Should we still be in Iraq? Look at the facts http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ Post your opinions after you read this articial.

WHEELING, West Virginia (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday defended an Afghan Christian who is on trial for rejecting Islam and who could eventually face the death penalty.

"It is deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because they chose a particular religion over another," Bush said during a speaking engagement in Wheeling, West Virginia.

"I think we can solve this problem by working closely with the government that we've got contacts with, and we'll deal with this issue diplomatically and remind people that there is something as universal as being able to choose religions."

Abdul Rahman, a 44-year-old father of two, was arrested after telling local police, whom he approached on an unrelated matter, that he had converted to Christianity. Reports say he was carrying a Bible at the time. (Watch how the convert explained his conversion -- 1:17)

The Afghan constitution, which is based on Sharia, or Islamic law, says that apostates can receive the death penalty.

Rahman told reporters last week, "They want to sentence me to death, and I accept it, but I am not a deserter and not an infidel." (Full story)

Bush focused most of his remarks in West Virginia Wednesday on the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the as-of-yet unformed Iraqi government.

"Now it's time for a government to get stood up," Bush said. "There's time for the elected representatives -- or those who represent the voters, the political parties -- to come together and form a unity government. That's what the people want. Otherwise they wouldn't have gone to the polls, would they have?"

The process has been delayed by political infighting since Iraqis voted for a new parliament in December.

Bush told an audience at Capitol Music Hall that he had spoken to U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad and Gen. George Casey, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, and urged them to put pressure on Iraqi lawmakers to build a unified government.

"We talked about the need to make it clearer to the Iraqis that it's time," he said. "It's time to get a government in place that can start leading [Iraq] and listen to the will of the people."

He said he understood the trepidation of Iraqis because of their history, but they were beginning to see the promise of democracy.

Iraqi political leaders plan to meet on Saturday to discuss the formation of a national unity government, a Sunni leader said in Baghdad.

Adnan al-Dulaimi, of the Iraqi Accord Front, said earlier Wednesday that one of the topics is expected to be the formation of a national security council comprising Iraq's top politicians.

Bush also praised U.S. troops serving in war zones and said that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, taught him several lessons.

The president said one of those lessons was that threats to the United States cannot be ignored.

"When you see a threat emerging, you just can't hope it goes away," Bush said.

Bush said he saw a threat in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein had the choice to disarm or face the consequences.

"And then I was confronted with a choice," Bush said. "And I made my choice, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power."

Bush's speech comes a day after his wide-ranging news conference where the president rejected the idea that Iraq was in a civil war and suggested that U.S. troops could be deployed there for years. (Transcript of news conference)

Total withdrawal "will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq," he said.

Wednesday's Iraq speech is Bush's second such appearance this week, after a similar address in Cleveland, Ohio, on Monday. Bush is fighting to reverse plunging approval numbers and opinion polls suggesting American support for the Iraq war is waning.

In a CNN poll released this month, 57 percent of respondents said sending troops to Iraq was a mistake, while 42 percent felt the war was not a mistake. Sixty percent believed that things were going badly in Iraq, and 67 percent believe that President Bush does not have a clear plan for handling the war. (View poll results)

So far, 2,318 U.S. troops have died in Iraq, according to U.S. military reports. In December, Bush estimated that at least 30,000 Iraqis have died.

CNN's Kathleen Koch contributed to this report.

[James]

Sort of bad that the US have to stay there, its not even there country.

[Spartan Erik]

la dee f****** da

no war is good, but this was something we had to face eventually
either we take them out while they're still low in numbers, or we wait a couple hundred years for this conflict to only escalate and have our grandchildren fight them with their greater numbers

there is proof that saddam had WMD's and bio weapons
only reason we havent found them is because he shipped them into syria and iran the day the u.s. invaded
his self-appointed general, who was recently caught, admitted this--^

additionally, for those who say all the WMD's are a lie, etc, how else did he manage to kill thousands of kurds instantly?

it was something we had to do, and every life lost makes the war that much harder
but compare these losses to any other war, this war has relatively minute losses

i believe the media is to blame, they're pulling the same s*** as they did in vietnam..

alot of the rich liberals in hollywood just dont get it.. they're in their own little private cocoon.. if they dont like it here, THEN LEAVE.

[Jake]

woo doo daa, we should go make friends with the terrorists so we give them acsess to things and kaboom, not my idea of fun =/

maybe not the best decision but it was gunna happen either way, i mean when it happened... or like 10 years later...

[soten355]

First off, we shouldn't even be there. Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction there. When we got there, what was there? My point exactly. We invaded a country, overthrew a tyrant that wasn't as bad as the Bush Administration said, and are in occupation(in a matter of speaking). Our soldiers are dying because the president wants his precious oil.

[Jake]

nah i disagree, he knew we couldn't get into iraq if there wasnt something to go in for... so he made his "weapons of mass distruction" idea. BUT for some reason we should let people who are like hitler (ok a little far fetched, but hey could be somewere close to him) control countries and did you ever see what he made people do? anyways, it was a RELLY bad dictatorship. maybe he shoud have waited a few years until he started something big that we would have to step into? well that would suck wouldnt it?

then we could get into the argument about 9/11 and terrorist attacks that were connected to iraq but thats totally different i guess... it does seem odd, but then again who really knows?

oh yah, and the media makes it all seem so much worse than it really is... if you look and see what happened during vietnam and korea you'll see that its not that bad. but since this is so small the media thinks it has to tell you about every bomb and every death, its a lot of crap too. plus since the media hates bush anyways do you think they will skip a really big oppertunity to show how "bad" he is, and i mean they have full control of what they air.

[Derek]

i think there county is destroyed by now

They are on the verge of a Civil War. We should have never entered this war.

[Spartan Erik]

Originally Posted by soten355

First off, we shouldn't even be there. Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction there. When we got there, what was there? My point exactly. We invaded a country, overthrew a tyrant that wasn't as bad as the Bush Administration said, and are in occupation(in a matter of speaking). Our soldiers are dying because the president wants his precious oil.

where are you getting your information? liberal talk show hosts?

if you read your reputable news sources (AP, Reuters, etc) they have shown that saddam DID have weapons of mass destruction! why have they not found any? because saddam shipped them all into syria and iran! if you read my older post you'd find out that saddam's captured advisor testified against him in court and said there were WMDs in iraq and that bush was correct. saddam was quite a brutal tyrant, he killed thousands of kurdish men women and children using poison gas, he'd interrogate people by using a series of radioactive elements to harm their health, along with plenty of horrific medical experiments; he is the equivalent of hitler in iraq.

there is also plenty of evidence that he supported the nephew of an al-qaeda official monetarily (in laymens terms, he funded terrorists!)

terrorists are to be dealt with, you dont let them run about

apparently liberals dont understand.. how many more 9/11's will it take to convince you all? how many more thousands of people will have to die? this country has become full of wusses thanks to the media and corrupt politics. like i said before, when we got bombed at pearl harbor we wanted nothing but revenge; we lost even more people in 9/11, so why arent we destroying everything in sight?

heck if i were bush id arm my troops (along with current weapons) with flamethrowers, resort to the technique used in the phillippines against radical extremists by burying enemies face down in pig s*** (disrespectful in their religion), and use the new electromagnetic wave technology to paralyze the enemies temporarily

[moose]

No offence to American people, but the leaders of America are assholes. All the conspiracies out there, they say nothing to prove them, they hide it and throw away all evidence.

How in hell are we supposed to have faith in them? They've making people unsatisfied and unsafe, which is really easy, but have done nothing to get faith from people.

So, going to Iraq was a bad idea. Why can't we give those countries things to improve their places? Give them freaking resources, we have more than enough. It's horrible to see how much of a difference there are in rich countries and poor countries.