being spent to build the infrastructure of a country with an $80 billion budget surplus. That's poor governing and I hold him as well as Sen. Obama (whom he criticizes here) along with every member of Congress and the President for us providing welfare to a foreign government which can afford to pay its own bills.