Bush Is A Good President

[spacemonkey 0]

Daniel do you know how the war process works in the US? The house has to vote in favor of declaring war. Most DEMOCRATS voted in favor of the war based upon the false inteligence that Bush and the house recieved. Its not Bush's fault the inteligence was wrong. And we found out after the fact that it was wrong. So how can you just except him to pull the troops after Iraq is in disarray from our attacks. The least we can do is help them rebuild their country.

When everyone talks about So-And-So voting for or against the Iraq war, what they are referring too is a resolution supporting the use of the Military to force Iraq to fully comply with the WMD inspection treaty it signed after the first war. Congress has not actually declared war since WWII. During the campaign Kerry frequently stated that he voted for the resolution to try to force Saddam to comply hoping that a war could be avoided. Not the best position (particularly when I wouldn't want to go quail hunting with these guys, much less to war) but a reasonable one. While most of the world thought there wasn't significant justification for an invasion the Bush administration continued the course they'd planned for years.Invading Iraq was just not a good move and there's really no proper justification. If you say it was as a pre-emptive strike, there's no significant evidence that Iraq either had significant WMD or strong ties to a terrorist network that would use them to attack us. Iran and North Korea are far greater threats. If you say he was a horrible dictator and killed his own people, it's true but there's about a dozen regimes that are just as bad but don't sit on a big pile of oil. If we're trying to establish democracy in the Middle East then this isn't the ideal testing grounds. Iraq was created by the British out of three very different regions with no regard for the feelings of the inhabitants who have very little in common except for a violent history.But now that we're in there, I have no clue how to solve the problem. It's going to take a very, very smart person to do that and I'm fairly sure it's not the same guy who decided to stick our fist into that snake pit. Realistically the solution probably has to come from inside Iraq and it's anyone's guess as to whether they go into a civil war or if they pull themselves out and form a good government.

[chrozzo 19]

That is his problem - Bush does what he "feels" is right; anyone with a differing opinion or opposing argument is ignored or labeled unpatriotic regardless of the facts.

Yeah, just like Clinton thought that getting head in the oval office from an intern "felt" right.(Sorry, somebody had to say it)

If the election happened anywhere but in the U.S. Bush would not have won 30% of the vote.

Kinda take away the point of it being the US election though, doesnt it. Not meaning to sound like a jerk DN, but this statement is really just plain pointless. Should the US make their decisions to elect OUR leader based on foreign opinion? I should think not.

It boggles my mind, that he made one of the worst and most crucial mistakes to attack an innocent country and yet, he was re-elected.

Innocent?Iraq provided traininng grounds and monetery support for Al Qaeda IN Iraq, that is a proven fact. Iraq manufactured chemical and biological weapons and the equipment needed for their attack methods (rockets, missile). These were recovered and neutralized. Most people think that since no nuclear weapons were found, that there was less danger. These weapons can dispense just as much pain and suffering over a long period of time as nukes.

[rogerwilco 0]

Yeah, just like Clinton thought that getting head in the oval office from an intern "felt" right.(Sorry, somebody had to say it)

Yeah, so getting a blowjob by a secretary and denying it is a much worse crime than lying to the public about the reasons of going to war (and that is just one of the many things Bush fracked up) - because Clinton was the first US-president to ever mess around behind his wives back, right?. Very characteristic.

Iraq provided traininng grounds and monetery support for Al Qaeda IN Iraq, that is a proven fact. Iraq manufactured chemical and biological weapons and the equipment needed for their attack methods (rockets, missile). These were recovered and neutralized. Most people think that since no nuclear weapons were found, that there was less danger. These weapons can dispense just as much pain and suffering over a long period of time as nukes.

Iraq did not have a program for manufacturing chemical and/or biological weapons, that was a deliberate lie and there has been no evidence found yet to convincingly connect Hussein to Al Quaida (btw, I find it amazing that some people still believe, he had aything to do with 9/11), in fact Bin Laden was very much opposed to Saddam Hussein since the first Gulf War.

[Trustno1 0]

(BUSH + CHENEY + RUMSFELD) < NIXON < CARTER < ETC...W orst president ever

[keith crime 8]

Bush is a good president ... for me to pooop on

[ShakeZuma 585]

Truth is, he was elected by only 25%, since half of eligible voters were too lazy to vote.!

FYP Please don't confuse the two.

Hopefully then people will wake up and realize the only way to get what you want accomplished is to vote for the Green Party!

No way. I liked the Corvair.

[Farnan 0]

Daniel, W has done incredible things for this country, he's just a terrible public speaker. In contrast Clinton was an awesome speaker, lousy president and Reagen was the whole package. Don't buy into the liberal hype. Take the wire tapping, with democrats talking about impeachments for W having our guys listen when someone from Al Queda calls someone in the US. And what is the story? not hey someone just tipped the bad guys that we've been listening to them and now they need to change their communication methods. No the story is Bush is trying to become big brother, he's out of control. Most people, including myself, aren't necessarily pissed that he's wiretapping. We're pissed that he did so without the necessary precautions/procedures/oversight required by the Constitution. I'm not sure if there are any other lawyers running around here, but if you speak to an attorney (who isn't a pundit or working for the WH), they'll break this down for you---it IS a violation of the 4th amendment (search w/o a warrant or probable cause) and his argument that the "wartime powers" of the president trumps the 4A protections is laugable at best--though i suppose reasonable minds COULD differ. I'm under the school of thought---do it, do it legal and provide for adequate oversight. GWB's actions under this program and his response to criticism is indicative of his entire presidency---secretive and arrogant.The war..Read Tommy Franks book and you'll understand the 'not enough troops' argument, and the no plan lie. General Franks quit a year early from ComCincPac because he wanted his replacement to be hands on from the ground floor on what would be a multiple years involvement in Iraq. OK then, if no plan isn't going to work, how about collossal ****up of a postwar plan? Between allowing the place to be looted to no end, dismissing the first batch of Iraqi Army troops (EVERYONE deems this to be a HUGE HUGE misstep), use of the good ol' boys for government contracts, and the use of MERCENARIES shows this war was prosecuted HORRIBLY at best.The economy is doing very well, even though he inherited a recession from Clinton ( not Clinton's fault per se) and then had 9-11 devistate our travel industry, and not only did he arrest the downward spiral, he turned it around, while fighting a war. Do you know WHY our economy didn't completely tank? A combination of 2 things. One--Real Estate Market. Due to the Fed cutting rates (an INDEPENDENT institution from the President), the real estate market boomed which helped our economy stay afloat. Two--Government Spending. Our Government SPENT its way out of the recession. Yes, SPENT. We increased government spending by double digit percentages within 1 or 2 years of this "conservative" taking office. That money helped keep this economy going. Unfortunately, we didn't have the money to spend. A calculated risk or a future problem, who knows--only time will tell.Bush has won the war of LOW EXPECTATIONS. When the bar is set low, it isn't tough to make some people happy.Education, he teams up with Ted Kennedy to author an education bill, trying to get the Democrats to put aside partician politics and help our schools, and after total democratic involvement, they claim he's devisteated the schools, which the teacher's unions have done more damage than anything Bush has done. Gosh accountability for our teachers, what a horrible thing. Yeah, there is nothing better than setting up a system of accountability--making kids constantly study for tests instead of various types of learning----and then NOT FUND THE PROGRAM. That is brilliant slight of hand. Look like you're doing somethign and then DON'T--while those not paying attention still think you did something great. This asshat is a magician.Left tries to say Bush is a step above idiot, hey man, I don't care who your daddy is, you don't have brains, you don't fly fighter plans in the military. They don't have a set of keys for whoever comes along. Then he gets early deros because the flood of active pilots coming back from Vietnam and everyone cries special treatment I don't think he is an idiot in the "1+1=3" sense. A friend of mine has been in closed door meetings with him. First off, he loses 75% of his southern accent. Second, he knows EXACTLY what is going on, makes good points and doesn't stumble over words. How he is an idiot--is that he doesn't think through a problem and its consequences--he shoots from the hip. He takes a 30,000 foot view of the area and make a decision. As he says he "goes with his gut". Well, this guy has made some HORRIBLE decisions.I can understand not thinking everything Bush does is golden, but I feel very comfortable saying that Bush is an honorable man doing what he feels is right for everybody, without a care for how he is percieved. I will always support and feel proud that he is our president. Honorable? The guy can't say a truthful word!! And why didn't you like Clinton? And dont' say lying about a blowjob.The french can continue to take bribes and sells weapons to dictators which we will later defeat in a couple hours and snipe at our heels.The germans can pretend they are peace loving people.The Russians can try to control the middle east through political games. Ahh yes, the whipping dogs of the right---the french, germans and russians. I love it---screw the rest of the world, who cares what they think when they won't help us. But when we nix the Dubai port deal you scream "What does this look like to the arabs!!!!" But England, Australia and the USA will continue to protect the world, allowing the social experiments to continue while we spend the money needed to protect their prescious borders from the bad guys that will kill thier children to get on the front page of a newspaper. Heard of Darfur? That place has killers 100x worse than Saddam on his WORST day.Canada used to be in our group, but they wimped out this time around.Those of you foaming at the mouth now, remember one important thing. W will probably get one more Supreme Court appointtee making his legacy last probably for the next 40-50 years. And the Florida recounts all had Bush win. Oh, we know. We're concerned about this "legacy"---his poor decisions and lack of foresight will screw us for years to come.

[EvilGN 0]

Iraq did not have a program for manufacturing chemical and/or biological weapons, that was a deliberate lie and there has been no evidence found yet to convincingly connect Hussein to Al Quaida (btw, I find it amazing that some people still believe, he had aything to do with 9/11), in fact Bin Laden was very much opposed to Saddam Hussein since the first Gulf War.

No evidence of chemical weapons? Then what was he using on his own people in the 80's and early 90's? He did have those weapons at one time, and got rid of them after the first war. But what he continued to do was make the rest of the world THINK he had them as a form of deterrance from Iran and others. He played games with the inpectors which just added to the false info later. The last point that proves this is the documents that came out this week that confirm even his own top generals thought he had them, and were totally shocked to find out they were about to fight a war with the US without them. To say Bush LIED is just liberal slander, but if you choose to believe the "fat man" who makes "movies" *cough* BS!, you have that right.

[mk 11]

Hey, remember when he gave a press conference in front of a big "Mission Accomplished" banner? That was funny. He has a future in comedy.

[Trustno1 0]

No evidence of chemical weapons? Then what was he using on his own people in the 80's and early 90's? He did have those weapons at one time, and got rid of them after the first war. But what he continued to do was make the rest of the world THINK he had them as a form of deterrance from Iran and others. He played games with the inpectors which just added to the false info later. The last point that proves this is the documents that came out this week that confirm even his own top generals thought he had them, and were totally shocked to find out they were about to fight a war with the US without them. To say Bush LIED is just liberal slander, but if you choose to believe the "fat man" who makes "movies" *cough* BS!, you have that right.

You mean this one?

[Farnan 0]

No evidence of chemical weapons? Then what was he using on his own people in the 80's and early 90's? He did have those weapons at one time, and got rid of them after the first war. But what he continued to do was make the rest of the world THINK he had them as a form of deterrance from Iran and others. He played games with the inpectors which just added to the false info later. The last point that proves this is the documents that came out this week that confirm even his own top generals thought he had them, and were totally shocked to find out they were about to fight a war with the US without them. To say Bush LIED is just liberal slander, but if you choose to believe the "fat man" who makes "movies" *cough* BS!, you have that right.

I don't think he deliberatly lied. Rather, i think GWB truely thought there were WMD. And I think he truely thought we had to go in there. Problem was, the evidence wasn't there to support it. The evidence he found, he KNEW was weak--but he presented it anyways. The evidence such as aluminum tubes--he KNEW they were dual-use and the numbers purchased wouldn't create enough centrifuges to create enough weapons-grade plutonium/uranium for a nuke--but he presented one side of it only. The evidence of the yellow-cake BS in Niger--they KNEW it was BS, but presented it anyways. All of the "reports" that the press mentioned of WMD--were FROM the government (though they weren't reported that way) in tandum with all of this bullshit evidence in such a way so as to convince the public that SH was an IMMINENT THREAT. He overstated the evidence and failed to give us the other side of the story--half-truths and misrepresentations shows a concious effort to convince the public of something they couldn't otherwise prove.Regardless of his inner belief that he THOUGHT they were there---he went with his gut instead of EVIDENCE. That isn't how we start wars. And the worst part is, WE WERE WRONG. That is why we usually require evidence to start wars.As far as his use in the past of WMD---HE USED IT ALL or destroyed it--and inspectors couldn't find any (even with full unfettered access). What else could SH have done?

[EvilGN 0]

You mean this one?

HAHAHAHA! nh(though last i checked he doesn't "produce" movies)

[econ1 0]

When I say innocent, I mean Iraq and Saddam didn't attack us- Bin Laden did. I think the elder Bush was justified in going to war with Iraq, but since that ship sailed and all was supposedly worked out, the U.S. went to war on Iraq for no legitimate reason.

Daniel - I love you bud but I gotta seriously disagree here (sorry - know you didn't want to start a huge political debate but you did!).The whole "Bush said we invaded Iraq because of Saddam's involvement in 9-11" riff has been expertly played up by the Dems but I challenege anyone to find me a quote where Bush or any administration official has said those words.It is a fine line to be sure but Bush's reasons for the Iraq invasion is that because 9-11 completely changed the rules of the game we were no longer in a position to let someone like Saddam Hussein run free.Did Saddam have a hand in plotting and carrying out 9-11? ABSOLUTELY NOT.Did Saddam completely disregard over a decade of INTERNATIONAL demands? Ablsolutely.Is there plentiful evidence of terrorists hiding out in Iraq (a country that at the time had an iron-fisted dictator who surel had to know they were there?) Absolutely.Did the entire world believe Saddam either had or was furiously pursuing WMD programs? Absolutely.So I guess the question becomes: you are the lead of the free world. At the very least you have the lives of some 300 million of your own citizens you are responsible for. The rules of engaement have just change dramatically and the realities of technology and transportation have made it clear that enemies of this country can and are determined to deliver the most haenous weapons possible INSIDE our borders. What do you do? Do you "play it safe" and rely on international negotiations that have failed misserably for over a decade to somehow magically begin to work or do you fight a new war in a new way?I completely understand individuals having problems with or disagreeing with Bush's decision. For my part I completely support it - regardless of whatever problems it may have brought with it.I guarantee that if Bush would have chose not to invade Iraq none of the people decrying him as a liar or worse right now would be giving him the benfit of the doubt if Saddam would have developed WMDs or worse.For the dissenters out there I highly reccomend you start reading Christopher Hitchen's articles on the subject. Hitchens in no Conservative - in fact he has a severely leftist (read Trotskyite) background and while he is not thrilled with the way the war has been prosecuted he has been completely willing to accept the dumptruck loads full of crap he has had to endure for supporting the initial decision.

[Farnan 0]

The whole "Bush said we invaded Iraq because of Saddam's involvement in 9-11" riff has been expertly played up by the Dems but I challenege anyone to find me a quote where Bush or any administration official has said those words.

I agree he never said those words. But what he did do is say that Iraq had "links" to Al Qaeda, which in many peoples minds implicates Iraq in 9/11 (though that is a STUPID, illogical conclusion). He also constantly talked about Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath, again, causing the casual observer and the not-to-quick john-q-public to think there is a link. I presonally think this administration saw this reaction and sought to exploit it.

It is a fine line to be sure but Bush's reasons for the Iraq invasion is that because 9-11 completely changed the rules of the game we were no longer in a position to let someone like Saddam Hussein run free.

He was hardly running free. We were watching him like a hawk, bombing him on a daily basis and had significant sanctions imposed. He was well contained. And our findings after the war proved this to be true.

Did Saddam have a hand in plotting and carrying out 9-11? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

If only the rest of the country also understood that.

Did Saddam completely disregard over a decade of INTERNATIONAL demands? Ablsolutely.

Yep, lots of countries have disregarded international demands.

Is there plentiful evidence of terrorists hiding out in Iraq (a country that at the time had an iron-fisted dictator who surel had to know they were there?) Absolutely.

Prove it.

Did the entire world believe Saddam either had or was furiously pursuing WMD programs? Absolutely.

Bullshit. Prove it. He didn't have ****. He may have tricked his generals into thinking they had some, but they didn't have anything that even remotely resembled a program that could be re-activated, let alone a program that could be considered as "furiously pursing WMD".

So I guess the question becomes: you are the lead of the free world. At the very least you have the lives of some 300 million of your own citizens you are responsible for. The rules of engaement have just change dramatically and the realities of technology and transportation have made it clear that enemies of this country can and are determined to deliver the most haenous weapons possible INSIDE our borders. What do you do? Do you "play it safe" and rely on international negotiations that have failed misserably for over a decade to somehow magically begin to work or do you fight a new war in a new way?

I'd assess the overall risk. Everyone knew an occupation would be a ****ing mess. SH was contained. We bombed him daily to keep him in check. I think we should have spend that TRILLION dollars we've dumped into that country and sured up our BORDERS.

For the dissenters out there I highly reccomend you start reading Christopher Hitchen's articles on the subject. Hitchens in no Conservative - in fact he has a severely leftist (read Trotskyite) background and while he is not thrilled with the way the war has been prosecuted he has been completely willing to accept the dumptruck loads full of crap he has had to endure for supporting the initial decision.

And for every leftie who supports this, there are a couple more righties who think this was a collossal mistake. I read up on this crap constantly--from all sorts of sources. This was a mess from the beginning and continues to this day.

[ShakeZuma 585]

Could you possibly point to some evidence that we were "bombing him daily"?

[Balloon guy 158]

I was thinking of taking a side bet that eventually someone would make the point that Rush is fat. Always happens when liberals go on thier rants. They really are so predictable.When Bush 'lied' about the WMDs, he had good company:Clinton, Kennedy, Gore, Daschel, Kerry, Israel, Germany, Saudi, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, Great Britain, Mossad, French, CIA, United Nations, Peru, the guy on Subway commercials...so basically everyone. Read Tommy Franks book and you'll have a different take on this.The UN inspectors weren't there because everybody knew Saddam got rid of his weapons..you know the ones he had already killed people with. They were there because he was UNTRUSTWORTHY, had huge sums of money, and activily sought the means to make biological weapons. When the number two guy from Al Queada needed medical treatment he didn't go to Canada for the free stuff...he went to Iraq where his buddy Saddam was.Don't believe everyone who is promoting a book.As far as the economy the budget etc. Last time I read the constitution..okay I never actually read the whole thing, but you didn't either so lets pretend, Congress controls the purse strings. So Clinton didn't balance any budget, the Republican house and senate did. And Bush didn't outspend every president before him, the Republican house and senate did. I'll sign the petition to shoot them all. They are two steps beneath car salesmen and pit bosses.World opinion doesn't matter to me. We are the greatest country ever. We are the only country in history that has destroyed an enemy on multiple occasions and then helped them back on their feet. We give more than any country, and we get the shaft from most countries today. No big deal, we're not bitter, we still buy their cheap garbage.Besidses the world thinks that soccer is a great game....soccer..what a bunch of dweebs. Everyone knows Golf is the greatest sport in the world.BTW. Democrats hate too much..they hate Bush, Rush, tax cuts, Christians, the military, Fox news, truth. Their party is the party of; "vote for us..we hate___" Republicans are screwed up, but at least they say what they believe in and follow through. (Except for the government spending thing in the last 6 years) You can keep Cindy SHeehan and Michael Moore and Dean as your spokespeople, we'll stick with Rush.And get off the Halliburton bought the presidency. There is a very short list of companies that are capable of doing the rebuilding in Iraq, it's not a conspiracy that the biggest one got the contract. Man you guys are reaching for anything that will get you an impeachment like your buddy Clinton got. Second one in the history of the country, but you know when you lie to a federal judge while under oath about anything, you get punished.If Bush gets impeached for actively spying on Al Queada then we deserve to get hit again. Bunch of head in the sand losers who think you can reason with terrorist. Worked well with the french, bad mouthed us for years about the war, then they got riots. Ungrateful terrorist. You bone heads who think that this is even remotely going to transform into the government recording how often you use the internet to look at porn are crazy. Give me a bust some heads guy like Jack Bauer over the ACLU lawyers who defend the rights of child molestors to own child pornagraphy if it is only in their private homes.Kick butt for a couple years, then we can all get back to worring about the rights of the rapist getting his Miranda rights properly read in his native language. You guys are pathetic if you think we can fight a war while giving enemy combatants lawyers to defend thier rights to shoot at our troops from hospitals and mosques. And if putting a guys underwear on his head and taking pictures is torture, then lets arrest every fottball team in this country for hazing week.Supreme Court....2 down one to go.....

[econ1 0]

I agree he never said those words. But what he did do is say that Iraq had "links" to Al Qaeda, which in many peoples minds implicates Iraq in 9/11 (though that is a STUPID, illogical conclusion). He also constantly talked about Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath, again, causing the casual observer and the not-to-quick john-q-public to think there is a link. I presonally think this administration saw this reaction and sought to exploit it. He was hardly running free. We were watching him like a hawk, bombing him on a daily basis and had significant sanctions imposed. He was well contained. And our findings after the war proved this to be true. If only the rest of the country also understood that.Read the 9-11 Commission report. Bullshit. Prove it. He didn't have ****. He may have tricked his generals into thinking they had some, but they didn't have anything that even remotely resembled a program that could be re-activated, let alone a program that could be considered as "furiously pursing WMD".Prove that the intelligence services of virtually every other nation in the world believed that Saddam either was or had the ability to produces WMDs? Out of all the things I wrote I surely thought that this would have been the least contentious. It doesn't mean that they were correct - current information indicates they were all wrong. My point was that at the time that Bush was having to make this decision there wasn't an intelligence service in the world who didn't believe this.You alluded to our "daily bombings" of Iraq - there is a huge difference between the runs we made for years on the "no fly zone" and the entirity of Iraq. As for the sanctions - how well did those work? Saddam and his sons simply exploited the loopholes inthe oil for food program to make themselves rich while thousands upon thousands of their own people suffered and died. Would you have preferred that we continued working under a clearly broken and ineffective sanctions/resolutions regime?

[lucky_charmz 0]

I reccommend this to anyone who doesn't like Bush....http://www.addictinggames.com/presidentialknockout.html

[Balloon guy 158]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, obviously, but mine is clear: this is the worst president the country has ever had in my lifetime. The damage he is doing to this country's world view will take decades to repair, if ever. If the election happened anywhere but in the U.S. Bush would not have won 30% of the vote. It boggles my mind, that he made one of the worst and most crucial mistakes to attack an innocent country and yet, he was re-elected. I don't really want to get into a big political debate here, but let's just agree to disagree. There are so many areas outside of the war that I feel like the president is oblivious too.

Even though my long winded posts don't support it, I can agree to disagree. Surprised how cordial the over all feel of this thread has gone. There are some smart people on this site. Most of them agree with me..but there's a few that would probably leave me scratching my head if got into much of a debate. So I'll avoid them and concentrate on the weak fish.

[Trail Boss Mitch 0]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, obviously, but mine is clear: this is the worst president the country has ever had in my lifetime. The damage he is doing to this country's world view will take decades to repair, if ever. If the election happened anywhere but in the U.S. Bush would not have won 30% of the vote. It boggles my mind, that he made one of the worst and most crucial mistakes to attack an innocent country and yet, he was re-elected. I don't really want to get into a big political debate here, but let's just agree to disagree. There are so many areas outside of the war that I feel like the president is oblivious too.

Come on Daniel. An "innocent country?" Give me a break. How many people should die before we give a damn? I'm glad when we were fighting for our independence from British tyranny we had the French and others willing to help us. What would have happened had we been ignored by the world during our struggle? Freedom...it's all about freedom. And freedom doesn't come cheaply nor without controversy.

[econ1 0]

Surprised how cordial the over all feel of this thread has gone. There are some smart people on this site. Most of them agree with me..but there's a few that would probably leave me scratching my head if got into much of a debate. So I'll avoid them and concentrate on the weak fish.

Completely agree on the tone - its great to see that we can air diverging opinions without resorting to name calling.lol on the last line of your post...

[Farnan 0]

As far as bombings were concerned---they started almost immediately after bush took office:http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/iraq0201.phpThe continued to "soften" up targets for a long time running up to the war. I thought this was pretty common knowledge. I'm not even against it, for the most part. I think Iraq was a country we should have kept in check. And by the way things worked out, it looks like we were pretty successful. Econ, as far as the "furiously pursing WMD"--you said it was ABSOLUTELY true--but no evidence has been found that says that is true. Of course there were lots of people who THOUGHT he was doing this. But we didn't have the proof. And you don't attack a country and spend a trillion dollars to remove a threat you cannot prove with reasonable certainty.And Balloon Guy--that was one of the more amusing right wing rants i've read in a while. Full of partisian rhetoric, half truths, misconstrued democratic arguments, ethnocentrism, myopic views and hypocrisy. I love this:

Read Tommy Franks book and you'll have a different take on this.

and then you say:

Don't believe everyone who is promoting a book.

Classic.And i love it when they point to all of the other people who thought SH had WMD and thought they were a threat. Hmmm--how many of those countries/people thougth they had enough evidence to justify an attack? NONE. Even if when we get past the mistake of going in there (not only the evidence, but the pie-in-the-sky idea that it would be a cakewalk)---the prosecution of the post-war plan (if there was one) was absolutely HORRIBLE.And as far as budgets are concerned--the best situation, historically speaking, for the least amount of spending--is to have a house/senate with as a different party as the president. See, checks and balances works. One-sided ideological controlling party with supreme power isn't very good for the country. I don't profess to think that all democratic ideas are correct and i don't think all republican ideas are all correct. Which is why i despise this spiteful pissing contest politics has become. And whenever you think, believe and spread the BS you just did---you're just making the problem worse.EDIT--i hope that i didn't cross the line of the "friendly tone"--being a sarcastic person, i can sometimes unintentionally sound like a prick when argue politics.

[econ1 0]

Econ, as far as the "furiously pursing WMD"--you said it was ABSOLUTELY true--but no evidence has been found that says that is true. Of course there were lots of people who THOUGHT he was doing this. But we didn't have the proof. And you don't attack a country and spend a trillion dollars to remove a threat you cannot prove with reasonable certainty.

I see where we got off track - I didn't mean that as proof that Iraq was "furiously pursuing" the production of WMDs but rather that the intelligence services fo the world virtually unanimously thought they were. It was part of a larger point I was trying to make about Bush's motives. If I was responsilble for millions fo lives and terrorists had just upped the ante by hitting us within our own borders I beleive I would have made the exact same decision. Especially when you consider the history many the rest of the world's democratic nations had in either being unwilling or unable to take a stand in situations like these. (The EU didn't last long before they had to call us in to clean up their mess in Bosnia).I'm not a 'gun's blazing screw the rest of the world' kind of guy but I strongly believe that countries like France (yes them again) have the benefit of knowing that when push comes to shove the US will always do what it thinks is right depite the costs. Do we always get it right? Of course not but lets not forget that the final pages still have not been written on Iraq.If we had been having this conversation months or even a couple of years after WW2 detractors would have pointed to violence and unrest in Germany as proof positive that our decision was wrong. Several decades later history has proven them to be right. Doesn't mean that Iraq will turn out the same way but I do believe that President Bush makes decisions in a larger scope than just "what will drive up my approval rating right now."

[76clubs 0]

Daniel, W has done incredible things for this country, he's just a terrible public speaker. In contrast Clinton was an awesome speaker, lousy president and Reagen was the whole package.Don't buy into the liberal hype. Take the wire tapping, with democrats talking about impeachments for W having our guys listen when someone from Al Queda calls someone in the US. And what is the story? not hey someone just tipped the bad guys that we've been listening to them and now they need to change their communication methods. No the story is Bush is trying to become big brother, he's out of control.The war..Read Tommy Franks book and you'll understand the 'not enough troops' argument, and the no plan lie. General Franks quit a year early from ComCincPac because he wanted his replacement to be hands on from the ground floor on what would be a multiple years involvement in Iraq. The economy is doing very well, even though he inherited a recession from Clinton ( not Clinton's fault per se) and then had 9-11 devistate our travel industry, and not only did he arrest the downward spiral, he turned it around, while fighting a war.Education, he teams up with Ted Kennedy to author an education bill, trying to get the Democrats to put aside partician politics and help our schools, and after total democratic involvement, they claim he's devisteated the schools, which the teacher's unions have done more damage than anything Bush has done. Gosh accountability for our teachers, what a horrible thing.Left tries to say Bush is a step above idiot, hey man, I don't care who your daddy is, you don't have brains, you don't fly fighter plans in the military. They don't have a set of keys for whoever comes along. Then he gets early deros because the flood of active pilots coming back from Vietnam and everyone cries special treatment.I can understand not thinking everything Bush does is golden, but I feel very comfortable saying that Bush is an honorable man doing what he feels is right for everybody, without a care for how he is percieved. I will always support and feel proud that he is our president.The french can continue to take bribes and sells weapons to dictators which we will later defeat in a couple hours and snipe at our heels.The germans can pretend they are peace loving people.The Russians can try to control the middle east through political games.But England, Australia and the USA will continue to protect the world, allowing the social experiments to continue while we spend the money needed to protect their prescious borders from the bad guys that will kill thier children to get on the front page of a newspaper.Canada used to be in our group, but they wimped out this time around.Those of you foaming at the mouth now, remember one important thing. W will probably get one more Supreme Court appointtee making his legacy last probably for the next 40-50 years. And the Florida recounts all had Bush win.

34%, thats all you need to know.

[rog 0]

If we had been having this conversation months or even a couple of years after WW2 detractors would have pointed to violence and unrest in Germany as proof positive that our decision was wrong.

What decision? The US decided not to be involved in WWII. In 1939, The Nazis started invading eatsern european countries. Canada and Britain (among others) went to war. The US declared it's neutrality. They didn't get involved until 1941, and only then because of Japan. If the US was so concerned about making the right decisions, why did they wait 2 years to do the right thing? The fact is, the US gets involved out of self interest. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's call it what it is. The US didn't care about Sadam's weapons when they were aimed at Iran. Even attacks against the Kurds were no big deal. The US administration doesn't care about genocides that have happened or are happening in all sorts of places where they have no self interest. Rwanda comes to mind. Ever hear of it?The US is an empire in the process of empire building. Let's not mistake that for altruism.