George W. Bush

[WorldsGreatestMK]

This is what I think of our president. he is an okay president, but what I wonder most about it if they elected a third party candinate we could see how they could do for our country but now a days only demrocrats and republicans get elected. Why do you think that is?

[dec5]

The Two Party system is the best, and worked for over 200 years. I really don't see a 3rd party working, because they
usually just repeat what the other 2 parties say and mix them up with no direction IMO. I really love GW Bush as President
and expect him to be considered as great as Reagan once his term is finished. Even now the Iraq war is winding down and the new democracies look strong and well.

[amielou]

Three Thoughts:

1. The two party system developed early in our history; it is not part of the Constitution, and Washington warned against letting party politics undermine the system in his farewell address. Campaign finance systems shut third parties out of presidential politics today.

2. The two party system is not necessarily best. Many parliamentary democracies have thrived with more than two parties (The UK for example) and there is no reason to believe that our system would not thrive with more than two strong parties. The two party system we have seems to foster a lot of divisiveness. Our parties seem to have devolved to the point that if one party is for something the other party feels compelled to automatically be against it in the name of giving voters a choice. It can also undermine the real intent of representative democracy when representatives and senators feel compelled to follow party lines even to the point of disregarding their own principles or views and those of their constituents. That said...too many parties can paralyze a government, to see an example of that study The Weimar Republic period in Germany.

3. As to Bush being one of the greatest presidents of all time...........I will let go of my own bias in responding to that and merely say this: historians generally agree that we cannot begin to analyze a leader's impact until he or she is long out of power. There have been two surveys done having prominent historians rank the presidents. Both times, they did not include the sitting president or his immediate predecessor in the survey. Many historians felt that even presidents out of office for 20 years could not be fairly evaluated. They also noted that sentimental biases sometimes elevate a president in the public's view. No doubt, dec5 is showing some political bias in saying that the sitting president will be among the greatest ever. Reagan's popularity and status as a "great" president in the eyes of the general population soared when he died. Historians in an early 90s survey ranked him in the middle of the pack when taking into account actual achievements and long term impact...and a few did not rank him at all saying it was too soon to judge the long term impact of his policies.

My prediction about Reagan: long term history will judge him as extraordinarily popular as a person and in the upper middle as a president. Clinton will be regarded as intellectually brilliant, morally foolish, extremely charismatic and in the upper middle. As for the current president, we cannot judge when we haven't even begun to see what the long term impact of his policies will be.

Who are the "greats"? Lincoln who had the courage to force the Union to war when many would've let the South go their own way, and Franklin Roosevelt, who knew that when your neighbor's house is on fire you give him your hose, and refused to let the USA sit on its hands in 1940-41 and wait for the Nazis to take Britain. And the prominent historians agree with me, a humble history teacher.

[Krista]

Yeah I think only time will tell about our current president. I really wish there were a strong third party that could somehow be a mediator for the other two and bring people together.

[moxie]

I really love GW Bush as President
and expect him to be considered as great as Reagan once his term is finished. Even now the Iraq war is winding down and the new democracies look strong and well.

Please explain why you think the war is winding down, when the terrorist attacks against Iraqi citizens are in fact increasing? And U.S. military people are still dying at an alarming rate?

Also, the "new democracies" are behind schedule in getting established and are certainly not "strong and well." I hope things get back on track soon, so that all our fine soldiers did not die in vain for Bush's ill-defined war.

[Lanternlight]

Amielou, I really agreed with most of your post and your thoughts on the history of the party system in US politics. The early founders weren't really big on political parties, for good reason.

|I

[EigthAv]

How history will treat President Bush is something for the future.He still has a long ways to go.Plenty of time for accomplishments as well as blunders.Hindsight is 20/20.It will be much easier to look back 25 or 30 years from now and critique the G.W.Bush years.I live in Alabama and have lived here all my life.I'm glad the Confederacy failed.By now the USA could well be 20 or 30 different little banana republics if the CSA would have had it's way.It wasn't Lincoln alone.Certain members of his party were all for the abolition of slavery and for maintaining the ENTIRE Union at all costs.His war was complete with New York protesters,foreign interference and insurgents.He and his top Generals made their share of mistakes.How many Americans alive today honestly wish that Lincoln and the US Military had stayed out of what was for a short while known as the CSA? I can easily imagine many many Americans,North and South,wondering why our Civil War existed,when it was actually happening.I can also imagine many people on both sides of the fence hating Lincoln back then.Doing the right thing doesn't always mean doing a popular thing.John Kennedy,Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon also had their share of haters.In the immortal words of Rudy Ray Moore,"I'd rather be hated for what I am than loved for what I'm not".

[ladybugs]

I really love George W. Bush too. I think he has the nerves of steel and is doing what he feels is right for our country. Remember the terrorists began the war by attacking us here on our own soil. That had not happened since Pearl Harbor. What was our president suppose to do? We can't look like weaklings and wait for the terrorists to come back and hit us again.

Of course, war is a horrible thing and it does not come without the price of people dying. This is a war. I think we are so fortunate in our country and its freedom that we blindsightedly forget there is a war and we are fighting it over there, not on our soil. Freedom does not come easy. And of course, the Iraqi people are better off. Just put yourself in their shoes for a minute and think how you would feel if you were being tortured and no one would come to your aid? We are human beings first. We are all human beings first. You can't say just because I live over here I will ignore someone suffering over there. And our world is all the more better for it because freedom breeds freedom which breeds democracy. Ignorance breeds hatred and suffering.

We should be thankful for having President George W. Bush in the right place at the right time and having the courage to step up to the plate.

I think George W. Bush has the foresight to see the bigger picture. I think what I worry about most is the Russian President Putin. He doesn't seem to be as "flexible" (for lack of a better term) as Gorbechev was. Remember Putin worked for the kbg. I worry about that because he could hold things up and not work things out with us.

Think of all those BAD guys that because Pres. Bush is in office, that we've captured? Would you seriously want them still alive (some of them) or running around the streets of our world? They are murderers and thank god we have put them away. I wish more of us would speak out and stick up for our President.

Remember that saying? "United we stand. Divided we fall".

From one American to another, thank you President Bush for being my President.:)

[moxie]

Remember the terrorists began the war by attacking us here on our own soil. That had not happened since Pearl Harbor. What was our president suppose to do?

We were attacked, but not by anyone from Iraq. Most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, directed by Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

So if we want to compare this to Pearl Harbor, we should have bypassed Japan and instead attacked Korea or China. That would have made about the same sense as what we've been doing in Iraq.

It's also interesting that the current administartion wants to close many of our military bases (including an alarming number on the coasts, our first line of defense), so as to save roughly $60 billion. Why not save that money by just getting out of the cess pool that is Iraq? The "new govenment" is failing, terrorist/insurgent violence is increasing instead of decreasing (40 more dead reported this morning), and Iraqi citizens are now starting to attack U.S. troops instead of the terrorists/insurgents.

The current number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq now numbers about 1,600, or about 1,200 (!!) since our clueless president said "Mission Accomplished." That doesn't begin to count how many thousands of our fine young men and women have been maimed for life, and how many families of reservists are now facing bankruptcy because of inadequate financial support while the primary breadwinner has been deployed.

Yes, the 9/11 attacks cost us 3,300 Americans. But we reacted exactly the way Bin Laden wanted us to, and are now mired in a mess that will cost us far more than 9/11 ever did. We wanted "revenge." And Bin Laden, who still hasn't been captured, is having the last laugh on us.

[kwanfanatic2002]

Moxie, where to begin with your post:rolleyes . get real. The people who are serving in the military VOLUNTEERED TO BE THERE. They knew the dangers. They knew what they were getting into. Your opinion of Iraq and the war is just your opinion. That is not how it is in Iraq. Yes, there is a lot more attacks going on. The terrorists are afraid of the new Govt. They need to be stopped and that will most likely happen in time. We are doing much good over there but I am going to waste my time arguing with you or other dems. I have more important things to do with my time. I, along with ladybgs am GLAD we are over there and they are not over HERE>is that what you and other dems want????. It seems that you do. Pres Bush is doing a GREAT JOB and I support him 1000%.
ALSO, you need to refer to the NEW FAQ'S. NO BASHING ALLOWED. Calling Bush clueless is a bash. I thank GOD everyday that Kerry is not Pres. I cannot even imagine what this country would be like now w/ that man as Pres. GOD help us.
I agree with ladybugs, we are human being first. The Iraqi people need help. UBL is not laughing at us. The man is on the run, having to look over his shoulder all the time. I hardly doubt his life is fun now. I hardly doubt he feels like laughing at us. That is so riduclous.

[moxie]

The people who are serving in the military VOLUNTEERED TO BE THERE. They knew the dangers. They knew what they were getting into.

Many of those who voluteered for the National Guard thought they would be serving in emergencies at home (such as hurricance relief). Most had no idea they could be called for combat duty overseas. (Yes, they should have read the fine print before signing up.) This is likely why enlistment for the Guard has dropped sharply over the past 2 years.

Your opinion of Iraq and the war is just your opinion.

Well, yes, of course. The purpose of this board is to give our own opinions. And your opinion of the war is just your opinion. No more, no less.

We are doing much good over there but I am going to waste my time arguing with you or other dems. I have more important things to do with my time.

Well, i guess you just did ...

I, along with ladybgs am GLAD we are over there and they are not over HERE>is that what you and other dems want????.

Well, since Iraq did not attack us in 2001 and has not attacked us in the years since, I don't know why you think they would be over here now. Also, I have no idea what "other dems" want; I speak only for myself. And, FYI, I don't vote a straight Democratic ticket. I also vote for Republicans and independents.

ALSO, you need to refer to the NEW FAQ'S. NO BASHING ALLOWED. Calling Bush clueless is a bash.

It's not a bash if it's the truth. And it was certainly clueless to say "Mission Accomplished" when there weren't even any plans yet to withdraw U.S. troops and/or set up a new government. How could Bush possibly have thought that the mission had been accomplished? It had barely begun.

[kwanfanatic2002]

BUSH IS NOT CLUELESS. It would be a huge mistake for Bush to announce a date for us to pull out of Iraq. He has accomplished something wonderful over there.SH is out of office and behind bars and that is a major accomplishment all on it's own.The major reason for us being there was accomplished when he said that. That is your opinion, not FACT. just your fact. I could not disagree with you more. Now Kerry, on the other hand is clueless now and was clueless during the election.

Any member of the military should have been told or should have known, post 9-11 with all going on in the world that it was a chance they could have been sent to Iraq. There was plenty of news coverage in my are about them being sent to Iraq. You're right about them not reading the small print.

[moxie]

Any member of the military should have been told or should have known, post 9-11 with all going on in the world that it was a chance they could have been sent to Iraq.

Many of them joined pre 9-11. I believe the Guard is at least a 6-year commitment, with some time period for call-ups after that. There were also many regular military people who served all their time (pre 9-11) & were called back 10, 20 and even 30 years after having been discharged.

[moxie]

SH is out of office and behind bars and that is a major accomplishment all on it's own.The major reason for us being there was accomplished when he said that.

Bush said "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003. However, Saddam was not captured until August, 2003; he was still free to direct insurgent attacks & generally make the people of Iraq feel unsafe for several more months. So if the major reason for us being there was to make Iraqis safe from Saddam, it certainly hadn't been accomplished when Bush said "Mission Accomplished."

If the reason was to find WMD, it hadn't been accomplished as of May 1, 2003, because the WMD still haven't been found.

If the reason was to create a new government in Iraq, that hadn't even been started as of May 1, 2003. After all, the election wasn't until January of 2005 -- nearly two years later.

So when Bush said "Mission Accomplished," I still don't know what he meant. The mission had just started.

[kwanfanatic2002]

Moxie, I don't remember the dates now when everything took place over there. It's late and I'm tired.SH was definetly out of power and on the lam. He was not running Iraq at the time. he was too busy changing locations to run Iraq.I think the Mission was accomplished with having toppled SH and getting him out of office and to stop him from brutalizing and killing his own people and Americans. I think Bush did the right thing then and now.

[EigthAv]

If I was President,I'd immediatly pull all American troops from Iraq and Afganistan.I'd declare war on domestic terrorism and also use our military to control our borders and help police our skies.Imagine a cheating husband having to try to run from a smart bomb.:evil I'd close down our bases in Germany and France and relocate them in Ukraine and Georgia (the other Geogia,not the one with the Braves) No more international trade! No importing,no exporting........that includes Canada.I'd earmark 50% of all tobacco taxes for cancer research and the other 50% for treating smokers who do have cancer,but have no insurance. Skaters would pay no tax!!! I'd take that mess off their backs!!! I'd also declare total war on blatant child abuse,physical child molestation,deadbeat dads and hip-hop!!! I'd put a beerjoint on every street corner.......no excuses for DUI and therefore zero tolerance. 50% of all alcohoic beverage tax revenues would be earmarked for financing the neighbourhood bars and the other 50% would go directly to the USFSA to help finance it's own television network.No more free education! You ain't got the money for private school? Keep your pants on and don't make youngins!It would be phased in so as to not punish already existing minors.The government would go out of the education business. No more easy marriage licenses either.You'd have to pass written tests and lie detector tests.There would be a National 3 strikes you're out law concerning marriage and divorce.........no exceptions.Not even for movie stars and singers.I'd invest all your SS dollars into the Vanguard tax-exempt municipal bond funds,the future family of Acme mass transportation mutual funds and bicycle companies.Cut off trade with the Mid-East and some of the investments make sense.:D Wife beaters would be publicly flogged!!! Cheating judges would be tarred and feathered! Companies would be allowed a maximum of 100 employees so as to insure that no one could buy us all up and enslave us. No more staffs for senators and congresspersons! You get a cell phone,a free calculater and a laptop pc.No more lobbyists! A maximum wage to compliment our minimum wage laws and insure that we don't don't have such a huge gap between the haves and have nots.I wonder how history would grade my Presdency???? :D :hat

[moxie]

Mike, you forgot to name your Cabinet!

MK for Secretary of State & then .... ?

[kwanfanatic2002]

Mike, you're funny. I like the way you think. I will add a few if you don't mind.
I agree with Moxie about Michelle. I would make Olympics judges accountable or their scores and assure the scoring is fair- so Michelle is judged fairly in her next Olympic quest and therefore hopefully getting her long deserved GOLD medal. Then she can be sworn into your cabinet after she makes a well deserved tour with ehr medal. She will be the most popular OGMwinner ever in history and it will surprise those who counted her out and judges her unfairly.
I would also make those teenagers who wear their pants down past their butt, be arrested. I like your hip hop ideas (hate that stuff, along w/ rap) sorry Michelle. ALso, I really like your marriage idea along w/ the cheating spouses and the dead beat dad. Mike for President. I would vote for you!!!!!!.

[Sparks]

Just one little correction. Sadaam was captured in December 2003...I remember it well because I was in Colorado Springs attending the GPF at the time!

Yes, the 9/11 attacks cost us 3,300 Americans. But we reacted exactly the way Bin Laden wanted us to, and are now mired in a mess that will cost us far more than 9/11 ever did. We wanted "revenge." And Bin Laden, who still hasn't been captured, is having the last laugh on us.

But Moxie, remember, GWB said himself that he doesn't even think about OBL that often. Well, I do and want him captured!
Much of the funding for the war in Afghanistan has been diverted to Iraq...for what?
The war in Iraq has not only killed valuable American troops, over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have died - exponentially more than the number of Americans who died on 9/11, BTW...for what?
From the video released right before the election, OBL looks quite healthy and feisty. He is still in charge of the wide-spread, powerful Al Qaeda...food for thought, no?

[mr pru]

Hunter S.Thompson described him the best: Our goofy child President. IMO he is a buffoon. He has destroyed the economy, gotten us into a war we can't win or get away from and ruined our reputation with allies all over the globe. He has turned Iraq into a terrorist haven single handedly. The surplus was turned into a debt deeper that the supposed great Ronny Reagan amassed. The middle class is going by the wayside. And now, this clown is going to save Social Security?!?!? He couldn't even serve his country-Daddy took care of that. Then he couldn't even finish that, either. Cheney had other pressing issues that were more important than serving the country. This bunch of idiots will go down as one of the worst administrations in history.

[kwanfanatic2002]

Mr. Pru, quit the bashing. It us your opinion, not shared by everyone. Why don't you take your garbage over to the left side.It is uncalled for, childish and WRONG

[4dogknight]

Kwanfantic you are completely out of line with your last post:
Mr. Pru, quit the bashing. It us your opinion, not shared by everyone. Why don't you take your garbage over to the left side.It is uncalled for, childish and WRONG

This thread is not a designated thread and this means that anyone can post on this thread. Those who lean right, those who lean left and those who are in the middle do not own or control non-designated threads.

People are not always going to agree with your opinion or even with my opinion and you know what - we're just going to have to learn to live with it! I know I have, course it took me many years to figure out that not everything is black and white - life is just a series of shades of gray.

4dk

[moxie]

KF, he has the right to post his opinions in this thread (and any other), if he so chooses.

It is not up to you to tell people where they may or may not post.

[EigthAv]

As your President,Lipinski will see to it that George W. Bush has a huge statue and is respected! I agree that we all have opinions and an American right to express them,so don't bother poo-pooing my Lipinski/Prez fantasies. It happens in the 2024 election.

[kwanfanatic2002]

4dk, You and Mr Pru are the ones who are OUT OF LINE. When Heather reinstated Politcal Chat here she emphatically stated NO BASHING. Mr.Pru was clearly bashing Bush. So don't even go there.
Moxie, thanks for that post. but emmmm, I'm a she, not a he.

Edited to add, Mike, Mike, Mike, Lipinski???. What about Michelle. Why can't she be President????. What's wrong with our Michelle. I think she would be a much better President, but I trust your judgement.I hope she makes a good Pres. I do like the idea of the statue of Bush.

[madison]

ITA, 4dk and moxie. It is not the place of KF to tell posters where and if they can post.

[kwanfanatic2002]

ML, you can post wherever your heart desires. YOU CANNOT HOWEVER BASH BUSH OR ANYONE ELSE. GET IT. We are going to lose this political chat again if this does not STOP
read the FAQ'S AGAIN.

[mr pru]

Stating facts is not bashing. Grow up.

[Lanternlight]

I've decided that in the interest of keeping this forum, it's probably best if I don't respond to the posts of a certain poster. This poster clearly has no interest in actual discussion and is prone to drawing myself and other people into endless circular arguments. It's probably best not to respond to these posts in the future, because it will avoid escalating arguments in this forum.

I hope others will join me in this effort, I think it's a good idea.

Back on the topic, I think history will show that Bush II is a very poor President indeed. We just have to be patient. The American people will realize the truth, I have faith in that. :)

[moxie]

Moxie, thanks for that post. but emmmm, I'm a she, not a he.

KF, the "he" referred to Mr. Pru, not you. I was reminding you that "he" has the right to post where "he" wishes.

[kwanfanatic2002]

MR PRU,L YOU LIBS NEED TO GROW UP!!!. just because your man lost, you BASH BUSH. GET OVER IT. kERRY LOST.
Read the FAQ's again. BASHING IS NOT ALLOWED. I wish you would not reply to me, I don't like reading your hate filled posts libs. I am going to take myself down to your level.GO ahead and post wherever your heart desires but stop posting hatred and bashing.


BUSH ROCKS.

[mr pru]

I am a registered Republican.
Na-na-na-na boo boo.

[kwanfanatic2002]

YET, you act liek a child. I have not said that since I was a child. My 9 year old daughter talks like that.

[mr pru]

What does "liek" mean?

[Sparks]

As long as you brought up the FAQ, remember this:
. Do NOT reply to posts made by members you don't approve of, or posts that you don't approve which make you extremely upset. This is the same situation as replying to a troll. If you don't like the poster and/or the topic posted, IGNORE the thread.
So, KF you can just ignore this thread, or just ignore the posts that make you upset.
We are on a trial-run here, folks. I think we can discuss our OPINIONS on all threads without telling people to go away. If you have logical arguments opposing one side or another, then go for it! If you only have arguments that consist of, "that's not true!" and "why don't you take your GARBAGE to the other side", then a meaningful discussion isn't your forte. This CAN work, if you work it...
This thread is a discussion about Bush, plain and simple. Of course both Bush lovers and Bush haters will post here...it's not the end of the world, for heavens sake!

[madison]

Sparks,
Do you think everyone has the same vested interest in keeping the political section alive?

This has bothered me for some time. I would like to know that posters actually have a commitment to referenced posts, and are willing to discuss them in an adult manner.

Yeah, I know I've fallen into the trap before, but right now I agree with Lanterlight. Just ignore...

[kwanfanatic2002]

Sparks, so it's OK to bash Bush and we are supposed to
sit back and accept it and ignore it, but you go ahead and break the rules. WRONG. Rules are rules and were made for a reason. You are entitled to your opinion, however WRONG you are.You are not entitled to bash anyone, Bush included.
When Heather and the mods were taking peoples opinons whether to keep them open or not, it was the libs who were bugging the mods, ML you topped the list. i was going to stay out fo them because I know you cannot have talk to a liberal. No one is going to change anyone elses mind. you still continue to post in the rl thread. WHY?" What is your goal ?. What are trying to accomplish???. Is it going to change anything. People have their minds made up. Your guy lost and you cannot stand it. get over it. Stop causing trouble. stop bashing. I could not care less what you say about me or post. Your opinion matters nothing at all to me. I do care what you breaking the rules. Bush is a good President, like it or not. I hate to think of what this world would be like w/ kerry as pres. GOD HELP US> We would be on our way to being a Socialist country or worse. You will continue to lose elections until you get a clue. Talk about clueless.

[mr pru]

Maybe God should retire and appoint you his/her successor.
You know everything.
Go take a tranquilizer.
Chill out.
Believe it or not, you may be the one who is WRONG!
What a wack job.

[WorldsGreatestMK]

Is there anyway to close this thread because I don't want to hurt anyones oppinion.

[mr pru]

I think it would probably be a good idea too.

[WorldsGreatestMK]

anyone know a way to erace this topic???

[ladybugs]

Yes, I have to do it. I have to step in here. Kwanfanatic2002 . . .All I can say to you is, it is so REFRESHING to hear you speak up for our President. I so totally agree with you 1,000,000,000%. I support President Bush. I can't believe all the crap out there that people yap about. I wish they could just step back and hear how ridiculous they sound. It is like they are so afraid of Bin Laden and the terrorists. What? They don't want them captured? Have you taken a look at all the terrorists Pres. Bush has either captured or killed and yes, some (specifically Osama Bin Laden) are on the run. For all we know he is probably dead.

Do you honestly believe that we'd be better off without having captured Sadaam Hussein, his sons, his network of murderers? Do you honestly believe that? Please DIRECTLY answer that question? Tell me President Bush should have just ignored that and not have captured Sadaam and the like. And please....don't give me any rantics that Bush personally didn't capture him, that it was the soldiers. Of course, technically it was the soldiers. But it was under President George W. Bush's leadership. Stop hiding. What are you so afraid of? Are you afraid of offending the terrorists?

Why do you guys continually knock all the good our president has done? He is smart and you just don't have the insight to see that. Do you think perhaps you could do a better job?

So Kwanfanatic, I support you wholeheartedly. I feel sorry for those who just don't get it. I really don't know where they are coming from and wish they would say something admirable about our president and our country for once. They really just like to take punches at him whenever they can. No matter what news of the day comes up they have to twist it to bash Bush. No bashing allowed! Try THAT

[kwanfanatic2002]

Thanks Ladybugs, I was feeling like a lone supporter here. That's ok though. I will support him forever. I think the left is soooo angry that they lost, both in 2000 and 2004 and they cannot hardly see straight. They will continue to lose until they get a clue. I appreciate your support more than you know. I don't get it either how they can bash Bush. You are right about him, he is an intelligent leader and is doing an outstanding job. Espicially with the left attacking him and lying about him around every corner. I admire him for being able to rise above it and take it and go on. What a man!!!!.

I am getting really tired of the lies and smear jobs, not only here on this board, but everywhere. The left is sooo blinded by their hatred, they are not seeing the big picture.
Would they rather have SH and UBL over here attacking us and their families? I for one, DON"T.I love my family and want them safe. With the Newsweak fiasco now, I am afraid they are only making thing much worse. THey have put our soldiers at much higher risk here and abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't see how the liberal media can make things worse and then try to defend their actions. I heard a little bit today where the other liberal media outlets are defending Newsweak and actually trying to blame Bush and his admins. They are saying this has been going on for about 2 years.(another LIE). If this was so, why did they do somethig about it then. If the troops were gang raping women and doing other unspeakable acts, why did they not turn them in. How convienent that it comes up now.Why did they sit on it for 2 years.?? How could anyone even remotely take them seriously? I support Bush as much as you do.I support Cheney, and the other members of the Bush amidminstration and am sick of the blatant hyprocrisy and lies here. I am sick of them trying to bash Bush and think they can get away with it. They call it facts.!!! WRONG> It is not facts, it is A LIE. We are not going to have this political chat for long if they keep it up. I pity them and I am going to consider the source. I agree wholeheartedly about them stepping back and taking a look at how they sound. They will never do it. They could never admit they are wrong, IMO.
It must be hard to live that way. I stand by him and support him. Always will. I don't agree with him about all his policies. i wish he would do more with the borders. I think if the Republicans don't get with the program soooooon, they are going to pay for it at the ballot box in 06. We need to win te next election cycle, since the left has gone soooo far left. THeir party is imploding quickly and I fear what they would do if they gained control of the House and Senate again. I don't think that will happen but we cannot take that for granted. I think the left is tooo clueless right now and too angry and spiteful now to win any election. I hope I am right.
Thank you again for your nice words. Your post was great. I agree with you 100%. I don't want the terrorists over here.I want us to fight them over seas.

[mr pru]

Pardon me while I go throw up.

[jamieguo]

I really love George W. Bush too. I think he has the nerves of steel Thanks for that! Really funny!! Started my time here with a chuckle!!!

ladybugs wrote
Have you taken a look at all the terrorists Pres. Bush has either captured or killed and yes Sorry, but I believe that the troops deserve the credit for that, not Bush directly. They also deserve the blame for what they have done as well, namely whatever torture of prisoners they have been involved with as well, Bush indirectly a commander of chiefs.

kwanfantatic2002 -

Would they rather have SH and UBL over here attacking us and their families? Sorry, but in regards to Saddem Hussein, what evidence is there that he was planning to attack us in America? UBL is another matter now.

I stand by him and support him. Always will. Wow!!! The only thing I could ever blindly and "always" support is God Himself. If my father, who I think is a pretty cool guy, turned crazy and started shooting up people, I would be the first to turn him in. I could never "always" support any person, much less a person who's in such a position of power like the president.

Lastly, politics is an important part of our lives. I think we need to expect that sometimes our feelings will get out of control and be very intense. Very few issues are a matter of life and death. Politics is definitely one of those. So this might get bloody (figuratively speaking of course).
But such black and white statements as "the liberals never listen" or "the conservatives never listen" really do bring discussions to a grinding halt. We've all got to try to have the hope that the other side does have some intelligence, some openness to new ideas or else we might as well not have any discussion.

[SNY]

I thought bashing was prohibited against other posters only. If we can't criticize the president, we might as well live in a totalitarian society.

[moxie]

It guess it all depends on how one defines "bash."

To some posters here, any comment that even hints at criticism of the policies of Bush and/or Republicans is a "bash"; sometimes people even say critics are being unpatriotic and/or un-American (even though this country was founded upon the belief that peaceful dissent is the right and duty of every citizen). But obviously, no debate/discussion could ever take place here if we were limited in that way.

However, I do feel any criticism needs to be stated in a constructive way that addresses the flaws of a political figure without simply using insulting words (such as "idiot," "moron," etc.). In this forum, I have been sharply critical of Bush and his administration, but the strongest word I've ever used is "clueless." And yet I've been accused of "bashing."

I will make one concession: Instead of saying "our clueless president" in reference to his "mission accomplished" statement, I should have said "our president's clueless statement of mission accomplished."
That would have directed the criticism more directly on the statement and made it less of a personal attack on the man.

[manskater]

Moxie -- Sounds like some people here want to invoke the old Bush II expression .... either your with us or against us... :rolleyes

[moxie]

Yes, and that's just the way it is in tolitarian nations ... the leader speaks and if the little people dare to not agree 100%, they are said to be "traitors."

Only 51-52% of voters were for Bush, which means 48-49% were not. And yet this very tiny majority fells it has a "mandate" to dictate 100% of all decisions to 100% of the country.

This would actually be kinda funny if it weren't so scary.

The oddest part of all this lock-step support for Bush is that some of the most loyal minions are hard-working, lower-middle-class folks who have nothing to gain from this administration's corporate-friendly economic policies.

[Skatekwan6]

I only come to this thread if I want a laugh. Kwanfanatic2002...thanks for the laughs.

[EigthAv]

KwanFanatic,you have my vote! Consider a run for Congress? :) If you do,keep me in mind for your campaign team.Congress needs your voice!

[kwanfanatic2002]

Mike, thank you very much. You are so good for my self confidence and self esteem. I was not born in the US so I think that will keep me from running for high office. Or is it just the Pres. that has to be born in the states? I am certainly old enough. Congress and the Senate need some new voices. Have you heard about the compromise that has been reached in Washington ahead of the very important vote tomorrow on the judges. i am afraid the Repbs have caved. They don't have the spine anymore. The dems are expecting Bush to cave in and let the dems have their way. The details are just now coming in.


How about you running for office. You have the passion for it. I would vote for you in a heartbeat.You have the personality for it too!!.

It's funny that you say that!. I grew up with my father being the mayor, City Councilman, head of Jaycees and Kwanis (sp?)
He was always involved in politics as I was growing up. That is what I got my enjoyment of it and it was a way for me to be closer to him.

[Skatekwan6]

Or is it just the Pres. that has to be born in the states?

yes, it's just the President.

[probativev]

George Bush has turned into quite a fascinating case study for me. Let me start by saying that I am a liberal who is now Independent party wise.

In the beginning I really really couldn't stand Bush. I can't say at all that I like him now. But I am going to admit that the man surprised me in more ways than I ever expected. I am now willing to concede that he has some strong leadership qualities, and he's not entirely all evil.

Putting aside the merits of the Iraq ordeal, I think it was extraordinarily visionary and bold (dare I even say courageous) for him to go in there in attempt to change the Arab world. Whether he will ultimately succeed or not, only time will tell. There are certainly enough legitimate, justified arguments out there as to why we shouldn't have gone in. But it was a very huge policy to undertake. I marched against the war before it started. The atrocities since then have been horrifying. But the outcome I am going to admit has not been as bad as I expected. And I do see the Arab world being forced to change and react to this policy. What he did and is doing are way bigger than what his father did back in Kuwait. I don't know what Clinton or Gore would have done, and I do trust that had they been in the position, they would have done the right thing, whatever that is. But the current Dem leaders, I don't believe at all that any of them (with the exception of Howard Dean) has a clue or the guts what to do. I believe Kerry might have had the intellect to deal with the problem, but certainly not the confidence or the courage to implement any policy this big internationally (the man didn't even have the confidence or courage to make up his mind for a campaigning).

As a minority, I do take notice that he has possible the most diversed cabinet ever. He doesn't boast about his record, but I am impressed at how he nominates and appoints minorities and women from all backgrounds, and mostly on their qualifications (within party line and strict ideological conformance of course). I do not detect any hint of discrimination by race or gender. Is he trying to woo minorities? I can't tell but I doubt it. The minorities and women he picks aren't by any means the darlings of the left. His people don't make an issue of race and gender either. But in promoting minorities and women, his administration has done what the Democrats have promised to do for decades now! Sure, one can argue that the minorities and women he picks are looney rightists. But here's what pissed me off and made me suspicious of the Dems. If Bush in his miniscule pool of ultra-right ring minorities can find qualified candidates for high level positions, why is it that the Dems could not do it with their far and wide net of qualified minorities and women? The Dems became so complacent that the minorities will vote their ways, they've neglected to deliver. And this one area, I must say Bush did them one better.

Next thing is...and I really really don't like it and will vote against the Republicans for it if this keeps on...Bush is really dismantling the liberal ideological foundation. He is taking initiatives to dismantle social security and the United Nations, both of which have got to be two of the best liberal legacies. For all the debates about potential bankrupcy of social security, etc., truth is there is no social security problem. There is a healthcare problem that social security alone cannot resolved. The United Nations is not effective, but I can't see what good it does to send Bolton in there to destroy it. So why is he tacking social security and the UN? I can think of no reason but that he actually wants to transform our society to one that is based on conservative fundamental philosophies, and destroy the credibility of the ideology of the left. That is a very very bold policy to undertake, as bold as the Iraq and Middle East he's taking on. Yes I am really angry about it. And yes I am impressed that as a leader of the right he has the aspiration to transform the society. Again I see no Democratic leader who can match him on this trait. As a policy, dismantling everything liberal really sucks and I strongly disagree with it. At the same time, I recognize that it takes a very strong leader who does think about his job to adopt this agenda...no someone clueless as much as we on the left wish to believe.

My thought about his manipulation of the religious right?...that Karl's doing. Well, it is a brilliant strategy. This part of the Bush leadership bothers me the most. But it's not any worse than the Democrats manipulating Labor or minorities. They just haven't found a formula so successful as the Republicans now in their religious baiting. The politicians are always going to need to kiss the butt of some group or another. The religious element just makes it 10 times worst because it is wrong IMO for those who are relgious for spiritual reasons but not fundamentalists, and also oppressive to those who are not.

All in all, he's getting much of what he wishes and plans. He's benefitted from a lot of luck, but he's undeniably an effective leader (in that he sets a really grand scale agenda, and he is accomplishing what he sets out to do), although one can argue till the cows come home whether is a good or bad leader policies wise.

[Emerald2000]

I don't think Bush is an effective leader at all. I think much of what he's done during his administration is the handiwork of the people in his cabinet, or just by dumb luck. He is, essentially, a narrow-minded politician who has no room for anyone who disagrees with him or his policies. I think if his actions in the middle east weren't done out of self-serving economic interests, then they were done out of the prompting of some of the people in his administration. *Cough*DickCheney*Cough*.

Alexa--yes, he has a diverse cabinet, but so what? I don't care if the people in the white house are black, white, male or female, as long as they get the job done right then that's all that matters. And since pretty much no one is doing the job right (in my opinion) then the fact that they're minorities or female comes to nothing. Also, Bush is a politician, and if appointing minorities to cabinet posts gets him support from minority groups, then he'll do it. That's politics. I'm not saying that that's the entire reason he's appointed people like Condolezza Rice, Alberto Gonzalez or Colin Powell, but it's certainly not out of the question.

I don't like Bush, or most of the people in the white house. I only felt sorry for Bush once, and that was when he addressed the nation on the 1 year anniversary of September 11th. He looked like he had aged so much, and even though I don't think he's well-suited for the job, you could visibly see the toll being President had taken on him--and all so fast. That's what's happene to a lot of presidents, though.

[probativev]

He looked like he had aged so much, and even though I don't think he's well-suited for the job, you could visibly see the toll being President had taken on him--and all so fast. That's what's happene to a lot of presidents, though.

Emerald that's so true. I noticed it in Clinton too. He looked so young and vibrant when he went into the White House and he looked like he aged 30 years in that 8 years. I've noticed that Bush looks really aged now too. When he went into the White House he looked like a frat boy who'd been hanging around baseball stadium too much.

Face it, being President of the US is a thankless job no matter who it is. Nowadays, with our tabloid TV culture and all the sleaze involved in politics, there's something abnormal about anyone who'd want the job anyway.

[Emerald2000]

Very good point, Alexa...another notable president besides Clinton who aged way faster than his term in office would be Abraham Lincoln. He was president for 5 years, but by the end he looked soooooo much older. (Well, duh, the Civil War would have taken that toll on anybody.)

[elliebea]

Putting aside the merits of the Iraq ordeal

Sure, why not, Alexa? Put aside 10's of thousands of Iraqis dead, three times that permanently maimed, thousands internally dislocated, that many externally relocated, the violent loss of family members, a destroyed infrastructure, lack of electricity, clean water, jobs, medicine, health care, and security; terror in the streets (now in the third year of war), widespread death of children from disease, the destruction of Fallujah, widespread torture-as-policy, and oh yes, the massive loss of life and limb of Americans, not to mention the colossal financial cost (robbing our needs at home), and global dislike (ridicule perhaps?) of America. (And let's not forget the robbery of Iraqi assets via privatization, while we're at at it.)

"Bold?" You can say "extraordinarily visionary" all you like; a great many would say 'tyrannical' or 'maniacal.' 'Ruthless' for sure. All the earmarks of sheer cowardice.

Those with conciences could and will NEVER put these things "aside."

. . . for him to go in there in attempt to change the Arab world

There is, frankly, so much audacity in this I can't even speak to it coherently! What do you imagine "the Arab world" to be, our playground? That these countries with their own cultures, customs, religions, whose thousands of years old histories are pliable putty, perhaps awaiting our benevolent hand? Does the concept of justice figure into your thinking at all?

Whether he will ultimately succeed or not, only time will tell.

We don't have to wait for 'time' to tell us anything. Empires invariably crash and burn, but not before enslaving and tyrannizing their own citizenry. Ask Great Britain, France, and Russia, or look back further in history to Rome. Take a look at the Patriot Act, Alexa. George Bush has the right to deprive you of your rights guaranteed by your citizenship. (Your screen name suggests you're an attorney.)

There are certainly enough legitimate, justified arguments out there as to why we shouldn't have gone in.

How about international law, for starters? The Principles of Nuremerg? The UN Charter? Our own federal law?

The atrocities since then have been horrifying. But the outcome I am going to admit has not been as bad as I expected.

Have you been paying any real attention? Or are you (self) satisfied with the pablum emanating from our Stepford media? An afternoon perusing a few websites devoted to the mess that Iraq is at present may rattle that satisfaction. (On the other hand, it might be traumatizing due to the great cognitive dissonance it will necessarily entail.)

And I do see the Arab world being forced to change and react to this policy.

Under the hypothetical notion that it's even our 'right' to force anyone in the world to 'change,' I'll agree but with this caveat: Bush's actions have given political legitimacy (in the 'Arab world') to bin Laden's insane crusade. Now there's unfortunately a valid political component to his worldview, and we've become his greatest recruiter. Change -- yeah, for sure, I agree.

What he did and is doing are way bigger than what his father did back in Kuwait.

Are we to be awed, then? By the sheer enormity of it? Big is better?

I don't know what Clinton or Gore would have done, and I do trust that had they been in the position, they would have done the right thing, whatever that is. But the current Dem leaders, I don't believe at all that any of them (with the exception of Howard Dean) has a clue or the guts what to do.

Agreed. Not a shred of an opposition party left that I can see, except perhaps Kucinich or Conyers. Even Dean is now touting the 'now that we're there' line in support of the war. (Perhaps he was just an opportunist, after all?)

I believe Kerry might have had the intellect to deal with the problem, but certainly not the confidence or the courage to implement any policy this big internationally (the man didn't even have the confidence or courage to make up his mind for a campaigning).

Evidently for you, size does matter. Kerry's just as much a warmonger and empiricist as Bush, but perhaps not as reckless. After all, who is? By the way, Kerry's not one who can claim he was 'misled' by the administration.


Though I've identified myself here as 'leftist,' let me add that it's true progressive leftism, which means that for me, being anti-war is an absolute and burning issue, not just another area ripe for political squabble and finger-pointing between supporters of elected officials and candidates for same. The war is real and it's an atrocity, many times over, and it's clearly bipartisan in nature. That it was undertaken on a foundation of lies warrants impeachment.

Just several days ago I posted to someone in another thread something about my perception of 'bashing,' and though I've no doubt crossed some lines of my own here, I have to let it be known that no post in these political threads has ever angered and upset me as much as yours, Alexa. When Americans who are educated, intelligent, and otherwise mature are so willing to choose 'unknowingness' (that's a nicety for ignorance), our country is in deeper and deeper trouble.

The President’s Impeachable Offenses (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)

MEMORANDUM
To: Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
From: John C. Bonifaz
Date: May 23, 2005
RE: The President’s Impeachable Offenses

The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”


In light of the emergence of the Downing Street Memo, Members of Congress should introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States.

The Downing Street Memo

On May 1, 2005, The Sunday Times of London published the Downing Street Memo. The document, marked “Secret and strictly personal – UK eyes only,” consists of the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then-director of Britain’s CIA equivalent, MI-6, to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials. Dearlove, having just returned from meetings with high U.S. Government officials in Washington, reported to Blair and members of his Cabinet on the Bush administration’s plans to start a preemptive war against Iraq.

The briefing occurred on July 23, 2002, months before President Bush submitted his resolution on Iraq to the United States Congress and months before Bush and Blair asked the United Nations to resume its inspections for alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The document reveals that, by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction].” Dearlove continues: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Dearlove also states that “[t]here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states that “t seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.” “But,” he continues, “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran.”

British officials do not dispute the document’s authenticity, and, on May 6, 2005, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that “[a] former senior U.S. official called [the document] ‘an absolutely accurate description of what transpired’ during the senior British intelligence officer’s visit to Washington.” “Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy,” The State, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 6, 2005.

Why a Resolution of Inquiry is Justified

On May 5, 2005, you and 88 other Members of Congress submitted a letter to President Bush, asking the President to answer several questions arising from the Downing Street Memo. On May 17, 2005, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that the White House saw “no need” to respond to the letter. “British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics,” The New York Times, May 20, 2005, A8.

The Framers of the United States Constitution drafted Article II, Section 4 to ensure that the people of the United States, through their representatives in the United States Congress, could hold a President accountable for an abuse of power and an abuse of the public trust. James Madison, speaking at Virginia’s ratification convention stated: “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.” James Iredell, who later became a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated at North Carolina’s ratification convention:

The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, - in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him.

On July 25, 1974, then-Representative Barbara Jordan spoke to her colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee of the constitutional basis for impeachment. “The powers relating to impeachment,” Jordan said, “are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive.” Impeachment, she added,

is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to ‘bridle’ the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive.

The question must now be asked, with the release of the Downing Street Memo, whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. Is it a High Crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for taking the nation into war? Is it a High Crime to manipulate intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States as a means of trying to justify a war against another nation based on “preemptive” purposes? Is it a High Crime to commit a felony via the submission of an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action?

In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean writes that “the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense.” Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to “protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...” Dean states that the report accompanying the letter “is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law.” Worse Than Watergate at 148.

If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President’s submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony “to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...”; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.

The United States House of Representatives has a constitutional duty to investigate fully and comprehensively the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo and other related evidence and to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States. A Resolution of Inquiry is the appropriate first step in launching this investigation.

The following is suggested language for this resolution:

Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to undertake an inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States.

Whereas considerable evidence has emerged that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people as to the basis for taking the nation into war against Iraq, that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has manipulated intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States by Iraq, and that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has committed a felony by submitting a false report to the United States Congress on the reasons for launching a first-strike invasion of Iraq: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is directed to investigate and report to the House of Representatives whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States. Upon completion of such investigation, that Committee shall report thereto, including, if the Committee so determines, articles of impeachment.

Conclusion

The Iraq war has led to the deaths of more than 1,600 United States soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Thousands more have been permanently and severely injured on both sides. More than two years after the invasion, Iraq remains unstable and its future unclear. The war has already cost the American people tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at the expense of basic human needs here at home. More than 135,000 U.S. soldiers remain in Iraq without any stated exit plan.

If the President has committed High Crimes in connection with this war, he must be held accountable. The United States Constitution demands no l

[madison]

elliebea,
So well said. Thank you for the monumental task of addressing this.

[probativev]

motherlode,

Sorry my post upset you. But I think you also misinterpreted some of what I said, or I wasn't clear enough in explaining. Either way, here goes:

When I said put aside politics, I didn't mean put aside all the disasters that occured thus far. I was engaging in a discussion about a person's leadership qualities, a character trait, aside from the actions and outcome. I'm specifically referring to a person's courage (which can also at times be arrogance), ability to come up with a vision or grand plan (not talk about the merit of the vision now), and charisma. All I was saying is that I do see these in Bush. I think other leadership qualities entail ability to inspire confidence and to motivate, and ability to execute. These two characteristics I think he lacks. I do think people who lack these traits cannot be leaders, no matter what good people they are. Before a person can be a good or bad leader, a person has be capable of being a leader first. So I said, putting aside politics, I meant to assess leadership qualities, not good or bad leadership. And Bush surprised me. When he first got elected I thought he was a wussy idiot without ideological ambitions or aspirations. Turns out he has way grander ambitions than anyone realized: to overturn the entire liberal social system, and since 9/11, to social engineer the Middle East.

I said Iraq is not as bad as I expected. That doesn't mean I don't think every death is horrible. But talking of scale, I truly thought it would turn into another Vietnam. And truth is, it hasn't. Maybe it still will, but right now, no. But you're right, it doesn't justify the deaths or the amount of money lost to warmongers.

I can't agree that we should get out of Iraq. What would you have done? Really just all of us get out now? The region will destablize and much more dangerous fundamentalist tyrants may take over. Why would you think there will be less death if we get out? Look what happened when Russia pulled out of Afgahnistan? The most repressive inhuman regime of Taliban took over. And recall that the old naive Bush didn't want to be involved with the Israeli-Palestine conflict when he first came into office? The Clinton people told him he couldn't do it and he didn't care, he withdrew US involvement, and things deteriorated immediately. It was one thing if we didn't get in there and threw out Saddam, who for all the crap he's done was, like it or not, a stabilizing force. Now that we are there, we can't leave. It will only get worse if we do.

Was it arrogant that the US went in there to try to change the Mid East? Hell yes! That was why I was vehemently against the war in the first place. But Iraq has indeed forced the Middle East to face and confront the modernization issue. I do not ever think it is in the US's place to tell countries in the Mid East what they should do about themselves, nor do I think it is our place to make them into our image of democracy. But the countries there are indeed very backward, and I do see that the Iraq mess and ordeal is forcing the entire region to deal with a lot of the modernization issues in a way that they didn't before Iraq. They don't have to be like us the way Bush wants them to become. But they will never rise from the third world economies until they confront modernization, in their own ways, and perhaps finally get the money and power out of the hands of the tyrannical few. I don't know how we on the left is supposed to think about the Middle East socio-economical structure. Certainly we want to respect their ways. But I can't believe that we ever liked their undemocratic to tyrannical government structures, their suppression of women, and the poverty caused by backwardness in their economies. Are we the rest of the world more irresponsible if we do nothing? It is one question that I can't ever figure out, whether be in Middle East or African countries.

And believe me, I can't accept how Bush's attempts to dismantle the best establishments of liberal systems. But I'll admit that's quite impressive that he tries, considering that many people thought of him as an intellectual lightweight when he first took office. It doesn't make him an intellectual, but it does shows that he's not as braindead as people made him out to be. I only wish there is someone on the left with this much guts and ambition.

[mr pru]

elliebe

Excellent post!!

I referred to the Dearlove memo previously in my go 'round with Kwanfanatic2002 in the "right wingers" thread.
In my opinion, it says all that needs to be said about our "President"-and his two-faced cronies.

Why can't people see the FACTS?

Would we be in Iraq if there were no oil under their land?

Let's hope the impeachment movement gains steam.

Iraq has turned into Vietnam II.

Those who do not learn from history-are doomed to repeat it.

I'll say it again-Over 1,600 American soldiers are DEAD!!

[moxie]

The region will destablize and much more dangerous fundamentalist tyrants may take over.

Saddam was a tyrant, but he wasn't a fundamentalist; if fact, the fundamentalists considered him somewhat of an infidel. So if we were truly worried about dangerous fundamentalist tyrants taking over Iraq, and gaining more power throughout the region, it wasn't the best strategy to topple Saddam's government in the way we did. Yes, we certainly needed to control and monitor him, and that was happening before this ill-conceived war.

But Iraq was much more stable -- and much less of a threat to us and its neighbors -- with Saddam in power.

[madison]

Alexa,
You are entitled to your opinions re: leadership, arrogance and whatever other traits plague our democracy.

But GWB is a Napoleon to me - a conquerer who needs no introduction. He does as he pleases, and at this time, I see that he was never 'dumb' or 'simple-minded.' It was a trick he and Karl drummed up to trick the masses. So were the debates. A total sham.

He is making a dynasty for himself, one bigger than his daddy had (whom I believe was a decent man), in order to be the big man of the family in the presidency. I just hope our beloved country is left intact when he is finally removed from office, one way or another.

And I believe he should be impeached for invading Iraq. Blaming it all on BAD intel (ALL of the intel sources, for chrissake?) is a TOTAL cop-out. I think he selectively chose the intel that fitted his twisted view of the world. He knew, and no one will ever make me believe differently.

Not Vietnam yet? The operant word here is 'yet.'

Sorry, but I can't buy your argument.



ETA: How can ANYONE, especially our Commander-in CHIEF, make a JOKE out of WMD?????? HOW?


<a href="http://www.truthandhope.org/Funny.mov" target="_new">www.truthandhope.org/Funny.mov</a>

<a href="http://www.deanport.com/donna-weblarge.mov" target="_new">www.deanport.com/donna-weblarge.mov</a>

[elliebea]

I'm specifically referring to a person's courage (which can also at times be arrogance), ability to come up with a vision or grand plan (not talk about the merit of the vision now), and charisma.

Charlie Manson had his grand visions, too. I think it was something about a global race war and his own role in it. Good thing he wasn't born into an aristocratic political dynasty and awarded the top leadership position in the world!

When he first got elected I thought he was a wussy idiot without ideological ambitions or aspirations. Turns out he has way grander ambitions than anyone realized: to overturn the entire liberal social system, and since 9/11, to social engineer the Middle East.

Neoconservatives have loads of ideology. All about 'benevolent hegemony' and remaking the world, one Middle East country at a time -- it's way, WAY grand! These guys warrant some breathless adulation for it too!

But talking of scale, I truly thought it would turn into another Vietnam. And truth is, it hasn't.

Then perhaps the families of the fallen are less aggrieved knowing their loved one is one of only 1,657 rather than, well, the thousands, like before. "Scale" is a pretty weak qualifier in light of all the numerous parallels of the Iraq war with Viet Nam (see below) and other aggressions in history.

Really just all of us get out now? The region will destablize and much more dangerous fundamentalist tyrants may take over. Why would you think there will be less death if we get out? Look what happened when Russia pulled out of Afgahnistan?

There's stability in Iraq now? And is it somehow preferable for us to do the killing with our bombs, warplanes, and all around greater technology? (It's our very presence they're fighting against (again, see below)).

Some basic knowledge of the countries involved is needed here for all of us. Iraq is not Afghanistan, nor is it Jordan, Syria, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. They're actually all quite different and respect for that needs to be accorded, I think.

And recall that the old naive Bush didn't want to be involved with the Israeli-Palestine conflict when he first came into office? The Clinton people told him he couldn't do it and he didn't care, he withdrew US involvement, and things deteriorated immediately.

This bold, visionary president was cowed by Clintonians? Maybe he was cowed by his debt to his evangelical supporters who are actively promoting the Biblical End Times, which requires unfaltering support of Israel against any and all. Anyone remember the way he backed down early on when Sharon got mad that he had used the word "troubling" in regard to some Israel action?

But Iraq has indeed forced the Middle East to face and confront the modernization issue.

See above. Iraq is/was not Afghanistan. In fact, the country had a very high degree of technical expertise and facility; in fact, the best in Middle East in medical care. No longer, however. Alot of the doctors have been kidnapped, assassinated, or had to flee. Of course, a few hospitals have been bombed into uselessness (yet another war crime).

Shall we seek out every tribe and village throughout Africa, India, and Asia for our "forced" modernization? It's sounding like our moral duty or something, at mimimum our 'right' to do so.

But they will never rise from the third world economies until they confront modernization, in their own ways, and perhaps finally get the money and power out of the hands of the tyrannical few.

Iraq's economy was "third-world" due to a decade-plus of inhumane sanctions. Regime change plans have been under way for a long time and weakening the country beyond any state-sponsored resistance first was a tactic.

And how about the "tyrannical few" in this country?

. . .considering that many people thought of him as an intellectual lightweight when he first took office. It doesn't make him an intellectual, but it does shows that he's not as braindead as people made him out to be.

Maybe then that dullard's look in his eyes is due to a simple lack of character and depth.

I only wish there is someone on the left with this much guts and ambition.

Like Woodrow Wilson? With his 'war to end all wars?'


Interesting reading on above matters:

Far Graver than Vietnam (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305360,00.html)
Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale.
Sidney Blumenthal

Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."

Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."

Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true. There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in Germany and Japan."

W Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - said: "I don't think that you can kill the insurgency". According to Terrill, the anti-US insurgency, centred in the Sunni triangle, and holding several cities and towns - including Fallujah - is expanding and becoming more capable as a consequence of US policy.

"We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me. "We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view."
. . .

"I see no exit," said Record. "We've been down that road before. It's called Vietnamisation. The idea that we're going to have an Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can't defeat stretches the imagination. They will be tainted by their very association with the foreign occupier. In fact, we had more time and money in state building in Vietnam than in Iraq."

General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."

Terrill believes that any sustained US military offensive against the no-go areas "could become so controversial that members of the Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign". Thus, an attempted military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political legitimacy. "If we leave and there's no civil war, that's a victory."

General Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in November. That's the cynical part of it - after the election. The signs are all there."

He compares any such planned attack to the late Syrian dictator Hafez al-Asad's razing of the rebel city of Hama. "You could flatten it," said Hoare. "US military forces would prevail, casualties would be high, there would be inconclusive results with respect to the bad guys, their leadership would escape, and civilians would be caught in the middle. I hate that phrase collateral damage. And they talked about dancing in the street, a beacon for democracy."

General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and the senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever seen with any previous government, including Vietnam. "I've never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."

Pentagon report reveals catalogue of failure (http://www.sundayherald.com/46389)
Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor
THE Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the “self-serving hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East.

The mea culpa is contained in a shockingly frank “strategic communications” report, written this autumn by the Defence Science Board for Pentagon supremo Donald Rumsfeld.

On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.

“American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies.”

Referring to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the US in the Middle East “hate our freedoms”, the report says: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedoms’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

“Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that ‘freedom is the future of the Middle East’ is seen as patronising … in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.”
. . .
“Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic,” the report goes on, adding that to the Arab world the war is “no more than an extension of American domestic politics”. The US has zero credibility among Muslims which means that “whatever Americans do and say only serves … the enemy”.


Why We Cannot Win (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html)
Al Lorentz

Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naive young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.
. . .

Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.

First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."

This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.

The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.

So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)

Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.

Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile. Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.

We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media bias."

Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them. This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us.

We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army but also into more support of the guerilla army.

Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.

Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them. Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and traditional religious networks.

Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.

Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.

Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency and adaptability.

Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional.

It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief himself has sworn.


Al Lorentz is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq.

[elliebea]

Mr. Pru -- I've noticed that you've been doing your best to get attention paid to the smoking gun memo. Seems an uphill battle, doesn't it? By the way, I think the name for this memo has been settled on "Downing Street Memo" instead Dearlove (which is what I was calling it too.)

Funny thing about this document: when it first appeared, it was of course, old news to me as I'm sure it was to you so I didn't take much note of it because it merely stated the obvious. Then after reading so many, many articles and editorials by knowledgeable writers who don't normally use inflamed rhetoric (but seeing them do so in this case), I started to wake up to it. As you know, it really doesn't illuminate anything further. It's simply that it IS authentic and acknowledged as such by British higher-ups (and one American official) and also it's timing -- that it was accurate minutes of a high-level cabinet meeting in July of 2002, long before the lies were trotted out.

These days it seems there have been so many 'memo-gates' that mere use of the word memo elicits sighs, shrugs, yawns, etc. And yet, this is somehow different and apparently, a whole lot of people are acting on it, including congresspersons. I hope you signed on to the Conyers letter (he wants 100,000 but I wonder, why not a million?)

Thanks for the nice words, by the way!

[mr pru]

I only wish I could live long enough to see how history treats the Bush administration and judges its policies.

Thanks for the heads up on the correct title of the memo.

The memo, to me, is just another piece of evidence that illustrates how the Bush administration operates.

The American people have been played like a drum so this bunch of "politicians" could do as they please without regard to law, much less morality.

How many other memos like this exist, do you think? I bet there are plenty. Let's hope they too, come to the surface.

Please cut and paste your next to last post and add it to the "right wingers" thread. It was a marvelous post and needs to be seen by as many people as possible.


It does seem indeed, that people in the know, may be waking up to what's been going on.

This administration, like a certain poster, seems to BELIEVE that it can throw anything out for public consumption, and it will be taken as gospel.

The arrogance being displayed is an insult to an intelligent person's very existence.

You're most certainly welcome for the kind words. You deserved them.

BRAVO!! BRAVO!!!

[probativev]

elliebea,

Points well taken. Iraq under Saddam was in fact not a religious fundamentalist state, and was not backward. Iraq is not now more stable than before. But I wasn't talking about Iraq. I was talking about the entire Middle East region. For us to leave now will make the entire Middle East region destablized, and the entire Iraq ordeal is forcing the entire Middle East region confront modernity. Before Iraq, Middle East wasn't on the international consciousness. Nowadays, the regions is getting a lot more attention from the rest of the world. International press is scrutinizing the governments and going ons in Middle East a lot more, and these tyrannical governments, from the Saudis to the Syrians, have to deal with the overwhelming spotlight on them. It's forcing them to confront issues of modernization. They do have to deal with the fact that the US may turn against them the way they did Iraq and throw them out of power, and it's forcing them to react. They now have to come up with answers to the international press why women can't vote, whether they are holding fair elections (ha ha, irony I know considering how ours went), etc. Before Iraq, they didn't have to answer to these.

Look, I don't like George Bush. But I don't want to be close minded to the fact that those I disagree with have some merits. Unlike Bush, I don't see things as all black or white. If both sides will be more open to opinions of those they don't agree with, and recognize the other side's merits where exists, maybe things can actually be better. I didn't post in this thread to support the Bush agenda. I posted to assess Bush the person, not his policies. It's just not true that he's not an effective leader, or have no leadership qualities. He's effective for his own constituents; else why are we with opposite views here fuming? He's got some leadership skills (not good or bad, just necessary skills), and lacking others. That's all I'm saying.

And about Iraq, the Democratic party hasn't come up with any solution that's remotely satisfactory. It's all easy to criticize, but where's the solution?

[EigthAv]

To President Bush & Vice President Cheney,<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->Salut! <!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->Be sure and watch Mr.& Ms.Cheney on the Larry King Show.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--> Secure Our Borders! (http://www.reformus.org)