'America can't afford Bush (Iraq) strategy'

Bush is resembling Hitler in the Bunker.

Only, instead of blaming his "generals" for ruining his plans for World Conquest, he's blaming the Democrats.

Don't worry, Herr Bush: Soon miracle weapons will turn the tide of war and your Chimp Reich will be victorious!

If the democrats are irresponsible, then Bush is responsible. Responsible for the handling of this war and all the mistakes, misleading information, and lack of forsight to what may happen when he decided to take this blunder on. He and He alone has made this a mess that can not be won. He doesn't want congress to tell the generals how to run this war, but he only wanted the generals that would run the war his way. If they disagreed they were retired or fired. Iraq is all Bushs'.

W and Cheney's Iraq war is not only a tactical disaster it's also making countries like China,Saudi Arabia, ect. laugh while we dump billions of dollars,borrowed from them, into a civil war that will ultimately make Iran a stronger nation.

Thanks to the Republicans our future as an economic "super-power" has just about run it's course.

I love it, Mr. Bush is going to give the foolish Dems' just enough rope to hang themselves. They have successfully painted them-selves into a corner. Any choice the Dem. leadership takes from here on in will be political suicide. I'm going to enjoy this, a Dem.
cat fight. This will carry over to 2008, because the royal loony left
like Rosie O'Donnell, Maher, Shehan, et.al will make sure the public is kept aware of each others' votes. They will turn on each other like vultures of prey.

Thank you Frank for putting out the statements made by the Democratic leadership on this Iraq emergency spending bill. I think every major news station has only broadcast what Bush has to say, that democrats are cutting off funding, and not the democratic response that congress has approved the funding request, but just not with a never ending, open ended, more of the same, policy. If Bush wants to veto this bill, he’ll have to start withdrawing troops now, if he thinks that extending deployments for troops that are in Iraq now is anything but completely irresponsible I think even the generals on the ground will finally admit that this escalation will do nothing more than delay the inevitable complete withdrawal of American forces from a civil war that we shouldn’t be in to begin with.

I love it, Mr. Bush is going to give the foolish Dems' just enough rope to hang themselves. They have successfully painted them-selves into a corner.
Posted by: Don B | Apr 3, 2007 12:43:49 PM

That would be true if the vast majority still believed in this war like the sheeple do. I guess your happy that Bush is going to use the troops as his tool to continue this war. I find it repulsive. You say they will turn on each other like vultures yet you downplay the defection of the man under Rove. What mush. Besides that...in texas they use lethal injection
for all their killin...not rope.

Uhhh... Don B. You might want to check the scoreboard again. Based on just about any poll you want to consult the majority of the American citizenry agrees with Congress on this issue over Bush.

If "painted themselves into a corner" means governing per the will of 60-something percent of the American public, then I guess you're right on.

Between Stem Cell Research and continuing the Iraq war, G-dub has chosen to use his veto power on issues that he is waaaaaaay on the minority side of what the American populaces wishes are.

The only one who's been given a rope here is G-dub. Veto at your own peril, Mr. President.

Frank, you've outdone yourself this time! No less than FIVE Dem statements to counter Bush's one.

The 5 to 1 Dem to GOP ratio should come as no surprise to readers of the Swamp.

As to the substance of the Dem claims, there is none. When will the Dems admit that what they really want is America--at least, a Bush-led America--not to fight, let alone win, the war the terrorists are waging against us?

The Dems live in a make-believe, Alice-in-Wonderland world where the Islamic terrorists will somehow suddenly disappear if only a Democrat is in the White House and talks nice to them. The Dems ignore the fact that these terrorits have been attacking the US and the west for decades, under Dem as well as GOP administrations. The Dems also ignore the fact that since the US troops went into Iraq, the terrorists have been drawn there and no terrorist attacks on the US have occurred.

If you believe terrorism will disappear if we withdraw from Iraq, you probably also believe in "Bigfoot" and the Loch Ness Monster.

Us clear thinkers know that the democrats are a party of losers,(Jimmy Carter,BJ Clinton and terrorism failures)so thay need The United States of America to lose this war,so they will try everything to complete their mission.
On Sunday's Meet the Press,Charlie Rangel admitted that they included pork in the bill to buy votes...how disgusting that they use our brave men and women in the military for pawns.
But,these are the dems that the radical left wing party now owns.
The once great party of F.D.R. and J.F.K. that believed in defending our nation is long gone,a moral duty no more,for the democrats.
Paulo

kick the moron out! this idiot has nothing new to say and has bungled everything he has under-taken so far. stupid mofo!

I love it, Mr. Bush is going to give the foolish Dems' just enough rope to hang themselves.
Posted by: Don B | Apr 3, 2007 12:43:49 PM

As long Bush is in a giving mood, can our troops ask for some competent decision making from their
commander-in-chief, or is Bush too busy worrying about ropes and peanuts ?

HUGE thanks to all in the Senate who are voting to help put an end to Bush's huge failure of a war. He must be held accountable for this actions. America is not renewing his blank check to use as he feels. If Bush stopps this bill, it is another Bush failure. He must be impeached!

From Chicago Tribune...good stuff here.

I especially like Kerry's comments.

Wow. Bush proves once again that he is an idiot and a tyrant.

Bush ran an ineffective, needless, half-ass war that had no chance of victory.

The Dems have wanted power back and so did all they could to hinder the war effort while dissing Israel and praising Muslims, radical or not.

There is no American leadership out there.

I just have one question. What was Bush thinking when he landed on the aircraft carrier and claimed victory? If that were the case, why are we still there? We have a president who is so out of touch that he really should be relieved of duty.

Do the Taxicrats really think that their political behinds can withstand the backlash that will ensue when soldiers start dying because they don't have bullets?

Why doesn't Bush declare war on himself, and take the bad guy out? For freedom, for democracy...For God, for everything this nation holds dear. Get rid of that unpatriotic, dissident, "evil-doer". So that the blossoms of freedom can burst forward in every corner of this great land of ours.

Maybe if we had impeached Carter with the Iran crisis in the late 70s, and taken swift action then, we wouldn't be here. But we didn't and we are and now we have to deal with it.

Wonder who the dems will be calling to impeach if we do pull out and sit back on out butts when we get attacked next? Oh I forgot...... EVERYTHING is Bush's fault!

We also "can't afford" national heath... but not affording it only matters if it is Republican policy. Bet we could afford it if thier golden boy Al Gore had won and this was his idea!

Ahhhh yes, the wonderful socialist lefties that provide aid and comfort to the Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups we're fighting in Iraq. Nevermind the consequences of a cut and run strategy proposed by the pacifist commies like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Killer Kennedy and Dick the Turbin Durbin. Mass genocide in the Middle East? You got it. Global terrorist monopoly on oil? Check. Nuclear armed Iran? Check. An Iranian Revolutionary Guard/Hezbollah government in Iraq? Yes. Saudi Arabia and Egypt pursing Nuclear Weapons to curb the Iranians? You got it. The greatest psychological victory ever achieved by anti-American jihadists? Absolutely. But hey, at least when these nice Arab men chop your fingers off and cane you for being infidels, Hitlery Clinton will ensure you that you'll have Universal Health Care to heal your wounds. And don't forget to thank Jimmy Carter on your way to bow down to Mecca.

Well, here we go again, the democrats just can`t stay commited to anything. They voted to go to Iraq and now that they think it is not popular to stay till the job is done they will sink to any level to blame everything on our President.
The biggest ally that the terrorists have is a weak-kneed democratic congress that wants to cut and run, but no solution to the terrorist problem. Don`t they realize that if we leave before we solve the issue then the terrorists will be open to bring the war to our shores. Have they forgotten that we were attacked on911 without provocation and suffered a great loss both in lives of our fellow citizens and in the huge financial impact that it had on our economy. It is indeed sad that we have lost our men and women military personnel but the same democrats keep hollering about the lost lives in this war but continue to support abortion which claims the lives of the most innocent victims of all, the unborn, by as many as 200,000 a year. How can any reasonable person support the Democrats and their Hollywood low life supporters?
No president in our history, including Lincoln has ever been confronted by so many problems as has President Bush.
If you don`t support Mr. Bush that is your right, but if you insult the office of President then you insult all americans

Don B. you are about as smart as Geo W. & Dick Cheney combined---but that's still a very low IQ. The fact that this admin under W.'s leadership has totally mismanaged everything they have touched including 9/11 is astounding. Considering the worldwide support and compassion we had as country following 9/11 it is unthinkable that we could have entered a war for the wrong reasons and based on a lie to damage our credibility around world. To see a fool just look in the mirror!

War is always hell! I wish the Democrats would ask themselves if they would rather have the war fought here in America or over there. My vote is for over there. I am old and it doesn't matter if I get killed, but it matters if my children and grandchildren get killed. All of this attempt by the Democrats to micromanage this war is just disgracefull. They should be ashamed of themselves.

It is becoming obvious that United States will use the Iraq's mishandling as a justification to utilize N-weapon in the region.
So, people of America, life will get worse. Then please dump your pets today to avoid additional micro-organism in the soils and expense, and spend your money on needy american kids, providing them food, health-care, food and future.

If Bush veto's the bill congress passed he is the one depriving our troops of funds. They have been deprived of equipment since the start of Bush's war and are still being deprived. It's time for our country to wake up and begin impeachment proceedings, especially against Cheney.We obviously cant remove all our troops at one time but it's time we stop trying to police the civil war in Iraq and begin removal in a timely fashion. Bush,with Cheneys help started this war. It's time the american people stopped it.

The Dems live in a make-believe, Alice-in-Wonderland world where the Islamic terrorists will somehow suddenly disappear if only a Democrat is in the White House and talks nice to them.

Posted by: bruce | Apr 3, 2007 1:14:59 PM

Vs. the alice-in-wonderland world in which you can defeat a tactic with cruise missiles?

The more people you kill, the MORE terrorists there will be, not the less. It's not like there's only so many terrorists out there and, once we've killed those guys, weve won! Weeee!!! now THAT's Alice in Wonderland! Every person we kill over there has 2 brothers, an uncle, and a father that will want payback more than anything. You'd want the same if you were in their shoes, would you not?

The fix is not military, it's diplomatic policies that give as much respect to Arabs as we do to the rest of the world (principally Israel). Once we do that, the moderate Muslim will win on the Arab street. As long as our soldiers are there busting into houses and killing civilians (which is often an understandable circumstantial mistake), the fanatic Muslim will win the Arab minds and terrorism will only grow worse, not better.

Neither Bush nor the Democratic leadership is clear on who the enemy is or what the fighting is about. Until we have leaders that can see the situation with serious clarity, we will lurch along a path to disaster. Shame and plague upon this bunch of jerks. Fact is that we are fighting radical Islamists of two stripes: Al-Qaeda and Iranian. Each is determined and genocidal. We are bogged down in Iraq because we do not recognize the degree to which these enemies have co-opted the scene. We should be withdrawing to cordons and taking each of the more extreme factions out best we can. Period. To expect trained Marines and Army to be a peacekeeping force is further naivete from the idealist in the Rose Garden. To set a withdrawal date is heads in the sand from the Left.

When did the American people ever really know what is best? The majority of what I see is bandwagon jumping...
While I agree the war in Iraq needs to hurry up and end, the Dems plan for a set withdrawal just gives the enemy a deadline to wait for...
It would make sense for the enemy to support the deadline, even tone down their activity to give the illusion that the set pull out was working and then after the deadlines passes and America is out...it would be a free for all. It will be much harder to do anything in the Middle East if we leave before the job is done. There is no strategy is a set pull out...
I wish there was an easier answer but I think both sides (Dems and Reps) need to understand that it is not all or nothing...
But...just an opinion...

If the Democrats did not establish a line in the sand according to the People's choice, I am sure the Republicans would use their approval of spending without a deadline to withdraw troops as fodder in the upcoming election. Stating "Democrats went along with Bush, it's their fault too" on the war. Bush led all down a merry path to a false war. To continue down that path now without restraint would make all Democrats look even more foolish. The Republicans must follow the party line or be squeezed out is their party line. Democrats are the only voice to speak out to the world to show we in the US get it, the war must stop!

George Bush senior should be flat out ashamed of his son. His only major mistake in life was siring this greedy guy. Bush Jr is lusting after oil for American's reserves, and this war is illegal. Ask Paul Oneill. The oil will be there anyway, and our companies don't have to steal it with 70 percent of the profit. PLaulo should realise that we would still be in Vietnam if people didn't step up to the plate to end the war. Now we trade with Vietnam. Bush is the greatest liar of any president. See http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

The truth is, that the only reason that Bush is continuing the Iraq folly, is that the Iraqi law, giving 80% of the oil to the Oil Companies, hasn't passed the Iraqi Legislature yet.
Once that occurs, Bush & the GOP will put forth their *plan* to leave Iraq.
Look for this in August or September, so there will be enough time to start withdrawl, by the time the 2008 elections heat up.

The GOP just continues to use our troops as pawns.

WATCH OUT! I guarantee that president Bush makes one last heroic move before his term is up. Not sure if that means invading iran, or hiking gas prices up through the roof. Mark my word that within the next year America will see another bone head move from our number one president when it comes to lacking common sense. Get ready america!!!

We definitely need a change soon, get ready dems

Bruce and similar others continue to point erroneously to two elements of the Democratic Party's goals: first, that we are against fighting terrorism, as if Bush in invading Iraq was doing that: in fact, (facts being unimportant to Bruce)Bin Laden was an enemy of Sadem Hussein and was not being let into Iraq at the time, that terrorists are now there in large numbers because of the chaos our invasion led by Bush continues to cause. Second, we Democrats do not believe terrorism will go away when/if we leave Iraq, and have never claimed that. What we do believe is that being in Iraq is not fighting terrorism with economy and smarts and efficiency, that going into Iraq in the first place had nothing to do with terrorism.

> the deaths of more than 3,200 brave American
> soldiers and the expenditure of more than $400
> billion,

Well, America, that is what happens when you do Israel's dirty work.

The World knows it but you never discuss it because of cowardly journalism and censorship.

In fact, I doubt you will see my comments so to the person reviewing this I ask .... do you have no self-respect ?

Unless you wake-up to this reality, your future is bleak.

Bush wants to continue this war until he gets out of office so he can blame whoever replaces him for leaving before "the mission" is finished.
I don't blame him. I wouldn't want to look 3200 mothers in the eye and say thier children lost their lives because of my stupidity.
He says "We are a nation at war" I ask : Why?

wow...what a bunch of democrats...phew..anyway..I'll be agone now, and I bid you agood day.

kyle mom's a bitch, she's the biggestr bitch in the whole wide world...lalalalala ...

So the Tribune "reviews" comments before posting. Commendable, except apparently the reviewer missed this one...

"kick the moron out! this idiot has nothing new to say and has bungled everything he has under-taken so far. stupid mofo!"

Posted by: iksvaku manian | Apr 3, 2007 1:25:08 PM

Last I checked, "mofo" was an abbreviation for not a very nice word.

And while we're at it, how is that not an unfair attack? how about putting on a vitriol filter too?

It is becoming obvious that United States will use the Iraq's mishandling as a justification to utilize N-weapon in the region.

True Americans REMEMBER.
Remember the Twin Towers?
Remember the Alamo!!!!!
All Radical and Liberal Democrats including Osama Obama, Billary and Nasty Peloci, please move to Iraq, you are welcome to replace our troups in IRAQ and leave us alone!@#

It seems he continues to wage a war against Americans. After this is done the US senate needs to do everything in there power to ensure that no president ever have the power to belittle, the foundation of the Constitution of the United states in the way this administration has. A good start would be by hanging him. Thus setting an example for all who follow his path.

I think this administation has embarrased itself time after time. Not only has Bush embarassed himself he has made a mockery of the American people with the determineation of a child to have his way despite the wishes of the populace.
He has made America hated by most all other countries because of his stubborness and out right stupidity in handling the Iraq situation in the manner he has. This war should never have happened and I think Bush should be arrested and jailed for the rest of his presidents term. Not sure Chaney would do any better either, but might be worth a shot.

Go President Bush!
We Vet's support you.
Go to hell lib trators.
You guy's have sold out the Vet's everytime you get a chance.
Remember Gulf of Tonkin ?
That was Johnson a Dem.
Thank God President Bush cares more about this country than he cares what you Dem. bastards think.

This guy Bush is really something. How can he stand it watching our people come home in body bags, some without limbs or eyes. He harks thatif we leave, the terriosts will then come here and the whole Middle East will be lost to them. They said the same thing about Vietnam...that if we pulled out the whole of the far East would fall to communism. After 50,000 dead, we finally departed....so much for poloticians.

I've been in Greece for 18 years, close to the mess that is the Middle East. I am heartsick at the West's refusal to stand united against Islamic fascism. W isn't perfect, but he's got guts. And he fights. We need a man who fights. God bless you, Mr. President. You're on the right side of history.

I'd also like to say thank you for including the House/Senate leaders' responses to Bush's war propaganda. For the educated and informed, these responses are tired and obvious, but worthy nonetheless. For the rest of the people who are severely out of touch with reality, too stubborn to change their minds in light of new information, and still support this suicide mission, we direly need to keep drilling the majority's message into their thick skulls. FOX news surely isn't reporting the responses.

I am sick of the corruption, and I do not mean scandal (a scandal is blowing your load on a fat chick's dress, corruption is breaking the law through abuse of power) in this administration. It greatly saddens me to se the direction of this country as a divided one, with desultory arguments about meaningless politics. It is tinme for a newe direction, time for change in America. No more spying on its own citizens for "the sake of the country". We are the country and if you do not respect our views Mr. Bush, that does not give you the right to sick your Gestapo on us. This country needs a new leader, not some leftist or neocon with his head up his parties ass, but someone who can think for himself. As for this quagmire of a war we are in, I ask you why? Why should we spend more money on Iraq? I don't mean to sound blunt or insensate, but who cares about Iraq? This war was never about Iraq and that is plain to see. It was about a vendetta, about the leader of Iraq who tried to kill George Herbert Walker Bush. Hussein is dead now, and the country is left in ruins. Beyond the obligation we have to rebuild, what is there left to fight for? Lets just rebuild and get out of there. I have a few Iraqi friends who live in America, but I don't really care about Iraqi citizens more than the citizens of my own country. So why should such an absurd amount of our resources go overseas? I understand Bush does not want to look weak, but instead he looks feeble-minded. He is like the mongoloid bully in the schoolyard, there is just no reasoning with him. Yet he is insistant on doing things his way, because he cannot understand a different point of view. Well I say its time for a leader who can. God bless America.

I think Paulo is the one who put it the best, all though not the most poetic.

A change needs to happen in Iraq, but we can't simply dump it and wash our hands of the matter.

The Democrats don't care an ounce whats going on over there, they just want to do something that will get the votes in '08.

Whereas the opposite is true for Bush. I think he absolutely believes that what he is doing is right, but he is so stubborn that he is not willing to see his faults and alter policy.

Both sides are wrong, and I weep to think what will happen in 2008.

Why can't we impeach this man for lying to the American public and killing over three-thousand American children. We did it to Clinton for having oral sex. IMPEACH!

i will always believe the answer to the unitelligent, arrogant white house led by the pupiter, karl rove, is impeachment. if ever in the history of our country this action is warranter, it is now!

The Republicans live in a fairy-tale world where terrorists are actually a danger to the average American, and where terrorism can actually be stopped, and wars can be fought for years without ever having to pay for them. All those ideas are so silly as to be impossible to take seriously. The Democrats, on the other hand, are willing to place themselves and their children in the way of a (basically non-existent) terrorist threat, so that other people's kids don't have to go fight and die in Iraq, and they're willing to raise the taxes to pay for the bills.

We were NOT greeted as liberaters
It is taking longer than 5 months
There were NO WMDs found
The insurgency was NOT in it's "last throes" 2 years ago
and this "surge" will serve to kill more people (our own included) cost another 100 billion and accomplish nothing more.
The only thing we have succeeded in doing is to get an additional billion people pissed off at the U.S...........Some "victory"......
Stay the course.................duh

One of these days a bounty will be declared on Democrat Party politicians.

RJ, I’m with ya there. Bruce and Paulo, you guys are so far out of touch with reality it just boggles the mind.

Every Bush crony or those of you defending that cocaine-addicted drunk we call a president are either living in a box or have a fifth grade education...Last time I checked "they" was spelled t.h.e.y. not t.h.a.y. (read comments above mine) So all of you so-called conservative republicans please finish high school and college first then go have sex with your sister (or brother) before trying to make a rational or intelligent comment.

As a fromer Navy Corpsman, the president is a disgrace and uses my Marines as fodder for his gain and Halliburton's gain, I know because I was there and have seen it with my own eyes. All you mother-fckers do is bitch to keep us there while WE WANT TO COME HOME! Fck the Iraqis let them figure it out themselves or kill themselves for all I care, lets go find the bastard that took down our towers; that should have been priority number one since the first day. However, because we have a president that is always drunk, on cocaine, and can't speak well publicly, my beloved Marines have nothing positive to say about Iraq or this government...NONE OF THEM! Especially when that a$$clown doesn't provide adequate equipment such as body armor, working helicopters or working humvees that can take a blow without falling apart and causing injuries or deaths.
I say if these (republican) people want to keep us there why don't they take their happy a$$es themselves and see how "awesome" it is to fight the war on terror. When they come back with a missing arm, leg, or torso maybe they will finally understand.
Dems...Thank you
Republicans...F#ck you

Especially to the last comment, Amen.

W stands for weasel.

We've had enough!

Bush has failed as the President as he has failed at all of his undertakings. He is incompetent and a clown. His regime of fear and isolationism will topple and if it does not it will do irrepairable harm to the United States and what few allies we maintain.

Congress should "stay the course" The Republicans cannot and will not continue to support this President and his cronies. Who really is in charge any ways. I don't think its Bush I do believe it is Chenney. Man what a political insider. Ever wonder why things never really change?

The ONLY thing Bush will ever understand is "IMPEACHMENT"

Bruce and Paulo,

Nothing is stopping you two sheep from signing up for W.'s "good war" in Iraq.

If you two think Iraq is such a "noble cause" sign up for it,the miltary is desperate for recruits these days and we would even take you two Republican chickenhawks.

Sign up or shut your pieholes.

The only option for Bush is to veto. The Dems are hanging themselves with this strategy and it will not go over well in 2008.

Bush has the responsibility of commander in cheif - not pollster in cheif, or political watchdog in cheif. He must ensure the security of this nation, regardless of what percentage of the American people want the US out of Iraq or not.

Congress has the power of the purse and to make and change laws. If they choose to pass a law that hangs our troops - it will appears as the most hypocritical political stunt to date in this crisis. They claimed for the first half of the war about how the troops are under-prepared - with inadequate gear, etc... They also decry the injustices in Somalia and demanded on several occations that Bush send troops to Somalia to rid that country of it's civil conflict. Now they set a deadline for troop withdrawal, and hold all funding hostage to their arbitrary date. No political think tank has suggested a complete withdrawal by a particular date. It is completely arbitrary. Now, rather than insist on the deployment of troops to end civil warfare, they are demanding that our troops be removed on account of it.

These Dems will drink the blood of our troops who die as a result of this completely politically motivated stunt! Never should Congress place our troops in a precarious situation, simply becuase they want to demand something particular from our Commander in Cheif of our forces. They claim to strike balance, yet they seek only for power and lust after campaign 2008!

bruce

Yes, you are exactly right. The dems want to simply lay down and let the "terrorists" roll-over us. Such an astute observation could only have been made by a person in possession of an intellect of staggering proportions.

Wow! Paulo, Don B and Bruce above are simply lost.

They clearly have no understanding of facts. It's sad, very sad.

To the American public - you've finally started to stand up for what's right, after too many years of Republican greediness controlling our government ruining our image in the world.

Fight on. It will take many years to restore America to its once respectable self, but our children will thank us if we stop Bush's damage now!

Bob

I'd love to see a sit down interview of our prez on 60mins. Something hard hitting with the real questions about his war and his justifications for it. Maybe ask if he feels he should apologize to Hans Blix or Valerie Plame. Why don't we have OBL in custody? Did we let him slip away on purpose? Why aren't there more troops looking for him? What the hell are we doing in Iraq and whats your exit strategy? Ask him if he would beat Laura if the police were on his front porch for crying out loud.

Watching him spew innanities about democrats from a poduim is giving him more respect than he deserves. Ask some questions and demand answers!

Cheney in 1991 at the Soref Symposium:
What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

In spite of all the rhetoric on both sides, we continue to 'stay the course' by forcing the Marines and Army to fight it alone with little or no 'clear thinking' help from this inept, nasty, mean-spirited, ridiculous 'peace with honor' administration!

Our guys need help. But diplomacy is not something that Bush or Cheney understands. They instead are Al Qaeda's greatest recruiting tool, and because of their arrogance and profound ignorance, a source of utter contempt by those who would otherwise be our allies in the middle east and elsewhere.

They need to be ousted and replaced with someone who knows what they're doing, Democrat or Republican. The time is for statesmanship, not cowboys with no understanding of the world around them. I'm tired of going overseas and having to constantly apologize for these jerks.

Bruce the loose goose says:

"The Dems ignore the fact that these terrorits have been attacking the US and the west for decades, under Dem as well as GOP administrations."

...ever wonder what the "West" has done to deserve these attacks, Brucey?

Read some history, old chap...starting with the history of the Brits in the Middle East, and don't forget to include the CIA-engineered overthrow of the government of Iran, and its replacement with the Shah, which led to the Iranian "hostage crisis"...oh, you have so much to learn. You probably believe they "hate our freedumbs" and that the Iraqi insurgency is in "its last throes."

What's the use....

The greatest danger the Democrats face is overplaying their hand which may enable Republicans to pass the blame for the Iraq debacle onto them. As in, "It was difficult but we were were making progress until you guys stepped in and destroyed any chance for success." Who was it that once said you should never stop your political opponents when they're in the middle of screwing something up? Of course, when lives are at stake there is a certain moral obligation to step in and urge change. I merely hope, however, that the Democrats don't get too full of bluster and end up owning this mess every bit as much as the current Republican administration does. Given the nature of spin (remember the last presidential election when they turned a hero into a coward and a coward into a hero?) there is a distinct danger of that.

Give it a rest, your little commie tactic of repeating things over and over until everyone believes it is getting old. But hey, it seems to be working on the ignorant welfare state leftists in this country.

The sooner we lose this war the better. We need to improve our image in the world!

Let's send our troops home instead of sending them into battle in an unnecessary war that was started on a pair of lies. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. So why are we there? Because "We broke it, so we own it"? By remaining in Iraq we are just making it worse there and at home because the war is bankrupting our nation. Just think how we could have developed alternative energy and fuel sources with the half a trillion dollars we spent on Iraq! We wouldn't need Middle East oil if we had spent half a trillion dollars on fuel cell/hybrid/naturalgas/etc. car technology. What a stupid waste of resources to fight this stupid war. Global warming is the real enemy, but we chose to ignore it, too. Could we please stop electing ignorant Republicans to the White House and Congress?

It would be really nice to see our elected leaders work with the president instead of against him. The surge is working and the future of the middle east depends on our success. The Dem's seem to think America voted for failure in the last election. They are wrong!

Finally someone in our governement is seeing what majority of the people have seen. This war is going nowhere our troops die daily and for a cuase not even our own let alone a cause that will ever end.
President bush's own father stated back when he was pres that if he had went to war there it would have been going on long after his term was over. I guees the kid thought he could do what his own father can't. Now other branches of our government are seeing the bulcrap.
We went to war over illegal weapons in iraq not terrorism if you remember.Those weapons were never found and bush has made several excuses for his lie about those weapons existing. Congress needs to impeach him before he does more harm.
Prices for gas food and home loans are skyrocketing to point our own economy is becoming a joke and bush want to face the war because he dont know how to fix them and be seen for the real useless pres he really is. maybe if the war were really going to an end i would feel diff but it isn't going anywhere and wont ever go anywhere becuase that whole country is a religous pond. to many religions in same place that feel same religiosly about the same places. war will never end there. It would be better to leave it to end their way. he had no excuse to go in so he made something up. and now congress is seeing the lie.

If you believe terrorism will BE LESSENED if we STAY IN Iraq, you probably also believe in "Bigfoot" and the Loch Ness Monster, and that W stands for a smaller, fiscally responsible government.

A comment for "Paulo", "Don B" and those who support Bush:
Bush has spent trillions of US taxpayer money on a war without end. In the process, more hate against the US is generated daily (and taken advantage of by our adversaries), thus putting at risk any US presence around the world . Making matters even worse, the Bush Admin. has now eliminated the ability of the US to respond properly to other potential conflicts around the globe. I believe that when the dust settles after multiple Congressional hearings, we will see how war profiteers (i.e.Bush cronies) have stashed US tax payer monies in offshore bank accounts! The true conservatives won't take this any more.... the GOP will implode... just watch!

The Democrats are in a no-win situation. That's why brainless political hacks like Pelosi and Reid managed to become congressional leaders. No competent Democrat wanted the job. Right or wrong, Bush will prevail, and the Democrats will go down in flames. The only wise course for Hillary and Barack is stay as far away from the conflagration as possible. And, so far, that is exactly what they are doing.

RJ wrote: "[Bush] must be impeached." A successful impeachment would get us only Cheney and company. King George needs to be frog-marched back to Texas, preferably via the scenic route through the Hague.

I think Bush sometimes forgets that "we the people" give him power to do things for us, and that he isn't in power to tell us to do things. The Congress is the voice the people, he should at least listen to it, and should be prepared to obey it.

The President has his head in the sand. No matter what the facts, no matter what the consequences, President Bush is full stream ahead. If this were a texas holdem game, the President is holding 7,2 off-suit and he called "all in". Yet, he seems to cherish the long odds (just look at his staff).

Bush has knowingly mislead our country into his war.
And by doing so he has committed criminal offenses against the people of these United States.
He needs to be removed from office (in shackels) and brought before a Court of the Peolple of the United Sates (wearing shackels).

Bush, Cheney, Rove pushed for this war in Iraq while the terrorist were in Afganistan. Then he/they mismanaged the war, all the while playing fast and lose with the lives of american service people. In the process destroying any good will around the globe for the US. These guys are happy to triple dip, making money on munitions, reconstruction and the rise in oil prices. How much have their checkbook balance gone up..............you see there is no money in Afganistan..that was the wrong war.

Ray K RI

Bruce: The reason we were attacked in 9-11 is because we have a military and corporate prescence in the Middle East, and Al Qaeda hates us for that.

If we had spent half a trillion dollars developing better car technology, instead of spending it on the war in Iraq, then we would not need Middle Eastern oil.

If the decision to withdraw troops from Iraq has so much public backing why did Pelosi have to buy votes with $20 billion in port?? From the propaganda you liberals spew, it seems you can't spew enough to mask this simple fact...

Isn't it time to LIMIT Bush's long list of FAILURES?

Bush has knowingly mislead our country into his war.
And by doing so he has committed criminal offenses against the people of these United States.
He needs to be removed from office (in shackels) and brought before a Court of the Peolple of the United Sates (wearing shackels).

Isn't it time to LIMIT Bush's long list of FAILURES?

"The Dems also ignore the fact that since the US troops went into Iraq, the terrorists have been drawn there and no terrorist attacks on the US have occurred."
Posted by: bruce | Apr 3, 2007 1:14:59 PM

So....better Americans get killed there than here, right?

"how disgusting that they use our brave men and women in the military for pawns"

...hmmm. Isn't that what GW did? And how many have died, including our brave service men and women, Iraqi innocents and combatants, not to mention mercenaries and NGO personnel from around the world, as a result?

All you Fox-news propaganda parrots seem to have missed a crucial point regarding "the terrorists". That is, the "war on terror" has nothing to do with Iraq except as an excuse for "the terrorists" to laugh in our faces as we become weaker and more bankrupt (morally and financially) as a nation.

Turn off your TVs, talk to your neighbors about what is important, and realize that you and I are not all that different from each other. Don't let the ideologues and talking heads put words in your mouth...

Silly bruce. Everyone knows we have not been attacked since we went to Iraq because I wear red sneakers. Jeez did you flunk logic in college?

Clearly if both houses really wanted this bill to pass they would have gotten a super majority, The conclusions that a thinking person will come to is: 1. It was safe for members of both houses to vote for this bill because they knew that Bush would veto it. AS HE PROMISED. 2. The Dems were able to get more votes because of the added pork. It looks good for individual members back home and the Dems really think that average people are to stupid to figure it out. 3, The Dems really don't support the military.

The Democratic party is now being run by baby booming 60's retreads. It their one last gasp before they head to the funeral home. Their one love, protest. They hated the military in the 70's and they hate the military now.

If you are a teen. Listen to the Dems. will you continue voting for them. Losing wars and lying about what they've accomplished is what they are best at. If you do vote for the Dems. the killing fields will happen all over again in Iraq. The modern Dems. real legacy is a failure is to be stand up people and to finishing any job properly.

They voted to get us into the war and they had better finish properly. Pay the bill you cheap bastards!!!

Is it just me or do some people backing Bush's failed Iraq strategy sound as delusional as our president? (see post by Don B.) The funding for the troops is there if our president wishes to provide it to them, it's just that this pill is a little tougher for him to swallow. He hasn't been able to clean up his mess and it's about time somebody had the cojones to put the screws to him and tell him it's time to put up or shut up. This president and his administration will go down in history as the "leadership" that sent this country into a downward economic spiral that we will not come out of for years to come...$400,000,000,000 so far spent on a failed policy.....or if you believe our "decider": we are making progress in Iraq, we will defeat the enemy, the world is a safer place, mission accomplished, Iraq was an emminent threat, there is no evidence that fuel emmissions have any effect on global warming, blah, blah, blah....

For Paulo, Bruce and Don B:

Do you count Reagan amongst "the losers?" He pulled the Marines out of Lebanon right after the barracks bombing. Was Bush Sr. a "loser" because he didn't chase Saddam back to Baghdad in Gulf War I?
At least Clinton knew that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan (1998 Cruise missile strikes), not Iraq.
This administration has, from the start, lied to the congress and the American people. They are too cowardly to even testify under oath for their conduct. If Chaney can not stand in front of American people and swear to tell the truth, why should we believe anything this administration says?
We are the 'losers'. Or do you still believe their biggest lie of all: Iraq attacked us and we're all safer now?

As a Soldier who has been to Iraq, I must say that the Republicans are Crazy. I love the Army first and foremost. But to listen to you sideline Patriots really blows me.Iraq was hell when I was there and I am sure it has not changed. The Iraqi people as a whole do not want us there. I care less about what you "Read" in the paper. I know.We in the military are not stupid. We know that all this talk about "cutting off funding for the troops is hurting us". I would not care if the cut off all the funds so long as my fellow soldiers can come home. Some one has to step up and be as courageous as the young 17 year old soldier fighting, without fear. I think politics has made some scared to go all the way no matter the cost. Since when does the minority control the majority. Soldiers can't speak openly, but know this; the "Average Soldier" knows better. The officer bucking for his next promotion may tell his superiors what they want to hear. But that Young Soldier will tell you like it is. Regardless of the consequence. Lastly, I am concerned that some Generals who have 25 years in the military are frightened of OLD W. But they beat into us young soldiers LDRSHIP, Loyalty, Duty, Honor, Integrity,, and PERSONAL COURAGE. Stop talking about it and BE ABOUT IT.

True Americans REMEMBER.
Remember the Twin Towers?

ummm, and that relates to Iraq how?

I remember the towers. I guess we could attack Canada. India has weapons of mass destruction; maybe we should invade.

Sorry, I guess I'm just not a true American. Although I'm a citizen, and a 20-year veteran of the USAF.

These "clear thinking" Bush defenders seem to be confusing Al Quada with Iraqis. AQ is only a handful of the insurgency there and it is OUR military that is bogged down, not AQ. They are still free to plan whatever they want against the US. Hey Paulo! Where's Bin Laden?

'Sheeple' what a great term!

Fortunately the miss-application of the term presents to us a wonderful, often unseen irony:

Namely, naysayers are in large part the fuel behind the ongoing, spectacular, body-strewn 'failure' in Iraq. At every turn Dems and Bush haters have tacitly, but unerringly informed the world of one thing: Make it bad enough in Iraq so that naysayers can live of the "guilt" dagger. Once the guilt dagger is in play, every good ole disaffected, or otherwise squeamish American will blindly, glibly and hostily blame GW and Co. for every spectacularly engineered death in Iraq; engineered precisely to fuel their furry. Good job 'Sheeple'.

Now you have to make sure you pull every troop out and house 1 million+ Iraqi refugees; because you've made the payoff for violence in Iraq regular guilty tender that you can use to wash your hands of and pretend like it is someone else problem. And if that's not Sheeple I don't know what is.

IMPEACH!

The administration and every single architect of misguided policies, and a series of incompetent performance in implementing all actions towards multiple disasters within the US and outside the US - must come out of their arrogant ignorance. face the people with their true colors. It is about time that they confess their organized crimes and hiding of the evidence in futile efforts to save themselves out of sheer selfishness, against the interests of all Americans. Do we expect that they would have any courage or decency? Hardy, from those who have consistently lied without shame or apology.

It's good to hear the word "afford" in the debate. Whatever the goals of the Iraq war are no war goals short of imminent destruction are worth the expenditure of the entire resources of a nation. Therefore any goal has some form of cost benefit ratio associated with it. As to Iraq it's clear the benefits, whatever those might be, if any, are no where near worth the cost. I would like to see what all these hawks have to say if taxes were up to pay for their beloved war. That's the tragedy here. Fact is this White House bribed business and his more idiotic constituients into the war. What he essentialy says is, you won't have to pay a thing and I will even lower your taxes. Now can I attack Iraq and the greedy so and sos said yes. Good thinking guys. 400 Bn and counting at the rate of 2Bn a week.

If Bush & Cheney were truly interested in troop welfare, they could demonstrate that by offering themselves as stand-ins for the fifteen Brits currently detained in Iran. Having gotten rid of them will allow us to withdraw all his crusaders from Iraq.

If the Democrats had true courage of conviction they would cutoff all funding for the war. As it is, they have proposed to waist more lives, time and money by setting the pullout date a year in the future. Theirs is a proposal that lengthens the war, that they say cannot be won, yet guarantees defeat by assuring the enemy of our withdraw. Are these the people we really want leading us? No war has ever been won by vowing to fight only until a certain date. The President is right to promise veto the Democrats’ “funding” bill that comes with a date for withdraw. Wars are won by will power as much as they are by weaponry and, although it is Al Qaeda who is hunkered down in bunkers like Hitler, they have exhibited a stronger will than we Americans; President Bush excepted. After the Democrat surrender plan is adopted, Al Qaeda, and like mined extremist, will quickly be able to take control of Iraq and then get back, fulltime, to the business of planning and executing attacks on America.

This is embarrassing. A president who act's like a spoiled brat.

SAD

Has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe the war is going just the way Bush planned it. There is a lot of oil money to be made by the big players when there is instability with the oil supply. Texas oil man, gee I wonder how much of a killing the family friends are making. War without end What a plan!!!!

RK in RI

"If you do vote for the Dems. the killing fields will happen all over again in Iraq."

Posted by: Carlton L | Apr 3, 2007 2:10:28 PM

OH...MY....GOD.....

Are the "killing fields" NOT going on NOW?

I am neither a Republican or a Democrat because I hate them both equally. I'm just smart enough to know who's fudging it up; The Decider. You guys continue to argue while my American brothers and sisters continue to die. Such a waste of energy.

The once great party of F.D.R. and J.F.K. that believed in defending our nation is long gone,a moral duty no more,for the democrats.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | Apr 3, 2007 1:19:05 PM

Did you just compare F.D.R. to J.F.K.? I thank the rep. supporters of the world that post comments like this that emphasize the lack of insightful investigation into a leader's national value. F.D.R. took America through a world war, supported major European nations in hundreds of different areas against the Nazi war machine. Sure he had his share of mistakes, but while J.F.K. did many great things for America, his military accomplishments were what; an invasion of Cuba? While the nation needed JFK, he charisma and his ability to perform in front of the camera was were his political worth was concentrated. So if you support Bush when he says "just trust me", then holy sh*t do you not really know what is going on.

Right or wrong, Bush will prevail, and the Democrats will go down in flames.
Posted by: Vance | Apr 3, 2007 2:03:14 PM

That one sentence captures everything that is wrong with the White House administration and most of the Republican members of the Congress.

You all need to read about the previous foreign policy issues that previous (BOTH Rep & Dem) have pushed on the globe. ONLY then can you make an informed decision about foreign policy matters. American's would be extremely shocked if they each took Chavez's advice and read the Chomsky book "Hegemony or Survival." I do not think a single entry here has read about any foreign policy. Do any of you know the history of our involvement in the Middle East since WWII? It is unfortunate that you are all repeating what you heard on the news, and are not well informed voters- thinking outside BOTH party lines (read lies.) God help American Idiocy.

I have been a Democrat all my life, but I am not proud of what my party is doing in Congress, and I also think Nancy Pelosi has way overstepped her bounds in meeting with the Syrian President. Like it or not, we are at war. Many of the Democrats complaining the loudest about the Bush War couldn't wait to hear the first shot when Congress voted to first support the invasion of Iraq. Now we are a fractured nation which means we are a weak nation. Washington politics at this time is a disgrace to every true American Patriot. Pray for our troops.

What is really sad is Bush will be denying much needed funding for Katrina plagued Americans.

Not setting up a timetable is a terrible mistake.

If the Bush thinks for one second that people don't see that he is just waiting to, "pass the buck," (literally) to the new Democratic executives come 2008 he is mistaken.

Americans will respond. We will be heard!

Thank God for George Bush. He understands our times. He understands that if we don't fight them over there then our streets in America will become the future battle ground. No matter what you liberal thinkers say, Iraq is part of this war on terrorism. But instead of becoming part of the solution your leadership decided to have coffee and cookies with a leader of terrorist state. How proud you must be of your party.

Bruce,

You'd better stop smoking so much weed.

"The Dems ignore the fact that these terrorits have been attacking the US and the west for decades, under Dem as well as GOP administrations"

Terrorist strikes on the US are a very rare occurrence. You are more likely to die by a lightning strike than by a terrorist strike.

The first WTC bombing, while Clinton was in office, happened February 26, 1993. We were not hit again by terrorist for the remainder of Clinton's presidency, which ended January 20, 2001. You could reasonably say that Clinton kept the US safe from terrorist attacks for almost eight years (without invading and occupying any countries).

W took office on January 21, 2001. Less than eight months later, on September 11, 2001, we suffered the worst attack on our homeland since Pearl Harbor. And this is after being warned repeatedly in daily intelligence briefings about possible hijackings and of course the famous August 6, 2001 briefing titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US".

W will have to finish out his second term without another attack on the US (i.e.: without falling asleep at the switch again), before anyone can claim that he has made us safer.

This discussion should not be framed as partisan bickering between democrats and bush/republicans, but rather as a unified front from both houses of congress to set milestones and timelines vs. the blank check approach of Bush and his administration. By choosing to frame the debate in the current manner, not only do the democrats stand to potentially hinder their political standing as we eloquently conveyed by prior posters, but also does the country continue to be embroiled in the style of staunch partisanship that has been so harmful to our nation over the past several years.

Just my two cents....

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her
altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse
me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him; an hour ago,
but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air
balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet
above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and
100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."



She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically
correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm
still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and; responded, "You must be a Democrat."

"I am," replie d the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're
going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You
made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to
solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in
before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault."

back and forth is all i ever see...how could anybody compare the CIC of the unided states of america with hitler is un-american

Everything Bushco has told us about Iraq over the last six years - EVERY SINGLE THING - has been not simply wrong, but the exact opposite of the truth.

I simply cannot understand why anyone - even his most rabid supporters - would pay the slightest attention to anything he has to say on the subject.

It is absolutely clear that Bush is absolutely clueless.

George Bush: Do the United States a big favor, and RESIGN! You cannot help this problem. You have BECOME the problem. Your word is worthless, and you don't know what you are doing.

RESIGN! Take Cheney with you, and give competent people a chance to begin to correct the mess you have made.

Hey; It's sad to led by the mentally ill. The middle east does not want want Christianity & someone needs to tell Bush this. Bush & all his cronies are "born again", thats great, keep it to yourselves. The Muslims are willing to fight to the death to prevent out Western ways from taking hold over there. Wouldn't we do the same here? I read a statement awhile back, it said, no country is secure when religious zealots take over, be it Muslim or America. I have religious friends(conservative Republicans) that are waking up to take a good look at the Bush administration & they don't like what they see. Bush values are self serving & not their values. Bush is a sick, mentally ill man that has no business leading a country.

Does anybody here even remotely understand how congressional funding works? The troops will be funded whether or not this budget passes. This whole "running out of bullets" thing is just another republican scare tactic, while democratic claims of delayed funding are just as meaningless. The American people want an end to this war, and the real issue here is why the Congress and the President think that they have any choice about what to do.

We are not doing any justice to America or the middle east. We are fighting for the oil rights for W and his... I say let thim keep their $65 a barrel oil and use it to grow their own food over there. If we stop sending food and medicine they will have to find other sources and guess what many parts of the world is already starving right now. We should be helping them become food and water self-sufficient and making them jobs to keep them busy. They don't need us sending them bombs and weapons, they have plenty enough already. When they can't find food, water, and medicine they will be willing to sell the oil at a more reasonable price. Food and clean water are America's first need, oil wars are not helping anyone... We should be using the billion$ that we are sending over there to help Americans here. The wasted money makes me ill...

In time we may decide it is the Iraq war which saved the US.
1. Without that immense failure Mr. Bush might have had more time to complete his destruction of the judiciary and the rule of law. Even as it is, our constitutional safeguards have come close to disaster.
2. The concept of an all-volunteer military which came from the Viet Nam debacle carries with it great dangers. Undertaking a war without support of the populace becomes much too easy.
3. The Democratic Party has moved to the center and does not endeavor to please a particular coalition of interests, as has been the norm for both parties at least since the Korean War. As a result our political process is stronger than it has been since Eisenhower pledged to get us out of Korea.
4. That we could be so easily led to these errors says we need to examine closely what we, the voters, are doing wrong. What is the root cause? None of this should have been possible.

Another year or two of unobstructed operation by this administration could have made the difference.

dont see how redeployment = defeat.
can anyone explain this to me.
if its a civil war then what business do we have there fighting it? unless we are going to put another star on the flag. make iraq the 51 state.

the "dems" (what retarded nation we live in to be divided by these words) are actually correct.
if bush vetos this bill he, in fact , will be denying the troops funding. the writers of the constitution gave the budget power to congress for a reason. it is truly an attempt at checks and balances. if you dont like it then leave the country, because you are not a true american.

if you vote republican because you are a republican or democrat because you are a democrat then you are obviously not an american. i would imagine that there are not many true americans left. all types of peolpe have good ideas that wil make this country better. mabey our president should learn to listen to them. his decisions have not worked. i personally do not want his protection. and if there were a way to exlude myself from him trying to protect me i would glady do it. i protect my family just fine without him giving all our money away to his friends.
at least the democrats would spend our money within the country.

this administration is corrupt, if you cannot see that then you are a blind nationalist and should find a new country to live in. try china, they do what they want just like this president.

This is a lose-lose situation that America is now in. The world looks at us as a laughing stock as the President and Congress have a very bitter public battle over Iraq. Any initial support the American people had when the war started is gone. Even without finding WMD, we still should have won the war and gained world support, BUT there was no exit plan, not enought troops to control the borders with Syria and Iran, not enough troops to guard the vast ammo depots, no American MP's until Iraqi police and security could be established, and all of this in the bulls eye of Islamic extremists! And the initial cause of this mess is Osama bin Laden who is still free since the US military has exhausted its resources in Iraq. Stay the course with Mr. Bush? He and his staff (ie: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove)put the United States in a horrific position in a war that cannot be won. Admit it and get out!

also, why are conservative republicans so concerned with the iraqis in the first place. why not sudan or africa? what has been so special about iraq?

Re: Posted by: bruce | Apr 3, 2007 1:14:59 PM

Bruce, you really don't get it do you? We ARE creating more terrorists right now in Iraq. How the heck can you paint that picture as a winning side for republicans heck, even democrats or unaffiliated civilians? Its not a win at all. We have given Iraq its "freedom" and they reply with bombing our troops, injuring and sometimes even killing our troops. You can call it al-Qaeda, Sunni Insurgents, or renegade remnants of the Iraqi Army... but the fact is, our troops are getting injured or killed and the Iraqis are not taking this fight seriously, politically or militarily.

No matter if you were for or against the war in Iraq, you cannot honestly say we are safer now than we were on 9/11, at BEST. One could argue that the amount of Iraqi civilians who have died to our bombs, mortars, and soldiers would be a considerable investment into local hatred. Sunni especially, and right now we have the support of the Shiite... but how long will that last? Until every Sunni is dead at BEST. This has only made Iran a stronger and more politically powerful nation, and Syria isn't wiping its nose either. You could easily argue that we have created a power vacuum in the Middle East, and now we may have an even larger fight coming, if we do not address the situation. And while the democrats may not have the best way, they are doing something.. which is more than G.W.B.'s "stay to course" plan has accomplished.

All I can say is, people need to be aware of what is going on politically now more than ever, and suprisingly word is getting out rather well.

"You're in exactly the same position you were in
before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault."

ah, a funny little quip. however there is one problem that sticks out like a sore thumb.
she never blamed him for her predicament, he assumed she was.
so there is more to this than meets the eye. HA!

Great joke, Mark. Except, uh, I'm a little unclear on the analogy. Which, if any of the Republican claims or predictions was "technicaly correct"?

Saddam Hussein had stockpiled uranium and was developing nuclear weapons?

S. H. had "vast stockpiles' of chemical and biological weapons?

(S. H. had any "weapons of mass destruction"?)

Al-qaeda leaders met with, collaborated with, had anything at all do with, Saddam?

The war would be paid for out of Iraqi oil revenues?

The was would "only" cost $200 billion dollars?

The Iraqis would greet us as "liberators"?

The insurgency was in its "last throes" in [pick your date]?

Water and electricity would be "up and running" six months after the invasion?

The war would launch a "wave of democracy" across the region?

Are these, perish the thought, Republican "hot air"? Or simply outright lies that have directly led to destruction and death?

I think we sould go for Iran and South Korea since Bush is still the president, so we can make some more mess there and drown in our debt and kill more soldiers and people. That way he (Bush) would make some more money for him and his relatives, based on more lies. This whole attack (911) and war was a huge lie, to make money and have an excuse for war. Im just sorry for the families that suffered from all of this and people that are in Iraq, and have no idea what are they fighting for. I think Bush should go the with his buddy, and fight for our freedom. And he calls himself a leader.

"A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. ..."

Gee, how original. Take a tired old joke about *scientists and engineers*, insert political parties, and pass it off as some sort of insightful political commentary.

Why not try something original, like:

Mission accomplished
You're doing a great job, Brownie
Nooklear
There's one terrible pilot

Oh...wait...those have all been done before.

I love reading these things. All anyone has to do is read comments from both sides to see which one has any semblance of intelligence. Them Repulican'ts just love to rant...

Good ol' Bushies - they can ignore the utter failure of their own party like no one else! Americans dying every day, and yet they buy W's line about "patience".

Four years is far long enough. The Democrats, for all their faults, have it right this time. Let's stop the needless spilling of precious blood, the unconcionable squandering of our brave young troops. NOW.

Bush doesn't want us to curb our appetite for oil. How will his friends and family make money.
Sounds like treason.

"You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to
solve your problem."

also, she simply asked him for directions. never indicating that she had an expectation at all. the man simply assumes that he is obligated and then convilutes the problem with needless information, and then acts like someone is blaming him and retaliates. typical

Bruce:
"The Dems live in a make-believe, Alice-in-Wonderland world"

Couple of statements/comments from Those zany "Mad Hatter's" in the Republican Party...
"Mission Accomplished"
"The Iraqis will greet us with flowers and chocolate"

Let's all stand together as Americans and declare Bush as the

"Worst President to lead the US"

in the history of this great country!

I think bush,cheney, mccain and the rest of the hawks should visit the markets in baghdad, but without the helicopters, body armor and companies of heavily armed soldiers. That would make for an interesting interview and photo op.

This war from Day was about the OIL and for benefit of the OIL Companies(EXXON, Haliburton etc..) and we are paying arms and legs for gas price, so America you want to wake up today is better than tomorrow and stop wasting our money and our kids money.
The more we are going to stay there the more we are going to create new generation of Suicide bombers(how many orphans we created) who are willing to die and kill us with them.
Wake up and stand to the liar(GWB).

If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure. It's not anyone's fault but his.

Wayne said:

"Well, here we go again, the democrats just can`t stay commited to anything. They voted to go to Iraq ..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Notice that this comment comes devoid of any reference to the bogus Weapons of Mass Destruction claim that Mr. Bush told Congress and the nation that Iraq had. If that assertion turned out to be false, then those who got "hoodwinked" have a right to reevaluate their stance.

While it is perfectly understandable that one could take a President's assertion as true. But if it turns out to be false then the old saying "fool me once - shame on you ..." could kick in.

I like the remark by Bruce about the Al Quada being drawn to Iraq because the American troops are there. As if the deployment of troops in Iraq drew the Al Quada out of the U S and into Iraq so that now we're safe. Al Quada will ALWAYS be a threat to ANY nation that interferes with their culture or geographic territories. And why not. If the U.S. could stay out of the business of telling the rest of the world what to do, think, build or teach, maybe they would leave us alone. But I'm afraid we are still going to have to pay for past aggressions due to the human nature factor; people don't forget. It will take decades for families who experienced deaths of loved ones at the hands of the U.S., to forgive us, and in the meantime those that believe in revenge will have it,...or they will die trying.
Well, sorry but I have to go. Big Foot and the Loc Ness monster just showed up and we're going to play cards.
Larry P...Indiana

there should be an footnote to the first amendment that goes something like this: the above mentioned freedom of speech may only be used in an educated, well informed, reasonable and logical manner. Individuals not following those guidelines will be sent to the front lines of any current or future military confrontation.

War and Politics, a cumbustable combination at any time. In 200+ yrs our "Democracy" has devolved into the morasse we have today. There is no more "We the People," there is only "We the Elected." When did it become about Lobbyists and "special interest groups"? When did "We the People" forfeit our right to a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people?" When did "Democracy" get redefined as a method of government whereby elected officials/candidates with questionable campaign contributors cater to their own egos, hubris, and prejudices; regardless of the best interests of the American People?
War is never pretty, but is an option when ALL other methods to resolve the issue have failed. Terrorism exists, will always exist in some incarnation, practiced by extremists of all faiths and political idealisms. You can't "win" a war on it.
Bush wanted, and received carte blanche to wage his expensive campaign against terror in Iraq. Six years later we are no closer to resolving the issue, and executing Hussein was anti-climatic and pointless. It resolved nothing. Bush has never had, nor will have an "exit strategy" while he remains in office. If the American People, Congress and the Senate can not reign in his massive Napoleonic Complex soon, America as a symbol of Democracy and reason, will be damaged irreperably.
Are the Democrats right? Should we begin a phased withdrawl of troops in 2008? Has the Iraqi government lived up to its promises to stand on its own two feet?
To Bush, it really doesn't matter at all. He'll fight the Democrats to the bitter end. Not because he is right and they are wrong; but because he takes a malicious glee in vaunting his imperical power. It won't be his mess anymore very soon, and he could care less about American Troops in any part of the world, and if you believe otherwise, then you are deaf, dumb, and blind. He cares only about himself, that's all folks!
So as part of "We the People", I say that if we want to preserve our Democracy, our Borders and our way of life; we need to look at the bigger picture. It isn't about Iraq, it never was. I've seen my husband through 2 tours over there, 3rd one coming...enough is enough. The mission is never going to be accomplished, no matter how much money you throw at it.

It's not about Democrats, Republicans or any other political stance. It's about the people. Those who have died, those who have lost loved ones, those who are fighting for a cause in a country that doesn't even support them, whether it be in wartime or at peace.

We elect a president for this country to govern us in the best way possible. We trust that our president will take all matters seriously and lead us into war if that is the only solution. However, our president has not been addressing his duties in a responsible way. Instead, he is crossing his arms, holding his breath and stamping his feet in the nation's biggest temper tantrum.

Even though his attitude suggests otherwise, Mr. Bush is not a two year old child pouting, he is the leader of the United States, one whose credibility with the people who elected him and who are now dying for him is essentially null-and-void.

I have never considered myself to be a Democrat, but in this particular instance, I have to agree with them. To veto this bill, Mr. Bush, YOU are denying our troops their needed funds and YOU are killing them in a war that 70% of the country believes we should never have been in. If anyone should be ashamed, it should be YOU.

interesting, there is censorship in this posting.
No foul language used in my previous post, but it didn't show up. Freedom of speech is limited by some bad guys.

I thught President Bush said "Mission Accomplished" a few years ago.

Why do we need to be there is the job is done?

Carl Hag

"True Americans REMEMBER.
Remember the Twin Towers?
Remember the Alamo!!!!!
All Radical and Liberal Democrats including Osama Obama, Billary and Nasty Peloci, please move to Iraq, you are welcome to replace our troups in IRAQ and leave us alone!@#

Posted by: AJ | Apr 3, 2007 1:44:00 PM"

> Doktor Freud; What do you make of this statement?

> The textbook definition of insanity my good sir.

Honestly, why hasn't Bush been assassinated yet? I haven't even heard of an assassination attempt! They tried numerous other presidents who have done far less damage by comparison. Honestly, disaffected gunmen, what gives? Maybe we ought to just send a box of pretzels to the white house and let fate run its course, eh?

All seriousness aside, anyone who gives their unequivocal support to this president is nothing short of a traitor. Those of you who say we should always stand behind our president are idiots. That's not a democracy, that's a dictatorship!

To those of you saying "if you don't like it, go live in Iraq," you can die. You're the ones who want us there so bad, why don't YOU move there.

You people sicken me. You put your preferred political party ahead of what's good for the country.

What really gets me is how he has support from the fundies. Any Christian who supports Bush is a liar and a hypocrite--and hardly a Christian. What's sad is that alot of you so-called "Christians" are nothing but sheep who put your politics before your faith. For the love of God, read your dusty, oft-ignored bible and ask yourself whether or not Bush is acting like a "born-again Christian." If you think he is, I'll rest easy knowing that you'll share the same fiery corner of hell together.

Check mr if I am wrong, but I do not recall a war or "miltary action" of any size that was won sithout bombing the hell out of the country. When the citizens get tired of the rain of bombs, countrys give in and change....in Korea, In Vietnam, In Iraq....we have tried to fight a humane war, and we have lost...there can be no victory unless we pull out and rain terror from the planes, and since it is not likely the American People would stand for that...it is time to give up and get out!

However, I wonder how the world would treat us if we did make it happen, and had Victory! (Instead of just words!)

If 9/11 was a perfect catalyst for the Neocon agenda, what happens if Bush is forced to pull out of Iraq? Seems to me Bush and friends are so far gone in their megalomaniacal ideological quest, that it could very well result in another staged 9/11 in a last gasp to secure the Reich. Can we PLEASE impeach this pile of garbage and somehow oust Dick 'the monster' Cheney as well?

The issue seems to be more with ignorance and political pandering than a decision that had integrity behind it. Welcome to the ways of the world.

A lose-lose situation that has gone past the point of no return can not be resolved no matter what the decision. Sad to say, it is the American people and the economy which suffers for this lack of forsight.

The idiocracy of the Bush administration may be replaced by a democratic majority, but there will be no winners here...

We are certainly divided politically as a nation and although I believe there is a certain amount of division on the Iraq war, I have faith in the fact that there is a position that we all ‘come together’ as a nation without consideration for party affiliation, Religion or race; that being our pocketbooks.

YOU and the American population are oblivious to what the politicians are stirring up and what the horrible fallout will be financially for all of us. If YOU and the American People were informed that by ‘cutting and running’ out of Iraq, they stand to endure some extremely personal financial hardships, the debate over how long we spend in Iraq and how we continue to fund the effort would come to a quick end.

Stabilizing Iraq is now about oil, terrorism, nuclear weapons and keeping the control of Iraq in the hands of Iraq and its allies.

Pulling out of Iraq with a ‘cut and run’ approach would put our oil producing allies in the surrounding countries in turmoil. Our so-called oil producing allies, like Saudi Arabia, would be left with an Iraq at war with itself and an Iraq under siege by a nuclear seeking Iran able to expand its borders, capabilities and capture a country rich in oil. The Saudi’s reaction, along with Kuwait, Turkey and other OPEC nations would be at the very least, aggravated. Expect soaring oil prices, maybe even shortages.

Our current state of the economy is at the threshold of a recession. Any further damage to the US economy would be disastrous. Consequently, YOU and all Americans will feel the affects of hyper-inflation and rising oil prices IMMEDIATELY.

At minimum, it equates to rising gas prices in the neighborhood of somewhere around $4.50 at the low end to somewhere around $7-10.00 at the high end per gallon of gas. That’s an increase of 50-100% per barrel of oil (based off historic figures see: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif ).

Imagine paying $7 a gallon for gas or $140 for a tank of gas for a 20 gallon tank.

Not possible? During the Iran/Iraq war in 1980-1990, prices of crude oil went from $35 dollars a barrel to $74 a barrel. A gas crisis, has always predicated a recession/depression. We are already steam-rolling to economic pain with complications brought on by the Fed’s housing/mortgage debacle where 2.2 Million People to Lose Homes Due to Foreclosure (see: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/foreclosures_numbers.html ).

Historically, there is no question that an oil crisis would definitely bring on a recession or major depression and with complications already in the economy, the impact on YOUR life and the American way of life would be profound.

Does anyone remember gas lines, rationing and gas stations with no gas? Our suburban lifestyle, with two, three and four-car families, constant trips to work, school and the grocery store would not only become very uncomfortable, but very unaffordable.
It’s not out of the realm of possibility that OPEC could/would boycott America for cutting and running and leaving a mess for them to deal with. In 1973, OPEC boycotted the US and other countries for simply supporting Israel during the Yom Kipper war.

When gas prices soar, hyper-inflation follows(10-20%) and all goods, products and services escalate in dramatic proliferation.

Congress(both some Republicans and the Liberal Democrats), with their arrogant and injudicious behavior, is pushing this Country and the globe closer to a financial disaster and ruining YOUR financial way of life for many years.

It amazes me how the GOP has forgotten they would not pass a minumum wage increase bill with out tax breaks for their wealthy buddies. Yet Bush and the gang will Veto a bill with a time table for withdrawl. The GOP is a party of hypocrites.

The time has come for a change in Iraq. I am tired of American service men and women giving their lives for the OIL MEN in the White House.

Lets make no mistake why we're in the Middle East. Oil and Oil is Power.

Clinton was impeached because he lied about getting oral sex.

Bush has condemmed the military to defeat and death. The time is now to rid our country of this administration. George Bush should be impeached.

AMERICA HAS SPOKEN

The war in Iraq has always been a farce. 90 percent of the 911 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, they collaborated in Germany, learned to fly American aircraft here in the U.S. and launched their attack from within our country. At no point, did Iraq have anything to do with this terrorist attack. The terrorists operate all over the world and within our country. It was and is still foolish to believe that a ground war in Iraq has any effect on terrorism.
The real costs of this war are not just the 3200 dead; it's the 20,000 veterans who've lost an eye, a leg or an arm. It's also the 50,000 who will never sleep a peaceful night again because of post-traumatic stress.
The biggest proof that Bush has made a mistake is that when his father, Bush Sr., was faced with the same decision in the first gulf war. He listened to his experts, did his research, and made the right decision not to invade Iraq.

Republicans are standing solid on this issue regarding the emergency war spending bill, Democrats are gonna start jumping ship, give em time, thats what they do best. They will run to what ever seems like it will gain them the white house in 2008 at any cost. Just watch them bury themselves. Their only hope is this war to fail, they will try to turn it on the republicans but unfortunately Bill Clinton can't run again, he's the only one with enough charisma to lie to the american people and everyone forgive him for it. Hillary defiantly has no charisma and is as warm and loving as an iceberg. Obama has no idea what would need to be done if he got there other than to try to be coolest of the cool. The Dems have no idea to what is going on other than its cool to bash bush and its popular to say "time to pull the troops out" Let's hope the majority of Americans aren't stupid enough to vote for any Democrat jokers 2008. The whole world would suffer if the Dem's gained the white house, I'm neither democrat or republican, a canadian that has followed this since the beginning, so maybe I'm watching this with a clearer vision than most.

If ever this country needed to initiate impeachment proceedings against a president, the time is NOW. Throw this moronic dictator out of office before we all go up in flames!

Dear Bush,
Please heed to the public, congress and Senate majority. Don't play stupid heed to Carl Rove "your real brain" or Dich C's. Do you realize that you are considered big bully because of these.
Regards

I'm curious to something as an American PLEASE tell me what makes us think that we know what's best for other countries? We (our goverment) puts our nose in where it doesn't belong & use the excuse it's for our own saftey maybe just maybe if we would pledge to keep our nose out of our neighbors house they keep theirs out of ours.
We send our children, husbands, wifes, And grandchildren to fight for something they had no choice in. Our ancesters already gave their lives in our own wars right here in their country why should they give it for another?
We sympathize with all the aids in Africa, the starving children of other countries, try and fix the whole world, but yet we do nothing for the starving children, and unemployed people of America because of out soucing. And do these other countries give 2 hoots about us & our families?
Send all the forigners back legal or not to their own countries, bring our families back & let these people fight it out themselfs.
We need to clean our own house before we need to clean thew neighbors.
Bring our families home & blow them to Kingdom come, well we want control so bad!!!!! Problem solved. Come on Bush lets just get it over with!!!!!!!!

This just shows how simple minded Bush really is, we send every last troop we have, to fight in the war to keep the enemy away from the states, but when the American troops are all dead and injured where do you think the Iraqi are going to go, right back into the states. Who is going to protect us then? The losers who believed that we shouldn't bring our troops home to protect our own borders? Well then count us doomed!

Well, Bush has proven that he likes to divide, not unite. He likes to vilify, not build. He enjoys fighting Democrats, like most brainwashed, right-wingers; not work with them.
Pretty simple folks: This guy still has got a chip on his shoulder and hasn't grown out of his adolescent pheromonic power stupor. he needs to get a life OUTSIDE the WHite House. Poor guy. Imagine the rest of his life: isolated in a ranch down in Texas where he will only entertain Karl Rove and all the other fatsos who helped elect him into office. I hope he has enough booze stored up for the lonely road ahead. Oh, and GO DEMS! YOU RULE!!! Power to the people. I, for one, am proud to be called a liberal and am looking forward to the day all American troops come back home.

The man smiled and; responded, "You must be a Democrat."

"I am," replie d the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're
going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You
made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to
solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in
before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault."

Posted by: Mark | Apr 3, 2007 2:47:41 PM

Mark:

Your cute story kind of falls apart in terms of analogizing to the present situation. Unlike your very cute story, in the real world, the man in the boat (GWB) in fact put the woman in the hot air balloon (Congressional Dems). So I'll go ahead and spell it out for you: that means it is the Republican's fault that she's in the balloon. It's not a "somehow" because we know exactly how it happened.

Cute story -- just meaningless in the present context, and thus evidence of the cluelessness that you fancy in a leader and strive to emulate.

In our real world situation, it's the Republican who put the Democrat in the hot air balloon. You're slow, so I'll explain the implication: it really is the Republicans' fault, because before meeting the Republican, the woman was not in the ro

President Bush has given a solid, steadily growing economy for 6 1/2 years, full employment and low inflation. He has also kept the terrorists fighting on their own soil and has protected innocent US civilians, something billy boy failed to do. Your only choices are whether we fight overseas with our trained military, or have more innocent civilians (billy's fault) die here. There is no other choice. None. So get off his back!

Ahhhh Mr. Bush...
I personally think that Geroge should be the last person in this universe to call ANYONE irresponsible. This whole situation in Iraq was generated by the irresponsible actions of both bushes, SR, and Jr.

If George were really a responsible person, and genuinely cared about the American People, he would take Cheney, and turn themselves over for impeachment, and prosecution. But we know that will never happen, it is really rather difficult to prosecute a person that lies through thier teeth, and is only interested in himself.

I used to be proud to be an American, now, I am ashamed. Americans have lost control of America. We no longer have a say so in what happens, our votes don't count, and our voices have been muted. Any person with any common sense can see, we are a doomed nation. It is not a matter of if, but rather when. America has said we want out of Iraq, let them settle thier own problems. Congress has told George this, and or Leader in Briefs has stated, ' yeah, well, I will Veto what the American people want." In essence he has basicaly shown his true colors once again.

You may want to drop our friends in Washington a letter, thank them for all the nothing they are doing for us.

Bush has knowingly mislead our country into his war
Posted by: michael williams | Apr 3, 2007 2:05:07 PM

Mr. Williams : Please post the link or site where it proves your statement, I would be most interested to read up on it. Unless of course your just another Bush Hater and it's just your opinion, then of course there's no need to respond.

Sheeple' what a great term!

Fortunately the miss-application of the term presents to us a wonderful, often unseen irony:

Namely, naysayers are in large part the fuel behind the ongoing, spectacular, body-strewn 'failure' in Iraq. At every turn Dems and Bush haters have tacitly, but unerringly informed the world of one thing: Make it bad enough in Iraq so that naysayers can live of the "guilt" dagger. Once the guilt dagger is in play, every good ole disaffected, or otherwise squeamish American will blindly, glibly and hostily blame GW and Co. for every spectacularly engineered death in Iraq; engineered precisely to fuel their furry. Good job 'Sheeple'.

Now you have to make sure you pull every troop out and house 1 million+ Iraqi refugees; because you've made the payoff for violence in Iraq regular guilty tender that you can use to wash your hands of and pretend like it is someone else problem. And if that's not Sheeple I don't know what is.
Posted by: Brad | Apr 3, 2007 2:19:30 PM

People Like you are the resson Our Troops are dying in a Conflict that should have ended with the detention of Sadam Hussein. We helped the overthrow the Dictator now we need to back off and let them rebuild their society. Its not our place to interfere in a society that we are neither a part of off nor do we understand. We have our country let them have their's. this war should have been over when the terrorist threat was eliminated. That was why we started this

I agree that BushCo has long past the threshold for impeachment. Lying repeatedly to get America's finest to die in a "pet war" (an Oil War tossed around for a decade) is immoral, period. The bush-lovers on this blog can continue with their name-calling, questioning patriotism (boring!), and calling dems pond-scum, but the fact is that we should not be in Iraq babysitting a civil war.

Bush is the most incompetent president that I can recall.

Bush didn't have a clue about how to prosecute this war ("6 months, tops" said Rummy... body armor, uhh, "things happen in a democracy", "Mission Accomplished" etc, etc,). Why should any rationale citizen think that Bush is any smarter? He blew off the Iraq Study Group recommendations and followed his inept instincts.

When should Congress impeach a president? Leading a nation into a no-win war seems like a strong rationale. Way better than lying about sex. I'm with Kucinich and Chuck Hagel... Impeach the Liar!

The emperor still has no clothes but parades around hoping everyone can see what he sees - because of course he is right and everyone else is wrong.

Finally, a Congress with some backbone to tell the emperor that he is buck naked and we are not paying for his wishful thinking anymore without some oversight. It is high time we no longer go at this alone. Would $400 Billion (so far) be better spent on poverty or something to "help" those in need?

And Mr Bush - stop whining - it's hard to listen to you.

It is totally amazing to me that there are still some people who are flat out stupid enough to back Bush. How many lies do you have to hear? You must be the folks who's utter stupidity made it necessary for McDonalds to put "HOT" on the lids of their coffee cups. Let's wake up and think. You people have caused a trainload of heartache to a whole lot of families and hurt our country tremendously. We need to rebuild our military, or at the very least get them out of harm's way to recharge their batteries, so that if a LEGITIMATE threat does arise they will be in a position to respond to protect US. That should be the ONLY reason they are called upon to risk their lives. Protecting US.

Let's look into the rear for just a moment... If we hadn't ventured into Bush's needless, contrived, and expensive war, what on earth could we have done inside our own country with the 400 plus billion dollars we spent... and have nothing to show for, but our own people that have become dead or maimed? What have we gained by being there?
Let's support the troops that never asked to be sent there in the first place, by bringing them home in one piece.
What do you think our illustrious commander in chief would have done if his own answer to avoiding real service in Vietnam was altered to include him to really participate in a senseless war? I was there. I can tell you he would be a different person than he is now. Well, maybe..

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad, but you know that the Dems don't actually care about the people of America more then themselves because of all the port-barrel spending in the bill that are not just bad policy, but have nothing to do with the issue at hand. If they actually cared about others more then themselves, they would never have let those things into the bill to begin with.

On the other hand, President Bush does care for this country more then for himself because he is willing to put up with all the mindless insults thrown at him for defending what he knows to be right. Sure, he could give in to pressure from the Democrats and select few international leaders (most of whom are terrorists) and just go with the flow. He doesn't, because he cares more for this country then for himself.

In that light, why would you believe the Dems over the very intelligent Harvard graduate who actually has this country's well being at the top of his list of priorities. You simply can't trust the Democrats in congress these days.

Don B. said:

" I love it, Mr. Bush is going to give the foolish Dems' just enough rope to hang themselves. They have successfully painted them-selves into a corner. Any choice the Dem. leadership takes from here on in will be political suicide. I'm going to enjoy this
cat fight. This will carry over to 2008, because the royal loony left..."

Posted by: Don B | Apr 3, 2007 12:43:49 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Reality don't have a hold on everybody. Some seem to have a allergic reaction to reality. Some are in denial. The real world just seems to be a mirage to some.

The American electorate just threw out Congressional republicans who:
(1) Took ethics to a new low.
(2) failed to bring Mr. DeLay before the House Ethics Committee.
(3) Stood shoulder-to-shoulder with a President who had just been found to have "operated outside his authority" in spying on Americans,
(4) Effectively decreased the three(3) branches of America's government down to two(2)
(5) Was kept busy following and fixing laws that may have been fractured by the Bush team.
(6) was unbelievably silent as the country sank ever deeper into the unethical muck.
(7) Failed to put on display(last election) any of its accomplishments.
(8) Looked askew at all those instances of Bush team new hires who seemed to be better at ideology skills than job skills.
(10)seemingly used nose plugs or perhaps the imagination to shield itself from the odor of the ethics muck.

So, you expect to enjoy the cat fight of 2008, huh? Does that mean you did not enjoy the record setting "cat fight" of 2006?

Perhaps, a reason why the Republicans ignored the American electorate is because the American electorate speaks softly.

The Republicans were shocked at the 2006 response of that soft speaking American electorate. You believe America is ready to go back to "Royal Management"? I think not.

Iraq is a sovereign state. What does that make us? If you look at the fbi's definition of terrorist you will understand. As for increased funding in Iraq, it might be a good idea; though throwing money away doesn't always work to my knowledge, sometimes it does. Iraqi's want us out of the country, i don't blame them. I wish it were 1990 again, good times huh.

Unfortunately, america has become a very weak country, this war was the right move, but we cant stomach being aggressive. innocent american's have been getting killed by mid east terrorists for decades, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in their own countries by these terrorists , our hard earned dollars secretly being funneled to terrorists to wage attacks against us and others; George Bush isnt the problem... american tax payers are the problem, we pretend we know whats truly going on in the world but close our eyes to everything thats going on around us because it doesnt directly effect us, as soon as the towers came down in new york, we were pro american, but we didnt get the instant gratification of success we are so used to. our brave military people took a pledge to support and defend our country, it is a commitment that only the bravest and strongest are willing to make. our troops arent dying because of george bush.. our troops are dying because every move, casualty, error in judgement, interrogation practice, dollar spent, and spying tactic has been scrutinized and published from the very beginning. we should have just given a map to the enemy on how to defeat our pathetic self absorbed country. you cant win a war when you have the enemy in front shooting at you, and at the same time ducking from the bullets your own people are shooting your way. the dems will get their way, the terrorist will go into hiding for 10 months, hit us hard when we are forced out because of our self imposed deadline. thank you america, nice knowing you.

Achtung!

Sieg heil der Bushrer!

Reich Winger

Que deseamos?

Acusacion!

Cuando la deseamos?

Ahora!

Each time you want to hurl democrat and republican this and that remember...you are an american first!

Playing partisan games is the way the media etc have encouraged the psychologically timid to split the people.

Any attempt at calling for people to leave the country, love it or leave it, blah, blah...truly is the idiots guide to citizenry.

If you play this game you risk a treasonous course in terms of your so called "patriotism". If you truly are a patriot then do the right thing by your contry and not a political affiliation.

This is not a childs game...unless you make it so. Personally we have too much investested in terms of taxes and lives to play games.

Take a deep breath and be honest, this war is making a positive difference to no one excpet defense contractors.

Why have none of our members of congress pointed out that this bill has 'indeed' provided all of the funding that the Whitehouse has asked for and more?

They should point out loudly and clearly that if Mr. Bush chooses to veto this bill, it will be HE that does not want to fund our troops. There can be no other conclusion.

The 'so called' pork in this bill, while significant, accounts for less than one percent of the appropreations in the bill.

Mr. Bush should sign it and, as he so loves to say, 'move forward'.

Iran is supporting the Shia and AlQaeda is supporting the Sunni. So, when did it become bad to have two of your enemies fight? Think about it another way. Why is AlQaeda supporting the Sunni? Just to get at us. If we leave, AlQaeda will leave. The only reason they are there is to make a mess for us, they published papers saying exactly that.

So, the only reason for us to fight is to keep AlQaeda involved in Iraq so they won't fight us here. But with a strategy that increases the number of AlQaeda members that is nuts as well. Better to fight AlQaeda by fighting for the hearts and minds, not by doing everything possible to help our enemy recruit.

bush is such an idiot. waron terror isnt really even war bc you dont have a real objective. declaring war on terror is like declaring war on racism. its never going to go away. people can be destroyed, but ideas like terrorism and racism can not. and werent we told that we were only going to iraq to remove and disable "weapons of mass destruction?" we never found any, so why aer we still there? and since iraq and al qaeda have no air defenses what so ever, why are we using people instead of airplanes? HIEL BUSH!!!

My God. Reading all this hate and distain back and forth between left and right, Dems and Republicans, us and them, makes me sad to realize that the forces that are waging a war, that we are not use to fighting, have already won. We hate each other. We are, or were, Americans, but now I don’t know what we are. I just wish for something more than what I have heard, seen and read. This country has lost it's intelligence, it’s backbone and it's spirit. Maybe we deserve what we get.

I think Bush has effectively proven that his way of doing things doesn't work. There's no real support for this war. Bush thought he could take over Iraq and control the Middle East from there...man, did he miscalculate. The whole weapons of mass destruction was just an excuse to get the ball rolling. Anyway, the damage has been done. Now we really need a President with some grey matter to clean up his mess.

who is this zolander??? you must have been before a judge with the choice of jail or the military...i feel sorry for anyone who had to serve with you and our country...can you come up with anything that would seem to be a rational dialogue??? any sane person would just laugh at your comments and dismiss them as just a misinformed foolish person...by the way i know people who have served in iraq and they come up with the opposite opinion of you

For the sheeple with willfully short memories....Tax cuts for the rich are needed to slowdown the over heated economy;Tax cuts for the rich are needed to boost our crashed economy.

The greedy pubes backed both, mutually exclusive lies.

I have to admit that it is incredibly frustrating that the sheeple are claiming that the Dems are guilty of everything that the people voted the Pubes OUT for!

Yo, Bruce, buddy. I am so tired of all you Bushies spouting that nonsense that fighting the war in Iraq has prevented the terrorists from coming here as evidenced by the fact that we have not been hit since 9/11. This is the most ridiculous arguement if you look at the facts. These people plan deep and well ahead. The first WTC bombing was in 1993 and they didn't hit us again until 2001 - 8 YEARS LATER! And just because we have escaped for the last 5 1/2 years; what about the rest of the world? Do I REAlLY have to remind you of the Bali bombing in 2002, the Madrid train bombing in 2004, the London Underground bombing in 2005 and Bali again in 2005. Sure... ALL the terrorist have been drawn to Iraq. Take another look.

As far as Bushie Boy and his holier-than-thou GOPpers are concerned, remember that Jesus spoke of "Publicans and Sinners" in the same breath.

—Reich Winger

Quote #1:
"Us clear thinkers know that the democrats are a party of losers"

Juxtaposed with ...
Quote #2:
"I love it, Mr. Bush is going to give the foolish Dems' just enough rope to hang themselves. They have successfully painted them-selves into a corner."

Quote #3:
"This will carry over to 2008, because the royal loony left like Rosie O'Donnell, Maher ..."

In my opinion, if Republicans are such "clear thinkers" they would check facts before posting. For instance, Bill Maher is a registered Libertarian and often argues the Libertarian viewpoint. I know this because I am also a Libertarian.

And quote #2 is precious - clear thinkers will note that it's from a list of categorical statements (see Don B above) without a single shred of justification. And it's ironic as well, because a. Bush has painted himself into a corner and b. it's the Republican party that's currently tearing itself to pieces. It's doing so because social conservatives and fiscal conservatives have been divided by the guy in high office!

I believe such a split was inevitable, because I believe that GWB is a miraculous amalgam of the worst qualities of conservatives *and* the worst qualities of liberals (he's a big spender and a big government advocate). In fact, his best quality is that he's a damn fine politician - again possibly the worst trait in an elected official. So please, let's take the common sense route and get this guy out of office!

PS.
Quote #4:
"This discussion should not be framed as partisan bickering between democrats and bush/republicans ..."
This is the sort of thing clear thinkers say.

Bush's and the Neocons strategy to fight terrorists is intentionally misguided. Their strategy is that of imperial building, subjugation and exploitations and coercion of the "willings" like Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, The Gulf emirates and "kingdoms", central Asian "nations", the banana republics, eastern Europe,and Africa.
That is why the strategy is not working, its a strategy for something else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5btZWbViPA

President Bush has been wrong about Iraq, Katrina, the economy, protecting civil rights and the environment, and countless other things. It's amazing he still has support of 29% of the American public. He probably thanks God every night for Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Kristol, and lastly, Cheney. Birds of a feather!

Bush's and the Neocons strategy to fight terrorists is intentionally misguided. Their strategy is that of imperial building, subjugation and exploitations and coercion of the "willings" like Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, The Gulf emirates and "kingdoms", central Asian "nations", the banana republics, eastern Europe,and Africa.
That is why the strategy is not working, its a strategy for something else.

Anyone notice how the Bush apologists resort to name-calling when they are confronted with the reality of what their idol has done?
Rather than offer reasoned argument for their positions they prefer to demonize those they don't agree with and, is often the case, blame the messenger ("the 'liberal' media isn't reporting the good news, wahhh!").
Other than to preserve the pride of our arrogant president, why are we still in Iraq? I don't buy the shallow argument "we gotta fight them there so's they don't fight us here". What a load. What are they going to do, drive their car bombs across the Atlantic and onto our city streets? As long as Halliburton and their subsidiaries are making a killing off our tax dollars there is no incentive for Bush to pull the troops.
Bsuh has created an American shooting gallery for jihadists in the streets of Baghdad and the Anbar Province and should be punished by the American judicial system.

Right or wrong, Bush will prevail, and the Democrats will go down in flames.
Posted by: Vance | Apr 3, 2007 2:03:14 PM

That one sentence captures everything that is wrong with the White House administration and most of the Republican members of the Congress.
Posted by: johnf | Apr 3, 2007 2:30:45 PM

What? What kind of logic is that? If you don't agree with my statement, then it can't be something that is "wrong with the White House". If you do agree with it, then Bush will prevail. What are you trying to say?

Tom Said:

It would be really nice to see our elected leaders work with the president instead of against him. The surge is working and the future of the middle east depends on our success. The Dem's seem to think America voted for failure in the last election. They are wrong!
Posted by: Tom | Apr 3, 2007 2:01:16 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

it's the Bush team's way or no way at all. You can't reason with the Bush team. If the senior Bush tried to get a panel together that had no ill feelings against the Bush team and he failed - who else stands a chance? The Bush team seems to be like the old commercial - it's US or RUST.

No responsible American politician should ignore the indicators that says something is "bad wrong" with America's practices. Congress must do course corrections because those who created the spiraling won't make course corrections.

You guys continue to argue while my American brothers and sisters continue to die. Such a waste of energy.

Posted by: hugo | Apr 3, 2007 2:29:33 PM

Hugo : Just in case you aren't aware of it, we Americans' on average
kill about 83 "brothers and sisters" every day in our wonderful country, and those are just the bodies we find. We lose almost twice that figure from drunk drivers. Hey, hey I know, it's George Bushs' fault.

"If only CLOSED MINDS came with CLOSED MOUTHS."

$400 billion dollars could have been spent elsewhere to make us MUCH MUCH safer, now AND in the long run.

There are supporters who say the terrorists are drawn to Iraq, and haven't attacked us. Let me ask you then, is/was that the plan? Or do you simply have no excuse for this crime of a war. Waste the entire nation's resources, stretch our military thin, and "stay-the-course" - to the end of time - to keep the target overseas? Give me a break.

Again, $400 billion and climbing. Imagine how we could better spent that money, without causing so much pain and suffering and DEATH.

I love how all of you loyal bushies love to say that the democrats love the terrorists, or point to jimmy carter as the one who let the terrorists start there war. Since jimmy, what did Reagan do to fight terrorism? How about bush senior? And on 9/11 where was my pet goat Bush? What had he been doing to combat terrorism?
Since the bush war on terrorism started, terrorism has only increased. You would think that it would decrease it if it was carried out correctly. As far as I see the republicans have only rubber-stamped bush's mistakes, and a majority of the American people are tired of it.
The only thing the republicans can point to that bush has done right, is kill saddam. But whatever happened to Osama? How come republicans don’t talk about how removing saddam has only emboldened and empowered Iran?
And yes the democrats have made mistakes too, there are not innocent. Although they don’t seem to make as many catastrophic mistakes, or be as corrupt (even though there are corrupt ones too), or lie to the American people.
And lets talk about how Bill Clinton left Bush with a surplus of funds, yet through Bush’s tax breaks, mismanagement of the country, and , mismanagement of the war in Iraq we have the largest Deficit ever.
And how come Bush can’t seem to put the money to fund our troops in the regular Budget?
Let’s not forget this little gem from Paulo,
On Sunday's Meet the Press,Charlie Rangel admitted that they included pork in the bill to buy votes...how disgusting that they use our brave men and women in the military for pawns.
Do any republicans remember the bridge in Alaska that went nowhere? That was not even the worst pork to get republicans on board for the transportation bill.
The republicans and even bush are right about one thing. Americans do have awfully short memories.

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but unfortunately for George Bush and Co., you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Impeach Bush and Cheney and let Pelosi run things for a while. She certainly couldn't do any worse!

"Do you count Reagan amongst "the losers?" He pulled the Marines out of Lebanon right after the barracks bombing."
Posted by: Craig D | Apr 3, 2007 2:16:50 PM

To cover up for his embarassment, Reagan preceded to invade Grenada (you know, that hot bed of terrorism, radicalism and overwhelming military force) THE VERY NEXT DAY! Yes, folks THE VERY NEXT DAY. The Wingers never want to talk about this sorry episode. I guess the key is that if you're gonna cut and run, you better have the next target on your mind or a good way to distract the public and media. Most Americans have either never knew or have long forgotten this original Wag the Dog episode. http://www.galilean-library.org/wag.html Please, take the time to re-eductate yourselves, and that stands doubly true for Know-Nothings Paulo, bruce and DonB.

Just give us Bin Laden already! Walk his corpse doen Pennsylvania Ave and all will be forgiven- I assure you.

just a thought- when wasn't there war, conflict, killing, genocide, and important resources in the middle east? Thought so. But vote for Dems and all will be solved instantaneously. Please!

Also funny how nobody even said the name Saddam after Bush Sr. Now Bush Jr. comes into the picture and guess who the #1 threat to the US is? what a coincidence.

This is exactly why I refuse to vote- cause it doesn't matter.

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him; an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."

She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Democrat."

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and; responded, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault."

The Dems have finally gorwn a spine and turned the BushAdmin's own tactics right back against them.

Bravo. It's about time. This card has been playable for quite some time, and it's good to see they've realized it.

This discussion should not be framed as partisan bickering between democrats and bush/republicans, but rather as a unified front from both houses of congress to win the war in Iraq without timelines and funding cut-offs. By choosing to frame the debate in the current manner, not only do the democrats stand to potentially hinder their political standing as we eloquently conveyed by prior posters, but also does the country continue to be embroiled in the style of staunch partisanship that has been so harmful to our nation over the past several years.

Just my two cents....

Gene, my father's a vet and he thinks Bush is a freaking lunatic. My good friend, who is currrently in the Marines and has been to Iraq twice in this "war" already, also thinks Bush is a nutcase. So do his buddies.

If you think Bush can claim all vets loyalties, you are sadly mistaken.

I reviewed the above comments for any coherent leftist policy (not necessarily good, just coherent) on the war and the best I could come up with is "Dave", who wrote: "The fix is not military, it's diplomatic policies that give as much respect to Arabs as we do to the rest of the world (principally Israel). Once we do that, the moderate Muslim will win on the Arab street."

Aside from the vile anti-semitic vein in the above, the rest is just laughable mush. I'd prefer to believe that serious people don't really believe this kind of psychobabble cuts any ice in the Middle East. "Dave" et al., just try singing "Respect" to the terrorists and see how far that gets you.

George Bush: Do the United States a big favor, and RESIGN!
Posted by: me | Apr 3, 2007 2:49:39 PM

Shrill Democrat: Do us all a big favor. Stop ranting and start writing letters to your gutless Congressmen. Congress has the power to impeach the president. If things are so bad, why don't they do it?

Vance: "Right or wrong, Bush will prevail, and the Democrats will go down in flames."

Abraham Lincoln: "Right makes might."

Adolf Hitler: "Might makes right."

I was stationed at Balad AB, Iraq last year. I first handedly saw the progress our Air Force was making with its Gunships. For every terrorist killed, there seemed to be another Marine killed. We found weapon caches and cell hide outs. I researched the daily cost of my Group's spending. We were easily clearing $10m a day! I had planned to see the progress that the news reporters miss. But I only saw the same recurring nonsense happen every time an aircraft came down.

I guess I'm a tree hugger, but I just wish we could spend 10m a day on education, health care, or on a cure for cancer/aids/etc. Like I said; I am a tree hugger who enlisted.

Bush is still trying to portray his foreign policy failure as a success. He's been doing this for over four years now. Moreover, he claims that the Dems will turn his success into a failure if they disobey his demand for a never-ending war.

If Bush had even one leg to stand on, the public might give him another chance. But the truth is, at this point Bush has pretty close to zero credibility.

The Democrats are now in a position to step up and assert their foreign policy responsibilities. And they are doing so. Finally.

The responsibility for funding and declaring wars belong to the Congress. This responsibility includes deciding enough is enough.

Nobody likes to hear "no more". It's a tough lesson to learn that you can't just do whatever you want. Most of us learn this lesson as little children.

Iraq is “blood for oil”, “the head of Saddam”, (a gift), for the father, of our “91 IQ President", and pay back for “scud missiles” on Tel-Aviv.
Come on American, what’s more important, peace, or that 300Hp SUV?
Man the truth hurts doesn't it????

Chuck

Maybe if we had spent a good portion of that 400 billion on alternative energy sources, we would not be so dependent on that region of the world. Then we could concentrate on handling terrorism and let those governments hash out their own issues without worrying about the price of oil and it’s impact on our everyday lives.

The Democrats seem to think that by pulling out by a certain date they can force a victory. Let's be realistic. If you put a date on withdrawl it is tantamount to saying, "We accept a loss in this war and are getting out."

If the Democrats want to force an end to the war then they should stand tall and accept defeat. There's nothing wrong with that if that's their conviction. To try to spin their plan as a planned victory is rediculous.

What's wrong with war over here? Home field advantage, baby!

So you cowards did withold my email because it is critical of Israel.

Why am I not surprised ?

With Zell in charge you will be even more timid.

Don't you realise the US is regarded as a joke by the civilised, democratic World ?

On 9/11 madman Bin Laden attacked us, so George W. Bush attacked So-Damn Insane in retaliation. Question: Are there three madmen in this mess? Or only two?

—Reich Winger

Wow! The drama!

Bush is either a complete moron or a genius.

It's obvious though that whatever is REALLY going on is hush-hush... just like the what small non-jumbo plane that hit the pentagon... I saw the video.

Also, Democrats can easily be paid off just as Republicans FYI...

It's interesting to look at the 2004 election results by counties. Even in the southern states, the cities voted against Bush. The rural counties voted overwhelmingly for Bush. There is a clear correlation between education level and choice of president. That is very clear here in these discussions.

The watercooler talk here in my office about "The Bush Ultimatum" is likely to be the same as in most offices. A minority of hard-core loyalists will claim the sky is green if Bush says so. The rest respond to The Bush Ultimatum the same way they respond to their children holding their breath until they get their way.

The common thread in conversations here is that if the surge is successful, the troops will be able to withdraw by 2008. And if the surge is not successful, US troops need to hand responsibility for stopping the Iraqi civil war over to the Iraqi Army. The current bill gives Bush another year to train the Iraq Army to take over.

In any circumstance, there is no reason why the US troops should still be taking and holding Iraqi cities in 2008. So US troops should be taken out of combat roles by 2008 just like the House bill requires.

I don't know how Bush is going to sell a successful surge resulting in US troops remaining in Iraq. The definition of a surge being successful by the end of 2007 is that it brings about a situation where US troops can be removed from combat roles in 2008.

After review of, for the most part, the uneducated Liberals posts here, I take pleasure in the fact that if this Great Country ever went into a Civil War with you, we'd kick your pathetic sorry Liberal asses overnight!

Can Americans afford the Democratic Congress that resorted to bribery to buy the votes needed to pass a bill that they knew the President would VETO.

Ernie's point is well taken. There is only one possible rationale for the war in Iraq: does it contribute to the destruction or neutralizing of the enemy (ie: AQ). And by any measure the invasion and occupation of Iraq fails this very simple test. Iraq was a brutal state, yes, but it was a secular state and fought an incredibly bloody eight-year war with Iran to prove the point (seven figures worth of dead people). The last thing Saddam Hussein could be called was an 'Islamofascist' and a quick read of AQ war aims puts Hussein right at the top of the hit list (a dictatorial mideast state backed by a superpower). Let's face it these two weren't about to get into bed with one another unless there were knives involved.

In this very simple light, the sum total of the Iraq invasion's contribution to the War on Terror has been to destroy the single most effective bulwark against Iran and give the ayatollahs a direct highway to regional power, all the while giving AQ a nearly endless supply of new recruits. Brilliant Mr. Chimp, and it only cost $400 billion in loans from China.

Just as a small reminder to all those Americans who seemingly or just claim to, are now able to see black from white and Bush for what he is, that at the beginning of that quite obviously illigal and immoral afair about 80% of them cheerleadered the "commander-in-chief".

The troubling question for me is: What really made them to change their mind? Is it the moral call or a too-high of a price for imperial outreach that make them recall right now?

After almost total destruction of the most advanced ME nation (Iraq) and a long catalog of criminal atrocities stained the image of USA for generations, I see no reason to cheer to anyone in a "New Rome".

"After review of, for the most part, the uneducated Liberals posts here, I take pleasure in the fact that if this Great Country ever went into a Civil War with you, we'd kick your pathetic sorry Liberal asses overnight! Posted by: Lincoln"
Yeah, sure, just like your Southern ancestors did the last time. Just like the all-powerful American military has done in Iraq. Remember cakewalk? I would suggest if there ever was a 'civil war' in this country the rednecks might have their squirrel hunting rifles and the 'Rush' talking points but the great majority of the rest of us would have truth, honor and integrity on our side. Something severely lacking with the Bush thugs.

I am a lifetime Cubs fan, so go ahead, paint me as a loser. But even I can remember that we had no legitimate reason to invade and then occupy Iraq --ie no weapons of mass destruction.

We knew that a couple of months after the war started. That was the time to bring our brave troops home.

So lets work with the international community on a transition, but also begin moving our forces out.

Earl in Alaska

I feel compelled to respond -- I am as frustrated as any previous "Real" American responding to the Iraq War. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat is not the point. Both the right and the left have "left" our Americans in a bad place in the world and at home because of "in fighting politics". So much emphasis is placed on "fault, blame and guilt" and Iraq that no emphasis is focused on illegal immigration (gee, how does a terrorist enter the USA anyway?), health care cost (I'm self employed and I pay my way -- expensive), and national security.

It's only a matter of time before a muslim hate group exercises their hate filled dream of martyrdom (sp). I can only pray that our politicians will pull their collective heads out of their backsides,wake up and work "for the people" for once and get their act on track.

I'm tired of all of em'-- they ALL lie, cheat, demean, and are self-righteous flop eared dullards. Leadership? Where? Anywhere? It can't happen soon enough. Who's next? Hillary? Whoa! Obama? Oh great smile eh? Guiliani? Sheesh

Oh boy -- God really needs to "bless America" because our politicians (left and right) are doing their level best to screw it up.

Impeach Bush? Ok do it -- then what? The congress needs to rename themselves the Bickersons -- they argue, fight, don't get much done, then take a vacation. Got a plan? What is it? Step up.

And oh by the way -- I am an REAL AMERICAN -- period. Cut the crap about the land from which you came -- either be an American or go back to your beloved country that has your priority and your flag. My flag is red, white, blue with Stars and Stripes. Take political correctness and insert firmly up the arse. Sheesh again! I'm out.

DC

Anyone here ever stop to ask WHY the Iraqis who are "fighting on our side" — even WITH our superb training and equipment — are the wimips who don't know which end of their rifles is the business end? While the Iraqis who are "fighting against our side" are MOTIVATED SOBS WHO DON'T NEED NO STINKING TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT to kick major ass?

Ever stop to think that there's an analogous situation between us and the British in the Revolutionary War?

Here it is: We fought for our independence from the British King George, and they are fighting for their independence from the American King George!

Now, all you reich wing genuses out there, go figure!

The president is currently the greatest threat to the welfare of the United States of America.

The less power he has, the better. It's funny that the president who fought hardest to increase the power of the Office of the President, will eventually end up having started a process that will lead to that office having the least direct power, the least implicit trust, and the most oversight; of any time in U.S. History.

Wow! I never really thought that the dems were chickens. You people used to be brave and stood up to the bullies in the world. Now you are just a bunch of scared kids. Do you REALLY think , for a second, that the terrorists will stop because the dems are in power? Do you think they care ? Do you think they will stop and ask you who you voted for? REALLY? You know, Bush will be gone soon , and it will be ,sadly, the dems turn. You think anything will change?

Lincoln, we already did it once when your namesake founded this party.

Royce, here's video of Charlie Rangel admitting that the pork in the Iraq-Afghanistan bill was to buy votes. Notice his verbiage "they," not he, needed the votes. Give me a break Charlie, the they he was referring to was obviously the Democrats and he's one of them. "We" would've been more appropriate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MefVXl4AWO4&eurl=

Lincoln [though definitely not "Honest Abe"]: "After review of, for the most part, the uneducated Liberals posts here, I take pleasure in the fact that if this Great Country ever went into a Civil War with you, we'd kick your pathetic sorry Liberal asses overnight!"

Too bad you'd get your sorry foot blown to bits trying!

Donny B,

Sign up for your beloved misguided Republican-led Iraq War and dodge some real bullets and IED's in Baghdad or shut your piehole and go away you pinko commie Neocon-chickenhawk.

My heart goes for those in the battle field. Many Americans and innocent Iraqis have died. Too much money spent on war. With 400B$, we can completely eradicate CANCER, AIDS AND AVIAN FLU.

We can plant few million trees in Africa and make it fertile so that people dont have to die of malnutrition.

Kudos to Frank! Keep it up Frank.

Mindless bushbots just might bring the death of our country.

Hyperpoly said:

President Bush has given a solid, steadily growing economy for 6 1/2 years, full employment and low inflation. He has also kept the terrorists fighting on their own soil and has protected innocent US civilians, something billy boy failed to do. Your only choices are whether we fight overseas with our trained military, or have more innocent civilians (billy's fault) die here. There is no other choice. None. So get off his back!
Posted by: Hyperpoly | Apr 3, 2007 3:48:44 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Is this poster saying the "worker's" salaries kept pace with profits in this growing economy? And perhaps American programmers are happy with the Bush teams H-1B visas - which encouraged foreign programmers to come to the US and bring their low salary positions with them.

And don't America just love how layoffs now comes in the thousands. And sometimes when you need service on a "made in America" something or another and you call for service...you may think you reached the wrong country. And actually you may not be talking to the country you thought you were talking to.

You see, this is the global economy at work.

This global economy is sometimes hard to fathom. For example, American pharmaceuticals can sell their products to Canada - but the other half of the "global economy" had better be VERY CAREFUL when trying to exercise its hooks into the GLOBAL ECONOMY by buying pharmaceuticals in Canada. I don't think the Bush team "frets" over this.

Yep, I guess this poster has a right to gloat over how the American economy is going - especially if the poster is not too concerned about those thousands who fall victim to unemployment on a regular basis.

Lincoln said:

After review of, for the most part, the uneducated Liberals posts here, I take pleasure in the fact that if this Great Country ever went into a Civil War with you, we'd kick your pathetic sorry Liberal asses overnight!
Posted by: Lincoln | Apr 3, 2007 5:10:57 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sounds like this one wants somebody to "bring em on"

We have certainly heard that challenge before.

I'm sure Bush has been given assylum by his Mexican friend,after his term in office. Thats where he belongs and should go. Hopefully take Cheney with him. They sure don't care about the American people. Under Bush we live in the The Unites States of Mexico.

The more we are going to stay there the more we are going to create new generation of Suicide bombers.

Posted by: Tony | Apr 3, 2007 3:18:21 PM

The following link is an editorial in the Arab News. It might surprise you to find out you are wrong about how many Arabs see the US.

I know it doesn't fit into your America-is-the- bad-guy, Bush-bashing agenda, but try reading it anyway.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=94405&d=31&m=3&y=2007

After review of, for the most part, the uneducated Liberals posts here, I take pleasure in the fact that if this Great Country ever went into a Civil War with you, we'd kick your pathetic sorry Liberal asses overnight!

Posted by: Lincoln | Apr 3, 2007 5:10:57 PM

Since you guys are so mocho there is only one thing to say that you'll understand..........
Bring it on!

Nektoe said:

Ahhhh yes, the wonderful socialist lefties that provide aid and comfort to the Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups we're fighting in Iraq. Nevermind the consequences of a cut and run strategy proposed by the pacifist commies like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Killer Kennedy and Dick the Turbin Durbin. Mass genocide in the Middle East? You got it. Global terrorist monopoly on oil? Check. Nuclear armed Iran? Check. An Iranian Revolutionary Guard/Hezbollah government in Iraq? Yes. Saudi Arabia and Egypt pursing Nuclear Weapons to curb the Iranians? You got it. The greatest psychological victory ever achieved by anti-American jihadists? Absolutely. But hey, at least when these nice Arab men chop your fingers off and cane you for being infidels, Hitlery Clinton will ensure you that you'll have Universal Health Care to heal your wounds. And don't forget to thank Jimmy Carter on your way to bow down to Mecca.
Posted by: Nektoe | Apr 3, 2007 1:38:16 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What a diatribe! What this poster should consider is looking his targets straight in the eye and simply saying " ALL YALL'S MOMAs".

Example of the failed American education system:

"After review of, for the most part, the uneducated Liberals posts here, I take pleasure in the fact that if this Great Country ever went into a Civil War with you, we'd kick your pathetic sorry Liberal asses overnight!"

God Bless America!

God Bless the American People!

May we always keep our freedom of expression – FREE!

Well, nobody's talking about what the pres set out to talk about. AGAIN. How do you spell relief? How do you spell idot? P-R-E-S-S. When the pres made a fool out of the press for bashing the 'unsung' heros, the contracts of those he did not want to renew, the press has had a field day destroying their credibility, yet when the pres points this out, the press takes on a different note. Now that's a slap in the face if I ever saw one. But whose face got slapped is really up to you, the reader.

Slap happy in dc. That is what will lead to a strong third party. Keep it up! Have an enzyte, with a viagra shake. This is entertainment, not politics.

bruce said:

I reviewed the above comments for any coherent leftist policy (not necessarily good, just coherent) on the war and the best I could come up with is "Dave", who wrote: "The fix is not military, it's diplomatic policies that give as much respect to Arabs as we do to the rest of the world (principally Israel). Once we do that, the moderate Muslim will win on the Arab street."

Aside from the vile anti-semitic vein in the above, the rest is just laughable mush. I'd prefer to believe that serious people don't really believe this kind of psychobabble cuts any ice in the Middle East. "Dave" et al., just try singing "Respect" to the terrorists and see how far that gets you.
Posted by: bruce | Apr 3, 2007 4:32:50 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It sounds like this poster is looking for policy in a blogger's forum. I bet you that's the first time that has happened. Who would look for policy, right wing or left wing in a forum? At best you might pick up raw data which could possibly be messaged into something approaching "policy".

If this poster is looking for information of the policy making style - perhaps a visit to a House or Senate source might work. Here, at this level, you are most likely to hear opinions. Just opinions. And, as one right wing columnist said: fully formed opinion.

The right wing columnist was describing the opinion of what he called "left wing liberals" and he said their opinions were not fully formed.

mission accomplished

Here's a quiz...

Who is Mark Sykes? Gertrude Bell? Hassan al Banna? Abu Bakr?

Don't know? Your opinions are uninformed and worthless. You shouldn't be making policy and neither should people as ignorant as you.

Uh, I disagree, we can afford his strategy.

Nektoe: "Ahhhh yes, the wonderful socialist lefties that ...."

Snore.

Whatever you're smokin', Nektoe, change brands quick!

—Reich Winger

Mully: "Wow! I never really thought that the dems were chickens. You people used to be brave and stood up to the bullies in the world."

Ever hear of Bully-In-Chief Georgie Boy? The Dems are standing up to him!

—Reich Winger

"Can Americans afford the Democratic Congress that resorted to bribery to buy the votes needed to pass a bill that they knew the President would VETO."

Is this really a stab at the "pork" contained in the bill? 20 billion or so for the gulf coast. a couple of hundred million for farmers.
so you dont like american lawmakers spending money that actually benifits americans?
would you rather not see the victims of hurrocane katrina get any money.
why so passionate about iraqs people and so hostile towards your fellow citizens?
also, i assume that you are republican from your statement, or at least a sympithiser(?spell)
so you are going to try to tell me that "pork" is not something that party engages in?
bridge to nowhere bridge to nowhere bridge to nowhere
this president/past congress combination is responsible for record setting waste of money.
he bever vetoed a thing until stem cell bills got to his desk. now he is going to veto 100 mill for the troops because of a timetable and a few dollars for americans.
he could probably even negotiate a belated withdrawl later on if the sitation is improving but needs more time. i see no reason why it would take more than another year to train some troops.
our troops only had 4 to 8 weeks of traing before they are sent there.
makes no sense

"You guy's have sold out the Vet's every time you get a chance."

say, bro, go to Google and pull up "Walter Reed Hospital" and run that crazy, non-informed garbage of yours on your pet alagator.

Bush just showed up this past week at the hospital and "apologized" in a bunch of guys with no arms and legs for his administration treating them like gorilla snot. No one was allowed to point out that HE is responsible for what takes place under his watch, including the loss of their arms and legs.

Look, let's see if we can put it in simple terms for you. Bush is scum; he was in Texas and is today. Too lazy, stupid and self serving to function. Bud, you are defending a guy who uses your hard earned tax money and support to play war games and flush the lives of solders and their loved ones. Aren't you embarrassed to a one-dimensional pawn?? Seriously.

I am astonished at the stupidity of most of these responses. No, I take it back, I am ashamed of the people who want to blame Bush instead of providing a responsible measure that President Bush can sign. I'll have you know that those soldiers are friends and family members who will be tossed to the wolves because Democrats have no heart or care for them. They just want power! I know many of those kids! Many of them are only 18, who went into the military, not because somebody twisted there arm, but because they WANTED TO! Now, because of political reasons, their going to be in a place without the weapons, armor, food, needs, etc. and then they will die in droves. Thank's Democrats for murdering our children. DON'T SIGN THAT BILL PRESIDENT BUSH! It's bad for our country and bad for it's people. Please, folks, read what's in this bill before you talk!

George Bush has presided over the greatest military defeat since Vietnam. By starting a foreign war in a country with visious partisans he has unleashed the possibility of world wide disaster on an even grander scale. The American presence in Iraq will continue to create thousands of terrorists that hate us. Right wing nuts will continue to suggest that we are fighting the "enemy".
The only option is clear. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of mankind. George Bush and Cheney must be impeached.
Unfortunately there is no other solution possible. Every day that goes by is another death. The Congress must act immediately.

I agree that we need a clear exit strategy. However, holding the military hostage to politics is about as low as I have ever seen politicians stoop.

"Spinach, shrimp, peanuts and shellfish?" said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). "That's not a war funding bill, that's the salad bar at Denny's."

Take out the pork and if you all still have the votes, I will be behind you 100%. That is the way it is supposed to work in this country. Stand up for your beliefs but do not try to bribe other people to give up theirs.

I have just spent some time reading all of the above opinions on who to blame for the war and the funding. I would like for everyone of you to sit back and not think about who to blame or who is out of touch with the war. As a parent of a son who is currently deployed to Iraq I would ask that we all pray for all of our troops there. We can best let the politics play out as they will. Being in Iraa or Afganistan isn't the Republicans or Democratics fault or problem. It's ours, as Americans. The most important thing we can do as Americans is to make sure our troops know that we support them.

BUSH ONLY HAS BEEN INCOMPETENT AT BEST,,,,,,,HELL LOOK HOW HE JUMP STARTED THIS WAR WITH BOGUS INTELLIGENCE, HE JUMPED IN WITH TOO FEW TROOPS, NO BODY ARMOUR, AGAINST THE ADVICE FROM MILITARY THEAT WE NEED 350,000 TROOPS AT LEAST ON THE GROUND,,,,WE COULDNT KEEP THE PEACE WHEN WE TOOK OVER, THIS STARTED THE INSURGENCY,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,WE NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT GETTING BUSH/CHENEY/ROVE IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,BUSH IS ONLY A BUMBLING IDIOT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,THE USA, IS A LOT LESS THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN BECAUSE OF THIS GOP IDIOT BUSH THAT STOLE INTO THE WHITEHOUSE ON NIGHT

there is never anything good about war but once it starts there is only one thing we can do.Finish what we set out to do I dont want to wake up to here my family gets blown up on the way to the mall because be cause some one in washington needs votes they voted to go to war now they run .dem and rep. to me there is not much diffrent between the two they all want our money they all think they know what we want i say let us vote on it ub

HE VETOES........ YOU REVOLT

NOT IMPEACHMENT .... REVOLT...
AMERICA'S PEOPLE'S POWER IS THE ONLY WAY.
TAKE TO THE STREETS NOW...

A pleasant thought: hyenas snacking on the entrails of your beloved selected and appointed politicians, jurists and others who are part of the current abomination. Now there is a real meal deal!

The Democrats have little ground to stand on. It is obvious they intend to belittle and harangue President Bush until the end of his days in office and beyond.

How about they look at their own record, which is indisinguishable from a pile of common barnyard manure. EVERYBODY thought Iraq had WMD, including the French, now everyone is pulling back and deyning they voted for the war, or saying they were misled.

If that is true, then they are not doing their jobs and should be voted out of office, starting with "Mr. Sound Bite" Dick Turbin.

The only Dem of consequence that voted against the war is Barack Obama, quite possibly the only Dem with a chance in '08, unless the Clinton Mob Boys get him first.

Remember; the government is just a bunch of people, people just like you and I. They make mistakes and sometimes have to be removed from a situation. Just because they are called the government people forget that they go home to families too, which are also filled with dumb people sometimes.
On another note; Canada is sweet! Democrats should move here and let Amurica implode....

Ah, what did Thomas Paine call all of those cowarrdly leftists running for the exits now that times are tough -- "Summer soldiers and Sunshine Patriots." So apt, though these Americans who hate their country would vomit at the thought of being called any kind of patriot.

Who was the most vilified president in U.S. history? Abraham Lincoln, called a baboon and a country bumpkin by the educated and the avant garde folks of his time.

Mistakes in the war? Of course. In every war, American commanders have commited grevious mistakes, from Washington's fool hardy attempt to defend Manhattan that nearly cost him the entire army and the war, to the bumbling generals that Lincoln went thru until he found Grant, to countless WWII blunders, to MacArthur's remendoud blunder in Korea to assure Truman that the Chinese would never attack. MacArthur had reconquered South Korea and only some 4,000 american deaths in what would have been a nine-month war, but MacArthur kept driving to the Chinese borders, until hit by the Chinee military. Three more years of war and tens of thousands more dead Amerricans. And you idiots call Bush a war criminal because his generals can';t figure out how to protect soldiers from IEDs? Remember, an entire class of WWI generals cvouldnt figure out how to attack the machine gun, resulting in millioins of deaths.

I am struck by the stupidity and rudeness of the
Republican writers on this blog. You are manifesting all the same errors that led Bush into this ruinous policy: inability to distinguish between a terrorist and people who don't want their country invaded, inability to distinguish between Bin Laden and Hussein, inability to understand that what makes America safe is if we do not meddle in other country's internal affairs for what, as anyone who has read the NeoCon manifesto (Project for a New American Century) was for strategic (regional dominance) and economic reasons, a policy formulated by Cheney and co before 9-11. I'm sorry but it is you who are living in a fantasy land spun out by mendacious rhetoric and Fox propoganda. The mistake the Democrats made was to not stand up to this outright folly in the first place. Now that they are doing so it is time for you people who display no ability or desire to engage with the basic facts of life on this planet, to take the back seat and stop trying to emulate those guys on the radio and Fox who think that in order to be right, you just gotta puff your chest out and spew garbage.

Oh - you want a policy: diplomatically engage
with moderates who can gain from talking to you, and thus marginalise the extremists. Petraeus understands this. Oh, and don't invade countries when everyone in the world is telling you it is a bad idea except those poor propogandised souls who have been scared into support or silence, like the electorate and, it pains me to say, the Democrats.

Right or wrong, Bush will prevail, and the Democrats will go down in flames.
Posted by: Vance | Apr 3, 2007 2:03:14 PM

That one sentence captures everything that is wrong with the White House administration and most of the Republican members of the Congress.
Posted by: johnf | Apr 3, 2007 2:30:45 PM

Genius, he's saying that you are putting your loyalty behind Bush instead of behind America, as almost all Republicans have done for the last 6 years and most continue to do. "Bush will prevail." So what? Setting aside the unlikeliness of this scenario, is that good for the country? Or just for your political party? Is a Bush "victory" a victory for America? Is a Democratic "defeat" a victory for America?

"The Democrats will go down in flames." Oh, I forgot, its not Al Qaeda whose the REAL enemy. The REAL enemy is the Democratic Party.

Do you love America first, Vance, or Republicans?

mully said:

"Wow! I never really thought that the dems were chickens. You people used to be brave and stood up to the bullies in the world. Now you are just a bunch of scared kids. Do you REALLY think , for a second, that the terrorists will stop because the dems are in power? Do you think they care ? Do you think they will stop and ask you who you voted for? REALLY? You know, Bush will be gone soon , and it will be ,sadly, the dems turn. You think anything will change" ?
Posted by: mully | Apr 3, 2007 5:57:12 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Iraq war issue is not about bravery. Its about Its about what happened after the major objective of the Bush team was accomplished. Its about the government the Bush team put into place after the removing the one it set out to remove.

A Senior British diplomat who, apparently was in Iraq after the regime change said he was unable to find a general who was in charge of making sure there was a transition to a new government. That diplomat said that the conquering military was the new government. Maybe someone forgot to tell it of its responsibility for safe and secure streets in the country.

By now everyone knows that CHAOS reined on the streets of Iraq.

Who do you think failed to take into consideration the governing of Iraq after the regime change. Do you think it was the fault of an unfettered military? Do you think the military all of a sudden forgot how to do its job?

The Bush team(civilians) played a decisive roll in the Iraq war. And by most all accounts, this war was a failure.

To all chickenhawks, Bush-apologists, Crusaders and assorted charlatans,

It is time to put your money where you mouth is and sign up to fight this war that you support so loudly with your words. The armed forces need more bodies to maintain the empire. You MUST save the country, smite our enemies, and spread the sweet air of freedom throughout the world. After all, anyone who does not want to maintain the Occupation hates America. And we all know YOU don't hate America, right?

Onward Christian soldiers!

http://www.army.com/enlist/
GoArmy.com

Most every war from the beginning of time has been for the cause of financial wealth or dominion. Of course the cause of those fighting the war is that of freedom and country. But for those in charge , they usually have a completely different agenda.
There was at one time a war fought for freedom of religion. From a people having been controlled by an man set upon his own wealth, dominion and personal glorification. Who would not listen the voice of his people . A true patriot is that who stands up for his fellow countrymen, and will not suffer them to be led astray by an unrighteous King brought forth by a people whos hearts are set upon the corruptible riches of man.
Those that see , usually do so because they can. To the rest...shut up, put on your blinders and follow like the lemmings you have become.

If the Dumbocrats were in power back in the late 1700s, we'd still be speaking with British accents and kneeling to the queen.

Bush can come work in my winery. He's a cork-soaker without equal.

Paulo said:

Us clear thinkers know that the democrats are a party of losers,(Jimmy Carter,BJ Clinton and terrorism failures)so thay need The United States of America to lose this war,so they will try everything to complete their mission.
On Sunday's Meet the Press,Charlie Rangel admitted that they included pork in the bill to buy votes...how disgusting that they use our brave men and women in the military for pawns.
But,these are the dems that the radical left wing party now owns.
The once great party of F.D.R. and J.F.K. that believed in defending our nation is long gone,a moral duty no more,for the democrats.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | Apr 3, 2007 1:19:05 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Right wingers/neo-cons must avoid, at all cost ever talking about that message that the CIA's, Mr. George Tenet, said he hand delivered to the White house two months before 9/11/2001. President Bill Clinton was out of office when the CIA notified the White House of possible terrorist activity - perhaps on American soil.

Field agents of an American organization noticed and reported to their bosses activities at a Texas flight school.

Now the Bush team could take it from here. What happened to the warning from the CIA? At this time President Bill Clinton was ex president and the Bush team was managing the safety of America.

Go back to that time. It is now two months prior to 9/11/2001 and once again, President Bill Clinton is no longer in office.

So, President Bill Clinton is no longer responsible for America. The Bush team is. Foreigners are taking flight training at a Texas flight school.

They have caught the eye of field people whose job it is to take care of America. They have reported their observations to their bosses. Once again, President Bill Clinton is out of office.

It looks like the field people did their jobs. And the hand carried message to the White House makes it look like the boss did his job.

And now the mystery creeps in. That message may be somewhere in the White House. It is two months prior to 9/11/2001. Once again, Bill Clinton is now ex President Bill Clinton. The Bush team is in charge.

The Bush team went on record as saying, if there was a threat, the Bush team would not wait around for an attack. It would attack first.

Sometimes it is hard to take responsibility for ones mistakes. But one must or eventually one may come to think that one is perfect.

What happened to that message, that Mr. George Tenet of the CIA said he hand delivered to the White House two(2) months prior to 9/11/2001? And remember - President Bill Clinton was no longer in office.

27 more days 'til we bomb 10,000 targets in Iran.
Bush doesn't learn from his mistakes - he repeats
them. Enjoy the Spring - WWIII is coming soon.

Bush isn't dumb or inept(not much),he just plays the country bumkin part "real good".He manages to remember,for the most part,all the spin he's supposed to put in to his remarks.Even remembering to say Democrat instead of Democratic as he was told to do by the higher-ups.Don't be so naive,people.We knew OBL was in Afghanistan after 9/11 but these vile,slimy,profiteers took the oportunity to play a three-card Monty on the American people...which they're still trying like hell to keep up.Can you blame them? When trillions of taxpayer dollars could roll right into their pockets while the American people are distracted by semantics.I won't bother to translate that for all you good ole'boy,wanna be cowboys who wish this was the 1890's.You're ignorance and the greed of your fellow Republicans,the more educated of your breed,anyway, are the ones who got us in this bankrupt mess in the first place.trying to prove how much MORE AMERICAN you are than the rest of us by charging blindly into war behind someone who actually has shown us that he wipes his ass with it and dumps on the the good people of this country!History will prove I'm right.IMPEACH NOW and HANG soon after!! The whole Bunch!!

Bush isn't dumb or inept(not much),he just plays the country bumkin part "real good".He manages to remember,for the most part,all the spin he's supposed to put in to his remarks.Even remembering to say Democrat instead of Democratic as he was told to do by the higher-ups.Don't be so naive,people.We knew OBL was in Afghanistan after 9/11 but these vile,slimy,profiteers took the oportunity to play a three-card Monty on the American people...which they're still trying like hell to keep up.Can you blame them? When trillions of taxpayer dollars could roll right into their pockets while the American people are distracted by semantics.I won't bother to translate that for all you good ole'boy,wanna be cowboys who wish this was the 1890's.You're ignorance and the greed of your fellow Republicans,the more educated of your breed,anyway, are the ones who got us in this bankrupt mess in the first place.trying to prove how much MORE AMERICAN you are than the rest of us by charging blindly into war behind someone who actually has shown us that he wipes his ass with it and dumps on the the good people of this country!History will prove I'm right.IMPEACH NOW and HANG soon after!! The whole Bunch!!

Stan said:

The following link is an editorial in the Arab News. It might surprise you to find out you are wrong about how many Arabs see the US.

I know it doesn't fit into your America-is-the- bad-guy, Bush-bashing agenda, but try reading it anyway.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=94405&d=31&m=3&y=2007
Posted by: Stan | Apr 3, 2007 6:34:08 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There was a time when the allied forces were seen as a part of the solution. But things changed. Now the allied forces are seen as a part of the problem. As others have said, the allied forces managed the war very well, but got "shot down" while trying to manage the peace.

And another idiotic goofy statement by a lib named JohnA,who posted on Apr.3 2007 @ 2:02pm. that we spent trillions of dollars on this war!
Let's enlarge it to a Quintillion....happy now?

Paulo

Zolander:

Oh my Zolander... your post was fantastic.

I will point out that Republicans are in fact driving Humvees... well, Hummers. God I hate seeing "I support the troops" on GIANT SUVS. Although I suppose it's true, use up as much oil as possible and keep you kids there and money in Cheney's pocket.

mr.president,earlier after a fine din din of fried chicken and watermelon,i lit a fire in my fireplace and fell asleep.my wooden leg was too close to the flames and it cought on fire,now i have no toes and the ball of my foot looks like charcoal...could you please send my son home now.
thank-you sir,
JohnEsmom

Some of you take yourselves too seriously and probably need to get out of your parent's basement. Can someone please tell me how many times terrorists have attacked innocent American civilians since 9/11? And now, how many times were innocent American civilians attacked between 1992 and 2000? Thank God that Bush has the balls to ignore liberal ignorance and keep our country safe. Suck it liberals!!!!!!!!

Those comments about the hot air balloon really pissed you left wing democrats off huh. Give tons of criticism out but cant and wont listen to any, also have no suggestions to offer, or any constructive solutions to the situation. Seems to me you just like to bitch, like a bunch of old men, who never made anything out of yourselves and blame others for your failures.

Bush is a terrorist killer, he's my hero. EAT THAT LOL

Johnnie said:

Each time you want to hurl democrat and republican this and that remember...you are an american first!

Playing partisan games is the way the media etc have encouraged the psychologically timid to split the people.

Any attempt at calling for people to leave the country, love it or leave it, blah, blah...truly is the idiots guide to citizenry.

If you play this game you risk a treasonous course in terms of your so called "patriotism". If you truly are a patriot then do the right thing by your contry and not a political affiliation.

This is not a childs game...unless you make it so. Personally we have too much investested in terms of taxes and lives to play games.

Take a deep breath and be honest, this war is making a positive difference to no one excpet defense contractors.
Posted by: johnny | Apr 3, 2007 4:00:03 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I would only question the use of the "T" word. It is an easy tendency to use the "T" word on political speech one does not agree with.

The "T" word is a great tool to stop or otherwise threaten those who exercise their first amendment rights - guaranteed by no less than the U.S. Constitution.

It is a whole lot better to announce the "T" word in the American Congress rather than in a public forum - where ideas different yours may be included in what the deceased Mr. Earl Kupcinet called "the lively art of conversation". Try as we might, what we say here is not likely to become "policy" or rules that governs the behavior of others.

Don't bother sending the democrats to Canada. They are your failed children not Canada's. Let's keep Canada beautifull.

JK said:

"Some of you take yourselves too seriously and probably need to get out of your parent's basement. Can someone please tell me how many times terrorists have attacked innocent American civilians since 9/11? And now, how many times were innocent American civilians attacked between 1992 and 2000? Thank God that Bush has the balls to ignore liberal ignorance and keep our country safe. Suck it liberals!!!!!!!!"
Posted by: JK | Apr 3, 2007 11:57:50 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This poster's terror clock starts after 9/11/2001. Terrorists struck America ON 9/11/2001. Two months earlier a terroris warning message was, according to Mr. George Tenet, hand delivered to the White House. How was that two month lead handled by the Bush team?

That was plenty of time for three carloads of FBI agents to screech to a halt in front of a flight training school where foreigners were taking flight training. Even before the FBI agents announced themselves, the students would have known and perhaps reacted.

And 9/11/2001 may have been delayed if not canceled altogether.

What happened to the warning hand delivered to the White House by Mr. George Tenet? That report belongs to the America people. It is a part of America's history. It is strange why a political party would be reticent about information pertaining 9/11/2001

There was a time when the allied forces were seen as a part of the solution. But things changed. Now the allied forces are seen as a part of the problem. As others have said, the allied forces managed the war very well, but got "shot down" while trying to manage the peace.

Posted by: bezelt | Apr 3, 2007 10:57:10 PM

The editorial says the opposite. Did you read it?

bill w: "there is never anything good about war but once it starts there is only one thing we can do.Finish what we set out to do."

Think about it, Bill. Suppose King George were to invade China and Russia, and we started getting massacred by their enraged citizens. Would you then say, "there is never anything good about war but once it starts there is only one thing we can do.Finish what we set out to do"?

John B: "EVERYBODY thought Iraq had WMD"

Hey John, ever hear of Russ Feingold? Scott Ritter? Nancy Pelosi? And tens of thousands of patriotic Americans who demonstrated in the streets BEFORE "shock and awe" saying there were NO WMDs?

Dream on.

Daniel: "Canada is sweet! Democrats should move here ...."

Stop misunderestimating us, bubba!

Paulo calls himself a "clear thinker".

He claims that Bill Clinton pardoned "14 terrorists" - yet he can't name them or link to a source that does name them.

He continues to promote the FALSE CLAIM that Hillary's campaign staff is the source of the smear about Obama's Indonesian school was a "madrassa" - even though CNN proved that false and NO ONE, not even Paulo, has offered ANY proof that they WERE the source of the smear. And Paulo stated that he DID provide proof for this smear in an earlier Swamp posting - yet he has NEVER LINKED to his post that provides the "evidence".

If that's what he means by "clear thinking", then I need a new dictionary.

Bezeit,

Terror clock? No it doesn't start on 9/11. 9/11 marked the first time in about 8 years that we didn't just bend over and take it. I'm sure my memory of terrorism is quite more extensive than yours and just love pointing out that you weak kneed liberals are morons. Again, this time SUCK IT Bezeit!!!!!

Meritorioius-sometimes: "Ah, what did Thomas Paine call all of those cowarrdly leftists running for the exits now that times are tough -- 'Summer soldiers and Sunshine Patriots.'"

Might help your image if you knew even the tiniest bit of correct military history, wouldn't you think?

John D: "If the Dumbocrats were in power back in the late 1700s, we'd still be speaking with British accents and kneeling to the queen."

News for you, John: Democrats WERE in power back in the late 1700s. MY ancestors were among those patriots who fought the British and won. These democrats were the LIBERALS of their day. It was the Tories who were the CONSERVATIVES who backed Britain's King George.

Put down those GOPper "talking points," go down to your local library, and check out a real history book.

JK: "Suck it liberals!!!!!!!!"

Aw, it'd be more fun just to chop it off with a butcher knife.

Per JK:

9/11 marked the first time in about 8 years that we didn't just bend over and take it.

---

Maybe we have a different understanding of what that means. Our Dear Leader was repeatedly warned about the prospect of an AQ attack and decided that his need for a month-long vacation, seven months into the job, far outweighed the country's need to defend itself. How, exactly, do you interpret his actions up to and including 9/11 as being anything other than comatose-passive?

In terms of evaluating Bush's effectiveness, his efforts up to and including 9/11 (My Pet Goat) ranges anywhere from neutral (there's nothing he could have done) to complete failure (he could have done something but didn't). There is no possible intepretation of events that results in Bush being viewed favorably (hint -- to some, being a C student is not considered favorable).

Your "memory of terrorism" is actually bit faded, if not utterly delusional.

Again, this time SUCK IT Bezeit!!!!!

Posted by: JK | Apr 4, 2007 10:39:00 AM

Wow...you are a tough guy JK. Your negotiating skill is as good as the presidents. I can see why you support him. Were you also the schoolyard bully?

I done wrote this thang and i aint seein my postins up hear so somethins goin on hear.
ennaway, you freakin demmercrats that get on hear and write bout our commander and cheef being hitler or some sich crud need ter have yer mouths warshed out and then droped off at ther mexerican border. show some respet for the office. That man were elected by the people and for the people and thar aint nothin nobody can do bout it now cept get in line!

I sure wish we could line up those Americans who are willing to take it up the a#% from the terrorists. BillR. you might benefit from being a little more aggressive. I am sorry that you suck at life.

I said:

"This poster's terror clock starts after 9/11/2001. Terrorists struck America ON 9/11/2001. Two months earlier a terroris warning message was, according to Mr. George Tenet, hand delivered to the White House. How was that two month lead handled by the Bush team?

That was plenty of time for three carloads of FBI agents to screech to a halt in front of a flight training school where foreigners were taking flight training. Even before the FBI agents announced themselves, the students would have known and perhaps reacted.

And 9/11/2001 may have been delayed if not canceled altogether.

What happened to the warning hand delivered to the White House by Mr. George Tenet? That report belongs to the America people. It is a part of America's history. It is strange why a political party would be reticent about information pertaining 9/11/2001"

Posted by: bezelt | Apr 4, 2007 9:22:02 AM

And JK responded:

Bezeit,

Terror clock? No it doesn't start on 9/11. 9/11 marked the first time in about 8 years that we didn't just bend over and take it. I'm sure my memory of terrorism is quite more extensive than yours and just love pointing out that you weak kneed liberals are morons. Again, this time SUCK IT Bezeit!!!!!
Posted by: JK | Apr 4, 2007 10:39:00 AM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Frequently, the right wing factors Ex President Bill Clinton's name into the "responsible for 9/11/2001 pool". You said that the Bush team kept the country safe. I was wondering how that comment related to pre-9/11/2001.

Since you said "since 9/11/201", I took that to mean you were talking about terror acts after 9/11/2001.

My comments referenced what, if anything, the Bush team did with the pre-9/11/2001 information that Mr. George Tenet said he hand delivered to the Bush White House. I did not see your reference to the CIA at all.

It is rare but I have seen a right winger reference Mr. George Tenet(once). The right-winger Said the first thing Mr. Bush should have done was to fire Mr. Tenet. That is a standard tactic of the right wingers. Attack the person rather than the person's relationship to a topic the right winger does not want to address.

The same thing happened with diplomat Joe Wilson. I said that Joe Wilson did not find Iraq WMDs. Rather than talk about WMDs that right winger said something like: Joe Wilson lied, lied, lied. He lied. No mention of WMDs. My focus was WMDs. The response did not address WMDs. Strange.

My focus with you was how the Bush team may have handled the terror message that Mr. Tenet said he delivered to the Bush White House two months prior to 9/11/2001.

I saw no response to that subject.

Mark: "Bush is a terrorist killer, he's my hero. EAT THAT LOL"

It figures.

I said:
"There was a time when the allied forces were seen as a part of the solution. But things changed. Now the allied forces are seen as a part of the problem. As others have said, the allied forces managed the war very well, but got "shot down" while trying to manage the peace".

Posted by: bezelt | Apr 3, 2007 10:57:10 PM

Stan said:
The editorial says the opposite. Did you read it?
Posted by: Stan | Apr 4, 2007 9:32:40 AM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I was working from news accounts that I observed. I saw the entry of the Allies into Baghdad. I saw the cooperative effort of Allies and citizens in toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein. It looked like happy citizens had been liberated.

The Allies did not really replace the Hussein government with an allied government soon enough. and that is a likely reason why Iraq turned into "Chaos". Some Iraqi government leaders don't hold America in high esteem.

So the answer is no - I did not read the editorial you mentioned.

Oh, the pathos of it all. JK writes, "... you weak kneed liberals are morons. Again, this time SUCK IT Bezeit!!!!!"

Rather, Bezelt should just pinch it off — with a pair of tweezers.

I have just a couple of things to say
1.) To K bullock: the republicans tossed our troops to the wolves. They sent our troops into harms way without body armor, or armored plated hummers. This was a war of choice. We did not have to go to war with Iraq, but we did, yet the right loves to say how the left doesn’t want to supply our troops, when in fact it was them who neglected to supply the troops in the first place.
2.) to John B,: Barack Obama did not vote for or against the war , as he was not in congress at the time.
3.) To Meritorioius-sometimes: the mistakes made are humongous, and just keep coming. The successes are not heard. Why? Because they are either short-lived, or too inconsequential to matter
4.) Its not the dems who are fickle, It’s the American people. The Dems are finally listening to the people, which is something the republicans refuse to do. In fact this is the first time the Democrats or republicans have listened to the people since Georgie boy took office. I applaud the dems for finally listening to the people who elected them.
5.) I commend all you republicans for speaking out here, but if you had your way, your voice would be the only ones heard. That is the power of America, not our military might.
6.) Imagine what we could to for the American people with 400 billion dollars
7.) To JK: how many died in the terrorist attacks from 1992 – 2000, and how many from terrorist attacks on 9/11. Seems a little perspective is in order.
8.) Wasn’t bush supposed to be a uniter? Then how come all he is done is divide the American people? Could it be divide and conquer? That’s not very American, doesn’t it say on our currency United we stand? Isn’t it the United States?
9.) The right would have us belief that the whole world thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If that were true, don’t you think they would have been less skeptical after the evidence Collin Powell presented to the UN?

Patriotic enough to criticize
Orion

BillR. you might benefit from being a little more aggressive. I am sorry that you suck at life.

Posted by: JK | Apr 4, 2007 12:23:25 PM

You should watch that language. You really like that "suck" word. Could be a sign of something. I was a little more aggresive when I was on a fire base in Nam, probably when you were still on the teet, but I guess a tough guy like you is already in the service. Tell me...when you write these posts do you like puff up your chest and stuff? I retired when I was 52 so I don't really feel like life sucks, but if you're still working at McDonalds, I can see how you may feel about that.

I see Reich Winger is an allegedly new Left Wing Loon.

Bush is a terrorist killer?!?!?!? Oh my! Drink some more Loony Leftie Tea. Was Clintoon a terrorist killer too?

And, oh, the Democrats of today are not the Democrats of the 1700s. I have read history books and know history very well, thank you.

Really just enjoy coming in here and getting people so fired up. Looks like it works. Bill R., sounds like your retirement might need a new hobby. You are taking this stuff way too seriously. Republicans and Democrats will always screw things up. They are politicians!!! They lack a spine. I really did enjoy this. Bring it bitches!!!

Blaa Blaa Blaa, you democrats still complaining about Bush. Or is it a bunch of Jihadist stirring the pot, right here under our noses. Lets hope you fools can get your anger under control, before you start strapping on explosive vests and blowing yourself up to protest the Bushster.

Long live Georgy boy, your words have been recorded and history will prove you right. Right up there with Abriham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

No amount of democrat, newspaper or terrorist partisanship today will change the truth of your words and actions on what you have tried to accomplish for this country and for the world. The children of tomorrow will be able to see the truth.

bill r,

BOOOO YAAAHH!!!

"After review of, for the most part, the uneducated Liberals posts here, I take pleasure in the fact that if this Great Country ever went into a Civil War with you, we'd kick your pathetic sorry Liberal asses overnight!
Posted by: Lincoln | Apr 3, 2007 5:10:57 PM"

'Lincoln' and others here seem to have a barely repressed desire for violence here, as well as abroad. Note Iraq disaster. They like it. They think it's 'good'.

Careful what you wish for; Bill r, and others, have actually qualified on military weapons.

man, JK!

bill r. just de-thonged you in public.

So the answer is no - I did not read the editorial you mentioned.

Posted by: bezelt | Apr 4, 2007 1:01:01 PM

That's okay, wouldn't want you or Tony or others to be swayed by the facts.

John D,

What is a fair price for routine service on AC and FGA units?

"I see Reich Winger is an allegedly new Left Wing Loon. Bush is a terrorist killer?!?!?!? Oh my! Drink some more Loony Leftie Tea. Was Clintoon a terrorist killer too? And, oh, the Democrats of today are not the Democrats of the 1700s. I have read history books and know history very well, thank you. Posted by: John D"

Snore.

"In Iran, virtually the whole of the left rejects President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s anti-Americanism, and calls for normalization with the United States. The recently created independent trade union movement is emerging as a vocal challenger to Khomeinism."

Stan,

Of course they do, they are atheists. Of course leftists in Iran don't back president KooKoo.

But I wonder:
If the leftists in Afg. and Iraq had staged coups' who would we have backed? Of course you have stated that Saddam was a socialist, I think.

Most Americans backed our efforts in Afg, but Iraq has been seen for what it is; a debacle based on lies.

If the factions mentioned in the ed. unite and cause change for the good, well, that's wonderful.

Iraqi deaths in March, a surge month, were up over Feb. The insurgents just moved away from the big green stick.
It will take 1 million US troops to pacify Iraq.

By the way, you make a big mistake thinking liberals in the US back communists in Afg. Shows how little you understand your fellow Americans.

"Blaa Blaa Blaa, you democrats still complaining about Bush. Or is it a bunch of Jihadist stirring the pot, right here under our noses. Lets hope you fools can get your anger under control, before you start strapping on explosive vests and blowing yourself up to protest the Bushster. Long live Georgy boy, your words have been recorded and history will prove you right. Right up there with Abriham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. No amount of democrat, newspaper or terrorist partisanship today will change the truth of your words and actions on what you have tried to accomplish for this country and for the world. The children of tomorrow will be able to see the truth." Posted by: Mark

Here, take take these little white pills, and soon, veeery sooon, eeevery thing will be all right.

Gee whiz, it looks like 'JK' and 'Mark' want to inherit the title of 'Lucian and Fagan' of the Swamp from Paulo and Crazy John Davola.

Hey, Paulo and CJD, better pick it up, or I will re-designate.

Hey JK! Ya get the thong pulled back up yet??

George Bush is not worth blowing oneself up for, however if I had a son who died making him oil rich the thought could have crossed my mind. People want to believe in the president, but fact is, Bush's presidency is one big lie, from start to finish, as shown at http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

There are a few questions that will never get answered, if answers have to come from Bush team supporters or from the Bush team:

(1) What happened to the George Tenet terrorist documents, that were hand delivered to the White House two months prior to 9/11/2001.
(2) Where are the WMDs? Some of the true believers are still out there true-believing. They may be waiting for a EUREKA. Should somebody talk to them?

Item # 1 could have played an "historic reversal of history".

Item # 2 (though bogus) served as the impetus for launching the Iraq war.

Perhaps it is better to stand mute and have people think one is hiding something than to respond and have people know one is hiding something.

And we are talking mainly about a party that used to bill itself as "financially astute".

Remember when the word "conservative" needed no helper words at all? You knew it meant those "tight fisted" Republicans. They were espousing fiscal responsibility - at least at that time.

They no longer espouse that. It is unlikely the Republicans will talk about the national debt. It is unlikely the national debt will come up as either a rhetoric factor or a performance factor.

Talking about the national debt is just about as taboo as talking about items 1 and 2. But how has the Congress financed the Bush team's Iraq war? Money out of the treasury? Investments from other countries(Credit)?

If you ran your financial house-hold the way the Bush team is running America's financial house-hold, you would probably go into some form of "reality disengagement" as you searched for a mental "comfort zone".

America is on a road to somewhere. Some will "see" the destination based upon trends. Some won't "see" the destination until they get there. And if the destination is undesirable, it may be as hard to turn around as it was in 1929.

But America found a solution then and is well on its way to finding a solution now. Long live America!

C Morris,

I don’t think the atheists in Iran want to normalize relations with the US (and West) based on religious/anti-religious reasons. I think it has more to do with trade relations (money) that most of the younger Iranians want.

When would the leftist coups’ occurred? I believe if leftists had staged a coup in Afghanistan pre-9/11 we wouldn’t have had to worry about the Taliban and Osama. If you're talking about coups’ happening now, I believe that (leftist coup) would be better than having a Sunni-Shia struggle for power. I’m not worried about Leftists coming to harm us based on past history. (I hope that answers your question.)

I think Iraq has been handled badly. I don’t believe everyone that believed Saddam was a threat was lying. I think if we’d gone in and won the war and the peace, no one would be bringing up lies now. I think most Americans are uncertain/concerned because they think we aren’t winning, not because we were lied to. (My opinion, I ‘could’ be wrong)

I don’t think most liberals in the US back the commies in Afghanistan. Not sure How you got that idea. I thought the most interesting parts of the editorial were these quotes:

“...So we were anti-American. And then we saw Americans coming from the other side of the world to save us from Saddam Hussein, something that our leftist friends and the Soviet Union would never contemplate.”

“...Our nation is still facing the menace of obscurantism and terror from Taleban and Al-Qaeda,” he says. “Thus, we are surprised when elements of the left in the US and Europe campaign for withdrawal so that our new democracy is left defenseless against its enemies.”

“For his part, Jumblatt, the Lebanese leader, says he realized that his lifelong anti-Americanism had been misplaced when he saw “long lines of people, waiting to vote in Iraq, in the first free election in an Arab country.”

There are more quotes that are equally compelling.

So, when people post that all we are doing is creating more suicide bombers and more terrorists, they ignore the fact that many Arabs in the region see us as the only hope against the oppression of the Taliban and AlQaieda.

There are one billion Muslims. One in eight are Arabs, most do not want to live under Islamic Extremists.

Stan said:

“...Our nation is still facing the menace of obscurantism and terror from Taleban and Al-Qaeda,” he says. “Thus, we are surprised when elements of the left in the US and Europe campaign for withdrawal so that our new democracy is left defenseless against its enemies.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No one is saying America will not fight to protect itself...but a whole lot of Americans don't want the Bush team leading the charge.

A whole lot of Americans would want to go back to the old style wars where the military generals lead the charge - not civilian "generals" with new style fighting strategies. That is a recipe for disaster.

Sure the founding fathers put civilians in charge - but a civilian is not a general. Sure the civilian should manage - but not the battlefield.

EVERY DAY we read of hundreds of people, in and around Baghdad being blown up. And we still support the Bush teams management skills? Would a war managed by the military depose a government and leave nothing in its place? Not likely. Would the Bush team do that?

Orion said:

6.) Imagine what we could to for the American people with 400 billion dollars

Posted by: orion | Apr 4, 2007 1:29:30 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If the Bush team was in charge, the rich would probably get richer still while the country's debt would continue to grow.

Mark said:

Blaa Blaa Blaa, you democrats still complaining about Bush. Or is it a bunch of Jihadist stirring the pot, right here under our noses. Lets hope you fools can get your anger under control, before you start strapping on explosive vests and blowing yourself up to protest the Bushster.

Long live Georgy boy, your words have been recorded and history will prove you right. Right up there with Abriham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

No amount of democrat, newspaper or terrorist partisanship today will change the truth of your words and actions on what you have tried to accomplish for this country and for the world. The children of tomorrow will be able to see the truth.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 4, 2007 3:29:17 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It would be better for the country and indeed the world, if the Bush team stopped trying to fix stuff.

Would you have any specific examples of why you rank Bush up there with the American leaders?

Could it have been illegal spying on Americans? That likely put The Bush team in a class by itself.

How about the secret prisons on other country's soil?

Or maybe you like the revealing of the CIA operative? She, and I do mean she(a lady) failed to watch her back for friendly fire and she paid the price. Had she been in a foreign country, I am sure she would have been watching her front and her back - but at home she figured only friendly fire could come from her back.

And how about the magic of creating WMDs?

How about the openness of the White House? WMD's , Terror Documents(pre 9/11/2001).

The Bush team surely has an impact on Washington D.C. While the Bush team was not successful in getting its attorney on the Supreme Court, it was successful in getting its attorney into the Justice Department.

And now, for the first time in most people's memory, a Justice Department person is going to plead the 5th amendment. And this appears to be just the start.

There was a time, when you would expect that kind of behavior to be followed by the entrance of Eliot Ness.

My how America has changed!

Bezelt,

The editorial isn’t about President Bush or his handling of the war.

The editorial is about how the left is dead wrong about how America and the Western powers are viewed in the Middle East. While there ARE people there that don’t like us, it would be stupid to appease or pander to them (Islamic Extremists).

I posted this editorial when Tony ignorantly posted, “The more we are going to stay there the more we are going to create new generation of Suicide bombers.” This completely ignores the fact that most Arabs believe if we cut-and-run the results will be disastrous.

There is one small part that discusses the President.

“George W. Bush, the bete-noire of liberals and leftists in the West, might be surprised to learn that he has a better image among liberals, leftists, secularists, and even moderate Islamists in the Middle East. While Chomsky and Moore see the US as “an evil power”, many leftists in the Middle East see it as a force for good that ended the tyranny of the Taleban in Afghanistan, dismantled the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and forced the Syrians out of Lebanon after 30 years of occupation.”

Quotes from different people in the editorial:

“In our region, the US has become a force for the good…”

Progressive forces in the Middle East are threatened by an Islamist version of Fascism. An alliance with Western democracies is not only desirable but necessary.”

“Anti-Americanism is a luxury we cannot afford in the Middle East,” …. “Blinded by anti-Americanism, the left in the West ends up on the same side as religious fascists and despots.”

“Here in the Middle East we face a choice between democracy and alliance with the US on one hand and surrender to religious fanatics and terrorists on the other.”

If we cut-and-run we will lose the trust of the moderates in the region. The Democrats (the left) whine and complain that we've destabilized the region. They are fools to think their plans will make things better instead of much worse.

"No one is saying America will not fight to protect itself...but a whole lot of Americans don't want the Bush team leading the charge."

Posted by: bezelt | Apr 5, 2007 10:52:30 AM

Not trying to be a smartass, but the quote you were responding to when you wrote this was about Afghanistan, not the US.

Imagine what we could do with 400 billion dollars? Like maybe adding solar power installations to 20-30 million homes generating 30-40 million kW of electricity? Enough to replace around 1/2 of the 64 million kW generated by petroleum fired plants according to the EIA 2005 Annual Electric Generator Report.

Imagine the impact that money could have on our domestic economy and our domestic solar power industry.

This won't free us from dependence on middle east oil, but imagine seeing our country move in that direction.

Stan said:

The editorial is about how the left is dead wrong about how America and the Western powers are viewed in the Middle East. While there ARE people there that don’t like us, it would be stupid to appease or pander to them (Islamic Extremists).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

When you say middle east and that means Saudi Arabia, I could understand that. And there is the country that George W. Bush's father helped - that is understandable. Actually there are likely to be many middle east countries that like America.

But the country's that are in turmoil may feel differently from the quiet countries.

Pakistan, whose leader went on 60 minutes to tell the world that his country was threatened with being blown back to the stone age by a member of the Bush team's state department.

A Bush team member just left Pakistan. I don't believe he came away with a nice warm safe feeling about that experience.

I seriously doubt that the Palestinians came in the group you have reference to.

And Iran may like the American people but there is still a huge problem.

If Homeland Security had turned its spy apparatus on the Justice Department then maybe pleading the 5th Amendment would likely be of no consequence.

It is still puzzling how the Bush team attracts the behaviors it does.

Hey Bezeit, you proved my point man. Bla Bla Bla. Allot of hot air, and hot temper about my man the Bushster. No one with a little intelligence needs to explain themselves to you, your mind has been scrambled by the dark side.

May the force be with you Bush, and all men of the world that would like freedom and peace.

WMDs may be in the eye of the beholder

Four years ago the Bush team told America and the world that Iraq had WMDs, so the Bush team along with some allies wanted to march into Iraq and dethrone Saddam Hussein.

The Bush team did not, at that time, have the smoking gun(evidence) to prove its assertion but the Bush team was going to search for and find the uranium link between Niger and Iraq.

But the Bush team wanted to move quickly to disable the Hussein government before it could harm the world. All the required evidence for this operation would catch up later.

The Iraq war was going to be fought using a different strategy that the more traditional general led warss because this war was going to break new ground in war fighting. The war was going to be over in a jiffy.

Based upon the Bush team's description of the world, as they saw it, the Bush team persuaded some congresspersons to approve of the Commander In Chief's evaluation.

But something went "bad wrong" with the war's results.

If WMD's had been found one could say a threat to the world had been removed. If the removal of Saddam Hussein had left Baghdad a livable city, one could say Baghdad could now operate in peace. If few lives were lost during the four year effort, one could say it was worth it.

But somehow, someway, something went "bad wrong" with the war's results. During the early stage of recruiting, the Bush team got snubbed by "old Europe". During the fighting stage the "generals" got intertwined with fascist sympathizers, bumped into by folks who did not "back off" and got fooled by Al-Qaeda.

The initial target was not Al-Qaeda. The Bush teams wisdom's selected Saddam Hussein.There is nothing strange about the Bush teams judgment being different from mainstream. Mainstream thought more troops were needed. But the Bush team said no.

The Bush team is a constant reminder of a poorly managed war. And all the feedback it got seemingly failed to impact course direction. That is scary.

And the Bush team seems to be saying:
It was, It is, and It shall be their war to manage.

Is that not a dreadful thought?

Mark said:

Hey Bezeit, you proved my point man. Bla Bla Bla. Allot of hot air, and hot temper about my man the Bushster. No one with a little intelligence needs to explain themselves to you, your mind has been scrambled by the dark side.

May the force be with you Bush, and all men of the world that would like freedom and peace.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 5, 2007 3:50:17 PM

Ok Mark - duly noted

bezelt,

When I say the Middle East I mean Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, and Oman.

Which of those countries, besides Iraq, do you think is in turmoil?

Iran and Pakistan are part of Southwest Asia.

The point is, none of the majority of the populations in any of those countries (and including the Palestinians) want to be ruled by the type of Islam practiced by AlQaeda and the Taliban. They see the US as a 'force for good' to counter Islamic Extremeism.

Ohhh bezelt, the dark side man. You were my brother, and now the evil sith lord has made scrambled eggs out of your brain. You must fight it man, stay away from those conspiracy theory web sites. They're may be still time for you.

Stan said:

bezelt,

When I say the Middle East I mean Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, and Oman.

Which of those countries, besides Iraq, do you think is in turmoil?

Iran and Pakistan are part of Southwest Asia.

The point is, none of the majority of the populations in any of those countries (and including the Palestinians) want to be ruled by the type of Islam practiced by AlQaeda and the Taliban. They see the US as a 'force for good' to counter Islamic Extremeism.
Posted by: Stan | Apr 5, 2007 5:43:44 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To my knowledge five of the 13 countries have had trouble within their borders. The bigger question or the one I had in mind is how many of those 13 countries would ask for diplomatic help from the United States as it is currently managed?

To try to link the good faith earned by the United States of America to the Bush team is a gross mistake. To remove the Bush team from the picture when you talk of how many countries like America perhaps prevents the Bush team from receiving the Accolades it deserves. Right?

If it is true, as the editorial says, that many in the Middle East fear AlQaeda and the Taliban, then those people would like Bush and his team because it is they, not the Democrats that are fighting (and will continue to fight) the fundamentalists.

And name the five countries and describe 'trouble' they've had within their borders.

Mark said:

Ohhh bezelt, the dark side man. You were my brother, and now the evil sith lord has made scrambled eggs out of your brain. You must fight it man, stay away from those conspiracy theory web sites. They're may be still time for you.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 5, 2007 6:22:21 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Duly noted Mark but I will still have to interpret to see which of those sentences addresses:
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction
2. The CIA document delivered to the Bush White House(Its been hidden six years)
3. Your take on the 5th amendment and the justice department.
4. Your take on how high up in the Bush team White House the Valerie Plame outing will go.
5. The Bush team's management of the Iraq War.
And so on......

It is as hard to get a Bush team admirer to talk about those things. Some babble. Some try to change the subject.

And what was the Bush teams poster boy during the 2006 campaign. What I am asking is what did the Republicans tell the electorate the Republicans did for it?

A campaign based on rhetoric is no campaign at all for a Congressman who has already served. And the Republican ethics seem to accept any human behavior. It no longer seems to filter bad behaviors.

TU Said:

" Wonder who the dems will be calling to impeach if we do pull out and sit back on out butts when we get attacked next? Oh I forgot...... EVERYTHING is Bush's fault"!

Posted by: TU | Apr 3, 2007 1:37:47 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Of course everything is not the Bush teams fault but there is a considerable number of things that the Articles of Impeachment accuse the Bush team of doing. You can see the articles at:

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer

I counted 20 articles at one time. I listed 10 at my Google Blog. I hope that this response to an accusation of "EVERYTHING is Bush's fault" will get published just to show that EVERYTHING is not The Bush team's fault.

THE FIRST FIVE OF THE 20 ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

Donny B,

Sign up for your beloved misguided Republican-led Iraq War and dodge some real bullets and IED's in Baghdad or shut your piehole and go away you pinko commie Neocon-chickenhawk.

Posted by: The Military | Apr 3, 2007 6:02:44 PM

So -called military:... I already served, i was drafted in Aug. 1968, liked it so much I did two tours. Now, it's obvious to me you never had any affiliation with the military, judging from your child like vocabulary. Even the Armed Forces has some standards. Let me guess why you couldn't make it, a personality disorder of some kind ? Just because you played with those little green soldiers when you were a child, does not now make you The Military, as you were little missy.

America has done many things that the world appreciates. But at this particular time in America's history, it is unlikely that the admiration for America extends to its chief executive.

While some Bush supporters would like to remind Americans of the great feelings that many countries have for America, how much of those feelings were created by performances by the Bush team?

You see, the Bush team and its promoters don't talk about performance. They do rhetoric. They "talk-the-talk". Walking-the-walk is something they don't talk about.

What has the Bush team done that it was most proud of? We are talking performance now. And we are looking for their "poster boy".

Surely when you take on a job, you want to do something that will make you and your boss/es proud. And yes country-leaders do have bosses. Millions of them. It may not bode well for a politically party to crown itself king. Only the electorate is king.

One of the early targets of the neo-cons was the "liberal press". How did the Bush team perform there? There were certainly press sources that came over to the neo-con side.

There were newspapers that bashed the Democrats every time the Republicans got caught doing something wrong. The news sources told the Democrats not to try to take advantage of the Republicans missteps(and there were many) or it may hurt them at the polls.

We had experienced Ohio and electronic voting machines so I emailed the columnist and asked if the columnist knew something about an upcoming election that the rest of us did not know. Then the patrolling of my internet ports by the Halliburton Company and DoD network Information Center restarted.

The new press relationship was perhaps taken too far in the Valerie Plame unbelievable Bush team performance.

Could that new relationship to the press be a Republican poster boy?

Just what behaviors, done by the Bush team, would it display to America as its "POSTER BOY"?

Stan said:

If it is true, as the editorial says, that many in the Middle East fear AlQaeda and the Taliban, then those people would like Bush and his team because it is they, not the Democrats that are fighting (and will continue to fight) the fundamentalists.

And name the five countries and describe 'trouble' they've had within their borders.
Posted by: Stan | Apr 5, 2007 7:38:06 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(1) Israel(trouble with Lebanon)
(2) Lebanon (trouble with Israel)
(3) Saudi Arabia (trouble with terrorist)
(4) Egypt (trouble with terrorist)
(5) Libya (trouble with chad)

To even imply that the countries that don't want to be taken over by insurgents need the Bush team, is still "denial at work". An automobile mechanic who performed on your automobile as the Bush team has performed on the Iraq war would be shown the garage door - in a hurry.

The Democrats would not put "civilian generals" in the forefront of a war with the idea that they would experiment with a new war-form. You would be hard-pressed to come up with an American president who landed on a carrier to announce the end of a war. But apparently the war wasn't over. It still isn't. America knows that "It ain't over til its over".

Iraq proves that the Bush team can, at an enormous cost to America in lives and "national debt" fight to a condition called CHAOS within four years or so. This performance, like others before it, is not something the Bush team wants display.

In the Bush teams search for WMDs, the name of an ex diplomat came up. That diplomat had experience in the country the Bush team wanted the uranium to be found. But the diplomat found no trace of what the Bush team went to war over.

I said that on a neo-con blog.

I said that Joe Wilson did not find any link between Niger and Iraq. The neo-cons response was "Joe Wilson lied, lied, lied. He lied". I was handed the task of proving that Joe Wilson did not lie. That, of course, severs WMDs from post.

I have heard that the war between Iran and Iraq lasted ten years. Did that ten year war cost more than The Bush team's four year war? Is the Bush team trying for its "poster boy" in the world's longest war? It is for sure the war won't last 100 years.

Israel is an ally

We have good relations with Egypt and Saudi Arabia

Libya abandoned their nuke plans under Bush; they fought in Chad a couple of decades ago.

Lebanon doesn’t have a problem with Israel as much as Israel has a problem with the Iranian backed terrorists Lebanon allows to operate out of its territory.

“To even imply that the countries that don't want to be taken over by insurgents need the Bush team, is still "denial at work".

No denial, you need to read the editorial and see what the Arabs themselves say. It’s not up to you or me to speak for them. They do not believe they can rely on the left (Democrats).

“The Democrats would not put "civilian generals" in the forefront of a war with the idea that they would experiment with a new war-form. You would be hard-pressed to come up with an American president who landed on a carrier to announce the end of a war. But apparently the war wasn't over. It still isn't. America knows that "It ain't over til its over".
Iraq proves that the Bush team can, at an enormous cost to America in lives and "national debt" fight to a condition called CHAOS within four years or so. This performance, like others before it, is not something the Bush team wants display.”

You need to try that one again in English (normal human English).

I said that Joe Wilson did not find any link between Niger and Iraq. The neo-cons response was "Joe Wilson lied, lied, lied. He lied". I was handed the task of proving that Joe Wilson did not lie. That, of course, severs WMDs from post.

My response it, read the Senate report on Wilson, they said he lied.

And then there's this:

"Then the patrolling of my internet ports by the Halliburton Company and DoD network Information Center restarted."

Get some help, go back on your meds, stop listening to the voices in your head.

Steve:

srael is an ally

>

We have good relations with Egypt and Saudi Arabia

>

Libya abandoned their nuke plans under Bush; they fought in Chad a couple of decades ago.

>

Lebanon doesn’t have a problem with Israel as much as Israel has a problem with the Iranian backed terrorists Lebanon allows to operate out of its territory.

>

“To even imply that the countries that don't want to be taken over by insurgents need the Bush team, is still "denial at work".

No denial, you need to read the editorial and see what the Arabs themselves say. It’s not up to you or me to speak for them. They do not believe they can rely on the left (Democrats).

>

“The Democrats would not put "civilian generals" in the forefront of a war with the idea that they would experiment with a new war-form.

>

You would be hard-pressed to come up with an American president who landed on a carrier to announce the end of a war.

>

But apparently the war wasn't over. It still isn't. America knows that "It ain't over til its over".

>

Iraq proves that the Bush team can, at an enormous cost to America in lives and "national debt" fight to a condition called CHAOS within four years or so. This performance, like others before it, is not something the Bush team wants display.”

>

You need to try that one again in English (normal human English).

>

I said that Joe Wilson did not find any link between Niger and Iraq. The neo-cons response was "Joe Wilson lied, lied, lied. He lied". I was handed the task of proving that Joe Wilson did not lie. That, of course, severs WMDs from post.

My response it, read the Senate report on Wilson, they said he lied.

>

And then there's this:

"Then the patrolling of my internet ports by the Halliburton Company and DoD network Information Center restarted."

>

Get some help, go back on your meds, stop listening to the voices in your head.

>

Posted by: Stan | Apr 6, 2007 4:21:59 PM

Stan:

I have responded to your post of Apr 6,2007 4:21:59 PM. It has not been published at this time. If it is published, you may see the IP addresses involved in hacking my Internet ports.

That behavior from the "GOOD GUYS" makes you wonder how high up the ladder the "OK, just do it" attitude may go. My latest hack came from IP address 169.254.134.21. This IP address will "who is" as The IANA. This IP address "specialized" in port 445. Nothing else. Just Port 445 EVERY DAY, multiple times it visited port 445.

Rather than email The IANA, I emailed ICANN which promptly responded, via The IANA, with information that has finally stopped that IP address. It was almost like the med worked. Thanks for your suggestion.

The Internet is controlled by the Department of Commerce. Do you think the character and ethics of the Bush team would prevent it from using the internet as a tool to spy on Americans?

If the Bush team "never saw a privacy they did not want to invade" would they say the Internet is off-limits to their thirst for spying?

About the middle east:

You can see a "public display of affection" for the head of the Bush team here:

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=169135
The news story's title is:

Saudi king's outburst reflects US Mideast policy failures

Now this is the King of Saudi Arabia expressing what you may interpret as "affection" for the head of the Bush team and the.

America has put a lot of goodwill into the world. But now during the Bush team's rein, it is being extracted.

Stan

Something bad happened to my response to your email. Maybe, what I thought was a data character turned out to be a control character or something.

Sorry.

I will try again.

Stan this is my second attempt to respond.

Stan said: Israel is an ally

...Saying Israel is an ally has nothing to do with "having trouble within its borders".

Stan said: We have good relations with Egypt and Saudi Arabia

... What does "good relations" have to do with "having trouble within their borders"?

Libya abandoned their nuke plans under Bush; they fought in Chad a couple of decades ago.

... What does this have to do with having trouble within their borders?

Lebanon doesn’t have a problem with Israel as much as Israel has a problem with the Iranian backed terrorists Lebanon allows to operate out of its territory.

... See above

“To even imply that the countries that don't want to be taken over by insurgents need the Bush team, is still "denial at work".

No denial, you need to read the editorial and see what the Arabs themselves say. It’s not up to you or me to speak for them. They do not believe they can rely on the left (Democrats).

... I took my meds and found the courage to surf the Internet looking for how Arabs feel about the Bush team. I found this:

"SAUDI KING'S OUTBURST REFLECTS U.S. MIDEAST POLICY FAILURES".

Something seems to be "bad wrong" with the meds that produced that newspaper title. If you want to recommend meds to the source of this revelation, try the IP address at:

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=169135

“The Democrats would not put "civilian generals" in the forefront of a war with the idea that they would experiment with a new war-form. You would be hard-pressed to come up with an American president who landed on a carrier to announce the end of a war. But apparently the war wasn't over. It still isn't. America knows that "It ain't over til its over".
Iraq proves that the Bush team can, at an enormous cost to America in lives and "national debt" fight to a condition called CHAOS within four years or so. This performance, like others before it, is not something the Bush team wants display.”

You need to try that one again in English (normal human English).

... Ok, I'll try. The reference to Civilian Generals was of course a metaphor. To some involved, it looked like the Iraq war was going to need more troops than the Bush team was sending. That may have had something to do with the new strategy.

The decision looked more like a political decision than a military decision. And it looked like there was not enough troops to provide a responsible government for Iraq after the old government was deposed.

I can't believe America's military would go into a country, remove its government and leave it at that. That is strange.

I said that Joe Wilson did not find any link between Niger and Iraq. The neo-cons response was "Joe Wilson lied, lied, lied. He lied". I was handed the task of proving that Joe Wilson did not lie. That, of course, severs WMDs from post.

My response it, read the Senate report on Wilson, they said he lied.

... That Congress was the OLD CONGRESS. It's the one that stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Mr. Bush when secret spying on Americans was exposed. Apparently there was a need to make emergency changes to the laws against secretely spying on Americans.

So, this is the Congress that focused on Mr. Joe Wilson's search for a link between Niger and Iraq. The Congress that stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Bush team after secretly spying on Americans.

Alrighty!

Did the Congressional report say Mr. Joe Wilson found WMDs? Did the Congressional Report say Mr. Joe Wilson did not find WMDs? I already knew that the person of Mr. Joe Wilson was attacked in the report.

But a process was supposed to be at work here. Two objects in the process were (1) Mr. Joe Wilson and (2) Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Did the process of SEARCHING fail? If so, what was the final status of both objects? We all know about the Mr. Joe Wilson attack, but what happened to the other part of the process - what happened to Weapons of Mass Destruction? After all, Mr. Bush marched off to war based upon the existence of object number two, so it must be important.

Perhaps the WMDs are located in the same archive as Mr. Tenet's terrorist warning - in a time capsule - not to be opened until the year 3000.

And then there's this:

"Then the patrolling of my internet ports by the Halliburton Company and DoD network Information Center restarted."

Get some help, go back on your meds, stop listening to the voices in your head.
Posted by: Stan | Apr 6, 2007 4:21:59 PM

... Everybody's internet ports get hacked. To avoid Internet hacking, is to avoid the Internet. But surfing the Internet is worth the risks you take.

The Internet is controlled by the Department of Commerce, which is under control of the Bush team. And I don't believe all of us are aware of where the Bush team draws the line when it comes to spying on Americans.

Look up these IP addresses: 34.168.1.34 and 205.55.74.208 And be shocked! Be very shocked!!

Were they just passing in the night? No way. Did they both occur at about the same time? Three days after I emailed a pollingReport.com IP address to a newspaper columnist.

"... What does this have to do with having trouble within their borders?"

"Actually there are likely to be many middle east countries that like America.

But the country's that are in turmoil may feel differently from the quiet countries."

You said the countries in turmoil don't like the US.

Israel likes the US. The other countries I mentioned don't have a problem with the US.

The Saudi's have blasted us before for our policies, not everything we do is in their best interests, it is our best interests. Sometimes those interest conflict. But what does that tell you when they still prefer Bush over any Democrat?

The Arabs still believe a Democratically controlled Whitehouse and congress would be a disaster for the Middle East.

The government can barely keep up with collecting, analyzing, and distributing intel in the war on terror to worry about spying on people like you. You're paranoid.

Stan

Holy Cow!

Your responses do not surprise me. I have seen the same and worse responses at a message board and of course wholesale name calling by neo-cons at blog sites.

But I gave forums a slight edge over message boards and neo-con blog sites.

So, still no one knows your response to:

(1) Weapons of Mass Destruction

(2) Mr. Joe Wilson's search

(3) Internet hackers

(3) Saudi Arabia's King

(4) The CIA's delivery of terror documents to the White House.

And we never got to the Justice Department and the fifth amendment.

The Bush team has been a nightmare for many Americans but its "mouth pieces" seem to be avoiding any reference to certain subjects. That is following in lock-step with the Bush team.

You can't "make" the Bush team talk about WMDs.

You can't "make" the bush team talk about those CIA documents.

You can't "make" the bush team go near any location that requires they testify under oath.

And you can't "make" a neo-con mouthpiece talk about anything that you can't "make" the Bush team talk about.

responding to the negative...and there is a ton.

Your responses are typical of neo-con responses who are trying to persuade but not being persuasive. It is typical of the neo-con name calling. It unbelievable the names the neo-cons call.

Why do neo-cons need name calling? It is a distraction. Is that why neo-cons use it.

Name calling is a part of neo-con's persuasive strategy.

"Name calling is a part of neo-con's persuasive strategy."

If it's persuasive, then it works.

The editorial I posted discusses what Arabs think about the left in the US.

I thought that's what we were talking about. If you want to change the subject and talk about all those other issues that's fine. But now YOU are the one ignoring what we were originally discussing.

Here goes:

(1) Weapons of Mass Destruction

We haven't found any. Many people and intel agencies believed Saddam had them. President Bush wasn't the only one that 'lied'. Decmocrats signed a resolution for the use of force, many of them believed there were WMDs in Iraq, and they believed that BEFORE Bush became President.

(2) Mr. Joe Wilson's search

Wilson is a liar. He has no credibility since he's a liar. I'm not going to try and figure out what were lies and what weren't; the Senate already issued a report on that. (And there were Democrats in the Senate at that time)

(3) Internet hackers

I don't think the government is out to get you.

(3) Saudi Arabia's King

I already answered that one.

(4) The CIA's delivery of terror documents to the White House.

Not sure what you want here. Like I said, th CIA wasn't the only organization that thought Saddam had WMDs

"And we never got to the Justice Department and the fifth amendment."

People have the right to not incriminate themselves. You don't want to change the Constitution, do you?

And, I'm not a neo-con. I've been a conservative a long, long time.

Stan said:

The Arabs still believe a Democratically controlled Whitehouse and congress would be a disaster for the Middle East.

... And the King's words did not qualify for your definition of "Arab"?

Who should elect the next President of America?

Should that answer come from within America or from the Middle East? How logical would it be for America to say that If the Middle East wants the Bush team then so do we. The Middle East is not under the direct management of the Bush team. The Bush team cannot bind the Middle East to any liability. Only Americans can be bound.

What does the Middle East see when it looks at the Bush team? The Middle East would likely see the world's policeman. And of course they would like that. They may say thank you America for footing the bill, in lives and dollars, to make our world better.

The world can't go on that way. Actually, there is an "in place" organization that was designed for just the problem the Bush team was trying to solve. This Bush team is different. It chose to shoulder most of the cost in lives and dollars itself(ie. bind America). It is just the opposite of what main stream would do.

Currently the Bush team cannot put constraints on the Middle East's behavior, cannot tap the "credit line" of any royal treasury and cannot send the Middle East's youth to war.

Can anybody, other than Stan, see a reason why the Middle East might like the Bush team while America wants to impeach.

Should America take its cues from the Middle East, which acts in its favor, or the American people. Now normally that would be a "no brainer" but current times are

\or the Middle East.First neo-cons were saying the world who Jerrea wanted to elect. Now neo-cons are telling the world the middle east wants to elect. Have they given up on who America wants to elect.

Did the last election cause the Bush team types to loose faith in the American electorate.

wanted now its who the Arabs wants.

It sure looks like the neo-cons have given up on what America wants.

Stan Said:

The government can barely keep up with collecting, analyzing, and distributing intel in the war on terror to worry about spying on people like you. You're paranoid.
Posted by: Stan | Apr 7, 2007 1:00:12 PM

My comments from LaLa Land:

... NSA, FISA and Homeland Security are not spying on Americans? Except if they are terrorists. They are only spying on those who are assisting terrorist? But be advised, that sometimes the FBI may even EXPOSE ANY SEXUAL ACTIVITY they find on a target's hard drive.

And Stan seems to think the government is too busy churning out terror stats to engage in such activity. A better target would be Mr. Tenet's Terror documents. But priorities must be priorities.

(1) The Bush team does not spy on Americans and anyone who thinks that is paranoid. The Bush team only spies on terrorist!

(2) The Iraq war is going very well. Not more than 100 people gets blown up daily. There are still people alive in Baghdad.

(3) There was a direct link between Iraq and weapons of destruction. The Bush team said so.

(4) There is no need to be concerned about climate change. "You can talk about the weather but you can't do anything about it". How can you pollute the weather, rivers, oceans or seas? You are looking at endless volumes. Anyway...not to worry, the Bush team is on the job. Remember Katrina - no problem.

"Should that answer come from within America or from the Middle East?"

The people in the Middle East should and do speak for themselves. They don't speak for Americans and they don't get to decide who we elect as President. But they are capable of saying what will happen to their countries if America doesn't help them fight against AlQaieda and the Taiban. Read the editorial and see for yourself why moderate Arabs (including the Saudi King) want US help, and read why they think the left will abandon them.

"But be advised, that sometimes the FBI may even EXPOSE ANY SEXUAL ACTIVITY they find on a target's hard drive."

Ha ha, stop looking at that child porn and the FBI will leave you alone.

"(1) The Bush team does not spy on Americans and anyone who thinks that is paranoid. The Bush team only spies on terrorist!"

That's a good thing.

"(2) The Iraq war is going very well. Not more than 100 people gets blown up daily. There are still people alive in Baghdad."

What's your point, Forrest? Most people agree the war has been mismanaged.

(3) There was a direct link between Iraq and weapons of destruction. The Bush team said so."

And so did many others.

"Name calling is a part of neo-con's persuasive strategy."

If it's persuasive, then it works.
....Duly noted. If you call a person a name, generally, no trip to a dictionary is needed and hopefully those 4 letters word will be kept to a minimum

The editorial I posted discusses what Arabs think about the left in the US.

I thought that's what we were talking about. If you want to change the subject and talk about all those other issues that's fine. But now YOU are the one ignoring what we were originally discussing.

....Why would the King of Saudi Arabia's comments not qualify for "What Arabs think?

Here goes:

(1) Weapons of Mass Destruction

We haven't found any. Many people and intel agencies believed Saddam had them. President Bush wasn't the only one that 'lied'. Decmocrats signed a resolution for the use of force, many of them believed there were WMDs in Iraq, and they believed that BEFORE Bush became President.

.... War is serious. People are sure to die, possibly in large numbers. If you are charged with being responsible for such an event as war, how carefully would you investigate before starting one? Would you be ready to take that step if:
(1) The inhouse Niger sources found no trace of WMDs.
(2) Mr. Joe Wilson found no trace of WMDs.
(3) Nobody else found traces of WMDs
(4) The United Nations could not be persuaded to go to war with Iraq.
(5) "Old Europe" could not be persuaded to march with the Bush team.
(6) If by now you have not felt the urge to VERIFY, that is scary. If one moved at this point, one would be GAMBLING on the reason for going to war. That's ungood.

(2) Mr. Joe Wilson's search

Wilson is a liar. He has no credibility since he's a liar. I'm not going to try and figure out what were lies and what weren't; the Senate already issued a report on that. (And there were Democrats in the Senate at that time)

.... Understand. And since he was a "liar" his comment about not finding WMDs was suspect. If he was a "liar" then he may have lied about not finding WMDs. if he said he did not find WMDs maybe he did find WMDs and he was just not telling the truth about his find. Liars are like that. So, the Bush team kept on moving toward its target, knowing a miracle or some kind of vision would reveal WMDs otherwise the motivation for this war that was going to take so many lives and cost so much money was not based upon fact.

It sounds like the report was more focused on the ethics of Mr. Joe Wilson than on a search for WMDs. And the old Congress should have been able to spot "ethics malfunctions" in the bat of an eye.

(3) Internet hackers

I don't think the government is out to get you.

.... Ok, so the government is not out to get me. I don't know why my Internet ports were hacked by both traceable IP addresses and then by untraceable IP addresses. But most of us get our IP addresses via an ISP. I doubt that the average person can bypass an Internet Service Provider and get an IP address directly from The IANA. So, in my eyes The IANA provides the "cover" for whatever the secret IP address is doing. The IP address is secret because it will trace to The IANA who will disavow any knowledge of the activities of the IPV-4 address pool.

(3) Saudi Arabia's King

I already answered that one.

.... Ok

(4) The CIA's delivery of terror documents to the White House.

Not sure what you want here. Like I said, th CIA wasn't the only organization that thought Saddam had WMDs

.... The head of the CIA (Mr. George Tenet) said he hand delivered a terrorist warning message to the White House two months prior to 9/11/2001.

And that is the last anyone has heard of that terror warning, hand delivered to the White House two months prior to 9/11/2001

The message, if delivered, lay dormant for years. I saw no public mention of a terror warning message delivered to the White House.

FISA is spying on American's searching for raw data on terrorist. They have to process that data. But here was information had carried to the White House by none other than the head of the CIA. Sure the "thrill" of spying on people is "as good as it gets" for some but this CIA document was already processed.

What happened to the document? Even Mr. Woodward's book "In Denial" did not "shake loose " the current status of that report.

When the Secretary of State was asked about the document, she did not remember it. At that time she was on her way out of the country. Apparently the Secretary of State forgot to remember the document when she returned.

And we never got to the Justice Department and the fifth amendment."

People have the right to not incriminate themselves. You don't want to change the Constitution, do you?

.... No! But it is not too unusual for Americans to hold those in certain job performances to be above suspicion - thus it is easy to think those in the Justice Department to be above suspicion. At least that's the way the thinking use to be.

We have seen the behaviors of the Bush team. It's beginning to look like the Bush team's behavior is likely to be seen where ever the Bush team has influence.

And, I'm not a neo-con. I've been a conservative a long, long time.

.... Duly Noted.

Posted by: Stan | Apr 7, 2007 6:04:31 PM

"....Why would the King of Saudi Arabia's comments not qualify for "What Arabs think?"

It does, King Abdullah is more afraid of Shia Iran than he is of Israel. Iran wants to establish Shia caliphate that would do more to destabilize the Middle East than anything we've seen in the past.

King Abdullah wants Syria to stop being an ally of Iran. He wants Syria to stop helping Iran supports terrorists like Hizballah, and he wants to unite the Sunni Arab world against Iran.

That is a lot to ask. The Arabs have never been united on anything except their hate of Israel, and the light of the Palestinian people. So most Arabs disagree with the US policy to suport Israel, but most moderate Arabs do not think AlQaeda and the Taliban can be defeated without the help of the US.

WMDs

Joe Wilson had nothing to do with the search for WMDs other than to check out whether Iraq tried to buy yellow cake from Niger. The Senate report from the the 'old' congress called him a liar. The new congress hasn't refuted any of those allegations.

Saddam had and used WMDs in the past. We could not verify they had all been destroyed. He screwed with the UN inspectors and hampered their search. How many times did he kick them out of Iraq? In March 2003 as US and coalition forces approached Bagdad, there were reports the Iraqi military would unleash an attack using WMDs. So even then the Iraqis (elements in the military) were saying they would use WMDs. It would have been stupid for anyone to ignore that intel or those warnings.

CIA NSA FISA FBI DoD DIA

No one is spying on Americans for thrills. I don't believe they are spying on Americans period.

Justice Department

The fifth amendment and the Constitution apply to all Americans, even those on the Bush team.

"....Why would the King of Saudi Arabia's comments not qualify for "What Arabs think?"

It does, King Abdullah is more afraid of Shia Iran than he is of Israel. Iran wants to establish Shia caliphate that would do more to destabilize the Middle East than anything we've seen in the past.

King Abdullah wants Syria to stop being an ally of Iran. He wants Syria to stop helping Iran supports terrorists like Hizballah, and he wants to unite the Sunni Arab world against Iran.

That is a lot to ask. The Arabs have never been united on anything except their hate of Israel, and the light of the Palestinian people. So most Arabs disagree with the US policy to suport Israel, but most moderate Arabs do not think AlQaeda and the Taliban can be defeated without the help of the US.

.... Ok

WMDs

Joe Wilson had nothing to do with the search for WMDs other than to check out whether Iraq tried to buy yellow cake from Niger. The Senate report from the the 'old' congress called him a liar. The new congress hasn't refuted any of those allegations.

Saddam had and used WMDs in the past. We could not verify they had all been destroyed. He screwed with the UN inspectors and hampered their search. How many times did he kick them out of Iraq? In March 2003 as US and coalition forces approached Bagdad, there were reports the Iraqi military would unleash an attack using WMDs. So even then the Iraqis (elements in the military) were saying they would use WMDs. It would have been stupid for anyone to ignore that intel or those warnings.

.... Right! Joe Wilson was not looking for the "whole thing" only evidence of sales of yellow-cake to Iraq by Niger. Ok, the Senate report from the Old Congress called his a "liar". That the most diplomatic language the Old Congress could come up with. That harsh word, "liar" was ment to obfuscate. It helped distract from the "word" WMDs.

The New Congress does not have time to review that report as of yet. But eventually it may. And I bet a new perspective will be presented.

There is evidence to support your assertion of "Saddam had used WMDs in the past". But those WMDs were not in the same class as yellow-cake. WMDs represent a category of weapons. Wikipedia describes the WMD category as consisting of:
(1) nuclear (2) biological (3) chemical (NBC) and (4) radiological weapons.

The Bush team was searching for nuclear base WMD. but it looks like a "runner-up" turned out to be a gas based WMD.

The BIG GAS SHELLS could possibly qualify as WMDs but to bring that up while focused on yellow-cake means you should, in my opinion, alert your readers so they will know. You did not specify the type of WMD, but I believe you had gas based in mind.

A newspaper carried that story - said it got the story from a Republican Senator. I read that article in the Washington Times. I did not read it in the New York Times.

CIA NSA FISA FBI DoD DIA

No one is spying on Americans for thrills. I don't believe they are spying on Americans period.

.... Why would a federal agency reveal sexual contents of targets hard drives. Doesn't that seem like that federal agency is bored. Don't have anything to do.

Why not look for the CIA terrorist documents hand delivered to the White House two months prior to 9/11/2001.

Ok but here is one of many news stories about the Bush team's spying on Americans. This news story came out during the Old Congress so you can guess it who it would favor.

FCC Won't Investigate NSA Phone Logs
By Ed Oswald, BetaNews
May 24, 2006, 11:56 AM

The FCC has declined to investigate whether telecommunications companies have broken consumer privacy laws by sharing phone call data with the NSA, saying the classified nature of the program prevents the agency from doing so.

Chairman Kevin Martin, a Republican, said that the FCC would be unable to investigate at this time due to the fact it would require the examination of highly classified information. According to Martin, the agency has no power in ordering the release of those documents.

Justice Department

The fifth amendment and the Constitution apply to all Americans, even those on the Bush team.

.... I agree - absolutely.

But it is still possible for the United States of America to go back to that time when one could say, " I don't believe that" to an accusation of political wrong doing. Now, you had better believe it! You see, America has suffered one of the worse "ethics attacks" in a long, long, long time.

Posted by: Stan | Apr 8, 2007 11:14:40 AM

".... Right! Joe Wilson was not looking for the "whole thing" only evidence of sales of yellow-cake to Iraq by Niger. Ok, the Senate report from the Old Congress called his a "liar". That the most diplomatic language the Old Congress could come up with. That harsh word, "liar" was ment to obfuscate. It helped distract from the "word" WMDs."

Liar is my word.

Good catch on your part on the search for non-nuclear and nuclear WMDs.

Yellow Cake

After Desert Storm in 1991, we found out that Saddam had in program to develop neclear weapons. It bothered a lot of people hat we didn't know anything about the program before the first gulf war.

Because Saddam wasn't allowing the UN inspectors to do their UN madated jobs, The US and others weren't sure Saddam wasn't trying to reconstitute his nuke program. That's why Wilson was sent to Africa. The fact that he was a Democratic political hack and a liar did nothing to clear up the matter of Saddam and his WMD progams.

Spying on Americans

I believe the NSA monitored phone numbers to see who was calling whom. I don't believe they wasted any time listening to people with no hint of a terrorist background.

I don't think what they did was illegal, but I'm not a lawyer or a judge. And I respect the courts decision, but I also believe if it had gone to higher courts, the government would have won. Luckily FISA was changed and the administration was able to place the program under FISA control as of JAnuary 2007.

".... Right! Joe Wilson was not looking for the "whole thing" only evidence of sales of yellow-cake to Iraq by Niger. Ok, the Senate report from the Old Congress called his a "liar". That the most diplomatic language the Old Congress could come up with. That harsh word, "liar" was ment to obfuscate. It helped distract from the "word" WMDs."

Liar is my word.
.... Ok

Good catch on your part on the search for non-nuclear and nuclear WMDs.

Yellow Cake

After Desert Storm in 1991, we found out that Saddam had in program to develop neclear weapons. It bothered a lot of people hat we didn't know anything about the program before the first gulf war.

.... America played a leadership role in Desert Storm, but the United Nations played a significant role. That Mr. Bush, apparently was not a "loner".

Because Saddam wasn't allowing the UN inspectors to do their UN madated jobs, The US and others weren't sure Saddam wasn't trying to reconstitute his nuke program. That's why Wilson was sent to Africa. The fact that he was a Democratic political hack and a liar did nothing to clear up the matter of Saddam and his WMD progams.

.... America payed a heavy price to make sure that Saddam wasn't trying to reconstitute his nuke program.

.... It might be interesting to ask America, who it would trust more to tell the truth - Mr. Joe Wilson or the Bush team?

Spying on Americans

I believe the NSA monitored phone numbers to see who was calling whom. I don't believe they wasted any time listening to people with no hint of a terrorist background.

.... One's faith-based belief in the natural good of man is ok in some arenas - but not in business and not in politics. Iron-clad rules, enforceable in court, should be in evidence here.

I don't think what they did was illegal, but I'm not a lawyer or a judge. And I respect the courts decision, but I also believe if it had gone to higher courts, the government would have won. Luckily FISA was changed and the administration was able to place the program under FISA control as of JAnuary 2007.

.... Did the Bush team break the law? A Federal judge said the President operated outside his authority. That triggered action by the shoulder-to-shoulder Old Congress. One good reason why a shoulder-to-shoulder Old Congress was desirable to the Bush team was because of its power to make laws or change laws. Melding the Congress to the Executive may have, in the eyes of some, reduced the capability of the country to properly do checks and balances. No problem for the Bush team.

.... So, about that illegal spying, no problem, The shoulder-to-shoulder Old Congress to the rescue. The law was quickly changed to reflect the new reality of the Bush team. And I guess it was made retroactive so as to exempt critical Bush team members? That kind of behavior toward the Bush team could possibly make it think it was CROWNED rather than elected.

The Bush team seems to have influenced the behavior of other government agencies that it had control over. While many Americans are aware that one could assign liberal/conservative terms to the United States Supreme Court it is a relatively new experience to see the Justice Department "reduced" to party politics.

The Justice Department should be beholden to the United States of America FIRST, then to the Bush team. Try as it might, the Bush team IS NOT the United States of America.

Political parties are HOSTED by the United States of America. They don't or should not supplant the United States of America.

The United States of America was and still is defined by documents that were in place long before the current political parties came into existence. Taking an oath of an office, in my mind, says your primary concern may shift from party "party first" to a wider responsibility.

But just observe the Bush team's performance in the yellow-cake drama. Valerie Plame had committed NO CRIME AGAINST AMERICA. America was not accusing her of any crime.

And yet there was the Libby trial.

If you were going to include a reference to yellow-cake in your State of the Union Address would you not "run that by the CIA" before you went public with that? Did that happen?

And today comes news that Iraq wants America's troops to leave the country. So, will the Bush team now leave. Probably not! After all those people are not the GOVERNMENT. They are just people. Like here in America.

The Bush team might want to do the same thing in Iraq that it did in America. Ignore the electorate.

Posted by: Stan | Apr 8, 2007 10:25:30 PM

".... America played a leadership role in Desert Storm, but the United Nations played a significant role. That Mr. Bush, apparently was not a "loner"."

But when Iraq violated the terms of the UN cease fire agreement, it was up to the US try and hold Iraq accountable. The Europeans were too busy getting rich from bribes during the UN oil-for-food scandal.

".... It might be interesting to ask America, who it would trust more to tell the truth - Mr. Joe Wilson or the Bush team?"

The President got the yellowcake info from the Brits. You ignore that fact EVERY intel agency throughout the Middle Eat and Europe believed Saddam had WMD and was trying to reconstitute his nuke program.

".... One's faith-based belief in the natural good of man is ok in some arenas - but not in business and not in politics. Iron-clad rules, enforceable in court, should be in evidence here."

It's not a faith based belief. It is my experience that it is impossible for any goverment agency (or all agencies combined) to listen to every phone call, read every email that is sent. The manpower that would be required is unimaginable. All intel has to be analysed by people. You have to be very selective.

"If you were going to include a reference to yellow-cake in your State of the Union Address would you not "run that by the CIA" before you went public with that? Did that happen?"

He did, Tenent took the fall for that 'blunder.'

"But just observe the Bush team's performance in the yellow-cake drama. Valerie Plame had committed NO CRIME AGAINST AMERICA. America was not accusing her of any crime."

What's your point? Joe Wilson lied about who sent him to Africa. He tried to say it was the VP. When someone at the State Department (Armitage) said 'no it was his wife who works for the CIA', she was 'outed'. No crime comitted. If there had been a crime it would have been prosecuted. Another one of Joe Wilson's lies started the whole mess. That doesn't excuse Libby for lying to the FBI, but there was no treason. Those that say there was are clueless.

Indeed, many people believed that Iraq possessed WMDs, but only the Bush administration said that they had evidence. In fact, they said they even knew where they were.

The Arabs do not like the Palestinians either. They share only one common thread, and that is there hatred of Israel. If they did like the Palestinians, why not offer them land from there own country? Would this not give them a homeland? Would this not solve one of the most crucial problems of the Middle East?

If indeed the senate called Joe Wilson a liar? Why did the UN say that the yellow cake documents used to open the investigation were forged? Isn’t that what Joe Wilson Said?

The Bush team does not spy on Americans and anyone who thinks that is paranoid. The Bush team only spies on terrorist!” (Stan or Bezelt Cant remember who said it first)
Except that under the bush administration you are guilty till proven innocent. So even if you aren’t a terrorist they are still spying on you till they have proof otherwise.

Tell me again, why the UN did not take over Iraq, so that the burden of reconstruction could be taken over by other countries? Oh Yeah, that would mean no more money to Halliburton and other Bush administration cronies.

If you were going to include a reference to yellow-cake in your State of the Union Address would you not "run that by the CIA" before you went public with that? Did that happen?
Posted by: bezelt | Apr 9, 2007

They did run it by the CIA, prior to that speech, and were told to take it out.

".... America played a leadership role in Desert Storm, but the United Nations played a significant role. That Mr. Bush, apparently was not a "loner"."

But when Iraq violated the terms of the UN cease fire agreement, it was up to the US try and hold Iraq accountable. The Europeans were too busy getting rich from bribes during the UN oil-for-food scandal.

******** The United Nations and The United States are separate entities. Each is guided, for the most part, by its own rules/laws. So, you said Iraq violated a U.N. law(agreement) and you said it was up to the US to try and hold Iraq accountable.

Why is that?

A United Nations law/rule/agreement was violated and the US needed to hold Iraq accountable? Why IS that? Did the United Nations, whose agreements were violated, authorize the Bush team to act on its behalf? If not, who did? Is the United States now in a “grey area” as far as legal liability and accountability are concerned?

If there are legal challenges to the Bush team’s behavior, will the United Nations stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the Bush team? Will America’s “already bludgeoned” national debt take another hit? If you were responsible for the safety of America would you have taken the Bush team route?

".... It might be interesting to ask America, who it would trust more to tell the truth - Mr. Joe Wilson or the Bush team?"

The President got the yellowcake info from the Brits. You ignore that fact EVERY intel agency throughout the Middle Eat and Europe believed Saddam had WMD and was trying to reconstitute his nuke program.

******** Ok, you say the President HEARD from the Brits that Saddam had yellowcake. And EVERY intel agency throughout the Middle East and Europe BELIEVED Saddam had WMDs. So, now the Bush team has the motivation to march off to war?

Somebody HEARD Saddam had WMDs and even more BELIEVED Saddam had WMDs while NOBODY knew Saddam had WMDs. And nobody could VERIFY Saddam had WMDs. But not to worry, the Bush team would find those elusive WMDs. Honest. And when they did find them, the Bush team would report back to its BASE.

".... One's faith-based belief in the natural good of man is ok in some arenas - but not in business and not in politics. Iron-clad rules, enforceable in court, should be in evidence here."

It's not a faith based belief. It is my experience that it is impossible for any goverment agency (or all agencies combined) to listen to every phone call, read every email that is sent. The manpower that would be required is unimaginable. All intel has to be analysed by people. You have to be very selective.

******** I apologize if you took my comments to mean that spying was going to be exhaustive – ie. every telephone/wire in America had to be “violated” before the law was broken. I agree with you, that an exhaustive search would be prohibitive.

But if the law forbids something - that means if you do it the first time, you broke the law. It would only take one incident of spying without a court order to qualify as breaking the law.

"If you were going to include a reference to yellow-cake in your State of the Union Address would you not "run that by the CIA" before you went public with that? Did that happen?"

He did, Tenent took the fall for that 'blunder.'

******** The below is a reference to that day back in 2003
Full story can be found at:
http://www.thetip.org/art_No_CIA_Consultation_on_Bush_WMD_State_of_the_Union_Speech434_icle.html
Source: Washington Post, 2003-07-21

Candidate: President George Bush

The below is an excerpt from a published account.

No CIA Consultation on Bush WMD State of the Union Speech

Bush didn't consult the CIA on the inclusion of the Niger Uranium claim in his state of the Union Speech. Story now confirmed by Washington Post

Source: Washington Post, 2003-07-21

Candidate: President George Bush

The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public "dossier" on Iraq in September at the ....

"But just observe the Bush team's performance in the yellow-cake drama. Valerie Plame had committed NO CRIME AGAINST AMERICA. America was not accusing her of any crime."

What's your point? Joe Wilson lied about who sent him to Africa. He tried to say it was the VP. When someone at the State Department (Armitage) said 'no it was his wife who works for the CIA', she was 'outed'. No crime comitted. If there had been a crime it would have been prosecuted. Another one of Joe Wilson's lies started the whole mess. That doesn't excuse Libby for lying to the FBI, but there was no treason. Those that say there was are clueless.

******** You know, I am beginning to understand what you are saying, I think. It looks like you are saying it is not breaking the law to reveal the identity of CIA operatives but when you are asked by the FBI if you did it, best you tell the truth or you are breaking the law?

Well, maybe I still don’t understand. If one came upon a handbook of CIA opratives and went to the right kind of columnist, say one who believed that the world should be told the names of all those secret agents and the columnist did publish those names – no law would be broken? Does it matter who does the “outing?”

Posted by: Stan | Apr 9, 2007 12:37:18 PM

orion said:

“If indeed the senate called Joe Wilson a liar? Why did the UN say that yellow cake documents used to open the investigation were forged? Isn’t that what Joe Wilson Said?”

I tried to find information on the forgeries. A Google search led me to an article in “Freedom Daily”. A part of the article is printed below. This part of the printed article starts at “The Forgeries”. The full article can be seen at:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0309d.asp

Bush’s WMD Flimflams
By James Bovard, September 2003

The forgeries

In early March, the IAEA announced that the documents detailing the attempted purchases of uranium were frauds. One senior IAEA official told the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh,

These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped.

The British government had long refused to give the documents to the IAEA; when the Brits finally passed along the “smoking gun,” it took IAEA inspectors “only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake,” Hersh reported.

The letters appeared to be a crude cut-and-paste operation with Niger government letterhead; however, the names of officials in power did not match the dates on the letter and the signature of Niger president Tandja Mamadou was an obvious forgery.

A senior IAEA official observed that the flaws in the letters could have been “spotted by someone using Google on the Internet.” Hersh, who wrote a superb exposé on the scam, noted,

Forged documents and false accusations have been an element in U.S. and British policy toward Iraq at least since the fall of 1997, after an impasse over U.N. inspections.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W. Va.) requested that FBI chief Robert Mueller investigate the document fraud because “there is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.” The FBI effectively brushed off Rockefeller’s request.

Six weeks after Hersh’s piece appeared, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof reported that the vice president’s office began a much earlier investigation into the Iraq-Niger nuclear documents, sending a former U.S. ambassador to Niger. Kristof reported that in February 2002

that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.... The envoy’s debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

A tardy admission

After months of the story of the false Niger claims festering in the media, a senior Bush administration official — unnamed, of course — formally announced on July 7, 2003,

Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq’s attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the state of the Union speech.

This greatly belated admission by an unnamed official was taken by senior Republicans as the proper close of the entire episode. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, declared,

Obviously, when you use foreign intelligence, you — we don’t have necessarily as much confidence or as much reliability as you do your own. It has since turned out to be, at least according to the reports that have been just released, not true. The president stepped forward and said so. I think that’s all you can expect...

"A United Nations law/rule/agreement was violated and the US needed to hold Iraq accountable? Why IS that? Did the United Nations, whose agreements were violated, authorize the Bush team to act on its behalf? If not, who did? Is the United States now in a “grey area” as far as legal liability and accountability are concerned?"

President Clinton was the one that had to hold the Iraqis accountable throughout the 90s. The US flew the majority of the Southern Watch and No-Fly zone missions. President Clinton was the one who held the line on sanctions when the rest of the members of the UN wanted to relax sanctions.

"Somebody HEARD Saddam had WMDs and even more BELIEVED Saddam had WMDs while NOBODY knew Saddam had WMDs. And nobody could VERIFY Saddam had WMDs. But not to worry, the Bush team would find those elusive WMDs. Honest. And when they did find them, the Bush team would report back to its BASE."

It is totally Saddam's fault, he didn't let the UN inspectors do their jobs. If there were no WMDs, what the hell was he hiding. What was he threatening to use against US and coalition forces in 1993. If Saddam had let the UN do it's job, he'd still be in power.

"******** You know, I am beginning to understand what you are saying, I think. It looks like you are saying it is not breaking the law to reveal the identity of CIA operatives but when you are asked by the FBI if you did it, best you tell the truth or you are breaking the law?"

The guy that originally leaked Plame's name wasn't the one that went on trial. How do you explain that?

Stan Said:

I believe the NSA monitored phone numbers to see who was calling whom. I don't believe they wasted any time listening to people with no hint of a terrorist background.

Here is a gentleman who apparently caught the eye or ear of a Bush team terrorist watcher.

The headline is:

Professor who criticized Bush told added to terrorist 'no-fly' list

Author: Michael Roston
Publisher: rawstory.com
Published: Monday April 9, 2007

The full story can be read here:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Professor_who_criticized_Bush_added_to_0409.html

You reminded all that the Justice Department employees had First Amendment rights just like the rest of Ameerica.

But this gentleman's First Amendment rights may have cost him. An early gentleman caught in the same type trap was Senator Kennedy.

The Bush team has presented America with a way different kind of management.

stan said:

"President Clinton was the one that had to hold the Iraqis accountable throughout the 90s. The US flew the majority of the Southern Watch and No-Fly zone missions. President Clinton was the one who held the line on sanctions when the rest of the members of the UN wanted to relax sanctions".

stan said:

"It is totally Saddam's fault, he didn't let the UN inspectors do their jobs. If there were no WMDs, what the hell was he hiding. What was he threatening to use against US and coalition forces in 1993. If Saddam had let the UN do it's job, he'd still be in power".

stan said: "The guy that originally leaked Plame's name wasn't the one that went on trial. How do you explain that"?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The no-fly zone was established by the United Nations. President Bill Clinton was operating under the U.N. umbrella. Contrast that to the Bush teams behavior - there seems to be no authority higher than the Bush team's.

stan said it was totally Saddam's fault...Saddam did not let the U.N. do its job. So, it looks like the Bush team failed to persuade the U.N. to move against Iraq, so wearing its World Policeman uniform the Bush team took it upon itself to attack Iraq.

About the "Guy" who originally leaked Valerie Plame's name, everybody suspects but nobody knows.

The San Francisco Chronicle, not a Bush team favorite, recently published an article that said a significant number of Americans still believes in WMDs.

I wondered why the Bush team did not inform its believers of the "demise" of WMDs. I asked that before I became aware of that document saying that WMDs were bogus from the start.

Most of the neo-con website that I tried to "break-bread" with returned the same refrain when Mr. Joe Wilson and WMDs were mentioned. The response was "Joe Wilson lied, lied, lied". "He lied". Do "Check the Senate Report". But they never ever mentioned that "Forgery Report". Nobody never mentioned that forgery report.

Nary-a-one mentioned that "Forgery report" - the one that said WMDs were bogus from the start. The one that said Mr. Joe Wilson told the Bush team that the "document" claiming WMDs was bogus.

America is well wired, communication linked and "population knowledgeable" but the existence of this report is not that well known to the public. Why is that?

I am well aware that neo-cons wanted to "modify" the "liberal press" back then. Their efforts has made a noticeable difference in what gets reported, how it gets reported and when it gets reported.

If the President operated outside his authority today, you may see it reported as: a possible help to the President's poll numbers. And when you see basically the same idea in two mainstream newspapers - you have to be curious.

Why should a newspaper put a positive spin on operating outside the law?

I am sick and tired of puppets repeating the Bush administrations lines. Saddam DID let the inspectors in. He DID let them have full access. They DID NOT find anything. The bush administration told the inspectors were to look, when they could not find anything. It did not matter, because the Bush Administration wanted regime change regardless of whether Saddam was being honest. And surprisingly THERE WERE NO WMDs. Only the Bush administration said that they knew where they were. They said it on many occasions, with many people in the administration, Such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rummsfeld, Condeleeza Rice, Colin Powel, and even Bush, going on record, and video.

And why do the republicans always insist it was Clintons fault? Bush came into power always planning to overthrow Saddam. Before 9/11, even before he was elected. There are interviews of him saying that exact same thing in the late 90s.

The reason Richard Armitage (the fall guy), and Karl Rove (the real leaker) did not go on trial is that it is very hard to prove that they knew Plame was covert.

Unfortunately, the Bush team did eventually say there were no WMDs, but it was a long time coming.

Joe Wilson’s wife may have suggested him for the job, but the job did come from the president’s office. I’m not going to split hairs, but if I was a conservative republican, I would.

"About the "Guy" who originally leaked Valerie Plame's name, everybody suspects but nobody knows."

Everybody knows, even the Special Prosecutor that got the charges against Libby. Armitage leaked the name first.

"...WMDs were bogus from the start."

If Saddam used WMDs on his own people, then they did exist. The question was why he wouldn't let the UN inspect if he had nothing to hide.

"Contrast that to the Bush teams behavior - there seems to be no authority higher than the Bush team's."

Except the congressional authority that allowed Bush to use force.

Just because he gassed his own people with the chemical weapons we gave them in 82, does not mean these have a shelf life of forever. They degrade after about 10 years or so. So any weapons that we gave them would be useless long before 2000. Lets also not forget that we were complicit in the gassing of his own people. We knew what he did and yet we still maintained friendly ties with this tyrant, because he suited our purposes in that region

Contrast that to the Bush teams behavior - there seems to be no authority higher than the Bush team's."
Except the congressional authority that allowed Bush to use force.
Posted by: Stan | Apr 10, 2007

You mean the authority of a Bush friendly congress that was manipulated by the half-truths (I say half-truths, but they were really Lies), and exaggerations of the Bush administration. Remember Condi Saying “let’s not find the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
or maybe you remember Georgie Boy wrapping himself in the flag and saying that anybody who didn't vote for it was unpatriotic.

I'm not sure when you stopped following the Plame Investigation, but not only did they determine that Rove was the first leaker, they revealed it. This was after Armitage said it was him. This came out of the Libby trial. That is why Rove made several trips to the Grand Jury. Unlike Libby though he corrected his story on subsequent trips in front of the Grand Jury.

Well said orion. You brought much information on WMDs and Iraq the surface.

I had asked the question of why a leader would allow the led to hold on to beliefs not likely to be true. Well, the answer could be that the leader knew the claim was untrue from the very start.

orion said:

I'm not sure when you stopped following the Plame Investigation, but not only did they determine that Rove was the first leaker, they revealed it. This was after Armitage said it was him. This came out of the Libby trial. That is why Rove made several trips to the Grand Jury. Unlike Libby though he corrected his story on subsequent trips in front of the Grand Jury.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If one's next door neighbor reveals one works undercover for the CIA, that is one thing - but it seems to be unethical, uncharacteristic and unbelievable that your own country, in the form of the Bush team, could expose your work in a very sensitive area.

Onion and Bezelt,

Many Democrats that had been in the House and the Senate before President Bush was elected thought Saddam had WMD before the 2000 election. These Democrats voted for the use of force.

Armitage was the first to leak Plame's name, that's according to the Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald.

"...as both Armitage and syndicated columnist Robert Novak acknowledged publicly later — that Armitage was Novak's "initial" and "primary source" for Novak's July 2003 column that revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative..."

Get your facts straight.

Some chemical weapons have a shelf-life of more than ten years, especially binary weapons.

http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960715/72569.htm

Again get your facts straight before posting.

stan said:

Again get your facts straight before posting.

Posted by: Stan | Apr 10, 2007 10:22:49 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

stan....you seem to be losing it. You are back to the name calling. Only now it is worse than before(!=i). Why do you need the name calling?

And as usual, name calling is a bigger reflection on the source than on the target. It is a distraction from whatever other content you may have posted. It shows you are no longer interested in the topic of discussion. For whatever reason.

Have a nice day.

"It shows you are no longer interested in the topic of discussion. For whatever reason"

I'm only interested in the facts. Not you or Onion-head changing history.

Bogus WMDs? Would the Bush team go to war because of non-existent WMDs? The IAEA called the document that purported to show Saddam had WMDs a fraud. And that was determined by the IAEA within hours of viewing the document.

And a former U.S. ambassador to Niger also was quoted as saying to the CIA and the State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and the document had been FORGED. That sounnds like Mr. Joe Wilson.

See for yourself at:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0309d.asp/

I'm sorry i cant i cant revise history like W. but don't worry i wont respond after this.
Why? you ask. Well, originally i thought you had some intelligence, but like most followers of Bush, you must resort to name calling when you feel threatened.
I see that you are just another Hard-core Bush follower, just parroting the administrations talking points.
it is sad because there were many points tha